The "N" Crowd

[RR Redneck]

I'll tell you fellas if it weren't for N scale, I never would have come back to scale modeling.

[ngn47]

This is a great idea and a noble effort.

I was wondering if we could get a push from all N-Scale(rs) for more layouts in Kalmbach's

"Great Model Railroads" annual publication? I am disappointed that they only have one N-Scale layout and eight HO layouts. I believe that there are a lot of great (if not fantastic) layouts worthy

included in that issue. 

[Anonymous]

My wife decided to have a Christmas "Open House"  next Wednesday evening and that was a spur to get me off my duff and laying some track so I could have some trains running.

Happily, I ran a test engine last night over the main loop and it passed initial testing. A few rough spots (in fact, I tore out one 3' section this morning) but I think I can run trains.   I'll post some pics to my web site soon, but frankly, pics of the track in place isn't that exciting.

However, I did have to solve one interesting problem regarding a scenery block on the peninsula and the solution I came up with may be helpful to other N scalers (or other scales, too) so I went ahead and took some pics and put them on the site:

http://www.ironpeng.com/nscalelayout/block.html

Mike Tennent

Great pics.  Thanks for sharing them.  It's pics like this that motivate me.

 Rob

[Anonymous]

The question was asked about the operational issues of body mount compared to truck mount couplers.  I do feel that on layouts with wider radii and capabilities of longer trains, that body mount couplers might be preferred.  I have a small out and back switching layout with some tight switching moves.  The truck mount couplers are much better on my layout.

[Anonymous]

My wife decided to have a Christmas "Open House"  next Wednesday evening and that was a spur to get me off my duff and laying some track so I could have some trains running.

Happily, I ran a test engine last night over the main loop and it passed initial testing. A few rough spots (in fact, I tore out one 3' section this morning) but I think I can run trains.   I'll post some pics to my web site soon, but frankly, pics of the track in place isn't that exciting.

However, I did have to solve one interesting problem regarding a scenery block on the peninsula and the solution I came up with may be helpful to other N scalers (or other scales, too) so I went ahead and took some pics and put them on the site:

http://www.ironpeng.com/nscalelayout/block.html

Mike Tennent

[RR Redneck]

I am modeling Southern Pacific in 1950 in my home county, DeWitt. I have a small 4x8 layout that was originally HO, but I quickly tired of HO. I like N scale much better, more action on less space.

[nscaler711]

RR Redneck you do have a point there they are cool to watch............... at speeds up to 15 mph any faster and i get dizzy from looking at the drivers go round and round

[RR Redneck]

Sadly that is an aspect that my cousin Derrick, fails to understand.

[Anonymous]

While I'm not new to model railroading, I've only been in N for about 4 and a half years, so this question may sound supremely dumb...

Do body-mounted couplers work better on backup moves than truck-mounted?

In HO I only ever used body-mounts and so it was never an issue.  But in N, most of my freight cars have truck-mounted couplers, and I find backing a long train into a spur through even #6 switches sometimes causes derailments.  The track is as close to flawless as I can get it.  I'm thinking it has to be the truck-mounted couplers...  possible?

My locals tend to be long and I'm often spotting a car that's as many as 10-15 cars back of the loco, and oft times it's the number 6 or 8 car that derails on the backup move, usually on a switch.  The switches are all in gauge and operate just fine when the train is rolling forward.  Based on the angle it which the wheels leave the rails it looks like it's a torue thing from pushing on the truck rather than the body.

Good gosh, I'm not looking forward to the bill for so many body-mounted couplers.

Yes, I know in the past I'd advocated truck-mounted couplers in N...    That was before I'd developed an operating scheme for the layout beyond watching the trains chase their cabin cars!  To those who help the opposing view, go ahead...  you can say "I told you so!"

 Dave,

Yes, it's true that body mount couples help prevent derailments.  If you are experiencing derailments while backing it is most likely due to the pressure of a long train on the trucks.  It is the trucks that are being pushed instead of the bodies.  When the bodies get pushed the trucks just have to do the rolling and turning but not the pushing.  The biggest problem with N scale body mounts couples is that the height needs to be aligned just right.  Wishing you the best.

 Rob

[RR Redneck]

I am a steam nut, I got nothing against diesels, I just like steam better. More exciting to watch them run.

[nscaler711]

Dekruif i also am in high school and i dont really care for steamers cause they are not the cleanest way of transporting goods and peoples. im all about early 90's and 2000's locomotives. but ill end up buying a decrepit for an transportation musem.

[RR Redneck]

I belive the standard Clearnence needed for N scale is around 2 inches. Also my Grandfather Passed away this morning(Dec 14) He was an Avid N scaler and the one that got me into Trains

My condolances. I know how you feel pardner.

[Bill54]

R T Poteet,      I was thinking about going with the body mount but have decided to stay with the truck mounted couplers for now. 

I read the MR article where they used Z scale couplers on N cars because they look closer to prototipical but with their size I would be concerned over the possibility of them disconnecting when going over any minor hump in the trackwork.  Those things are really tiny! 

Dave,     You and RT Poteet make those changes to the couplers and let us know how they turn out.

 

I have another question: What is the perfered size radius for passenger cars?

 I'm planning on using mostly 18" and 20" on the main and 13" and 15" on spurs and #6 turnouts.   I thought about possibly running passengers sometime in the future, do you think this will work?

Bill

[SOU Fan]

While I'm not new to model railroading, I've only been in N for about 4 and a half years, so this question may sound supremely dumb...

Do body-mounted couplers work better on backup moves than truck-mounted?

In HO I only ever used body-mounts and so it was never an issue.  But in N, most of my freight cars have truck-mounted couplers, and I find backing a long train into a spur through even #6 switches sometimes causes derailments.  The track is as close to flawless as I can get it.  I'm thinking it has to be the truck-mounted couplers...  possible?

My locals tend to be long and I'm often spotting a car that's as many as 10-15 cars back of the loco, and oft times it's the number 6 or 8 car that derails on the backup move, usually on a switch.  The switches are all in gauge and operate just fine when the train is rolling forward.  Based on the angle it which the wheels leave the rails it looks like it's a torue thing from pushing on the truck rather than the body.

Good gosh, I'm not looking forward to the bill for so many body-mounted couplers.

I think they operate nicer. I only have a foot and a half by three and a half foot layout so I don't have very much rolling stock. -dekruif

[Dave Vollmer]

While I'm not new to model railroading, I've only been in N for about 4 and a half years, so this question may sound supremely dumb...

Do body-mounted couplers work better on backup moves than truck-mounted?

In HO I only ever used body-mounts and so it was never an issue.  But in N, most of my freight cars have truck-mounted couplers, and I find backing a long train into a spur through even #6 switches sometimes causes derailments.  The track is as close to flawless as I can get it.  I'm thinking it has to be the truck-mounted couplers...  possible?

My locals tend to be long and I'm often spotting a car that's as many as 10-15 cars back of the loco, and oft times it's the number 6 or 8 car that derails on the backup move, usually on a switch.  The switches are all in gauge and operate just fine when the train is rolling forward.  Based on the angle it which the wheels leave the rails it looks like it's a torque thing from pushing on the truck rather than the body.

Good gosh, I'm not looking forward to the bill for so many body-mounted couplers.

Yes, I know in the past I'd advocated truck-mounted couplers in N...    That was before I'd developed an operating scheme for the layout beyond watching the trains chase their cabin cars!  To those who held the opposing view, go ahead...  you can say "I told you so!"

[Anonymous]

This track is still avaiable for one more day, then it goes to used equipment dept. of local hobby shop.

[claymore1977]

Thanks for all your replies guys, good info to have.  Still trying to (vainly) find away around those horrid grades.  I believe I am down to about 4.8% but i think thats the best its gonna get.

[R. T. POTEET]

Bill54;

For reasons which I won't go into right now I recently had to tear out my layout - I will be building a new one in the future but this will probalbly be a couple of years down the road - this one will have to be portable (and convertible).  In the meantime I have some long-time-put-off projects and one of those is to take all my rolling stock and body-mount couplers.  I don't do less than 15 inch mainline radius so I have no need for talgos and body-mounts are so much better for shoving into my 9 inch  (or less - but not much less) industrial tracks.  I recently bought some Z-Scale couplers to body mount on my equipment but haven't go around to it yet.  The article in the latest MR has convinced me that that is the way I want to go, however. 

[R. T. POTEET]

curtw_944;

I can sympathize with you; steam-era cars are indeed at a premium and since Horizon acquired MDC, have become almost non-existent.  I am in the market for some pre-WWI hoppers (or gondolas) so I can construct a coal yard circa the forties or fifties.  Roundhouse had just what I needed but Horizon isn't even listing them these days.  I didn't even decide I wanted to do this item until they were already off the market.  Believe me, if I can lay my hands on just one (hopper or gondola) I'm  going to use it as a master, make me a silicon rubber mold, and cast me a couple of dozen just to have some on hand for any future projects.

[pcarrell]

Dave,

4% is usually about tops, and even at that a loco is going to be lucky to get more then one car at a time up it.  5-6% is probably a loco only type deal.

Dave,

 P is right but alot has to do with the weight of the cars and weather the grade is on a curve. I have seen pictures of a small layout run between 3-5 "empty" cars up a 6% grade. It was a loging layout and the main motive power were atlas Steam loco's.

My own personal layout is going to have a 5-6 % grade more then likely, I still havent finnalized my track plan. Big supprize there but it is a mining opperation and it will be fulls down and empty's up. But any way have to run,

Curt

I guess I was making the assumption that the grade would be on a curve as the proposed layout is to be 2x4.  The points you make Curt, are correct.  One thing to keep in mind though is that you can lighten the cars to make them easier to get up the hill, but if you make them too light they won't track well and they'll derail easily.  It's a delicate balance.

[Anonymous]

Dave,

4% is usually about tops, and even at that a loco is going to be lucky to get more then one car at a time up it.  5-6% is probably a loco only type deal.

Dave,

 P is right but alot has to do with the weight of the cars and weather the grade is on a curve. I have seen pictures of a small layout run between 3-5 "empty" cars up a 6% grade. It was a loging layout and the main motive power were atlas Steam loco's.

My own personal layout is going to have a 5-6 % grade more then likely, I still havent finnalized my track plan. Big supprize there but it is a mining opperation and it will be fulls down and empty's up. But any way have to run,

Curt

[pcarrell]

Dave,

4% is usually about tops, and even at that a loco is going to be lucky to get more then one car at a time up it.  5-6% is probably a loco only type deal.

[pcarrell]

Jay, I'm sorry for your loss.

[airwolf crazy]

Jay,

 

I am sorry to read of your loss.  It is always sad to lose a loved one.  My thoughts go out to you.

 

Christopher

[Dave Vollmer]

I belive the standard Clearnence needed for N scale is around 2 inches. Also my Grandfather Passed away this morning(Dec 14) He was an Avid N scaler and the one that got me into Trains

I'm very sorry for your loss.  This is a tough(er) time of year to lose a relative. 

You're correct about 2".  That should clear about anything in N scale.

[NS2591]

I belive the standard Clearnence needed for N scale is around 2 inches. Also my Grandfather Passed away this morning(Dec 14) He was an Avid N scaler and the one that got me into Trains

[claymore1977]

 

Is double posting faux-pas around here?  Hope not.  K, heres another question for the experts:

I have desided that due to extreme space contraints, I am going to build a simple 2'x4' layout.  Nothing special except I would like to make it 2 decks, one right below the other.  I am not concerned with grade as I am not trying to model anything prototypical yet, just trying to get my feet wet in N scale and trying to make sure the locos can take a grade like 5 or 6 %

I am thinking a standard loop style, but at the back of the layout, instead of connecting the loops, there are to ramps down to the lower level.  The tracks then make most of an oval on the second level and then return to the upper level.  Think figure 8 folded with each o part of the 8 on different levels (and no crossover).
My question is this:  In order to minimize the grade, I need to make the upperdeck out of moderately thin material.  If use 2x2 stancheon style support for the upper deck, how much clearence does the loco need on the lower level and how thin can I make the upper level?  I am familiar with situation in HO, but it makes sence that this particular aspect doesnt scale down linearly...

LOL is my situation clear as mud now?  I will work on a picture if people don't understand my gibberish. 

[claymore1977]

Don't forget about the LL GP38-2.  It's touted as "DCC Friendly", but I'm not exactly sure what that means.  It might have some potential as these newer LL locos are typically very nice runners. 

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/920-75033

Other than that, Atlas is pretty rich in SP/UP/D&RGW loco offerings.

SP:  Alco C628, Alco C630, GP9, GP35, GP40, GP40-2, SD35, FM Trainmaster, B23-7, B30-7, U25B, VO-1000

UP:  GP9, GP30, GP38, GP38-2 (coming), GP40, MP15, SD7, SD24, SD60, SD60M, B23-7, 8-40B, U25B, H16-44, VO-1000

D&RGW:  GP9, GP40, SD7, SD50, H16-44,

Thanks for the advice and linkage!

[NS2591]

Hi, that's the answer I wanted to hear; I've only seen pictures of the new code55 #10 turnout and it did look good.

 

Shaun 

The #10's do look awesome!

Here's a #5 Atlas code 55 turnout from a former layout.  You can see the frog real well in this shot.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/N%20Scale%20Trains/Model%20Power%204-4-0%20Camelback/4-4-0Camelback.jpg

The 10s are awesome I have 3 of them and I love them all. I needed one more but the sold out and are unknown when they will be in so I'm going to have to settle for 7s for now. They are big though Almost 9 inches. I love em though If you have the space and your modeling modern day Thats the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Curt, not bumpers this is a piece you slip on the end of the flex track after it has been cut.