I notice that three of the crossovers in the oval are facing the same direction and only one is opposing. Is there a reason why to wouldn't be two facing each direction?
I notice that your layout plan is labeled Ventura Harbor District. If this is Ventura, California, then you have a ready made track plan in prototype form nearby in Port Hueneme. The Ventura County Railroad serves the Port of Hueneme as well as the Navy Construction Battalion Base with a connection to the UP (formerly SP) coast line in Oxnard. A look at the prototype on Google Maps suggests a loop track plan with various switching opportunites around the loop. An N scale 4' by 8' (or longer) could place the very compact Port of Hueneme in one corner of the layout and the connection with the UP coast line in the opposite corner. The CB Base could occupy one side of the layout above the harbor with the partially abandoned "south" line along the opposite side. Since the "north" and "south" lines used to connect at the harbor (see historicaerials.com), a continuous loop would be prototypically correct. Plenty of waterfront, CB Base and interchange switching available. You also have the option of modeling different eras. A modern layout would focus on the harbor delivered automobiles. A WWII era layout could focus on military traffic (even more fun for your grandson). Best of all, Atlas offers N scale switch engines in the Genesee & Wyoming colors but without the roadname and logos. As the VCR is currently owned by the G&W and uses the G&W paint scheme, adding VCR decals to one or more of these Atlas switchers would give you an accurate loco fleet.
Just think, an entire protoype railroad easily represented on a 4' by 8' (maybe a little longer) N scale layout!
Hornblower
Again, depends ont he child. I never had wood trains, but I do vaguely recall a plastic track toy train where the track snapped together similar to the way the wood track links, witht he little more than hald round holes and tabs on the adjacent piece.
At 5, N scale was a bit much, but it wasn;t the trains, it was the turnouts. The ones we had back then used a control box that had a lever, move the lever, the press it momentarily a little past the end point to activate the solenoid. I burned too many out, so the N scale went away and the next year we made the HO bigger (the one year, we had both at the same time, the N scale part partially overhung the HO part and made a tunnel). The bigger HO layout, from the beginning - my Dad built it all, but he couldn't get more than 2 laps without setting a switch wrong and derailing. I could run trains for hours.
Every kid is different. Some can handle it, others don;t have the fine motor skills or impulse control to handle the smaller stuff. Two kids, same age, one might be fine, the other breaks wheels and couplers off. Even my own experience, my older one was always fine to take to shows, he didn;t grab at things, especially moving trains as they went past on an operating layout. His younger bother, at the same age, I got real good at quick twists while holding him up, he tended to reach for anything and everything.
As I mentioned, there are ways these days (and were then, we just weren't aware of them) to mitigate the issue I had with N scale at 5. If said child is otherwsie able to handle running the trains and not playing Godzilla, there's no reason not to go ahead with the idea. Kids exposed to smartphones and tablets and computers from an early age are remarkable adept at picking up the controls, so there shouldn't be any problem there.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I agree with the assessment including five year olds and switching.......The switching was for ME N is delicate for litle fingers.......he is actually doing pretty well and i keep "treasures" cars off site for now. In retrospect i Think the N scale oval is the best fit. I have a simplified version here. The first plan is a simplified version/ MIN radius is 14 inches on the main and 12 7/8 ((track spacing to be verified by experimentation)the Next plan is a MORE complex rendering with a generous interchange yard ar upper right. My leanings are toward the simpler plan for now. complexity can always be added as desired.`https://www.flickr.com/photos/67922447@N06/?
The first thought that occured to me was a five year old "switching"? Most five year olds would give you maybe two minutes and, be off in search of more exciting things elsewhere. If this is to be a truly "shared" layout, do both of you a favor and opt for continuous running!
My other comment stems from looking at track planning from the prototype perspective of "less is more" or, in the real world, profitable. Scissors crossovers and slip switches are most commonly used where traffic is very heavy and space at a premium. These track arrangements are expensive to install and maintain, although on model railroads, they are impressive. Because there is already a conventional crossover on the double track on the lower right portion of the plan, I would replace the scissors X-over with a single crossover as found at prototype "control point" installations. Have fun guys.
The HO plan has a perfect reason for existing, especially if it represents a harbor area separated fromt he mainland. The car float is the source of cars going to and coming from 'elsewhere' and then getting distributed to the industries. I like switching and would have plenty of fun with that. A five year old though may get easily bored.
At the same time, 5 is borderline for N scale. I was always careful with stuff, if not for my younger sister, I'd probably still have all my toys from childhood, and I was about 5 when we first added N scale to the mix. The trains themselves were fine, it was the turnouts I kept burning out. Now you could mitigate that with a CD power supply, or using slow motion machines instead of solenoids. All depends on the child - if they are able to handle the more delicate N scale (compared to HO) then by all means.
exactly the type of comment i am hoping for. The yard in the hO plan is meant to be the source of incoming traffic to the industrial area.
I'm thinking about how I would do operations, and from that perspective, I like the oval plan better. The HO yard is great for stacking cars, but it doesn't have a purpose for doing so. After a while I would get bored.
Now, let's do the oval, using the top track as staging. Let's say one end is Indianapolis and the other is Chicago. The train comes in from staging from Chicago. It drops off slated for the various industries on your loop, and picks up anything heading towards Indianapolis. It leaves back to staging. Your switcher sorts out the incoming cars. Your road engine takes the cars for local the industires and delivers them. I picks up anything heading out takes it to your yard. THe switcher takes the new cars and sorts them into Chicago bound and Indy bound. Then comes the train in from Indy and the process starts over.
To do this, you would need 3-4 track yard which you have plenty of space for. And it wouldn't hurt to have a second staging track.
Of course, that only works for my idea of operations.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67922447@N06/?