As I progress through the track planning phase of my upcoming N scale layout I find myself having having to make comprimises on what I plan on using for my minimum mainline radius. My layout will be in the form of an 8x8 L, 24" deep, with 36" "blobs" at each end to accomodate loops.
I was initially planning on using 15" radius curves in the loops, hence the 36" blobs. But as I continue with my track planning I find that the 15" is taking up just a bit more space than I anticipated and intefering with some of my other items I'd like to see in the layout such as an interchange. For this reason I'm considering downgrading to 12.5" minimum radius.
I'll be modeling a Boston & Maine branch in 1952 so I'll be running RS2's GP7's and 2-6-0's for my fright power. Planned train length is 8 cars plus loco and caboose. I also plan on running individual RDC's for my passenger power put also perhaps the occasional 2-6-0 pulling a 2 car heavy weight commuter train as well.
In my HO days I ran Proto 1K RDC's as single unit trains around 22" radius curves and was able to accept the overhang. I don't think N RDC's on 12.5" would be any worse, my concern is the idea of the steam powered commuter trains. I haven't identified what my passenger car model will be yet, still looking into that.
I suppose I may just have to skip the steam powered passenger trains and stick with the RDC's. Does anyone have any recomendations on if I'm crazy to want my 2-6-0 powered commuters and what cars would you recomend? For the loco I'm looking at the Model Power B&M 2-6-0.
Thanks,
Jason
Modeling the fictional B&M Dowe, NH branch in the early 50's.
I'm not in N Scale, but some thoughts that would work in any scale. First, can you enlarge your 36" blobs to 38" or 40" to give you a little extra space? Second, take a piece of flex track and a car the length you expect to run (could even be a mock up, 2 trucks under a piece of wood), to see if you can live with the overhang at various radii. With flex track you can vary your track radius to all points between 15" and 12.5".
Good luck,
Your 2-6-0 should run just fine on 12 in. radius curves.In fact,even bigger locos can handle pretty tight curves,as low as the minimum 9 3/4 in. radius in some cases but they do look awkward doing it.Athearn recommend a minimum 11 in. curve for their Big Boy but state it will look much better on a 15 in. radius.I've run my 90's on such curves without problems so I imagine any diesel loco can handle them and short to medium sized (2-8-2) steamers should run and still look right on 12 in. curves.
By the way,haven't you thought of stretching your layout depth to 30 in.?The extra 6 in. would make it a little more uncomfortable to work on the rear parts of it indeed but would make a huge difference in accomodating your trackwork and/or scenery.I'd go even deeper if the layout is accessible from all around.Just an idea......
Since you're experienced at HO I would suggest that when thinking radii, kinda think of N being 1/2 the size of HO (I know that's not exact)
Bascially, if you're thinking 12" in N ask your self "would 24 inches (2x12) in HO be OK?"
I am building a 8' x 11' folded dogbone N scale layout using Kato Unitrack. I am using 19" on the mainline and mostly 15" min in other areas. At the very beginning I marked the benchwork on the floor with masking tape and layed out some track on the floor to see how everying would work. After the benchwork was built I spent a lot of time laying out track and both pushing rolling stock through the trackage and then making a few simple electrical connections and doing some elementary running to fine tune my final track plan. Once I thought I had it right I marked the temporaty track so I could make it permanent later. This was really easy to do with Unitrack but I think you could do it with any kind of track. I have a few 80' passenger cars that I experimented with to check clearances even though I had no plans to run any cars over 60' but I wanted to be on the safe side.
Actually trying something in 3D out really beats a paper plan. I used shoe boxes to represent mountains and small blocks of wood to represent buildings.
Good luck!
Mike B.
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
WaxonWaxov wrote:Since you're experienced at HO I would suggest that when thinking radii, kinda think of N being 1/2 the size of HO (I know that's not exact) Bascially, if you're thinking 12" in N ask your self "would 24 inches (2x12) in HO be OK?"
This is actually something I kept in mind. The HO layout I was building just prior to moving was going to have 24" radius curves. I know that N scale isn't exacly 1/2 the size of HO but in my thinking this was close enough which is why I chose 12.5".
Well you may run into the problem former MR editor Popp found out when he thought about changing the period of his layout - he was locked in because of the sharp curves he used. I would take more time and look at more alternatives in your trackplan. You should be able to use larger radius curves and still work in an interchange or whatever you want. That way, if you decide a few years from now to model scale-length passenger cars or big steam engines, you can do it without having to build a new layout.
I've heard from a fair number of people / posters who regret making a layout with curves that are too sharp. I don't recall anyone complaining because their layout had curves that were too broad and prototypical.
I remember seeing a Bachmann ad that said their N scale Dash 8's were recommended for 18" minimum.(might want to keep that in mind.)
PS-A layout with "blobs" like that is called a folded dog bone...
You should be fine with 40-50' cars and those locos on that radius. Just make sure you use easements. I think that 12" is what David Popp's Naugatuk line, featured in the MRR the last few years, uses and very similar selection of power. It seems to look fine. I would study his original track plan if you can, its a similar space situation and he did a good job with it.The subsequently published track plans show his expanded layout which uses more of a U shape then an L shape. I can't remember what issue its in but the one in the track plan database is the new one.
While I have 16" planned for mainline on my next layout, I am currently using 11" Radius with easements on a smaller (3x5) test layout and my RS3, Bachman 2-8-0, and 40-50' cars look ok. I have some cosmetic curves that look real nice, but the tighter curves while functional do look a little off. I have take steps to somewhat hide the loops which helps.
Coupling on the 11" curves just doesnt happen without using the sky crane.
If I didnt want to have the ability to occasionally run 85' Amtrack passenger cars on the next layout (modern era) I would likely design to 14.5" but I consider 16" to be my min for passenger cars.
Chris
Thanks everyone for the input. I went back and re-read the article in GMR 2008 on David's proposed back dating of his NH layout and made note of some of the issues he ran into.
I did a quick rework of my track plan and reworked the 12.5" curves to 13.75", although there is still a passing siding that is at 12.5 due to placement.
I am going to look into relocating a spur and my interchange for the possibility of upgrading the curves to 15". I do have the physical space and knowing from my HO days that the larger the better. This will just require a bit more of picking the plan apart.
Two things:
Firstly, I have posted on several occasions that the reason I bolted HO-Scale for N-Scale twenty five years ago was because the space available to me for a layout only allowed for eighteen inch radius curves and I was dissatisfied with that (mainline) radius in HO-Scale. Secondly, a short while past I announced that I am putting model railroading in hiatus to work on that novel which I have always wanted to write but haven't because of pure unadulterated laziness so right at this particular moment I am not really in a layout planning mode.
That said I have always planned my layout around eighteen inch radius curves a thirty-three inch equivalency in Horribly Oversize-Scale. My plan, however, was developing to a compromise of going down to 16.5 inch/15 inch minimum radii in one particular area; I don't like it but it is probably going to be necessary to avoid cramming. I have always regarded curves of that radii as appropriate for industrial trackage unless one is careful to hide it from full view.
This curvature equates to 30 inches/27.5 inches in HO-Scale, a size that would be sufficient to handle even the largest equipment. I have no idea where I am going to be five or so years down the road when I can resume my modeling efforts but if I continue to develop my current trackplan idea I may just have to live with that 16.5/15 inch format.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
In planing my next layout, I found the width of the turn-backs less of an issue then the length as I played with different radius. Figure 6" easement on top of the 16" curve and you are talking 22". Add 5" for a turnout for 27". You put this at either end of a 96" length and suddenly my siding can only be 42".. which is a 6" locomotive and 9 or so 4" cars. When I stretched my design from 8' to 10' then suddenly I had 66" sidings which let me have a 6" locomotive and 15 cars which was a much more comfortable train length.
Using curved turnouts helped me with this but so far the limiting factor in my space is the impact of the maximum radius on the siding length.. and my given that I would like 15 car trains. This is presuming I dont have the sidings into the turn-back which I would like to hide as much as possible for cosmetic reasons.
Sorry if I rambled.. this thread has struck a nerve with issues I have been struggling with in my layout doodles.