I thought I was going to have a train room in my basement, until one of my sons moved back in, turning it into his bedroom. (There goes the around the wall layout!)
Now I am doing a downsized 84x44 n scale layout.
I bought two new engines, four axle GP40,s Boston and Maine, and five Atlas 60 foot passenger cars, two axle trucks, Conway Scenic RR,for the smaller layout, as well as the Vermont Rail I already had, and an Alco sw1500 switcher. The smaller rolling stock is better suited to a compact layout.
I am using code 80 since a lot of my frieght cars are older n scale with the larger flanges and some of them like the code 80 better than the code 55. When rustied all up and ballasted a lot of the not to scale code 80 doesn't look so bad.
So I went to my buddy's house whose layout used to be in his grage, and he had to downsize too. He had a lot of longer stock and went to the smaller layout, and couln't get his 85 foot cars to run so well...so it seems that the rolling stock should be matched to the "scale" of the layout.
Hello All,
Welcome to the dilemma of "selective compression."
On my 4'x8' HO pike I have asymmetrical curves composed of 15- and 18-inch radius sectional track on the mainline.
Most turnouts are Atlas #4 Snap Switches along with PECO #2 turnouts.
The pike is based on the operation of Tyco 34-foot operating hoppers.
For the most reliable operations I only run 4-axle diesels and 0-6-0 steamers.
The longest rolling stock I run is 60-foot flat cars. These are fitted with Kadee long shank couplers for better clearance through the tight curves and turnouts.
I have attempted to run 85-foot passenger cars.
They look ridiculous and the ends almost touch because of the overswing between cars.
Yes, I would love larger radius curves but "She Who Must Be Obeyed" has dictated that I can only have the space on top of the bed in the computer/railroad/spare bedroom.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
DonRicardo .... He had a lot of longer stock and went to the smaller layout, and couln't get his 85 foot cars to run so well...so it seems that the rolling stock should be matched to the "scale" of the layout.
.... He had a lot of longer stock and went to the smaller layout, and couln't get his 85 foot cars to run so well...so it seems that the rolling stock should be matched to the "scale" of the layout.
There is an association with space, not quite so much scale (although I understand what you're asking). But it's even more complicated due to other factors such as where the coupler draft gear is mounted (truck or end-frame), how freely the wheels turn, how widely in arc the trucks can turn, what details limit that arc, and so on. Even the length of rolling stock matters in curves, particularly in pronounced S-curves.
There are solutions, but they often rely on one's choice in a small space between a switching layout and something approximating a loop. The loop's radii will be small, which does impose a limit on rolling stock and locomotives. A switching layout might be more forgiving that way, but the longer curves and turnouts take up more of the length, and could still cause one to limit the lengths of rolling stock.