Sure I'd like big radius curves, but the Superintendent (Mrs. Ten87) says I can't tear down the wall. I'm stuck with a plan that calls for three parallell tracks in the hidden staging area. In the hidden area, the tracks make a 180 degree turn. My current N scale plans are for 12, 13 and 14" radius on the turns. I know my trains can negotiate the individual curves, but my question/poll is this: Do you think I can run trains on these radius curves without the car ends from one train hitting the other? Since it's in hidden trackage, I'd like some level of confidence that I won't be crawling under the layout everytime the trains pass each other. I'll be running trains with long cars (superliners and autoracks) on the 13 and 14" radius tracks. The 12" track will be Dash Nines and shorter cars (boxes and hoppers). [ 07 February 2002, 03:30: Message edited by: ten87 ]
Ed, the unknown part of this is the track spacing. If the tracks are far enough apart in the curve then it may be possible for cars to pass without hitting each other. This may require you to do a little bit of testing.
If you have a 12, 13, and 14" radius track in concentric circles (meaning on 1" spacing, centerline-centerline) then you are only asking for trouble with modern equipment. This works out to 13 1/3 feet, which most railroads today wouldn't even consider. Most dual track mains are spaced at 16-17 feet (about 1.25 inches spacing in N) and even up to 20 feet apart to prevent derailment problems from the other track (1.5 inches apart in N). So there you have it. 1 inch spacing is just too little.
Agree, 1" is too little. Also, does this mean the tracks where you'll be manually handling the cars will also be spaced at 1"? This is one case where the prototype is too small, especially in N scale. Your fingers need to fit!
Thanks everybody! I like Corey's hard numbers. I was just looking at Kato Unitrack's spacing. It is set up for 1.25 - 1.33" center-to-center. Atlas snap track is set at 1.25" c2c. I'm going to need to sneak into the room an extra inch or two to give me 1.5" c2c on that turn...
ten 87 - I recall a John Armstrong plan where he recommended enough spacing between hidden staging tracks to allow the autoracks to fall over w/o touching the cars on the next track. In N, this would be over 1.5 inches, regardless of what might fit horizontally. Take it from someone who has 12 hidden tracks in two location - much of it accessed through 1X2 access holes - the extra space is handy for that occaisional tip over, just reaching your hand in to rerail or give a gentle push to a stalled engine, or seeing just what the heck train you put in there last month. Oh, yeah, rerailers are handy, too, as is about 8 inches of vertical clearance so your full scale hands can reach over the N scale trains, or simply reach in to realign tracks that have slipped out of joint, alignment, etc. due to humidity. I hate to sound discouraging, but over time, I found out what most modelers have found - don't try to cram every last bit of track on a layout - it just requires maintenance!
Jeff, No problem on trying to fit too much trackage on a layout. Use the links below to see the plans. There are no sidings and no yards. This layout is a runner! I like to just put trains on and let them run. I can "railfan" the layout for hours. Plus scenery is my thing.
trn87 - Looks like a great plan. I shouldn't have jumped to any conclusions based on word pictures and mental images. I think its cool that you are modeling the other end of Cajon - I'll bet there are far fewer of those out there than my concept. From what I hear, if you are modeling the 90's and beyond, you may have to add some So Cal subdivsions under construction, even way out there. My layout started life as a Cajon Pass theme, and still looks like that in the sceniced areas. I have a facsimle of Mormon Rocks and all the light tan dessert scrub. My yard even has a 90 degree turn at the end, but the wrong way, in honor of San Berdoo. BTW, as my collection of engines became more, shall we say, eclectic, I started thinking a terminal road, like Kansas City or St. Louis may be more appropriate to get some running time for previoiusly "off road" engines. So, I am building a city, which makes my access problem even worse! Your layout doesn't look like any problem, but mine is 4 foot deep in spots, not the recommended 2. plus feet. To answer specifically to your question, I have a triple track curve entering my hidden area, and measured it last night - my track radii are 17, 15.5, and 14, and auto racks and 90 Macs go around just fine. How far are you along in construction>
Jeff, I should be starting on the benchwork in a couple weeks. I've got the old wallpaper down, and the walls scrubbed. I hope to be painting the walls this week. I redid the trackplan to accomidate the extra space between the tracks. Most of the hidden tracks are 2" on center, though I had to go for 1.5" in the curve by the Martinez spur. That makes them 12, 13.5 and 15" on that end of the layout. The minimum radius on the viewable trackage is 13.5" I tried the link in your profile and got a golfing page. Do you have a link to your layout?
Ten 87, Sorry for the delay in the reply, and that I don't have a link to my layout. When I registered, I wondered why a train board would want my business web page, and now I know! I will add that to my list of things to do in the near future, though, so hang tight. Good luck on the benchwork and layout.
