new n scale layout

hawk Sep 28, 2014

  1. hawk

    hawk TrainBoard Member

    99
    0
    15
    usually I have a lot of trouble deciding on a track plan but I've found a basic plan that I think would be good with some basic changes.

    I would like it to be under 3' x 8' but could go to 3' x 8'6".
    I would like to keep the 2 separate loops and I want to use Kato unitrack

    I have the unitrack sets: M2 x1, V1 x2, V2 x1, V7 x1 and V14 x1

    I would like do a union pacific based layout and so far I have:
    athearn challenger
    Kato E9 a + b units
    Kato SD45

    I have many more loco's but they aren't UP

    so what could I add or change to the pictured layout to make it a bit more fun to operate.
    I would like a couple of industry spurs.
    also should add that the yard side will be the only side not against a wall.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. PaulBeinert

    PaulBeinert TrainBoard Supporter

    622
    1
    13
    Hawk,
    Having the yard side against the wall means that you have over a 30" reach to that area and that will become tiresome.

    I do like the simplicity of the layout.
     
  3. WPZephyrFan

    WPZephyrFan TrainBoard Member

    2,454
    1,633
    59
    I have to agree with Paul. If you switch your yard or use it to introduce new equipment to the layout via the yard, that's going to get old fast. I personally like my yard up in front so I can enjoy my collection of freight cars, but that's just my preference.
     
  4. RedRiverRR4433

    RedRiverRR4433 TrainBoard Member

    437
    44
    6
    Having the yard away from the wall is the only way to plan this layout. :cool:

    Shades
     
  5. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,713
    23,342
    653
    Not against a wall is a very good idea!
     
  6. WPZephyrFan

    WPZephyrFan TrainBoard Member

    2,454
    1,633
    59
    Opps, my bad. The way I read it was that the yard was the only part against a wall. I must need new glasses! :(
     
  7. hawk

    hawk TrainBoard Member

    99
    0
    15
    thanks for the replies are there any additions anyone would suggest?
     
  8. cuyama

    cuyama TrainBoard Member

    221
    3
    21
    The double-crossover location creates possibly unreliable S-curves. Ideally you'd like it to be at least a car length from each of the curves.

    Additional industry tracks would certainly provide more long-term interest.
     
  9. hawk

    hawk TrainBoard Member

    99
    0
    15
    heres a couple of different versions
     

    Attached Files:

  10. cuyama

    cuyama TrainBoard Member

    221
    3
    21
    Double-crossover s-curve still a problem with these drafts. If you decide to keep that arrangement, you should probably try it with your longer engines and cars in various combinations to see if it works reliably.
     
  11. hawk

    hawk TrainBoard Member

    99
    0
    15
    it runs fine with my challenger and kato E9's
     
  12. hawk

    hawk TrainBoard Member

    99
    0
    15
    so are there any prototype union pacific locations I could model in 3x8 ive done a google search but havnt come up with much and as im in Australia I have no real knowledge of the railways over there any help, diagrams or photos would be much appreciated.
     
  13. ken G Price

    ken G Price TrainBoard Member

    541
    24
    15
    I still do not understand the reason for having the yard at the back side of the layout. From experience, I know it is a very bad idea.
    What industries go on the short stub tracks if it is for freight?
    Number 2 layout is good, if you are just into roundy, round running with no purpose, other the watching trains go in circles.
    Freight trains? Passenger trains? If passenger, then are there yard tracks for exchanging cars, cleaning, restocking, etc?
     

Share This Page