Hey Guys,
We are planning a new layout for our new (LARGER) trainroom, the track plan we like is the HO scale Cat Mountain layout by Dave Barrows, our plan is to build it in Nscale, now the question is, is Nscale measurements about half of HO?? The plan in HO is 30' by 35.
Thanks Guys.
N-Scale is 160th. HO scale is 87th.
When you divide 87 by 160 it is .5437 That is what you multiply by to convert N to HO
I hope I'm not too confusing 1 inch in N scale equals 13.333 ft
1 inch in HO scale equals 7.25 ft
It is pretty close to half
But 7.25 ft divided by 13.333 ft equals .5437 Maybe .5438
Track fiddler I hope I'm not too confusing 1 inch in N scale equals 13.333 ft 1 inch in HO scale equals 7.25 ft It is pretty close to half But 7.25 ft divided by 13.333 ft equals .5437 Maybe .5438
Rich
Alton Junction
30x35 HO would be 16.3x19 in N-Scale
PS .54375 yep that works Rich, you get the cookie
Excellent plan idea but that .54375 figure does not allow that you and any other operators to shrink down to .54375 to fit into the reduced aisleways so make allowances for adequate access for a couple of operators passing each other.
I would guess without calculator or plan immediately to hand that you would need about 23 x 20 as a space to allow for those walkways and creature comfort as well as a smaller scale version of that plan!
Good Luck with it and please share your efforts when it does get underway
Cheers from Australia
Trevor
I second Trevor's motion.
Regardless of the scale modeled, your rear end and your hand will be the same size.
The trackplan as far as the TRAINS are concerned can be reduced about 40%, but the aisles have to remain the same width regardless of scale and you have to watch vertical clearances if there are multiple levels or hidden staging. Plus all the non-visible things associated with a railroad don't shrink in size either (light fixtures, Tortise machines, linkages, throttles, throttle holders, car cards/holders, drink holders, etc.)
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I second Trevor's motion and I second Dave H's as well, but I'd go one step further: keep the aisle widths and the benchwork widths and the lights and whatnot. And keep the trackwork as is. No 87, no 160, no 0.54375, no math, no conversion, no nothing. One-to-one. Keep the alignments, keep the curve radiuses (radii), keep the clearances, keep everything. Just install N scale track where HO track is now (or actually, was then). Easy. Of course, you can refiddle yard track spacing here and there . . . I'm not unreasonable.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
HI Robert,
As honorable as your version is ( and in principle I agree) there would be the issue of passing siding spacing between track centres which to me would look awfully wide. So it is not quite an "as is" interpretation but the extra space could be used for a couple of extra sidings and some extra scenery depth !
However, I sense that the intended builder may not have that amount of space available, hence the request for an N scale critique and enquiry.
Another (I think) great plan that would lend itself to this type of down scaling would be the Utah Belt plan (Eric Brooman???) which would be less intensive and I think operable by one man rather than relying on a group.
Anyway...my thoughts
I don't think that the OP is referring to an in-place HO layout, but only to a new, larger, room, and rather than building an HO layout to fill it, wants a larger N scale layout in the same space.
In my opinion, the layout, for the most part, should be the same size as if it were in HO: same depth, same aisle space, and same curves - if you can do 36" radii, or even larger, use them to their full advantage - N scale trains on wide curves look great - obviously better than HO on a similar size radius.
If you don't have the same 30'x35' space as the HO version uses, I'd still suggest that you make the layout as deep as you can (but reachable, for the most part) and the curves as broad as possible. Dave Barrow's layout, as I recall, has a lot of wide-open spaces, and in N scale, you should be able to get the same effect...perhaps even moreso.
You may be going to a smaller scale, but don't let that prevent you from thinking big!
Wayne
doctorwayne In my opinion, the layout, for the most part, should be the same size as if it were in HO: same depth, same aisle space, and same curves - if you can do 36" radii, or even larger, use them to their full advantage - N scale trains on wide curves look great - obviously better than HO on a similar size radius. You may be going to a smaller scale, but don't let that prevent you from thinking big!
doctorwayne I don't think that the OP is referring to an in-place HO layout, but only to a new, larger, room, and rather than building an HO layout to fill it, wants a larger N scale layout in the same space. In my opinion, the layout, for the most part, should be the same size as if it were in HO: same depth, same aisle space, and same curves - if you can do 36" radii, or even larger, use them to their full advantage - N scale trains on wide curves look great - obviously better than HO on a similar size radius. If you don't have the same 30'x35' space as the HO version uses, I'd still suggest that you make the layout as deep as you can (but reachable, for the most part) and the curves as broad as possible. Dave Barrow's layout, as I recall, has a lot of wide-open spaces, and in N scale, you should be able to get the same effect...perhaps even moreso. You may be going to a smaller scale, but don't let that prevent you from thinking big! Wayne
I agree, especially regarding aisle space.
I'll take the opposite viewpoint.
Don't build this layout.
First, track plans larger than small tabletops (approx. 4x8 in HO) do not translate well either up or down the scales. Things like aisles, scene depths, etc. all change too much. For small layouts where the possibilities are limited, the trackplan itself is the defining element regardless of what you want. This is because in a small space you really aren't representing the prototype. You're just trying for an interesting layout for yourself.
Second, unless you understand and fully buy into what the orginal designer is doing, you'll be disappointed in the result.
I always am interested to see what Dave Barrow has done, but his goals and mine while similar are not the same. So while I can learn from his layouts, I'm not building them.
DB's layouts tend to be very operation oriented, very Texas, very large class one railroad. They also have very minimalist scenery. He is happy with narrow benchwork, no road bed, no ballast, and shapes for structures - oh he'll have a couple of photographic spots for the press, but the scenic setting overall is very sparse.
Since you apparently have a space about 15 x 18 (a quarter of the sq ft of the Cat Mountain), you have enough room to design a layout that does what you want. I suggest getting a copy of John Armstrong's book Track Planning for Realistic Operation and design your own.
If this is your first layout, seriously consider not using all your space and keep it very simple. Building a layout is a really good way of finding out what you don't want (as well as what you do want).
Good luck
Paul
Which version? AFAIK there at least 3. A 3-blob, a 1-blob and a no-blob.
What are the dimensions of your new room?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Your right doctorwayne, I want to build this plan in Nscale, my room size will be 20 X 20, so you say that it would be possible to build this plan, in this space??
TrainsRMe1...my room size will be 20 X 20, so you say that it would be possible to build this plan, in this space??
I can't say if that particular plan will fit in your 20'x20' space, as I don't have the original plan to view. but that's a good-size room for an N scale layout.
You should be able to have generous curves (don't skimp unless absolutely necessary) and long runs between them, while still maintaining good aisle space.
20 x 20 is a good space for a decent HO layout, but you can get a lot more in there with N, even using nothing less than a 22" radius curve on the main, which is quite generous. Only good for shorter equipment in HO, but in N, 22" radius is quite large. Plus using a 22" radius means that when it loops around the the base to either side of a penninsula, you can easily get 36" aisles.
Depending on where the room entrances are, probbaly the most space would be an E shape with an extra center leg. Along one wall, 18" wide until the end, with an ~ 4x4 section for a loop. 3 foot aisle, actually more near the base, maybe 2-3' wide section of benchwork with a blob at the end for the turnback curve, then another aisle, then another similar penninsula with a return blob, and finally another 18" wide section along the other wall. Or, along one wall, along the perpendicular wall, partway back up the other side wall, and then sort of a spiral shape of benchwork with at least 3' aisles.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Thanks Guys, for your info on this matter, your right rrinker, I would be able to get alot more with Nscale, but isle space is of most importance also. I will post more news on my new Union Pacific " Oregon Coast Subdivision " as time comes.
IRONROOSTERSince you apparently have a space about 15 x 18 (a quarter of the sq ft of the Cat Mountain), you have enough room to design a layout that does what you want.
+1
IMHO, Barrow's layouts are idiosyncratic. While they serve his interests (for a time, each has been dismantled in turn to build something else), that might not be true for most people. The fact that a layout is published is no guarantee that it will hold your interest over time.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group