It's my wife's fault! She wants a Z layout! We're thinking 2x4', or smaller. We want mountain scenery, and something that doesn't look like a bowl of spaghetti.. Grades are fine up to 2%, and I don't want a simple loop either. Needs to have operational interest. DCC not likely, with the Wright turnouts I have recently acquired. Only 2 units, so blocks could work. Would like 2-3 sidings, enough for a 10-car train with one engine and caboose. What's a good minimum radii? I would like a passenger train eventually, needs to accomodate and look good. Ideas, anyone?
One question: Is this layout going to go against a wall, or will you be able to walk around it? Here's why I ask; If space is limited, consider going with a narrow shelf-type design around the walls of a room, with flares at the ends to allow for loops and continuous running. (You only need about 20" in depth to pull this off, though the radius will be a little tight at 9") But, the advantage is a longer mainline run, without passing through the same scene twice, and more operating potential. If you want to do the 2x4 as a stand-alone, and can get around it, I would run a skyboard across the middle, or corner to corner, to divide the layout in half. Have mountains build up to the board, and that will create the illusion of a larger layout in small space. You could have a town on each side, with a couple or three industries in each, plus a passenger platform. I would also advise designing spurs off the ends where you could add additional modules, or just little removable staging yards for when you run, that could be disconnected and put up between sessions. Track plan-wise you seem to be against a simple oval, so perhaps a paperclip design would be better. You can use scenery and terrain to "hide" parts of the line so you're not passing through the same scene twice, and you effectively double the length of your mainline run. Adam
My grandfather is building a 2'x4' Z Layout, and has a dual track mainline loop with numerous sidings for industry, and crosovers for inner to outer lines and back. He has a mountain range in the center, as a scenic divider too! You an do a lot in 2'x4', about what you could do with a small 5'x10' HO layout. -Robert
What length of cars? 7-1/4" in Z equates to 18" in HO, for comparison. I think all Marklin and Micro-Trains locos will handle that curve; only AZL makes large North American engines. But if Well, 12" in Z equates to 30" in HO, but that won't fit.
Calgary? Dang, I was just up there for Supertrain! Cars are based on 50' cars. I have many 40' cars too. I was thinking a 'paperclip' design, with a center scenic block. Mountains and tunnels are the rule here. My wife likes both D&RGW and GN, and we have equip. for both lines. Would like someting specific enough to the Rockies that either road 'belongs' on the layout. 12" rad. equals only 18" rad in HO? Or is that supposed to be N? Maybe a 3x4 foot? I kinda want to offset the ovals of the 'paperclip' to give the track plan variety. I am looking at something similar to this: From: http://www.naisp.net/mfischer/m_train2.htm#true_2x4 Built in Z,this should give generous curves, and plenty of action, even on a 2x4'.
Look at my post again for the correct radius conversion. That N scale layout has 9-3/4" curves. In this same space in Z, it'll do fine. 9-3/4" in Z equates to 13-1/2" in N or 24" in HO. Passenger equipment will handle that.
Have you looked at the HO 4'x8' layout plans from Thor's All-Gauge Model Railroading Page ? You can fit these style layouts in 2'x4' Z. Point to Point: Switching Layout: Loop and Sidings: There are hundreds of trackplans on that site to choose from, or build upon. -Robert
OK, don't mind my momentary brain dump! Will a 9 3/4" rad in Z be reliable with passenger cars? What do you recommend? Just because it will handle it, doesn't mean I want curves that sharp if I can avoid it, to help the railroad run smoother.
What passenger cars. The Marklin will handle sharp curves really well, but with the AZL will want a little wider curve. Not much, but they will run better. Specialy in the push mode. I think 9 3/4'' radius should be fine.
This one is similar to what I want to build, minus the three-times around... http://www.naisp.net/mfischer/Trkplans/lakedist.zip I want 2 passing sidings, and a few spurs. This plan is mostly for running. Switching is not a big priority. I need to do some MS paintbrush trials...
I don't own any Z, so I'll have to go by analogy with HO and N. As long as the passenger cars have truck-mounted couplers, they'll run fine on 9-3/4". They won't look very good, but you don't really have room for that. 3 times around with no passing track, but you say you want neither of those... then what is it about the Lake District Railway you want to keep?
This plan is more to what I want, minus some of the spaghetti-bowl trackage: And this one's even better: Getting warmer: [ February 21, 2006, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: HemiAdda2d ]
What issues will I have, building this plan, based on a 30x78" door in N, on a 2x4' layout in Z? I may have to relax my train length some, to about engine, 6 cars and caboose. I would like double-ended passing sidings.
It would only end up being 9" compressed, but if you run the figure 8's to the edges, maybe only 3-4" compressed form that plan. -Robert
Here is the trackplan from my coffee table layout. You can ad more sidings. Especially if you have room to stretch the length of it.
Here's a quick plan I built in MS paint: 2x4', grades unknown to make the elevation required.. It gives me 3 short passing sidings, a couple of spurs, and a switching area. Emphasis is on running trains. Does the curvature look too tight? I figure on a 9" rad. min.
More Q's: what height is required to clear MT doublestacks? What radii is the Wright Turnout diverging route? I also have a wye turnout, and want to make an equilateral siding with it. Maybe at the foot of the grade. My bridge needs that height plus about a 1/16". I'm guessing with 5-8 cars, and a caboose, a MT F7 can handle that grade, likely about 2-2.5% max. Maybe less. Big scenery is key in this plan. Tear it apart, gentlemen, I wanna know what you REALLY think about it, other than my crappy microsoft paint work...
The table is 120x80 cm. that should be 3,9 x 2,6 feet. This kind of "dogbone" layout is more exiting to watch when you let the trains run than an ordinary oval layout.
