MRR Cascade, Wash N scale

[ENogueira]

Hello from Portugal!

I'm starting my new N scale layout and I'm following the Cascade, Wash plans that were publish on MRR magazine a few years ago.

I'm using two modules, each one with approximately 9'x3', and using roofmate for height variation.

Anyone has done this layout? Any ideias/photos?

 

Thank You

Eduardo

[carl425]

ENogueira

publish on MRR magazine a few years ago.

It's from October 2000 - almost 19 years.  Even so, it looks even older than that - like a 1960's vintage tabletop spaghetti bowl.  Layout design has evolved substantially since then.  I'd look for a more modern plan.

[York1]

ENogueira

Hello from Portugal! I'm starting my new N scale layout and I'm following the Cascade, Wash plans that were publish on MRR magazine a few years ago.

 

Welcome to the forums, Eduardo!  You may notice your first several posts will be delayed.  That's normal for new members.

Good luck with building your layout.  Keep us informed how it goes!

[saronaterry]

Hi, Eduardo and welcome.

I have not seen that plan. Can anyone post a photo?

If that's your choice, have at it. Learn from it. Get better. Find out what you like and don't like.

Terry

[Pruitt]

Welcome aboard!

A suggestion - take with a huge grain of salt the "I know better than you what you should do" types of replies. Everyone is different, and what suits one may not suit another.

Good luck with your selected track plan. Please remember to share your efforts with all of us here on the forum!

Feel free to post any questions you may have as you get started with your new layout (is this your first one?). Many forum members are willing to help, so you'll get a lot of suggestions on how to proceed. 

[York1]

Here is a picture of the layout he's considering.

 

[cuyama]

No published track plan is ideal for everyone – there’s nothing magical about a layout having been in a magazine. If one reads the original article, one will see that the layout was built on casters so that there was access all around. Without that, large parts of it would be out of reach if the layout is placed against the walls of a room. The Original Poster might try to refer to the original October, 2000 article for photos and more information.

As published, the yard seems oddly arranged, with limited access and a yard lead that slopes down away from the yard – which would make switching more difficult in shoving strings of cars up hill. There are a few other issues as well.

In the space the Original Poster has described, there might be alternatives that would better meet his needs – but we won’t know without hearing more from him. Designing from a fresh sheet of paper for his specific space and interests would likely be a better long-term fit.

Personally, I don’t think that there is any harm in pointing out alternatives to a newcomer – after all, that’s probably why they post. To simply say, “Go for it!” without exploring his interests seems a disservice.

Byron

 

[SPSOT fan]

This plan is pretty good, and I like the location (I’m from Washington and am an NP fan). It is a bit of a spaghetti bowl and not much more than a standard 4x8. It is old and follows some older trackplaning philosphies.

I could give advice on whether or not I think this is good, but that would be for me and not the OP so I suggest the OP list what kind of trains he wants to run. This plan will place restrictions on the types of rolling stock to be used. Note the 11” minimum radius will not support 80’ passenger cars, I have 15 and have issues with 80’ cars.

[Pruitt]

cuyama

Personally, I don’t think that there is any harm in pointing out alternatives to a newcomer – after all, that’s probably why they post. To simply say, “Go for it!” without exploring his interests seems a disservice.

Pointing out alternatives is fine, when you know something about what the goals and constraints are. So far the ONLY thing shared is that the OP likes that track plan. Maybe he has a small bedroom for his layout. Maybe it's in the corner of a 40'X40' basement. Is this his first foray into model railroading? Maybe he's been a modeler all his life and is looking at a small project to work on in retirement.

My point - alternatives in a vacuum are useless.

In any case, saying, in effect, "That track plan is stupid. Pick something else!" is not pointing out alternatives at all. 

[ENogueira]

 

Hello

First, thank you all for your posts.

 

 

 

You are right to say more information is needed, so here it is!

 

I have built two previous layouts, both DC and any of them made it to scenery because I had to move twice. Both layouts were tabletop style, N scale.

 

Now, with enough space in the garage for a layout, it’s time to start this project and made it to completion!

 

My personal interest is running trains on some kind of continuous loop, while enjoying some switching in the yard. I expect the layout to be used only by me. It will be DCC control (I have a ZIMO MX1EC station and a MX32 cab). Passenger trains are not my thing, so it will be only freight and I’m looking to represent he transition era (love the early diesels but also love the steam facilities). And, of course, it will be USA trains and structures.

 

Another thing is that I’m not looking for prototypical scenery and operations. For now, that is not my goal. My number one goal with this layout is to learn! To enjoy and to learn. I now have the space to build a big layout, but not the skills, so, this is a simple and small project to learn and develop myself.

 

Eduardo

[carl425]

Pruitt

In any case, saying, in effect, "That track plan is stupid. Pick something else!" is not pointing out alternatives at all.

1. You are misquoting my post.  "Look for a more modern plan" is an alternative. I assumed that in combination with "layout design has evolved" would be taken as "do more research".
2. Some ideas are just bad and don't require an alternative to be called out as bad.  Does "don't pick up that rattlesnake" require the alternative of "pick up the kitten" to be considered valid advice?
3. With the goal now established of being to learn, this may be a good choice after all.  If OP learns from mistakes, this plan has plenty to learn from.

[York1]

ENogueira

Another thing is that I’m not looking for prototypical scenery and operations. For now, that is not my goal. My number one goal with this layout is to learn! To enjoy and to learn.

 

Eduardo, that is exactly what I am doing.  I have never built a layout before, so I have started my first railroad at age 66.

I also do N scale, and I am learning a lot.

One of the best things I did was not laying all the track at once, but I finished one of the loops of a double mainline.  This allowed me to get a locomotive running.  It brought me great satisfaction and encouragement to finally get something running, and the loop made it possible to run for a while while I enjoyed watching.

Now, while I work on something else, I can still stop when I get tired or need a break, and run a train around the layout for a while.

[SPSOT fan]

Reading the OPs information I think the layout will be a very nice fit for him. It will be able to run the 40’ and 50’ rolling stock of the transition era in two different loops allowing for multiple trains to run, and simultaneously allows for switching without fouling the main lines. As the OP cares less for prototypical scenery, the near spaghetti bowl nature of the plan is a small issue. Still there is some nice operational faeatures, a variety of industries and a good sized staging area, for prototypical operations on the small scale the layout is. The short part of the L could still make for some nice scenery. Also the layout is simple and able to learn from and complete in less time.

One issue is whether or not the steam of the transition era will fit on the 11” curves. I don’t have any steam so I don’t know how well it copes with such curve raduis.

[Doughless]

I don't understand where that little loop of track goes next to the word "down".  Looks to me like it ends in the tunnel (or is supposed to connect to the heavier dotted line?)  The track just above it is the yard lead that uses a double slip switch.  It seems like those two tracks could be simplified.

As has been mentioned, if the layout will abutt a wall along either the north or west edges, accessing the tracks in the far corner from the open side will be difficult. 

[carl425]

SPSOT fan

two different loops allowing for multiple trains to run

I think it's actually a twice around rather than two loops.

[Doughless]

carl425

 

 

SPSOT fan

two different loops allowing for multiple trains to run

 

 

I think it's actually a twice around rather than two loops.

 

I agree.  It looks like its designed for running one train at a time on the mainline.

The outer loop contains two staging tracks in the tunnel.  I would have two trains staged and pointed in opposite directions.  

OP could set one train in motion, do several laps, then drop off or pick up cars to/from the yard area and head back to staging.  Then have the other train emerge from staging in the opposite direction and pick up/drop off cars from the yard, et al.

OP could be switching the yard while one of the trains circles the layout.

Still can't figure out why there is that that small loop of track heading into the tunnel. I'd just level it off and shorten it to convert that to the yard lead and eliminate the double slip switch.

Edit:  Maybe the crossovers can be used to run two trains at a time on the mainline.

[SPSOT fan]

Yeah, I just looked at the plan again and that appears to be true, though if that yard lead connects to that other track then I suppose you could... still it would interrupt yard switching.

If the OP wants two loops I suspect that could easily be added to the plan with a few extra switches, I think. If I were to build the layout I would do a single track main with passing sidings, but that’s just personal preference.

[Pruitt]

carl425

1. You are misquoting my post. 

If you read what I wrote more carefully, carl425, you'll see that I didn't quote anybody.