This is a 2x4 layout our BP&S model railroad club used for display at train shows. It is two loops of Unitrack with some sidings. Very similar to the Hetek layout except not as many tracks in the yard area. Instead we opted for one long siding and a couple of large industries. The livestock yard probably should have been another building with its own siding.
Newnscaler: If the layout is still 2'x4' then you're going to have extremely narrow radius on that interior loop... about 7". That is going to be difficult on just about all N scale locomotives except for (maybe) very small 4 axle switchers. Also... you may want to straighten that 'dogleg' in the road so that the switch is not in the middle of the roadway.
What? Hey! I like spaghetti! What did you expect me to build in 2' x 4'... an empire with vast open vistas? Note in the photo that I didn't put in the two short spurs on the outer loop and removed two of the four tracks in the yard. Even I knew it was getting busy, so I adjusted as I went. Newnscaler - You're getting there but personally I wouldn't go with the 3rd inner track. Also, the crossover from the outer to the inner loop would really only work in one direction. To go back to the outer loop you would have to back up. That's why I suggested a double crossover because it works in both directions. My preference for Unitrack has advantages in the fact that if you don't like something, just take it apart and rearrange things - something that's nowhere near as easy as track (either sectional or flex) on cork roadbed. You could always build it, run some trains on it and see if you want to keep it as-is or change it. That's what I did.
Funny thing is that I just tried to edit your drawing to show you what I mean... and I ended up with MY layout! (Not my drawing but what I built in my photo)
Joining this a bit late but I offer the following for consideration http://www.gatewaynmra.org/ = look on the left side for "Project Railroads" N scale doesn't automatically convert to half the size of an HO plan, mainly due to RTR turnout dimensions - when asked I suggest that a reduction to 5/8 of the HO size is better (Multiply the original dimension by 62.5% giving a 30" x 60" board)
I got around to revising my plan. I deleted the third inner loop. How do you think it looks now? Is there too much open space in the center where the Town is? Should I add more industry in that area? The small yard at the bottom, should I keep the tracks curved as shown or change them to being straight? Look forward to your opinions.
I think you have made a good revision. You will not regret giving yourself more room for your town. It will fill up fast with a few buildings and a street. - Jeff
I think the latest is is perfect. A nice idyllic scene. You could ad more industrial spur off the other two if you wanted. Go for it and don't change a thing - is my opinion.
hi, the design is pretty close to the Fall's Mill layout by Byron Henderson; he even did a "city" scene. I would have a second look at your scenery plan and the two spurs at the left. Your town needs at least a road, probably from the left bottom to the right top (or midde). In Byron's plan you could elongate the road to the left, where it could cross the 2 tracks by roadbridges. I like the scenic divider in the middle, though it means you can't have the layout with its long side against a wall when operating. BTW one of the first posters made a remark about N-scale looking smaller. It is not just perception. It has to do with viewing angles and the distance from your eyes to the tracks. A smaller angle makes your brain wondering, hey this is small indeed. The scale distance in N-scale from your eyes is twice that of HO. So you probably have more of a helicopter view in N-scale. If you go to the entry by W. Dudler about his Pizza Plan in a thread about getting a "as tight as possible" radius in, you'll find the difference between pics from above and from eye-level is smashing. Paul
biggrin: Like the final plan, but didn't realize that it's 2x4. arghh: What was I thinking (3x5, 4x8)? For 2x4, you'll have an "intense" visual package as now planned. Not sure there are "rules" for how much scenery, what scenery, etc. is needed. I like to think that suggestion excites the imagination more than details, and a lot can be done with little (less is more-sometimes.) cool: Paulus' remarks about the effects of angle and distance of viewers' eyes is quite true to my experience. Height and room-placement of the layout is not often talked through in planning. wink: Some forms of sight separators could be used to create illusions.
One of the first facts I can remember being taught about observing, (long before I knew I have visual limitations), is that shifting the view even 1/2 an inch changes it. My mother, (an accomplished artist), pointed out everything from positive and negative spaces to depth of field, color and lighting. In my 20s when I took up photography I could really see the differences. Sometimes when people refer to "track density" it is just another version of positive / negative space. //End lesson for the day My own thoughts of scenery are: I like what is displayed currently. * Upper left corner: A cut through a low hill with possibly a part of it where there word "Industry" is between the road and the curve. * The "bulge" top center to the right of the road - Some form of sign, tower or mound with tree which would give a slight view block. * There are several places where 3" x 3" vignettes could be created.
If you want to move up in size, consider using a hollow core door and slide it under your bed. They are cheap, light weight, and stiff.
Here is a neat blog on a N scale 2'X4' layout. http://modelrailroader.ca/category/niagara-escarpment-system/
