Help w/ N plan for 36"x80" door

Discussion in 'Track Planning' started by NWP-fan, Sep 3, 2004.

  1. NWP-fan

    NWP-fan Guest

    Step 1: Admit you have a problem. I have a problem. Gifted in track planning, I am not.

    I gave up on 3' x 5' plans - not enough room for interest. I do, however, now have the other half on-board for a 36x80 inch N-scale layout. The stiipulation is that there be a bed and breakfast in a Victorian farmhouse somewhere on-layout, and a motel with cool neon sign somewhere in or near town. This seems do-able. :)

    I have a plan started that I'll share for illustration purposes, but maybe someone here can help improve it. The bullet points are:
    * PROTOTYPE: Mythical "Cloverville" sub-line of the Southern Pacific, NorCal or Oregon, circa early 1960s. Scenery ideas are coming from the NWP's run along the river north of Cloverdale, CA, but this is not an attempt at modelling the same.
    * TRACK PLAN CONCEPT: Out-and-back -or- Point-to-Point, with provisions for extension. Should allow unattended continuous running (even if a bit hackishly).
    * TRACK: Peco and/or Atlas code 55 flex, #7 turnouts on mainline crossovers, #5 for spurs and yard tracks. Curves are tighter than I'd like (about 12" minimum when converted to flex), but in 36" wide there's only so much that can be done about that. Single-level if possible, but I'll entertain a two-level idea if the grades aren't ridiculous (2% or so max).
    * ROLLING STOCK: Early hi-nose Geeps/SDs, EMD SWs, and the like. 40'-50' boxcars. Heavyweight passenger/RPO/milk locals. All trains should be relatively short - a dozen cars or so tops for the freights, local passenger service would be an RPO, Baggage, and Coach, mostly existing for local mail service and to carry spoilables from local dairies out to the SP main - a few passengers might connect to/from a Daylight somewhere off-layout. Nothing serious.

    Here's (attached) what I've drawn up using Atlas's software. I've used a lot of sectional track to keep track of the minimum radii, and only used #5 turnouts since the #7s joining algorithms seem a bit messed up in RTS. Since the real thing will be flex, fudging is not a problem.

    The twin leads on the left are interchange for now, and for future extension ( a proper yard/staging area section, leading someday to another layout) When these are utilised, this layout will allow a train to reverse direction for a continuous run using only the straight legs of turnouts, and the switching area will be a branch. In the meantime it allows a continuous run, and has passing tracks for runaround moves where necessary to reverse trains.

    The problems I see are:
    * Switching area faces wrong way for out/back operation.
    * Very "oval-y"
    * Limited ops (future expansion should take care of that)
    * It occurs to me that the crossover switches at the top of the image are probably facing the wrong way and should be reversed so thru-trains (post-expansion) can detour around traffic heading into the main switching area.

    I know the town is hopelessly out of scale. It was just for conceptual reference. I think there's room for another spur up there somewhere though... hmmm...

    This has gotten rather long, so I'll leave it at that. Any ideas or plans or rants or ...?

    Attached Files:

  2. screwysquirrel

    screwysquirrel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doors!

    with a 36"x80 door, you should be able to handle radii up to 17" with ease. as 85-90% of N scale traverses 9.75" radii and almost all the rest handles 11" you should be good to go with this.

    Mike's small trackplans has a number of 30x78 door plans. with 36" you can widen the radii a bit.

    Here's a few of his plans (mostly code 80, but with flex and the wider (36 vs 30 inches) board, you have room to play.


    Heres a (slightly modified) version of the Atlas N-11, using 9.75 and 11" curves on 28x78. with 36", you can exand the curves to, say 15" and 12" and use tte #5 and #7 turnouts easily. the red track is a reversing section.

    [​IMG]


    Here is a meandering, 2-level point to point. the yellow track climbs at a 2, 2.5, or 3% grade

    [​IMG]


    Heres a code 55 industrial park with hidden staging.

    You could also use that empty space for a town or a yard instead of staging.
    [​IMG]


    heres a trackplan of my own., designed mainly as a 'watch em run' plan:

    [​IMG]
  3. shaygetz

    shaygetz Active Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    3,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like my module and am glad I can at least do that but...(sigh)...I long to just crack the throttle and watch 'em run.

    Those first two are great plans :thumb: :thumb:
  4. Papa Bear

    Papa Bear Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto! I had considered building that first one (I think in the N-scale book it's called the Unhinged and Horizontal) and using it as an out and back.

    Here's a link to one I found recently. It's based on another Atlas track plan the Scenic and Relaxed. This one was built in a similar space and has very nicely done scenery.

    http://members.aol.com/vollmerdp/myhomepage/Trains/DavePRRmain.htm

    John
  5. NWP-fan

    NWP-fan Guest

    Yeah, that second one (the point-to-point) keeps grabbing my attention... maybe raise the yard to be level with the bridge, then have it descend down into the valley. Stretch it to make the grade less severe... hmm.. Gotta play with that one a bit. Looks like it could be more interesting than the one I drew up.

    I like screwysquirrel's let-'em-roll plan too... that's a mod on one of Mike's also, isn't it?

    PS: The PRR layout based on the Atlas Scenic and Relaxed is immaculately sceniced. Wow.
  6. screwysquirrel

    screwysquirrel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    A couple more 'run-n-switch' plans

    This one I call 'Monza Loop' because it vaguely resembles that racetrack: by changing the 19" radius curves in the upper half of the crossover to turnouts it becomes a twice around *and* a double track!

    It has a long branchline with switching and a small, 4 track yard butno yard lead.

    It's not _bad_ but could stand some improvement

    Attached Files:

  7. screwysquirrel

    screwysquirrel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the door layout as I built it. a VERY long fake doubletrack folded dogbone. the mainline is a scale 1.25 miles! The large mountain and the woodland scenics risers made a great viewblock.

    The switching area forms a reversing loop. I kept it fully electrically isolated and it was never a problem

    This layout is in storage right now

    Attached Files:

  8. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    NWP,There are many different types of layouts you can design on a 36x80 door as SS has pointed out.
    Now,like the 4x8 in HO one has to plan and use their space wisely based on their givens and druthers..
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You said:The problems I see are:
    * Switching area faces wrong way for out/back operation.
    * Very "oval-y"
    * Limited ops (future expansion should take care of that)
    * It occurs to me that the crossover switches at the top of the image are probably facing the wrong way and should be reversed so thru-trains (post-expansion) can detour around traffic heading into the main switching area.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I concur with your thoughts.But,not all is lost..First the easy part.On a door layout you will need a oval for continuous running.Now,you could build the Atlas N11 layout like I did on my first door layout but,soon tired of having to flip a Atlas controller switch each time the train left the yard and travel the reverse loop not to mention the short trip the train made.Plus the lack of industries to switch.Not good for me. So here is what I did. I went for a double track main line loop,industrial area,a 7 track yard and a 4 track engine service area and small city..This layout served me will for 9 years before I returned to HO.
    Food for thought.

    http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/kgb&w.htm
    http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/variation.htm

    Now,I would not use a space eating turntable unless of course I was running steam locomotives. I would just swing the yard in toward the main line and then put a engine service area behind or to the right of the yard and add two or three industries...I would swing the industrial are closer to the front so I could add a town area.I would use a view block to divide the layout.
  9. screwysquirrel

    screwysquirrel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 'advanced' door layout

    The main problem I have with the KGB&W is the lack of space for scenery.... almost the whole area is covered with track.

    [​IMG]
  10. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    SS,Absoutely..That is why I would rearrange the track work and omit the turntable as I stated in my reply:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now,I would not use a space eating turntable unless of course I was running steam locomotives. I would just swing the yard in toward the main line and then put a engine service area behind or to the right of the yard and add two or three industries...I would swing the industrial are closer to the front so I could add a town area.I would use a view block to divide the layout.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What I do like about that layout is the lack of space eating mountains and unrealistic steep grades which is not necessary on a small layout and I also like the realistic operation one could enjoy on that layout. :thumb:

    As a after thought and a omission on my part is I would do away with the creek(river?) that goes nowhere and does nothing but eat space..After all you have the dock area.. :D
    Again on a small layout one must use his/her space wisely.. :thumb:
  11. shaygetz

    shaygetz Active Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    3,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being "old school", I likes it. There is enough room for flat relief buildings and ground scenery. For someone like me who likes to tinker and run, there's plenty of storage/display possibilties (the turntable stays for that purpose). Kinda reminds me of the old 50s and 60s "spagetti bowl" plans. :thumb: :thumb: