New N Scale Layout Ideas

R

redmans

New Member
Feb 2, 2008
21
0
1
Melbourne, Australia
Been trying to come up with a layout for a few months now and even started building a HO one.

To keep the motivation going, I have switched to N scale for now and plan to use one of my HO modules as a base. It is 775mm x 1210mm, so will be big enough for a small N scale layout.

Here is a photo of two of the modules...

Board1CompletewithBoard2NearlyCompl.jpg


After stuffing around with Atals RTS this plan came to me the other night and I really like it... (it is simple and has some interest for me)

Board-TrackPlan-NScale.jpg


Only problem was there was no where to put my Warren Truss Bridges (I have two) along with a 22cm viaduct. So the following are two plans to try and incorporate one or both items...

With Viaduct and Truss Bridges (the viaduct is in the lower middle section)
Board-TrackPlan-NScale2.jpg


With Viaduct and Truss Bridges
Board-TrackPlan-NScale3.jpg


I'm keen to start building and will be picking up some 900x1200x50 Styrofoam sheets tomorrow.

Happy to get any feedback on the plans and any thoughts on extending them to fit the Styrofoam, which may give me the space to incorporate the two bridges.

:thumb:
 
It would appear that the plan is made with sectional track. Are you going to use sectional track or flex track? I think the second plan is more practical than the last one. The problem I see is a lack of run around tracks. If your train is running in a clockwise direction, the siding on the bottom and 2 of the sidings inside the lop at the top are facing point switches. If you run counter clockwise (anti clockwise in "Brit speak"), then 3 of the 5 spurs at the top are facing point switches. If you use flex track, I think you have room for a short run around track between the 2 switches off the main at the top. You might get a longer run around if you use a right hand turnout with the diverging route as a part of the curve on the left side of the layout and the straight route going to the outside of the curve. You would then curve it around to a second right turnout between the 2 switches leading into the 2 sets of spurs at the top. A run around for the bottom spur would be easily done with a couple of switches to form a passing siding to the inside of the bottom of the loop.
 
They're OK... a little conventional and 1-dimensional, though.

Just a suggestion - I'm not sure what you're looking for in your layout, but I've always liked John Allen's original Gorre and Daphetid plan. It was something like this:
 

Attachments

  • redmans.jpg
    redmans.jpg
    232.2 KB · Views: 22
Russ Bellinis said:
It would appear that the plan is made with sectional track. Are you going to use sectional track or flex track? I think the second plan is more practical than the last one. The problem I see is a lack of run around tracks. If your train is running in a clockwise direction, the siding on the bottom and 2 of the sidings inside the lop at the top are facing point switches. If you run counter clockwise (anti clockwise in "Brit speak"), then 3 of the 5 spurs at the top are facing point switches. If you use flex track, I think you have room for a short run around track between the 2 switches off the main at the top. You might get a longer run around if you use a right hand turnout with the diverging route as a part of the curve on the left side of the layout and the straight route going to the outside of the curve. You would then curve it around to a second right turnout between the 2 switches leading into the 2 sets of spurs at the top. A run around for the bottom spur would be easily done with a couple of switches to form a passing siding to the inside of the bottom of the loop.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, the 2nd one wasn't very well thought out compared to the third. Also I forgot to mention there is a viaduct at the bottom of the 2nd design, so run around would be inpractical.

Some of what you have said has gone over my head a bit though :confused:

Also I should clarify this is really a layout to cut my teeth on, make mistakes and have a bit of fun with. Also the kids will have a play with it too. So if it looks a little basic etc etc, then that is deliberate. The layouts may not look too fancy either as they is no information about scenery, terrain heights, water or buildings. So maybe conventional is desired.

One final thing, I'm not too interested in using someone else's layout design or going overly complicated on my first track.
 
OK, here is an extended layout using 2 module boards in an L shape...

This incorporates my wants, which are...

Double main line
Industries
Yard
Engine House (can be moved to the 3 line yard if need be)
Bridges


Board-TrackPlan-NScale-2BoardsDetai.jpg


I'm hoping to make some progress with this on the weekend.

I'll start a thread in the N scale section with progress...
 
Also I forgot to mention there is an aqueduct
Click to expand...

I think you mean viaduct... Aqueducts carry water.

With your larger plan, you do not have a way to cross back from the inside loop without backing up. If you add another crossover, you also create a run around, which will be necessary for single train operation given that you have both facing and trailing point sidings. (*You can "run around" the train by going all the way around the layout loop, but that tends to spoil the illusion ;).)

Hope that helps.

Andrew
 
MasonJar said:
I think you mean viaduct... Aqueducts carry water.

With your larger plan, you do not have a way to cross back from the inside loop without backing up. If you add another crossover, you also create a run around, which will be necessary for single train operation given that you have both facing and trailing point sidings. (*You can "run around" the train by going all the way around the layout loop, but that tends to spoil the illusion ;).)

Hope that helps.

Andrew
Click to expand...

Correct it is a viaduct, must gave been brain fade, or a bit of roman inspiration!

I might try and put a run around at the top, but not sure. I'll have a bit of a play with it.
 
Basically, what I was trying to explain is that if you have facing point switches and no run around track, you can't work that industry. The track is rendered nothing more than scenery. If the engine is in the front of the train and it comes to a facing point switch, you have to have some way to get the engine behind any cars you want to put into that siding in order to shove them in.
 
OK not to be deterred and this maybe boring as for some... but here is the latest idea...

Board-TrackPlan-NScale-BestSoFar.jpg


The top sections are going to be raised, not 100% sure but possible 1/2" for the inner track with the truss bridges and 1" for the outer track with the viaduct.

There is also room for the engine house and a side track, including a potential run around at the bottom.

Simple yes, boring possibly, but It is a start and you can't do much with 2 1/2' by 4' even in N scale!
 
Have you looked at Brakie's thread titled "Probable Layout?" His plan was for a 2' x 4' n-scale layout. If you have more space, you could enlarge his plan. You could also leave out some of the switches if you want to save a few $, but that plan evolved into one of the nicest 2 x 4 in n-scale or 4 x 8 in ho scale plans I've ever seen.
 
Russ Bellinis said:
Have you looked at Brakie's thread titled "Probable Layout?" His plan was for a 2' x 4' n-scale layout. If you have more space, you could enlarge his plan. You could also leave out some of the switches if you want to save a few $, but that plan evolved into one of the nicest 2 x 4 in n-scale or 4 x 8 in ho scale plans I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

I did see that layout and it certainly looked very good.

I am determined to use the above plan so that I can incorporate two bridges and a culvert.

The switches only cost me AUD$11.20 ea, so pretty happy with that.

Thanks for the suggestion and feedback though.
 
On your chosen track plan how far is the distance between the 2 switches for the run around at the bottom? The distance from the fouling point of one switch to the fouling point of the other switch will determine the maximum length of any train you can run. If you are going to either empty or fill those industry tracks you will be making a lot of moves because you don't have nearly enough space on your run around to get enough cars in front of the engine to work those sidings.
 
Russ Bellinis said:
On your chosen track plan how far is the distance between the 2 switches for the run around at the bottom? The distance from the fouling point of one switch to the fouling point of the other switch will determine the maximum length of any train you can run. If you are going to either empty or fill those industry tracks you will be making a lot of moves because you don't have nearly enough space on your run around to get enough cars in front of the engine to work those sidings.
Click to expand...

The inner is 12.5" and the outer is 2.5" I know it is short, but I don't have much flexibility to change it. Also the yards are small, with only one track for carraiges. I guess it really isn't a layout for switching operations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom