Next N Scale Layout ...


goscrewyourselves

goscrewyourselves

I'm the one
Well, as is said - a layout is never finished and in my case, do they rarely get to a point where I can sit back and "play", there always seems to be something I want/need to change, something that doesn't look right or work as expected. And so it happens again - a "new layout" in the works.

This is the "base" idea that I am working on:

3rBDu67.jpg


As said, this is the base idea and needs (I think) a lot of work to make it look and feel interesting.

Should mention, for those who don't know or have forgotten, I am not into prototypical, operations stuff so if what I design isn't "realistic" well, that doesn't bother me so long as it works as a layout :)

Anyway - all and any ideas are welcomed (as always). Make additions, deletions or tear the whole darn thing up and start again ... I am (cough cough) hoping this will be my final build - yeah right :rolleyes:
 
Hey Tony I’m absolutely thrilled to see you back to do a layout, I thought the last layout was pretty cool but you know what you like. This is probably my 7th layout and one thing I came to realize is each Layout carry’s over the best parts I liked from previous layouts. I see you still want to do a double mainline which is fine if you can afford to give up the loss in realestate . I like the over and under rail effects. You will have some elevations to work out , I would suggest doing an open grid style with risers for the rails , start with the lowest elevation rail and raise the rails that need to give clearance over the lower rail , once the roadbed is sitting on the risers you can actually lower the lower rail and raise the upper until both work out. You have good opportunity for scenery as well as for structures and sidings if you feel the need to push some cars to and from the industries. You can see the inner corner I circled , if you plan to do fascia you will gain quite a bit of suspended real estate in that drawn circle which will assist the tight to edge rail. This is going to be fun.
 

Attachments

  • 3D67FCBD-9D7B-4DAE-A9B0-E4A92951763E.jpeg
    3D67FCBD-9D7B-4DAE-A9B0-E4A92951763E.jpeg
    52.3 KB · Views: 51
Is the new layout going in the exact same location as the new layout and is the barebones benchwork the exact same perimeter ? Looks like it.
 

Attachments

  • A0C6555F-9BC7-4F4A-AB48-731E39382347.jpeg
    A0C6555F-9BC7-4F4A-AB48-731E39382347.jpeg
    104 KB · Views: 60
Lynn,

Yep. Just pulling the trackwork and scenery up, repairing (where needed if at all) the physical benchwork and laying the new track plan on it.

I thought the last layout was pretty cool
Click to expand...

Ahh, remind me what that was can yu :D I know I have a library of designs on this thing somewhere but I'll be damned if I can find them. Most likely accidentally deleted them at some point ... :(
 
Well looks like the dimensions of the benchwork are going to be the same so I think it’s a matter of if you want the tunnel in the rear on the second one , but then again the same as my layout if you go open grid you will have open access from down below. I’m not familiar with the rail program , I know in xtrackcad I can drop in my structures as well as put in rivers and lakes to get a better feel , if you don’t have this function in the program why not drop each of the two designs into a paint program and draw away, colour will bring it to life. N scale on this size benchwork is in your favour.
 
Lynn,

Agreed - and yes, I can put in rivers, buildings etc, perhaps not as elaborately as Xtrackcad but you get the idea. I am playing around with the rear still, whether to have tunnels or bridges but, as you said, it is going to be all open grid so access from beneath is available.

This is the part of building a layout I hate - the design work. I can't seem to "drag myself" away from the same old kind of design, they are all pretty similar to one another and that (to me) gets a bit boring I think. Anyway, if you come up with some new radical idea hey - I am ALL EARS, believe me :)
 
Hey Tony, good to see you back!
I took a break from all things electronic as well and just getting back into gear.
I love the first one, room for a small town and industry up front and lots of running potential.
The second appeals to me cause I love the double track to let things run while you’re running the single track, maybe with a couple spurs or industries.
I'll be following, might do up a small N layout as well!
 
Rico, how's things going and yeah, I am finally getting back into things, albeit slowly. Funny how you seem to wake up one morning and think - ahh stuff it, and walk away from what you have been doing for years (hmm, maybe that's why you walk away?) Then sometime down the track you wake up one morning and think, jeeze - I'd love to get those trains up and running again!

As for the plans - well, I tend to lean toward the second at the moment as it is a bit more interesting and offers a bit more to do. I also favor the larger central area for a decent size town and general scenery with the smaller open area in the bottom right hand corner. All I know at the moment is I want something concrete to work with soon :)
 
Tony for me I like rivers and bridges and mountains in the background , I also like single mainline but with Nscale you have the space to do a double mainline, I think seeing as you will be using the same benchwork but just moving the mainline around, you may want to start by cleaning off the old to make room for the new. As for mountains around the perimeter and whether you want them , any rail that is too close to the rear perimeter against the wall can cause a problem or at least make it difficult unless they’re under mountain. Rivers and bridges can be popped in just about anywhere, same as if you desire a trestle on a straight or curve , just a matter of removing a perimeter of benchwork and lowering to accommodate the dip, this is the beauty of open grid. Nothing is written in stone, just have to get the mainline figured out.
 
So @KB02 and @Lynn seem to be gravitating to the "Single Line" more so than the double. I kind of view the double track as the Main, commercial track with the Single Line being a tourist type of line that doesn't conform to any particular thing BUT needs to be interesting and NON Boring.

That being said, can either of you guys see a way of "increasing" the length of the Single Track or making it a bit more interesting??
 
Tony if you could do a twisted dog bone with the single you could probably get it to venture down into the right leg but it may mess with the radius on your double mainline. You would probably also have to raise your benchwork or at least the rails to accommodate both sets of rail.
 
Lynn, the bench work is going to be all open grid so the only issue I might have is maintaining a reasonable gradient in order to get the 2 - 2.25" clearance I'd need at the cross over point.

What "might work though" is if I ran the single line off of the outside track, down and back over the double track (lower right corner side of things) then back up the right hand side of the layout. Basically, so the single line "over looked" the rest of the layout??? Maybe a possibility???
 
Yes I agree that would work , you will know better when you get the track sitting on the roadbed and you can then lower or raise to which way works best. Is the double main a definite now?
 
Lynnb said:
Yes I agree that would work , you will know better when you get the track sitting on the roadbed and you can then lower or raise to which way works best. Is the double main a definite now?
Click to expand...

Absolutely Lynn - the double track is definitely staying. I like having the ability to run multiple trains in different directions without having to put one in a siding or passing track. I also like the single track, which will be the line that will get the most attention.

I'll re work the plan and see how (and if) what I considered above will work and post the results for comments later this evening :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top