Newbie with 8'6" X 19' room to play in, in N scale

DD99 Jun 23, 2016

  1. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Well, this certainly fits Mark's hither and yon layout. It all has a rationale though, although maybe not the right rationale... This is probably like advertising - I know probably at least 50% is wrong, just don't know which 50%..
    2 layout 20160703pm.jpg
    In this kind of thing I tend to work to the max and cut back from there. So here's the max, except for Union yard and downtown.. Placing buildings will probably help there. Squalicum probably needs to be cut back...
    I'm wondering if the mainline tunnel under Squalicum Massif indicates maximum train length. Is it preferable that the whole train disappears before reappearing? If so I could make the Massif wider and the max train length would be 55" or 730 feet so 16 40' boxcars. That seems a respectable size. I'll scope out a making up siding at both Union Yard and Union Heights, see if I can get one at each for that length of train...
     
  2. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    OK, here's a first draft layout. All of the track joins and I've put in some structures to start to get a sense of how it will all fit. I haven't set elevations yet but there aren't any crossovers so should work. I'd like to have crossovers though...
    3 layout 20160704.jpg
     
  3. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Wondering if that layout I posted was so bad no one knew what to say about it. In any case, played with the overall room some more. I'm going to move the door to get more space on the left.
    This version has no access holes except for the one I can't get away from on the northwest because of the pipe. Isles are minimum 24", max. reach is 30". Min. mainline curve is 18" and max grade 2%. Since I'm envisioning mainly running it myself I figure this loop to loop makes more sense... Maximized Benchwork and mainline track 20160710.jpg
     
  4. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,562
    22,736
    653
    A lot was packed into that version. Perhaps a bit too much.

    This latest I am curious about the spurs on each loop, but nothing showing as yet, elsewhere? Not sure I'd want them concentrated on the loops.
     
  5. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Thanks Boxcab. re: last version - too much to comment on, or too much for a layout (or both!)?
    As industries I'm figuring waterfront/shipping, fishing and cannery, coal mining/supply. As a 1959 layout, I'm thinking coal mining will fit my "seedy, seen better days" guideline. Maybe these are too many industries?
    Here's the layout with a bit more text.
    Inside the summit loop I was figuring a mine.
    Inside Gorge Hbr (with a rolling bridge at the entrance) I was figuring a dock/freight yard. I could move this to the the front of the benchwork at Squalicum (which will be other waterfront industries/action), but I like the idea of a rolling bridge and an inland harbour rather than just along the edge. Maybe the mariner in me liking a snug harbour - but I could be convinced otherwise, esp. as there aren't many options for rolling bridges in N Scale...
    As mentioned Squalicum would be waterfront industries maybe with some piers sticking out similar to this portion of the San Francisco Belt Line, Model Railroader 1980. I'm presuming the mainlines would move back further to make room for the spur line for the industries...
    Maximized Benchwork and mainline track plus 20160711.jpg Sanfrancisco Belt Line trackplan portion 20080400-MR.png
     
  6. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    "Wondering if that layout I posted was so bad no one knew what to say about it."
    Definitely NOT a bad layout...but your most recent plan (Post #25) seems to be taking you in a very different direction from the plan in Post #21. How do all the towns, harbors, dam, and Selkirk range relate to each other on a map?
     
  7. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Hi Dave. Yes quite different. I felt it was too complex and trying to come back to the middle area with the dock, at two levels, needlessly constrained the two yards in that area (and made it necessary to HAVE two yards.) Then I started to think about running this mostly by myself and how a loop to loop, even though not prototypical, might actually work better for me. Your's and the other comments have been really helpful to me to get clearer on what I want and what the potential is for this space.
    Cheers
    David
     
  8. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
  9. SecretWeapon

    SecretWeapon Passed away January 23, 2024 In Memoriam

    5,121
    3,788
    103
    good luck & happy planning. you could have a fantastic layout if you do it right.
     
  10. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Thanks ppuinn. Gives me good ideas on which parts of my thinking, with some simplifying, make sense to other people - helpers, industrial switching at Squalicum. I've been trying to avoid a helix but will give it some thought. I like the idea of the back track being behind the backdrop or dam, rather than underneath. lots to think about!
    Cheers
     
  11. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,562
    22,736
    653
    I like that dock complex, post #25. It surely would provide great action and interest.
     
  12. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    If you have the skills to secure risers to stringers to support subroadbed and track that rises and falls as it goes along a shelf, and can splice abutted sheets of Homasote and/or plywood together, and can use a saber saw or jigsaw to cut along a drawn curve on the Homasote/plywood, then you have the skills to use the cookie cutter method for making your grades on your layout and for constructing a helix (which is essentially a long spiraling grade that is 1.5 inches wide.

    Your helix is a 1.5 inch wide ramp that spirals around itself 1.75 times forming a bowl-shaped helix instead of a stacked (cylindrical) helix. Before entering the helix, the 2% grade has risen from 0 inches elevation near the dam to 2.5 inches as it enters the helix. Within the helix, the track rises at a 2% grade from about 2.5 inches to 5.0 inches. The tightest radius is 17 inches at the base of the helix, but continually increases as it loops around, so at the top of the 1st loop (when it crosses over itself), the radius is about 18.375 inches, and at 1.5 loops the radius is about 19.25 inches.

    To see examples of 4 bowl-shaped helixes on my layout, click on my Peoria Gateway avatar to get to my profile page; then click on "Albums Page" to see my albums in RailImages; then scroll down and click to go to the 2nd page of albums; then scroll down to the Helix Pics album and click to see how I cut my Homasote/OSB panel loops, made my loop supports, and attached/spliced tangents to get the track from outside to the inside of the helix so that, within the helix, there is only a single uninterrupted (unspliced) grade from bottom to top...and the entire helix is continuous with the rest of the shelf to the mine and to Summit due to using the cookie cutter method.
     
  13. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Yes, looks doable. What is the advantage of the 1.5 loop helix vs. the single loop I had?
     
  14. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Single loop or 1.75 loop is a matter of personal preference. I like the extra height, which supports the idea of a train passing over mountains needing helper service, and I prefer the longer time out of sight because it adds length to the mainline and time to the operator's job. (In this case, it also provides more separation where one track passes over the other, so pics will be more dramatic.) The number of loops designed into a helix may also be influenced by how comfortable you are with the train being out of sight. I tend to mentally re-frame wait-time as "railfanning" time: I watch until the caboose lights are no longer visible, then I position myself where I'll be able to catch the earliest glimpse of the loco lights, and eagerly listen for the train before I see it. In rural areas, we often happily wait for 15 to 30 minutes to see prototype trains...so why not let myself be happy railfanning on a model layout, where I only have to wait 2 to 4 minutes from caboose disappearing to loco lights appearing.
     
  15. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    As a baby boomer, I joke that I don't do delayed gratification ;-). Some things are worth waiting for though. I do like the idea of additional height...
     
  16. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Not sure why I've been hesitant to share the latest, but I've been busy off line. I asked Byron Henderson to take a look, Here's what he came up two variations on a theme, both cc Byron Henderson, www.layoutvision.com
     

    Attached Files:

  17. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    After a lot of back and forth with Byron - who provided a lot of helpful, and patient!, advice, here's where I am now. Since the start I've been able to identify how I can modify adjacent rooms/cupboards to provide additional, unsceniced areas for the loops. I kept the original bulges for the loops as Byron designed them, but you'll see the "west" loop is now mostly in a cupboard accessed from outside the train room, and half of the the "east" loop goes into a 9'6" X24" cupboard with a staging yard, also accessed from outside the train room. I've concentrated on the mainline and turnouts off the mainline in this version, thinking I might wait until the train room is free and clear (i.e. room wired, ceiling sound insulated, walls and ceilings finished with gypsum board, floor tiled), I can print out the trackage on my plotter at 1:1 scale and I can do the final layout full size...
     

    Attached Files:

  18. subwayaz

    subwayaz TrainBoard Member

    3,222
    106
    44
    Really nice looking layout that you have there. Lots of operation options


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  19. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    6,268
    6,248
    106
    This has been an interesting read. What era do you plan to model?
     
  20. DD99

    DD99 Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Thanks guys. 1955 Canadian Pacific. On the BC coast, but not proto.
     

Share This Page