Thoughts on a new N Scale layout

tony22 Jan 27, 2014

  1. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    I've been without a layout for a while. Partly time (work), partly travel (work), but mostly because every time I look around the house it seems there's no place to put anything big enough that I'd be happy with. I'm not talking Empire sized layouts, but something a little bigger than 2x4.

    So while I was in my office at home (I spend quite a bit of time there:frustrated:), I happened to be getting out of my chair when I looked around and smacked myself in the head. I do have room for a layout! That is, if I clear some of the unnecessary (and I do mean unnecessary) junk out of my office. I have a large L-shaped desk furniture setup that runs along two walls. The one wall is a desk but has one of those riser jobbies that gives you storage above the desk, so that's out. The other has a large two row filing cabinet with printers on top. But above that there's... nothing! And the wall (really an outset pair of windows) on that adjoining side is also free.

    This leaves me with a 32" x 66" area for the space above the low filing drawers and a 16" x 70" extension on the left side of the first. I'll be posting AnyRail notional layouts in a bit so you all can get a better picture of what I can work with. The 16" part will overlap 4" across the front left edge of the 66" wide part. That will get me a small interface where I can create a link between the two sections. Plan is for the two pieces to be separable and built out of foam board so I can move them if needed.

    During the time sans layout I've been buying Atlas Code 55 stuff and some new DCC motive power, converting my old fleet to DCC, picking up structures and freight cars etc. This means I have a lot of stuff that won't work in this smaller space, but I want to have some chance of being able to run as much as I can. This would sort of lead me away from tight minimum radius layouts with more track (and in theory more opportunities for operation), but the tradeoff becomes a somewhat more "open" plan. So I'm starting with that "druther" although as the plan evolves I could make it a bit more track heavy and remove the possibility of running some of my larger stuff. I was previously working on a larger plan that was supposed to go into the "spare" bedroom but that's never going to happen. This one has a much better chance of getting done. Oh, and the added kicker is that I will try to put together a plan that does not require any Atlas Code 55 beyond what I already have. It's actually quite a bit, more than I could plan into a space like this I think - but with some tricky limitations. For example I have no #5 LH turnouts. Not gonna wait for Atlas to pull some miracle and create any in the near future.

    So while all this is going through my head I happened upon this thread

    http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?155296-N-scale-30-quot-x48-quot

    and saw once again some great suggestions by David K. Smith. I particularly liked some of what I saw in Post #9 so I started with that for the 32" x 66" part. I like the idea of an elevated spur to give my Shay and other small beasts something to do (yep I'm going to have to drop a TCS Z2 or Lenz Silver+ Mini in that one). But I also would like some way to turn my motive gear around.

    I was thinking in the shelf sized piece of trying to get a smaller turntable (like the Peco) along with some small industries and some small yard capability. Ambitious but I want to keep aspects of this simple - no multi-level or hidden staging. Anyway, that's the starter for this look at a new plan for a new space. When I get home I'll post some very preliminary plans.
     
  2. modle-a

    modle-a TrainBoard Member

    51
    2
    6
    cool man looking forward to see what you come up with.
     
  3. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    We'll be looking forward to seeing these plans!
     
  4. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    Here's the crudest of initial looks. You can see the 32x66 upper section and the 16x70 lower section. The gray rectangle in the upper left is the wall; the shelf will actually go most of the way into a recess where the two room windows are located, with 4" of overlap into the upper section. You can see that where the left turnout from the upper portion of the layout leads into the top right corner of the shelf.

    You can see the remaining turnouts placed on the page. I have 5 #5 Right, 4 #7 Right, 1 #7 Left, 2 #10 Left, 2 #10 Right, and 2 each of Right and Left Curved. All Atlas Code 55. I don't intend to use them all, but that's what I have remaining for planning.

    You can see my attempt at placing a Peco TT on the shelf. I really want some way to turn my motive power. I didn't think there was space for either a wye or a reverse loop without eating up too much main layout space. The idea for the shelf would be to have engine servicing features and a small yard along the back as shown, and the unconnected diverging path of the #7 Left along the upper right side of the shelf would be the start of industries etc. Gotta work on that tomorrow.

    I was struggling with the length of the yard tracks for a layout this size, versus how to deal with a runaround. You can see I went with building a runaround before the throat to the yard tracks. In this way I could get a runaround long enough to deal with the longest yard track. But it's not ideal because I really don't have much of a switching lead behind the runaround. Although if I keep the trains shorter than the max length of the runaround tracks I might be able to switch cars without backing into that main industry turnout. If I had gone with longer yard tracks with runarounds down there I don't think I could have created a long enough switching lead to back trains in and out of the yard. There's also the practical question of how much of a yard do I need for a layout of this size. The leads off the TT are not yet all in place, although there won't be too many more.

    The main portion of the layout looks a lot like Mr. Smith's (thanks David). I like it, but it may be more clear what I was saying about wanting to go with a larger mainline radius - in this case 14". I could squeeze a lot more stuff in that space if I went with 12" or 10" but then I'm really limiting myself in the choices for motive power. On the other hand, with all of this unused space what's a larger piece of motive power going to do with fewer places to go? For those who hadn't seen the other thread where this plan was provided, that spur coming off the back and wrapping around to the upper left will be elevated above the two tracks in that area.

    So what's a guy to do with balancing the desire for a reasonable amount of mainline operations with wanting to be able to run at least his brass I-1 Decopods every so often? I've already consigned myself to the reality that my EM-1 and Y3 will never touch this layout.


    office_plan_1a.jpg
     
  5. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    I might make a couple of suggestions. First, I really do think you have the real estate for a wye, and if this is used instead of the turntable, you have more room for a longer yard and possibly a serviceable yard lead. As for having the EM-1 and Y3 on the layout, you can always run a big double-track mainline vertically along the left edge, and connect an interchange track to it. The mainline would just be for show, although the interchange could add more ops options.

    Kind of like this--

    [​IMG]

    Note that I mirrored the main layout in order to keep as many switches close to the front edge as possible to minimize reach issues. This also places the higher-elevation track towards the back, which allows the industries on the lower level to be up front.

    Note, however, that I did not inventory your entire switch collection, so I don't know if you have what's needed to build this (assuming you would want to anyway).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2014
  6. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    Argh! I was planning on looking like a genius by suggesting this myself after I looked at it last night after posting. I started flipping and mirroring the main table for just that purpose. Now I just look like I'm trying to look smart.:uhoh:

    Unfortunately here at work I can't seem to see the pics you post, David. I'll have to wait until I get home to take a look.

    ...edit...

    So since I have a couple of more minutes during lunch I figured I'd add some info I should have had in my original. May help in where I go from here.

    The roadname is PRR (for those who may not have guessed when I mentioned the Decs), with appearances by other lines from the same general area and which may have interchanged with PRR back in the day.

    Given the size I was thinking of a PRR branch that handled small scale coal or logging, but which would interface to a more major PRR point. I'd like to account for occasional appearances of something bigger than an RS-1. Supporting industries for the product would be mainly located on the shelf with a correctly sized yard. Occasional passenger train would also be nice but I think that's pushing it.

    Ability to turn motive power already mentioned.

    While I haven't looked at your suggested mod yet, David, I did see your comment about the mainline being just for show. Not sure how I feel about that. I could consider coming down from a 14" mainline radius if it would provide opportunity for more ops on the main - 12" might be the limit but even that seems too small. I have to deal with reality, however.

    Layout will be DCC controlled. Turnouts will likely be via Caboose ground throws or that slide switch method. Let me see... what else?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2014
  7. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Well, if you're after the look of the PRR, then you can't get by without a four-track mainline... somewhere, at least. I think when you see the images, you'll understand what I'm talking about with regards to the mainline. And about the only way to get even a token bit of PRR mainline on a layout this size is by using a "trick." As for the rest of the layout, it certainly must be representative of a tiny branchline, either PRR-owned or a separate entity. I've tweaked the plan a little bit to get you some true PRR flavor; I honestly can't see any other way to impart an authentic feeling.

    [​IMG]

    The PRR mainline is in blue, and I would envision it raised above the yard in the foreground by maybe an inch; the interchange (aqua) would then gently slope down to meet the branchline yard.
     
  8. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    I'm dying here! I won't be able to see your plans until I get home. Looking forward to these; I suspect I know how you may have created the "look" of a four track main - although I'd be okay with imagining my tiny PRR branchline is in the deepwoods somewhere in PA.
     
  9. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Can you see this?

    el_6a.jpg
     
  10. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    Yes, thanks! Can you edit this post and add the one from Post #5?

    What's weird is I can see my own plan in Post #4.
     
  11. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    It's exactly the same, except the four-track mainline is a two-track mainline.
     
  12. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Here's a variation on the yard design; makes better use of the space and is (possibly) more interesting.

    el_6b.jpg

    And here's a link to the AnyRail file, just in case: http://davidksmith.com/images/el_6b.any
     
  13. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    Thanks David. In response to a previous question about what I have on hand in terms of trackage:

    4 LH Curved
    3 RH Curved
    10 RH #5
    5 LH #7
    8 RH #7
    2 RH #10
    2 LH #10
    1 #2.5 Wye

    Thanks much for the different plans. I will be looking them over tonight.

    Gaa! That last one uses 10 #5 LH turnouts. I don't have any!:crying:
     
  14. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
  15. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    Wow, how do you do this Dave? I have to pour over the pages of Armstrong's Track Planning book and every other planning book I have before I think I have some idea of what to do. You're some kind of layout planning genie or something. :)

    There's a lot to think about here, so once again thanks. Yes the last layout will fit within the restrictions of my current stock of turnouts, but the limits on the yard are interesting. If I look at the total track length available for the yard in each plan (6b and 6c) and assume the yard should really never be more than 50% full (I think I read that somewhere), the capacity of 6b is about 22 40' cars. 6c would be about 14. Now given the number of setouts that exist for local pick ups and drop offs 6c may not really be too bad in terms of yard storage.

    About the elevated spur, how would you see the landscape build-up to support that? With the original plan the spur would have been supported at the end by an elevated hillside that would have had either the suggestion of a forest to support the logging, or a small mine structure. But in either case the hillside would make sense since the track below would be covered. With this new direction the spur looks like it would have to be supported by a much trickier bit of landscape that "falls away" as you approach the trestle at the left end of the spur.
     
  16. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Yes, the landscape would fall away to the left--one reason I placed the stream there, to indicate the general direction of the slope, as well as its irregular shape. But I would not call it "tricky"; the upper track only needs to be elevated ~2", or roughly 25 scale feet. Assuming some land rises above the upper track, you've got maybe a 50' total change in elevation--not "high drama" by any means. Most trees are taller! Slap down a couple of sheets of 2" extruded foam, and you're practically there. For reference, use the satellite view of the Appalachians in Pennsylvania, and you can get an idea of what the terrain is like in the area you're modeling--this pales by comparison. Also... run the tail end of the spur "off" the edge of the layout to suggest it continues; the purpose of the bridge then becomes more interesting.
     
  17. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    What are your thoughts on what an appropriate number of cars would be for this layout? I'm figuring 12-15 freight cars at best on the main portion of the layout.
     
  18. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Sounds about right to me. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not necessarily the best person to ask that; I'm not hard-core ops enough to know for sure.
     
  19. Backshop

    Backshop TrainBoard Member

    360
    1
    12
    I'm somewhat unclear on where the walls abut the layout space. Whole left side, rectangle in corner, upper siide, and right side? In essence everwhere the layout benchwork touches the edge of the plan is wall?
     
  20. tony22

    tony22 TrainBoard Member

    446
    1
    16
    No. The upper left gray rectangle is the wall boundary on that side. The top of the layout is the other wall boundary. The left side of the shelf portion is a "boundary" in that it is inset into a window box. The big grayed out section is operator space; I can't extend the layout into that area.

    I'm still here, BTW. Been traveling a bit for work and I'm still working on variations to what's been shown. I've been playing with shifting the focus of the main section to being more of a yard / engine service capability with continuous running, and having the shelf serve more as where the small support industries might mix with a switchback type rise to a logging of mining location.
     

Share This Page