Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

The "N" Crowd Locked

129113 views
1417 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Easley, SC
  • 134 posts
Posted by navygunner on Sunday, March 2, 2008 9:04 PM

4% grades will not work in N scale; unless you are dead set on adding a bunch of locomotives at the bottom of the grade.  There are quite a few locomotives out there that will barely pull their own weight, let alone a car or two.  4% and 3% grades are rarities in the real world due to the difficulty of making a locomotive that will deal with the rise reliably.

DCC and DC can coexist on a layout.  The DCC scheme is to use DC as a brake upon seeing DC.  I can not say that I see any use in having both as motive power on a layout.  Either you run DC or DCC.

I swap between the two as primary power to the layout, I've seen no benefit to mixing them in a single operating session.

These are just my thoughts on these subjects.

Bob

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: THE FAR, FAR REACHES OF THE WILD, WILD WEST!
  • 3,672 posts
Posted by R. T. POTEET on Sunday, March 2, 2008 9:31 PM
Packers#1, glad to have you aboard in the hobby and here on the forum.

I hate to do a Frank Luke on you but you ain't gonna do a "lots of sidings, 5 track yard w/ turntable" in a 4X8 layout space, not unless you are planning on incorporating some incredibly sharp curves to accompany that "incredibly steep grade". You would be hard pressed to incorporate all those features into a midwestern flatland pike, let alone into a "modern-day freelanced railroad that hauls over the Appalachian mountains".

How much trackage do you think you can cram into a 4X8, even in N Scale, without it looking like a 4X8 with a lot of crammed trackage? You are going to want to avoid a the-rat-disappeared-in-that-hole-where-will-it-come-out? bowl of spaghetti. Believe me when I say that your ambition is just a little bit farther than your reach is going to be. KISS!!!!! Examine posted photographs by Dave Vollmer; Dave's layout is built on a hollow core 36X80 inch interior door. That area is smaller than yours but Dave's layout is a master of craftsmanship although only a simple oval with a couple of sidings and virtually no grade at all. I, as well as most other N Scalers, are duly impressed with his modeling. Dave, I understand, acquired a lot of his modeling skills at his pappy's side but, just like the rest of us, he had to crawl before he ever walked and he walked before he ever ran.

Model railroading is, in essence, a practice of illusion; I am not trying to be discouraging; more than anything else I want you to keep from choking on too big of a bite and getting discouraged. I am, unfortunately, almost sure that that is where you are headed if you set your mind to trying to do what you are advocating.

From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada
  • 578 posts
Posted by Blue Flamer on Sunday, March 2, 2008 11:22 PM

 R. T. POTEET wrote:
Packers#1, glad to have you aboard in the hobby and here on the forum.

I hate to do a Frank Luke on you but you ain't gonna do a "lots of sidings, 5 track yard w/ turntable" in a 4X8 layout space, not unless you are planning on incorporating some incredibly sharp curves to accompany that "incredibly steep grade". You would be hard pressed to incorporate all those features into a midwestern flatland pike, let alone into a "modern-day freelanced railroad that hauls over the Appalachian mountains".

How much trackage do you think you can cram into a 4X8, even in N Scale, without it looking like a 4X8 with a lot of crammed trackage? You are going to want to avoid a the-rat-disappeared-in-that-hole-where-will-it-come-out? bowl of spaghetti. Believe me when I say that your ambition is just a little bit farther than your reach is going to be. KISS!!!!! Examine posted photographs by Dave Vollmer; Dave's layout is built on a hollow core 36X80 inch interior door. That area is smaller than yours but Dave's layout is a master of craftsmanship although only a simple oval with a couple of sidings and virtually no grade at all. I, as well as most other N Scalers, are duly impressed with his modeling. Dave, I understand, acquired a lot of his modeling skills at his pappy's side but, just like the rest of us, he had to crawl before he ever walked and he walked before he ever ran.

Model railroading is, in essence, a practice of illusion; I am not trying to be discouraging; more than anything else I want you to keep from choking on too big of a bite and getting discouraged. I am, unfortunately, almost sure that that is where you are headed if you set your mind to trying to do what you are advocating.

Packers#1.

Sign - Ditto [#ditto]  and   Sign - Welcome [#welcome]  to The "N" crowd.

Please listen to the voices of experience. If you come up with a plan, post it here and ask for some feedback both positive AND negative if you really want help. The good folk around here will give you some input and some alternative ideas that may work to your advantage.

Remember, good planning and attention to detail will never steer you wrong.

Good luck.

Blue Flamer. 

"There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"." Dave Barry, Syndicated Columnist. "There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes." Doctor Who.
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Memphis, TN
  • 3,876 posts
Posted by Packers#1 on Monday, March 3, 2008 3:13 PM
Look, the yard and sidings are on my current 4x8. The monstor grade (over 4% guys) will be on a 6"shelf that accompanys a rebuild of my 4x8 into 2" wide sections. My current layout (no grade, period) only has an 8 ft. main (runs along front). Considering you guys saay that a large grade is VERY VERY VERY difficult for N scale locos, I guess I might replan.

Sawyer Berry

Clemson University c/o 2018

Building a protolanced industrial park layout

 

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Memphis, TN
  • 3,876 posts
Posted by Packers#1 on Monday, March 3, 2008 3:18 PM
As the above post above my reply to R.T. Poteet states, yous guys are confused. The yard and sidings are on one layout. I will cut up  the current layout (pretty much 0 scenery) and reconfigure it. I might end up replanning the future RR to have a small grade and an island for road crews to set out cars. Just to clarify THE MONSTER GRADE WILL BE ON A FUTURE LAYOUT, NOT MY CURRENT ONE WITH THE SMALL YARD AND TON OF SIDINGS. Sorry for the all caps and the repeat post, but I want to make sure everyone is not confused. I guess I didn't clarify in my first post what's what.

Sawyer Berry

Clemson University c/o 2018

Building a protolanced industrial park layout

 

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Monday, March 3, 2008 4:08 PM

What do all of you N SCALE EXPERTS think of this design?  Will all of this fit onto a 12ftx8ft layout?  Is there anything else that I can add or will I be able to fill all the space up with what I am wanting?  The top of the picture is going to be my highest point and the bottem of the picture is going to be level ground.  The steel mill and steam shop and yard are all going to be on level ground so it look as if it is in a valley.  I am going to run 2 main lines around the edge of the layout, they are going to go in opposite directions.  What do you think?

Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: THE FAR, FAR REACHES OF THE WILD, WILD WEST!
  • 3,672 posts
Posted by R. T. POTEET on Monday, March 3, 2008 10:01 PM


Quoting Packers#1:

. . . . . . . . . . YOUS GUYS ARE CONFUSED . . . . . . . . . .



Not me! I am not confused! I am not absolutely positutely totally confused! And I have a strange feeling that I am not the only one who is not confused. 

From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: On the Banks of the Great Choptank
  • 2,916 posts
Posted by wm3798 on Monday, March 3, 2008 11:24 PM

I think you need to draw some track in so we know what the heck you're talking about...

Lee 

Route of the Alpha Jets  www.wmrywesternlines.net

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:11 AM
K will do. Ill get a more detailed one soon.
Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Jacksonville, FL
  • 913 posts
Posted by gatrhumpy on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:18 AM

I just bought the track pack to the N scale Terrain for Trains Somkey Junction layout, although I am building the layout how I want it with roughly the same track plan (two train operation) with minor differences. We'll see how much I can get packed in in a 2.5' X 4' layout.

I'm considering cutting the above dimensions in half to make it more portable (2.5' X 2'), and being able to connect the two halves somehow.

Thoughts.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: In the State of insanity!
  • 7,982 posts
Posted by pcarrell on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:29 AM

 gatrhumpy wrote:
We'll see how much I can get packed in in a 2.5' X 4' layout.

Generally speaking, this kind of thing signals a red flag.

While N scale is physically smaller, it's true benefits are not realized by cramming more stuff into a given area.  By adding more things one usually ends up with a less realistic and more toylike scene in the end.  There are exceptions to this, such as a busy urban area that has lots of closely packed buildings, or maybe a large single industry with lots of trackage like a steel mill or paper factory, but those are the exceptions to the rule.

N scale has the advantage of offering a large scenery to trains ratio, and it's often best to build on that advantage and exploit it to it's fullest.  Things like mountains that actually dwarf the trains running through them, or seemingly endless rolling hills for your trains to run through.

However, as you're already thinking, you don't have that kind of space........or do you?

In 2.5x4 you could throw down a scenic divider down the middle of the layout (to seperate it into two distinct scenes) and model a modest interchange on one side and a small port scene on the other.  This would allow you to haul virtually any kind of freight to and from your two destinations.  Or you could have an interchange and a small yard with a RIP track.  This would allow for quite a bit of flexability.  You might also check into joining a local Ntrak group by clicking the link and then build a small section of a larger layout.  Things like that.

Your track pack should have most of the pieces to do those kinds of things.  I would encourage you to play around with it some and maybe build your own dream of a layout instead of somebody elses dream.  Explore your creative side!  Just a thought.......

I'm considering cutting the above dimensions in half to make it more portable (2.5' X 2'), and being able to connect the two halves somehow.

Dowel pins and suitcase connectors are quite usable.  You could check out the Ntrak site I gave and see what they recommend too.

Philip
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Jacksonville, FL
  • 913 posts
Posted by gatrhumpy on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:48 AM

I'm not talking about putting plastic stuff just anywhere on the layout. I don't have a lot of room, and I would like to go to train shows  (or make the layout portable) if possible. 2.5' X 4' is probably the largest amount of space I have available. My wife thinks it's going in the garage, but it's too dusty there, and in the Florida heat, not a great environment. I plan on putting it in a spare bedroom or the dining room, but my wife doesn't know that yet. I want to make it look nice so that it will blend in the with dining room.

So as you can see I don't have a lot of space to do stuff with. My primary concerns are:

1.) I have two Santa fe engines (GP60 and GP38-2). I plan on using them on the layout.

2.) I would like to model a trucking industry, mainly St. Johnsbury before they went out of business in 1993. So mainly I'm modeling the 1992-1993 timeframe. I like the Pike trucking terminal in N scale, and plan on modifying it to look like a typical St. Johnsbury trucking terminal.

 

So my challenge is to run a railroad (Santa Fe) in a part of the country that it actually never saw (northeast).

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: In the State of insanity!
  • 7,982 posts
Posted by pcarrell on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 12:01 PM

As to your layout concerns, that would be doable.

 gatrhumpy wrote:

So my challenge is to run a railroad (Santa Fe) in a part of the country that it actually never saw (northeast).

Thats no problem.  Railroads have been pooling and leasing power from each other for many, many years.  I live in Indiana and I saw a Ferromex (Mexican RR) loco come through here the other day.  It happens.........

Philip
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: On the Banks of the Great Choptank
  • 2,916 posts
Posted by wm3798 on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 2:14 PM

I shot this at Ohiopyle, PA a couple weeks ago...

Lee 

Route of the Alpha Jets  www.wmrywesternlines.net

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Jacksonville, FL
  • 913 posts
Posted by gatrhumpy on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 2:23 PM
Whoa! The second engine kind of looks like a GP60!
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Memphis, TN
  • 3,876 posts
Posted by Packers#1 on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 3:53 PM
No, you were. The yard and sidings are on the 4x8. The 4x8 is flat. There is nothing mountainous about it. No grades.

Sawyer Berry

Clemson University c/o 2018

Building a protolanced industrial park layout

 

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 5:50 PM

What do all of you N SCALE EXPERTS think of this design?  Will all of this fit onto a 12ftx8ft layout?  Is there anything else that I can add or will I be able to fill all the space up with what I am wanting?  The top of the picture is going to be my highest point and the bottem of the picture is going to be level ground.  The steel mill and steam shop and yard are all going to be on level ground so it look as if it is in a valley.  I am going to run 2 main lines around the edge of the layout, they are going to go in opposite directions.  I am also thinking of putting 2 trustle bridges in on the elevated side of the layout. This is my improved version. What do you think?

Blue is main Line.

Brown in secondary line.

Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: On the Banks of the Great Choptank
  • 2,916 posts
Posted by wm3798 on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 6:08 PM

12x8 is a pretty good space for N scale.  If the "control area" is a "donut hole" in the layout, I would nix that right away.  Crawling under the table to run your trains will quickly become a pain in the butt, if not the knees.

N scale gives you a pretty generous curve on a 36" wide platform, I would suggest changing your design to a U shape, where you can walk-in between two peninsulas.  That will accomplish two things, first, it will provide the illusion of a longer run on your main, and second, it will keep you from hitting your head on the benchwork and upsetting your boxcars!

I would also suggest that you get a piece of graph paper with a 1/4" grid, and draw a scaled plan of your space.  You could also check out Atlas' RTS program, which is a free download from their website that can help you layout the track plan in either standard c80 snap track, or in c55.

Also, while 8' can give you a pretty substantial steel mill complex, you might consider building a steel fabrication facility instead, and add several other industry to add some variety to your operations.  And if you are planning to model the steam era, you'll definitely need a turntable in your engine terminal, so you'll need to make room for that.

If you're an MR subscriber, there's an excellent on-line library of published track plans you can access.  Key in mid-sized N scale, and there's a lot of really good examples that will give you some ideas.

Lee 

Route of the Alpha Jets  www.wmrywesternlines.net

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 6:30 PM
 wm3798 wrote:

12x8 is a pretty good space for N scale.  If the "control area" is a "donut hole" in the layout, I would nix that right away.  Crawling under the table to run your trains will quickly become a pain in the butt, if not the knees.

N scale gives you a pretty generous curve on a 36" wide platform, I would suggest changing your design to a U shape, where you can walk-in between two peninsulas.  That will accomplish two things, first, it will provide the illusion of a longer run on your main, and second, it will keep you from hitting your head on the benchwork and upsetting your boxcars!

I would also suggest that you get a piece of graph paper with a 1/4" grid, and draw a scaled plan of your space.  You could also check out Atlas' RTS program, which is a free download from their website that can help you layout the track plan in either standard c80 snap track, or in c55.

Also, while 8' can give you a pretty substantial steel mill complex, you might consider building a steel fabrication facility instead, and add several other industry to add some variety to your operations.  And if you are planning to model the steam era, you'll definitely need a turntable in your engine terminal, so you'll need to make room for that.

If you're an MR subscriber, there's an excellent on-line library of published track plans you can access.  Key in mid-sized N scale, and there's a lot of really good examples that will give you some ideas.

Lee 

I like the idea of getting ride of the hole in the middle but how can I get my 2.5%grade that I want and be able to go back up and then down fast enough to get down to the level of my yard and steel mill.  Also I cant find a turntable that will fit a BIG BOY because it is 134ft long and the biggest turntable I can find is a 130ft one.  I am not a member of MR but would like to be so I cant get ahold of those layout examples.

Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: In the State of insanity!
  • 7,982 posts
Posted by pcarrell on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 6:34 PM
 4-6-6-4 Challenger wrote:

I like the idea of getting ride of the hole in the middle but how can I get my 2.5%grade that I want and be able to go back up and then down fast enough to get down to the level of my yard and steel mill. 

Actually, the grade is easier to put in and can have a bigger effect on a walk-in plan as you go around the outside edge and the inside edge of the "U" instead of just doing a loop.  The run is much longer.

Also I cant find a turntable that will fit a BIG BOY because it is 134ft long and the biggest turntable I can find is a 130ft one.  I am not a member of MR but would like to be so I cant get ahold of those layout examples.

Your TT only needs to be as long as the wheelbase of the loco, not the coupler to coupler length.

Philip
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 6:37 PM
So your say that a 134ft big boy will fit on a 130ft turntable?  Also I am a little confused on how what you are talking about as far as how to get my 2.5% grade.
Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: On the Banks of the Great Choptank
  • 2,916 posts
Posted by wm3798 on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:05 PM

I tell you what, mail the Big Boy to me, and I'll check it out on my 130' table!Pirate [oX)]

Kidding... of course...

And yes, the U shape will give you a physically longer run, which will help spread out the grade.  I always use the rule of thumb that a rise of 1" over 8' of track is just under 1% (1" in 96") That works out to a hair over three lengths of 30" flex track.  So, if you're going to rise 2-1/2" on a 1% grade, you'll need about 20 lineal feet of track.  Increase the grade to 1-1/2%, or 2% and you can shorten the run accordingly, but it will impact the length of train you'll be able to pull. 

Lee 

Route of the Alpha Jets  www.wmrywesternlines.net

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: In the State of insanity!
  • 7,982 posts
Posted by pcarrell on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:05 PM

 4-6-6-4 Challenger wrote:
So your say that a 134ft big boy will fit on a 130ft turntable? 

It may......whats the wheelbase length (front wheel center to back wheel center) of a Big Boy?  Since a Big Boy is 85'-10" + 47'-0" = 132'-10" total, I would think it would fit on there with a little extra.  The real test is in the actual wheelbase though.  The key question is, what is the wheelbase on a Big Boy?

Also I am a little confused on how what you are talking about as far as how to get my 2.5% grade.

If you have a "U" shaped layout with turnback blobs on each end you'll have a longer run, and therefore can either ease the grade to gain the same height, or keep the same grade to gain greater height, then a similar simple loop plan.  The only exception to that might be a twice around plan, but then you're back to the duck-under problem.

Tell ya what......I'm going to give you (and anyone else reading this) the guest password to my photobucket site.  I've worked on lots of layout plans with lots of people, so you'll see plans there done by other people and you'll see some of my plans too.  Some are better then others and some have issues.  Others are fine plans.  Take a look at those plans and you'll se what I mean.  It'll also maybe start some creative juices flowing.  The password is maggie and here's the link: http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/Track%20Plans/ (Don't forget the sub-pages of plans too!)

Philip
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: In the State of insanity!
  • 7,982 posts
Posted by pcarrell on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:19 PM
According to this, the wheelbase on a Big Boy was 117' 7"......plenty of room to fit on that turntable!
Philip
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:20 PM
Thanks for that but I really didnt find anything that I liked.  I understand what you mean by the grade tho.  Thanks again I think I will come up with a new drawing and show you guys it.
Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:30 PM

 pcarrell wrote:
According to this, the wheelbase on a Big Boy was 117' 7"......plenty of room to fit on that turntable!

Thanks, Now I will add a turn table to my layout. 

Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Ashtabula, Ohio
  • 158 posts
Posted by 2-8-8-0 on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:37 PM

I am working on a small layout in N, since i live in a small apartment. A coal mine with delivery tracks, and maybe a length of "mainline" going by in the foreground. Ill probably stay with about a 2x3 foot size for this one, just make it part switching puzzle (my train can back onto the mainline to do movements) and part diorama. A small layout like this, i am hoping, can still show some real "scenery" in the background, at least suggesting being in the West Virginia mountains. For ME, this is a good small N layout, as its the subject I like. To someone else, a loco servicing facility or a busy industrial park would be what they want to model. I dont reccomend doing all 3 on 1 small layout, though. I may give my mine a small loco of its own, perhaps with a repair track and small water tank (they can fill the tender from the tipple). Perhaps this mine is busy enough (and a good enough customer!) they managed to lease a Connie or 0-8-0 from B&O?

As far as grades are concerned, i hope beyond hope to have a good representative model of the B&O's West End someday. That means grades, and STEEP grades at that. Cranberry was 12 miles of 2.7%. Loaded trains moved east (up cranberry) and often took 2 or 3 hours to make that leg of the trip. Grades will slow a railroad to a crawl....but i would give anything to have been able to stand trackside, while 3 huge mallets fought their way up that grade at speeds so slow you could walk beside them, and i do plan to try and incorporate that into the "hypothetical layout".

I also am prepared to do a lot of modification, and run 3 2-8-8-0s to get 30 or 40 cars up that grade....but hey, wait a minute. So did the real B&O!Smile [:)]

FWIW.....4% is too much for any mainline. Some branchlines might have approached this in coal country, but odds are that would be a loco on a mine run with just a couple of cars. I dont know of a mainline in the US with grades that steep (I believe parts of the NS in North Carolina and Virginia are close, but i think they have also abandoned those lines)

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Nebraska
  • 173 posts
Posted by 4-6-6-4 Challenger on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 7:53 PM

Here is my U shape layout I have draw up.

Picture 1

Picture 2

Which one do you like better?

 

Nothing is better that a big old Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy rumbling the ground as it roars by! Modeling the CB&Q in the 1930's in Nebraska
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: THE FAR, FAR REACHES OF THE WILD, WILD WEST!
  • 3,672 posts
Posted by R. T. POTEET on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 8:04 PM
 pcarrell wrote:


. . . . . . . . . . It may......whats the wheelbase length (front wheel center to back wheel center) of a Big Boy?  Since a Big Boy is 85'-10" + 47'-0" = 132'-10" total, I would think it would fit on there with a little extra.  The real test is in the actual wheelbase though.  The key question is, what is the wheelbase on a Big Boy? . . . . . . . . .



As I understand it, the Onion Specific used 128' turntables to turn their Big Boys and Challengers. That's all the locomotive you had to fit on them; the remaining five feet was accounted for by overhang. Walthers scaled a 130' turntable to turn the Rivarossi/Con-Cor Big Boys because the rear drawbar of the (model) engine and the front drawbar of the (model) tender is about 40 to 50 inches wider than that spacing is on the prototype. These particular (model) locomotives were engineered to comfortably negotiate 15 inch radius curves - that's 28.69º, a good 40% tighter than the Onion Specific engineered on the prototype which was 20º. That 20º scales to 21.5 inch radius.

Incidently, when the UP was getting ready to put the 4-8-8-4s into service through the Wasatch they had to do some realignment of the curves so these new locomotives could do their designated job. 

On a layout tour in the San Diego area in the late '80s I saw a couple of imported N Scale brass Big Boys - Hallmark? - which had been shortened to give a more prototypical spacing between locomotive and tender but, then again, this model rail was running 28 inch radius curves.

From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: In the State of insanity!
  • 7,982 posts
Posted by pcarrell on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 10:58 AM

4-6-6-4 Challenger,

I can't advise you strongly enough to get some kind of actual planning software or some drawing templates to plan your RR.  The drawings that you have posted so far are nice for getting a general idea of what you want, but to be real honest, the tracks you have planned won't fit, and they won't work as drawn for proper traffic flow.  I think you'll only end up discouraged and frustrated in the end. 

Of the free online software downloads the Atlas RTS 7.0 software is probably the easiest to use, though it's not real powerful.  It'll do the trick though.  I use it for most of my plans.  You can download it for free right here.  Make sure you register it (also free) to unlock all of the tools and features.

I'd also suggest (HIGHLY) that you get a copy of John H Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation".  It may be the best money you ever spend on your RR.  I know I've had my copy for a decade or more and I still read it from time to time and I always find something new in it.

I know several of us have suggested these things already, and it's only because we want you to succeed in your endeavors.  We don't want you to have to learn the hard way.  I know it's hard to hold back the enthusiasm, and hopefully you never lose that excitement for the hobby, but we want to help you channel it into it's most productive path, thats all.

Philip

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!