Hello all, I am coming back to the scene after taking many years off. I figured I would start simple and build a small 2x4 layout. It would be a simple way to running some trains and there are plenty of track plans available. My subject would be the Los Angles Junction in Vernon California. I grew up around BNSF and just love the grundge that area has. Heavy industy, traffic and the LA river. I was thinking of using this track plan from steves trains. Obviously its a tad bigger than 2x4. The plan would to then stretch it to a 3x5. That would give me a bit more room and less likley for trains to hit the ground. However, Bryon Henderson threw a wrench into my plans. https://www.layoutvision.com/why-waste-the-space-on-a-4x8 He talks about how you can make a much more realistic layout with bigger curves and more complex operations that takes up the same space (if Less) than a 4x8. or in my case a 3x5. It really got me thinking that this might be a better way togo. I would hate to start a project and down the line regret it. Have any of you gone down this rabbit hole lol? I know this is more of a ramble and truly it comes down to what I want but i was truly blown away with what happens when you excape the rectangle a bryon puts it.
2x4 is just about the bare minimum to do anything in N scale. A 3x5 layout would almost double the area and offer many more possibilities. In theory, the famous 5x9 HO Granite Gorge & Northern track plan could be translated to N scale and still fit in a 3x5 space.
Yeah, if you have the space spreading it out and putting the operator in the center gets you bigger curves. Good planning if you have the space. For me part of the appeal of the small 2x4 is the portability. You can easily pick it up and move it to another location. You loose some of that when you start to open it up.
As with just about everything in life, compromises are inevitable. There are, so called "work arounds" that may provide one with a better solution to a problem. If lack of space is a problem and the 2x4 layout is not your preferred cup of tea one could always join an existing club. N scale clubs used to be few and far between but N scale has really exploded in the last couple of decades so a club may be within reach. Alternatively, that 2X4 layout makes a basic Ntrak module. that is easily transportable to Ntrak setups. Same goes for Ttrak which has come on like gangbusters of late. The typical N scaler usually has dreams of long trains snaking along broad curves through a vast expanse of layout. If you stifle that dream to the confines of a 2x4 layout, well, there aren't enough 'mea culpas' to cover that. Another alternative is Z scale. Naturally, one gives up something in any compromise so that is where one's priorities come into play. Bear in mind, however, that even priorities are subject to compromises.
Most layouts can be made "better" by enlarging them, unless considering portability, or suitability for a small space. I've also noticed that the illustrations showing that comparison almost always omit closet doors and windows. When considering these obstacles, the advantage of an around-the walls layout is not nearly as clear cut. If the layout shares space with a bed in the bedroom, there goes the around-the walls layout, since the bedroom door and a suitable escape window must remain unobstructed. And the argument is usually based on HO scale, which needs a 4x8 foot space for a minimal layout. N scale does not need as much space to make a very nice layout, while still leaving the bed in the bedroom. A nice N scale layout can easily fit on an interior hollow core door. If the door is pre-hung, the frame can even be mounted on the wall (hinge side out, and on the bottom), and the layout can be "closed" up against the wall when not in use, keeping the primary purpose of the bedroom intact. You could even leave a dresser, or a twin bed, up against the wall under the layout (assuming a 36" wide door for the latter.) Use light-weight chains to support the ends of the door from the frame when open.
My '2x4 foot' layout became almost 3x4 feet in the planning stage. Ultimately I ended up with a 33" x 48" layout with a scenic divider in the middle: The divider lets me have two scenes: one side (bottom half) will be downtown Los Angeles with crowded urban switching, and the other (top) side will be a more rural citrus grower a la Somis or Ventura. For now both sides of the divider are still un-scenicked Styrofoam wastelands. But my point is the extra ~10" really opened up my scenery options and increased my minimum radius, all without sacrificing the ability to stow the layout in a corner when I'm not working on it (important since right now I don't have a whole room to dedicate to permanent benchwork), or toss it in the back of even my space-challenged little car (great for train shows!).
Those photos ought to be a PSA for folks (including kids) that want a train layout, but "don't have room for one!" I seem to recall that was a very nice layout when finished. And Unitrack makes the trackwork a cinch. Kato used to sell an up-and-over single-track Figure-8 Unitrack set, with graduated piers and viaducts, that would fit perfectly on a door. I purchased one to use as an add-on for the basic oval set I started out with (well, after a less than successful first start with Bachmann's Empire Builder trainset. I kept the railcars, after swapping out the Rapido couplers with Microtrains'.) I will say this: That B'mann set worked well enough to get me started! A Unitrack oval, a Kato F-Unit, and a few MT coupler/truck conversions later, I "swallowed the hook."
I used to pour over that site for countless hours! I'd pick one, and try to adapt it to Unitrack, which I used. It's expanded quite a bit since I last saw it (decade(s) ago). Thanks for pointing it out!
