I have been wanting to build a layout in n-scale for some time now. After recieving the February issue of MR I fell in love with the 4'x8' plan of the Rosston, Joelberg & Holly RR in HO scale. I would like to use this plan for my 28"x54" n-scale layout but like so many modelers I just can't leave well enough alone. The only thing that I would like to change is that I would like to have a double main line. Problem is this seems like it could be too much track crammed into a small layout. Keep in mind that there are quite a few tunnels on this layout, and a backdrop divider down the middle so you can't see the entire layout at one time. Am I trying to cram too much in? any opinions are welcome.
Michael
Never attempt anything you don't want to explain to the EMT
Yes, I think you are trying to cram too much in. But there's only one way to know for sure...
Very few published track plans can be built in less space than they were drawn to. That's because the publisher wants the track plan to fit in the minimum space so more modelers will be encouraged by it.
In this specific case, the plan is already using a 17" radius in HO. I doubt very much you will be using a 8.5" radius in N, so the rule of thumb to cut everything in half as a 1st approximation won't work. You will have to redraw the plan in N to fit the actual radius you are going to use.
Which is my recommendation - redraw the plan using the software package of your choice, and using your intended actual track radius, turnouts, double track spacing, etc., and see if it fits. Even if modeling in the same scale as the original plan, I make this recommendation because of the subtle differences between makes of turnouts and personal layout standards (yes/no on easements, parallel track spacing, changes in space for structures, era and length of equipment, how close to the edge is track allowed, etc.) All these alter a plan, and alter the space it will actually take. Redrawing is the only practical answer to check the fit.
Then be aware, that the real layout won't match the software plan exactly. Are you allowing exactly the same amount of air gap at rail joints as the software does? Even 1/32" difference at each joint means 1" difference after 32 sections of track. Are your easements laid out the same way your software calculates them? How accurately does your software mate the track at a joint? Many software packages have default tolerances of 1 degree angular, and 0.1" distance. Are you willing to allow that much mismatch when you lay your track? Is all your track measured, produced, and cut to less than 0.1" tolerance? These are just some of the reasons why reality never matches the plan.
If you had 3ft x 5ft instead of 28" x 54", you would have enough extra space to make significant revisions without running out of space. Less than that - you are going to have to do some work to find out. But if you already are thinking a track plan is too crowded, chances are 100% that going to double track in the same space is not going to make you think it is less crowded. If my gut says a plan is too tight or too crowded for the space, it almost always is so. Reality is very seldom less crowded than a plan because a plan doesn't show everything. A single line plan doesn't show how wide the track and roadbed really are, and how close to the benchwork edges the ends of the ties are.
Invariably, the best way to adapt a published track plan is to choose a base track plan that takes less space than you have available after scaling for scale.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
When you're right you're right. I decided to get the track out that I have & set it up in the space I want to use. I could make it fit, but I wouldn't be able to put any convincing scenery & structures in place.
Perhaps I should have stated my goal along with my original queastion. What I was trying to accomplish was being able to run 2 trains independently & in the opposite direction while in "display" mode. I thought about adding a single oval around the outside but that really wasn't what I wanted to do. Maybe I can add a passing siding to the backside. Then I'll just have to make sure I pay attention so I don't have 2 trains meet head on on the same track.
In the space you cited, you can probably do either a double track oval with a branch, or a twice-around loop with branch, but not both. If you can add six inches each direction to 3x5, double tracking the plan you like becomes quite feasible, and you will add a couple of inches for structures and other scenery.
Michael,
I was also fascinated by the MR February feature layout and re-worked it into an N scale layout. It offers lots of operation and good looks. I´d keep the concept as it is - or go for something like the Salt Lake Route - last year´s project layout.
Michael6792 I have been wanting to build a layout in n-scale for some time now. After recieving the February issue of MR I fell in love with the 4'x8' plan of the Rosston, Joelberg & Holly RR in HO scale. I would like to use this plan for my 28"x54" n-scale layout but like so many modelers I just can't leave well enough alone. The only thing that I would like to change is that I would like to have a double main line. Problem is this seems like it could be too much track crammed into a small layout. Keep in mind that there are quite a few tunnels on this layout, and a backdrop divider down the middle so you can't see the entire layout at one time. Am I trying to cram too much in? any opinions are welcome.
I like the plan too, but would consider reducing the double looped main line down to a single loop while keeping the mine branch. I think you could retain most of the dramatic scenic elements while reducing the number of tunnels and track in general. If you double-tracked the main line, I would really consider eliminating one of the loops.
- Douglas
ok, so I kept the track plan basically unchanged, but expaned it to 30"x60" to give myself a little more room to work with. I was lying out the plan full size on paper & everything was going good until I realized that the viaduct is going to be a major view block. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but since I am building this into a coffee table with glass sides & a wood top, you really won't be able to see anything beyond the viaduct! I could take the viaduct out & make it a single loop, but to me the double loop crossing over itself was most of the beauty of this plan. Does anyone have any suggestions besides a glass top on the table? Wife already ruled that out.
hi
get a new wife or take some pills
paul
I slightly changed the December 1994's issue of MR Soo Line's Red Wing division to have a double track mainline.
It fits in a 2.5 ft by 4 ft N scale layout, and is completely portable. All of the buildings light up, as do all of the streetlights. The crossing signals light up too!
Paulus Jas hi get a new wife or take some pills paul
I was looking for helpful suggestions, not stupidity.
Well done. Not quite what I'm looking for in my own layout, but very nice!
Michael6792 ok, so I kept the track plan basically unchanged, but expaned it to 30"x60" to give myself a little more room to work with. I was lying out the plan full size on paper & everything was going good until I realized that the viaduct is going to be a major view block. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but since I am building this into a coffee table with glass sides & a wood top, you really won't be able to see anything beyond the viaduct! I could take the viaduct out & make it a single loop, but to me the double loop crossing over itself was most of the beauty of this plan. Does anyone have any suggestions besides a glass top on the table? Wife already ruled that out.
I wondered about that viaduct myself when looking at the article in MR. If you notice the photos, they are either looking over or, in one shot, directly under the viaduct. You never see the thing in its entirety. Probably because, as you discoverd, it acts as a view block and may even detract from the overall well laid out and detailed town scene. IMO, what makes that layout really cool is the location of the mine and trestle on the one side, and the way the grain elevator and town blend into the backdrop and overall scene. on the other side. I think the long stone viaduct is a necessary compromise the builder made in order to get the double loop and a reasonable grade up to the mine. That high trestle on the mine side of the layout would be less dramatic if it wasn't so high.
Perhaps if you expandyour space enough you can find a way to have a double loop without needing a narrow viaduct. A single looped layout would require a rather steep grade to get the backside trestle so high.
Doughless Michael6792: ok, so I kept the track plan basically unchanged, but expaned it to 30"x60" to give myself a little more room to work with. I was lying out the plan full size on paper & everything was going good until I realized that the viaduct is going to be a major view block. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but since I am building this into a coffee table with glass sides & a wood top, you really won't be able to see anything beyond the viaduct! I could take the viaduct out & make it a single loop, but to me the double loop crossing over itself was most of the beauty of this plan..... Michael, I wondered about that viaduct myself when looking at the article in MR. If you notice the photos, they are either looking over or, in one shot, directly under the viaduct. You never see the thing in its entirety. Probably because, as you discoverd, it acts as a view block and may even detract from the overall well laid out and detailed town scene..... Perhaps if you expandyour space enough you can find a way to have a double loop without needing a narrow viaduct. A single looped layout would require a rather steep grade to get the backside trestle so high.
Michael6792: ok, so I kept the track plan basically unchanged, but expaned it to 30"x60" to give myself a little more room to work with. I was lying out the plan full size on paper & everything was going good until I realized that the viaduct is going to be a major view block. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but since I am building this into a coffee table with glass sides & a wood top, you really won't be able to see anything beyond the viaduct! I could take the viaduct out & make it a single loop, but to me the double loop crossing over itself was most of the beauty of this plan.....
ok, so I kept the track plan basically unchanged, but expaned it to 30"x60" to give myself a little more room to work with. I was lying out the plan full size on paper & everything was going good until I realized that the viaduct is going to be a major view block. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but since I am building this into a coffee table with glass sides & a wood top, you really won't be able to see anything beyond the viaduct! I could take the viaduct out & make it a single loop, but to me the double loop crossing over itself was most of the beauty of this plan.....
I wondered about that viaduct myself when looking at the article in MR. If you notice the photos, they are either looking over or, in one shot, directly under the viaduct. You never see the thing in its entirety. Probably because, as you discoverd, it acts as a view block and may even detract from the overall well laid out and detailed town scene.....
The article states that the plan was inspired by John Allen's 1st Gorre & Daphtid. And this is easily seen from examining the 2 plans. A plan for the 1st G&D was published in 101 Track Plans, and in several issues of Model Railroader over the years. The G&D was a twice around with a branch running up into the far corner. The viaduct was how Allen made the plan twice around in a very limited space without using a crossing. The viaduct scene was a feature of all 3 G&D layouts.
Getting the view to the interior of the layout blocked is an inherent problem with small twice around over-under layouts. At some point, the outer loop has to be at a higher elevation than the inner loop. And in a minimum space, the elevated crossing must be at a shallow angle. This requires a long set of bridges, viaduct, or similar elevated track structure which will necessarily at least partially block the view of the layout interior. Look at pictures of the 1st G&D as an example of the view blocking.
In the old days, when layouts were not built as high as they are today, the view blocking wasn't as critical. Simply stand up and you could easily see over the obstruction, albeit from a helicopter viewpoint. Today's higher layouts have made twice around over/under layouts less practical because of the problems you cite.
The big benefit of the twice around in a small space was the ability to run longer trains without them being nose to tail. The drawbacks are the view blocks, and the lack of level areas on the main line to leave a part of the train while you do some switching.
fwright Getting the view to the interior of the layout blocked is an inherent problem with small twice around over-under layouts. At some point, the outer loop has to be at a higher elevation than the inner loop. And in a minimum space, the elevated crossing must be at a shallow angle. This requires a long set of bridges, viaduct, or similar elevated track structure which will necessarily at least partially block the view of the layout interior. Look at pictures of the 1st G&D as an example of the view blocking. In the old days, when layouts were not built as high as they are today, the view blocking wasn't as critical. Simply stand up and you could easily see over the obstruction, albeit from a helicopter viewpoint. Today's higher layouts have made twice around over/under layouts less practical because of the problems you cite. The big benefit of the twice around in a small space was the ability to run longer trains without them being nose to tail. The drawbacks are the view blocks, and the lack of level areas on the main line to leave a part of the train while you do some switching.
The kicker here is the OPs explanation about where he wants to build his layout - it sure looks to me like he is saying that he wants to build it inside a coffee table with glass sides, but not a see through glass top.
Layouts built into low coffee tables pretty much are dependent (at least in most cases) on the table having a glass top, allowing a view from the top.
Not being allowed by his wife to replace the wooden top of the coffee table with glass means that this space is not very suited for a layout in general, and it certainly is not very suited for a specific layout which needs a good view of, and access to the center of the layout.
It could very well be that a point to point shelf layout would have been a better strategy for the OP - hard to say, since I have no clue about what his home looks like and what other physical and family political limitations he will have to work around.
Grin, Stein
hi michael,
yes downright stupidity, question is who is.
I imagined your coffee table, the top 18" from the floor, the bottom at 8" ; both from wood; separated by class walls. And you on your belly on the floor looking through one of them. And of course you did not mention it in your first postings, so others were giving their time and effort without knowing what you wanted to do. Wish you all the best building your dream layout.
Paul