N scale paralell main line tracks

[bearcowski]

 

 I am back at work on my first layout after converting to N scale and want to know what distance the tracks should be from center to center when running paralell.

 

Thanks

Bear

[tomikawaTT]

 

 I am back at work on my first layout after converting to N scale and want to know what distance the tracks should be from center to center when running paralell.

 

Thanks

Bear

Rather depends on the practices of your prototype, modified by the need for clearance for the standard-issue human finger.

One full-size inch is 13 feet 4 inches in US/European N scale.  Older double track mains were built on as little as 14 foot centers.  Present-day practice has gone out to as much as 25 feet between a newly-added second track and an original single track.  For 'generic' double track, I would suggest 1.5 inches, which scales to 20 feet.

Just my .  Other opinions will vary.

Chuck [modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N scale (1:80, AKA HOj)]

[ChrisNH]

Just to add to TTs post..

I would like to have 2" at least in staging yards and maybe regular yards where you need to pick up cars and/or read their reporting marks, space permitting. Lay out some track and cars and see what distance you need to be comfortable reading the cars and handling them in N.

The NMRA provides minimum centers for different radius on their website in the standards section.

Currently my little test layout has 1.5" for the one section of parallel and it seems fine. A nice comprimise between appearance and functionality.

Good luck, welcome to N!

Chris

 

[corsair7]

 

 I am back at work on my first layout after converting to N scale and want to know what distance the tracks should be from center to center when running paralell.

 

Thanks

Bear

Given that standard N-Scale track including ties is 1.25 inches wide you need at least 1.5 inches between track centers. Of course you could make it more and you'll need to do that on curves if you want to run long equipment.

Irv

[stebbycentral]

I have an N-scale rule that displays clearances.  It specifies a centerline to centerline clearance of 1-1/4" for yards, and 1-1/2" for mainlines.  But if you use the standard Atlas snap-track turnouts in N-scale, and you don't add any filler pieces, you will end up with a track separation of 1-3/8".

[tomikawaTT]

Given that standard N-Scale track including ties is 1.25 inches wide you need at least 1.5 inches between track centers. Of course you could make it more and you'll need to do that on curves if you want to run long equipment.

Irv

Irv, somebody shrank your ruler.  Atlas Code 100 HO track is 28mm (8 scale feet) wide - close enough to 1.25" as makes no difference.  I'm sure that N scale track is narrower.  Or are you referring to the ballast-base width that ghastly sectional track with integral ballast?  (Integral-ballast track is hardly 'standard.')

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[cuyama]

Here are the NMRA standards The N scale entries are near the bottom of the page.

As with all scales, the N scale standards vary by radius of the curves being used and the type of equipment. While a skoche over 1" works for parallel straight tracks, you'll need wider track-to-track spacing around curves to avoid side-swiping. For example, the NMRA standards call for 1 5/16" or greater track-to-track spacing with tighter curves. And for areas like staging yards where you will need regular finger access, you'll find even more clearance might be needed.

In earlier eras, real railroad track centers were sometimes pretty tight, 13' (.975" in N scale) or even less. But with our much tighter curves, real-life track centers are not usually possible. And modern equipment has grown in size, so real-life railroads have widened their specifications also.

Byron
Model RR Blog

[CSXDixieLine]

While planning my current layout, I mocked up a bunch of parallel straigtaways and curves using n-scale flex track on Homasote. I had curves starting out at a radius of 11" and went all the way up to 24". I then ran a lot of larger locos and rolling stock on these parallel tracks, including SD80MACs and 89' auto racks. By doing this, I determined that my minimum acceptable radius would be 15", although 18" or above would be used for visible track due to the unpleasing overhang of the longer cars on smaller radii. I also found that with 1.25" track centers, some sideswiping did occur on the smaller radii, while 1.5" allowed for plenty of clearance. I also found out that 1.25" will work for parallel straight tracks, but if the space is available, 1.5" is better. And of course, in yards or other areas where you will need to access cars over and over, even more spacing should be considered. All of my parallel track will use 1.5" centers. Jamie

[corsair7]

Given that standard N-Scale track including ties is 1.25 inches wide you need at least 1.5 inches between track centers. Of course you could make it more and you'll need to do that on curves if you want to run long equipment.

Irv

Irv, somebody shrank your ruler.  Atlas Code 100 HO track is 28mm (8 scale feet) wide - close enough to 1.25" as makes no difference.  I'm sure that N scale track is narrower.  Or are you referring to the ballast-base width that ghastly sectional track with integral ballast?  (Integral-ballast track is hardly 'standard.')

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

I don't use that stuff. I use code 83 Atlas flex track with occasional snap track pieces thrown in as needed. I measured this with my ruler the other day but I could have been wrong. I'll have to look at my preliminary track plan to see.

Irv

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Given that standard N-Scale track including ties is 1.25 inches wide you need at least 1.5 inches between track centers. Of course you could make it more and you'll need to do that on curves if you want to run long equipment.

Irv

Irv, somebody shrank your ruler.  Atlas Code 100 HO track is 28mm (8 scale feet) wide - close enough to 1.25" as makes no difference.  I'm sure that N scale track is narrower.  Or are you referring to the ballast-base width that ghastly sectional track with integral ballast?  (Integral-ballast track is hardly 'standard.')

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

I don't use that stuff. I use code 83 Atlas flex track with occasional snap track pieces thrown in as needed. I measured this with my ruler the other day but I could have been wrong. I'll have to look at my preliminary track plan to see.

Irv

 

Well, code 83 is HO track!

N scale track is 8 feet wide, so it is (8/160)*12 inches wide,  which looks a lot like 0.6 inches to me.

For minimum track center recommendations, have a look here:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/s-8.html

N scale recommendations at the end of the page.

[bearcowski]

 

 

 Thanks for the info,

 

 I had ripped some 3'' 1/2'' thick a/c plywood for my HO before I switched scale and it looks like it will work out great!  I am using midwest cork road bed and Atlas code 55 flex track; when I place each section of cork to the edge on each side it is going to give me 1-5/8'' C/C. 

Bear

[corsair7]

Given that standard N-Scale track including ties is 1.25 inches wide you need at least 1.5 inches between track centers. Of course you could make it more and you'll need to do that on curves if you want to run long equipment.

Irv

Irv, somebody shrank your ruler.  Atlas Code 100 HO track is 28mm (8 scale feet) wide - close enough to 1.25" as makes no difference.  I'm sure that N scale track is narrower.  Or are you referring to the ballast-base width that ghastly sectional track with integral ballast?  (Integral-ballast track is hardly 'standard.')

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

N-Scale track is narrower and measures closer to .75 inches in width with ties. However, I would stilll use 1.5 inch centers between tracks just about everywhere so I can use an 0-5-0 "big hook" if the need arises.

Irv