SpaceMouse wrote:
1) If one has limited funds, one might be wise to stick to one scale and perhaps one era to conserve financial resources.
2) If one wants to view the layout from across the room, N-scale may be a problem. Since the equipment is so small, it may be hard to see.
3) Moving the layout higher might allow you to use the mantel of the fireplace as part of the lay out.
4) One does NOT need an oval for continuous automated action. One could use auto-reversing circuits to ping-pong the train back and forth on one track.
Have fun
If it were me, I'd get me a sheet of plywood or foam, start with Dave's recommendation of a 13" minimum, cut the sheet accordingly, and try that on for size in your space. If it works, great...if it doesn't, start whittling it down bit at a time until it does work in your space. The result dictates the radius you use....and the equipment you run.
When you have to share a room with other uses besides trains...especially something as important as business...the other uses of the room need to be the defining factor, not the trains. Radius X may look good on paper (or screen), but be a PITA once executed.
Reality...an interesting concept with no successful applications, that should always be accompanied by a "Do not try this at home" warning.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
"Oooh...ahhhh...that's how this all starts...but then there's running...and screaming..."
Thanks Dog,
I hear what you are saying, but I already have everything I need to run this layout except the engine. I have the rolling stock, a Tech II, the track, the foam, the landscaping, the structures (not that I plan more than one.) So a new scale is not an issue. But I am worried about turning radius of an engine I have not pruchased yet. I have two choices I can see right now. An Atlas GP40-2 and an Atlas SD45-2. The SD45 is much more prototypical.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SBCA wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Having a 12-18 inch shelf is one thing, 30" takes over the room. This is a professional office not a den.Which is exactly why I'd reconsider a layout in there. Not so much for not looking like you're a kid playing with trains (which is what some of your clients WILL think for sure), but also because it could be a major distraction. (I know for me, this forum is a bad enough temptation throughout the workday, I couldn't possibly imagine dealing with a layout in the office too!)Just some food for thought...
SpaceMouse wrote: Having a 12-18 inch shelf is one thing, 30" takes over the room. This is a professional office not a den.
Having a 12-18 inch shelf is one thing, 30" takes over the room. This is a professional office not a den.
Which is exactly why I'd reconsider a layout in there. Not so much for not looking like you're a kid playing with trains (which is what some of your clients WILL think for sure), but also because it could be a major distraction. (I know for me, this forum is a bad enough temptation throughout the workday, I couldn't possibly imagine dealing with a layout in the office too!)
Just some food for thought...
I have to agree. I think of it the same way as I would if I walked into a professional's office on the 10th floor of an office tower and saw a telescope aimed downward toward an apartment building across the way. Just raises too many eyebrows.
I dunno, Chip, but if I were having clients come to my home, I would have a fully focused and dedicated space devoted to my business interaction with them. Maybe a family portrait, a sample rack in handy reach, a pamphlet and reference library on shelving. But hobby stuff...I wouldn't. If there is no other way for you to have the hobby in your circumstances, then I would partition it off with folding dividers or drapery.
My neighbor's layout has one section under a mountain that has a 12" radius. His motive power is primarily six axle locomotives. We run 40 plus car unit trains and intermodal through that tunnel with no problems. One specifically is a 44 car coal train with three SD90's up front.
You had mentioned that you could cover the end loop to hide the tighter radius curves. Do a 13" radius to be safe, then build a removable mountain to cover it.
If you're still nervous about it, use four axle power and it won't be a problem.
One of the things that got me actively back into the hobby, was the purchase of a used Con Cor Big Boy. When I first got it, I laid a loop of track on a small platform and Rapido track with 9" radius corners. Guess what, that locomotive went around those curves just fine. Granted, it looked goofy with the drivers at odd angles to the boiler, both engines swivel, but it never derailed.
Just something to think about.
dad1218 wrote: Have you considered Z or TT. Don't know what kind of selection there is any either one. Gary
Gary
For TT I believe the answer is "none", it's been a dead scale for years. Besides it was slightly larger than N-scale so it doesn't really solve SpM's problem; it think is was something like 1:120 vs 1:160.
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
For freight, you might consider a MP15 or NW2 switcher. Such engines were sometimes used for branch line service as well as yard service. Of course such a engine would be somewhat questionable for passenger service even if lettered for Amtrak. But it would cut the radius down about as far as possible.
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/223-2311
As for the auto-reversing, this is available in HO
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/160-401
It could be fit into the space, but might not be what you want.
If you move back in time, 2-6-0's and 4-4-0's are available in N-scale
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/150-41600
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/160-11751
selector wrote: I have to agree. I think of it the same way as I would if I walked into a professional's office on the 10th floor of an office tower and saw a telescope aimed downward toward an apartment building across the way. Just raises too many eyebrows.
The thing is, 95% of what I do is writing articles to get known and interacting with clients over the phone or via Skype. The other 5% is local people. Most of them either don't care because they know me, or will do the phone thing. I don't plan this to be an on going project that will be years in the making. I plan to be done with it in a couple weekends. (yeah right).
But you're right. It's just that when I'm writing, the clicking is very smoothing on my psyche.
CHIPPER:
Apparently KAH-toe makes 12 3/8 radius and 13 3/4 radius track.
It's sectional with roadbed, but much higher quality than Botchmann. you should be getting something out of the deal - giving up your basement.
If that doesn't fly, suggest using the Living Room for your desk and storage. Everyone has their price.
As to be expected, the tighter the layout curve, the more selective it will be for your engine.
http://www.internethobbies.com/kanscunpr.html . You could do worse.
exPalaceDog wrote:...2) If one wants to view the layout from across the room, N-scale may be a problem. Since the equipment is so small, it may be hard to see....
...2) If one wants to view the layout from across the room, N-scale may be a problem. Since the equipment is so small, it may be hard to see....
I get so tired of hearing this kind of comment. Why not say "Stick with HO, any idiot can model in HO!... All you have to do is buy it off the rack!"
There's truth in both comments, but (aside from me just now) you rarely hear the latter... The issue Chip is facing is one of space, not the size of the equipment. N scale offers many benefits for the circumstance he's working with. If this new project is on a par with his HO work, the viewer will see a beautiful landscape with trains moving through it no matter where in the room he is standing.
Regarding motive power, the industry minimum standard is generally 9-3/4" radius. I have some Kato SD-40's and 45's, and they do okay on 11", but you have coupler issues because of the overhang and the body-mounted couplers. Any Atlas or Kato 4 axle road diesel would be fine under these circumstances.
Just keep your theme appropriate to your available terrain, and you can make a very respectable looking and running layout. The Atlas code 80 flex is good, basic track, but since it is a smallish layout, I'd humbly suggest you take a look at their code 55 track, which is economical, practical, durable, and a million times better looking. It is also available in a wide variety of sectional track, with curved pieces starting at 10" r.
Anyway, good luck with the project, and keep us posted. If you need a hand designing an N track plan, let me know. It can be hard to plan for a scale that you're not used to.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
exPalaceDog wrote:2) If one wants to view the layout from across the room, N-scale may be a problem. Since the equipment is so small, it may be hard to see.
Oh, come on... N scale isn't that small!
Honestly, viewing N scale from across the room is a lot like how we often view trains in real life. Granted, we may do a lot of trackside railfanning, but how often have you paced a train on the other side of a creek or that parallels a highway a small distance from the road?
If you're wanting to count rivets, you won't do that from across the room in any scale. You'll be right up next to the layout.
Conversely, I've sometimes intentionally viewed my layout from across the room just to get a sense of trains moving through scenery, rather than a sense of what reporting marks are on which class of car.
Sorry for "dog piling" on you, old dog! But I just think N scale isn't as small as people make it out to be. People in other scales are often so accustomed to calling N scale too tiny that they start to believe it themselves.
As long as those Chinese guys can paint a full landscape on a grain of rice, Chip can do N scale!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave Vollmer wrote: As long as those Chinese guys can paint a full landscape on a grain of rice, Chip can do N scale!
I Knew It!!!
N-scale is a communist plot.
Okay, I've looked all over the net and I haven't found the answer. what years of service would a 3 bay 90-ton coal hopper be in use. I know that they are in use for as much as 40 years.
First the context. This layout takes up 12 vertical inches in the middle of a custom shelving unit. On the left, below the layout is a 3-foot wide horizontal file cabinet. Above the layout is a 4-foot wide 55 gallon terrarium. The rest of the space is book shelves and cabinets.
Well, I started at 13" radii, but I found it would not work in terms of reversing the track to get in front of the window. I gradually lowered the radius until I got it to fit with caveats. I had to split the double bridge before it cleared the window.
I have an S-turn, but I figure I can bend it a little and get about a 1 1/2 straight without dropping below 11.5 radius.
The bridge is about 6" above the landscape below, a river bed. The idea is that the bridge and the 3/4" support is all that blocks the view out.
Looking good! That's an interesting track plan. Nice for lazy running.
I would advise against burying your staging like that, though. Particularly the turnouts. If keeping turnouts visible is a good rule of thumb in HO, it's THE LAW in N scale. You'd have to fool with detection circuits and automated switches, and worst, you'd have to trust your memory as to which track was set! You have to remember that N scale physics are a little different than HO. One false bump against the benchwork, and you'll be clearing a major wreck back there. Also, the tracks appear to be too short to be really functional.
I would suggest adding a narrow shelf (a 1x6 perhaps) that can serve as a staging yard "off-site" along either of the two walls. You could probably stow what you need on 3 tracks about 4' long, and just break a switch into the main line to provide access. Better yet, create a wye so trains can come and go from staging in both directions...
wm3798 wrote: Looking good! That's an interesting track plan. Nice for lazy running. I would advise against burying your staging like that, though. Particularly the turnouts. If keeping turnouts visible is a good rule of thumb in HO, it's THE LAW in N scale. You'd have to fool with detection circuits and automated switches, and worst, you'd have to trust your memory as to which track was set! You have to remember that N scale physics are a little different than HO. One false bump against the benchwork, and you'll be clearing a major wreck back there. Also, the tracks appear to be too short to be really functional. I would suggest adding a narrow shelf (a 1x6 perhaps) that can serve as a staging yard "off-site" along either of the two walls. You could probably stow what you need on 3 tracks about 4' long, and just break a switch into the main line to provide access. Better yet, create a wye so trains can come and go from staging in both directions...Lee
Lee,
You're right, of course. Although it is not as bad as seems because you don't have all the info. I will have 6" of access via a cabinet door along the left wall and will be able to see trains come and go. On my last layout I wired all the turnouts with DPDT switches as well as MOMs and used LEDs to show how the switches were thrown. That leaves only the one covered turnout on the right-most side of staging. That can be reached from up and under and seen through the tunnel opening. Not a good situation for sure. I understand the bumping of benchwork aspect of N scale, but remember this won't be ordinary benchwork. It will be a solid piece of furniture with at 200 pound terrarium and books above it.
I don't have space along either wall that I can use for staging. On one side I have a fireplace and on the other I have a sliding glass window. I posted a room diagram back on page one, but I can't expect anyone to remember.
As you can see, I plan zero switching for this layout. The beauty of this layout is that it is timeless. I could run 1920's or 2007. Staging allows me to change eras without fiddling. Because of the limited radius, Amtrak is out.
When I look at it closer, I see that if I ran solely off the extreme left turnout, I could get almost 4 feet of stub staging. I'll try to post that modification later today.
Chip,
I have one suggestion for your staging area.
Move the second turnout, lower left, from the diverging track to the outer track. This will increase the length of your shortest siding, have no effect on the middle siding, and shorten the outer siding by just the length of the turnout itself.
There would be sufficient room the keep the minimum radius in that area near what you have now.
SpaceMouse wrote: As you can see, I plan zero switching for this layout. The beauty of this layout is that it is timeless. I could run 1920's or 2007. Staging allows me to change eras without fiddling. Because of the limited radius, Amtrak is out.
This might solve your passenger train problem
http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=Overton&CatID=TNRP
Will you have room to lift the scenery off?
I used two layers of foam on my layout. Two inch foam for the base and a one inch piece on top of that. I layered and shape my upper scenery, then removed it and cut through the one inch layer to form key blocks. I applied glue to the key blocks and set the mountains in place.
Once the glue dried, I could remove the mountains for access to hidden staging and to allow track maintenance.
I use Sculptamold to cover the styrofoam. I found that putting plastic wrap down, prevents the covering from gluing the removable sections to the base as the Sculptamold sets.
By having the mountains covering both ends removable, it makes clearing "oops's" alot easier.
If your vertical area is limited, use two layers of one inch foam.
Here it is with the revised staging and S-turn.
After posting my last reply, I realized pictures would help.
This is one of the lift off's on my layout.
In place:
Removed:
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
R. T. POTEET wrote:Mouse, I will go along with Dave V.'s suggestion that 13" should probably be your minimum radius if you are intent on going the AMTRAK route. Disguise or no-disguise, anything less than that and you are (operationally) going to be asking for trouble. To avoid 'lurch' on the curve you are going to need to install one of these spring-restrainer kits on your last car in order to keep your train from bucking as the front cars want to slow down due to friction and the rear cars try to maintain speed.
RT,
I've pretty much given up on the Amtrak idea. That particular vision was mostly running the opposite a freight on a dual main. Once I moved to a single track branch line, I gave up the idea of passenger service.
Mike,
My vertical is limited a foot above is the terrarium.
I can access the track from below though. At best I can expect to be able to lift off derailed cars. At least with the new plan, I won't have to maintain turnouts.
That's a very effective lift-off by the way.
exPalaceDog wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: As you can see, I plan zero switching for this layout. The beauty of this layout is that it is timeless. I could run 1920's or 2007. Staging allows me to change eras without fiddling. Because of the limited radius, Amtrak is out. This might solve your passenger train problemhttp://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/160-11751http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=Overton&CatID=TNRPHave fun
SpaceMouse wrote: I've pretty much given up on the Amtrak idea. That particular vision was mostly running the opposite a freight on a dual main. Once I moved to a single track branch line, I gave up the idea of passenger service.
As shown above, passenger service might be possible if one is willing to move back in time.
For freight
http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=36'+Box&CatID=TNRF&Page=1
http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=36'+Reefer&CatID=TNRF
http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=36%27+Stockcar&CatID=TNRF
It looks like one could do a "old time" branch fairly easily. Hoppers, gondolas, and flats might be a problem. And there is NO rule that one could NOT scratch build rolling stock in N-scale.