New Indoor N Scale


Okay, so I have been doing a little more modifying to the layout with the main mod being to the center yard and mainlines. Here is what I have at the moment:

TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-8-002_zpsj60gioz1.png


One of the problems I had with the previous designs was accessing the main yard from the "freight line (red) and getting back onto the passenger line (green) once going into the main central station. I think this new design solves both those problems. With that being said, if anyone sees a problem then please let me know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Tony, nice plan

If there is a problem and maybe others can comment is that parking cars in a curve can cause difficulties coupling and uncoupling.
Is it possible to move the bottom part higher so that you can have a straighter yard?
 
Hawke,

I didn't think about coupling and uncoupling cars on a curve. How about this ... better?

design%201.5_zpsvgvgegrr.png


TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-8-005_zpsz31wirnh.png


Have increased the length of the yard straights and improved on the yard entrance as well. Hope this works or is getting closer to something that is workable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morning/Afternoon All,

One more addition to the plan and, hopefully, the last one so long as everything looks good to you guys. Horseman mentioned that the areas in the N/W and N/E were a bit of a waste space wise. The N/W corner has now utilized a tunnel and I have added more track to the N/E corner for an industry of some type.

TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-9-001_zpskebkg81b.png


TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-9-002_zpsnd1hxglz.png


My honest opinion is that the track plan is starting to look like a spaghetti bowl BUT, because of the changes in elevation and with the inclusion of scenery, a lot of the track in the N/E area will be "semi hidden" due to it running through a 2.5" deep valley between the two elevated lines, the red track.

Would really appreciate some honest thoughts on this guys, especially in terms of wiring it all up.
 
I like it Tony. Thwere is a bit of track, but once the scenery is in, it will be interesting watching trains weave through the scenery. How many more changes ??? Grin.gif
 
montanan said:
I like it Tony. Thwere is a bit of track, but once the scenery is in, it will be interesting watching trains weave through the scenery. How many more changes ??? View attachment 58085
Click to expand...

Well, I am about a month away from starting this sooooooo - could be a whole new plan by then :cool:

Seriously, unless you guys see something wrong or problematic in any area of the plan, this is it - the final, no more changes plan. My only real concern with this is that I haven't inadvertently included a reverse loop somewhere that will make the wiring a problem for me. I don't think I have, but after looking at it so often I maybe over looking something. Wouldn't that be a first!

There is a lot of track for the area, a little over 150' of it in all. That may not sound like a lot, but in an area only 11' X 9' it is pretty well packed in. Like you, I think it will be interesting to see trains "weave" their way through the scenery, disappearing out of obvious site for periods and then re emerging into view. The more I look at this plan, the more I am coming to the realization that the scenery is going to play a major role in the plan's effectiveness, to take away the spaghetti bowl look. I also think putting the scenery in, even basic scenery, is going to give me a challenge especially getting it to "lend" from one side of the layout to the other.

This might show what I mean better:

TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-9-003_zpssgnzznwd.png


Anyway, as said, I am 99% confident that this is it :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see where the scenery could be a bit of a challenge, but after seeing what you did with your HO layout, you shouldn't have too much of a problem. Just take your time and plan ahead.
 
Chet,

That is what I am trying to do with this, plan ahead and think things out before I do them. Scenery doesn't intimidate me, not like electrical stuff, so that is plus for me.

My next decision is what type of bench work to use for this. The shed layout was open grid and, to be honest, gave me headaches trying to cut the ply so it matched the track work properly and neatly. You should have seen the amount of waste I had due to stuff ups :) The other thing I had problems with was putting in the scenery, or more to the point, not having anything to sit it on. Open grid/cookie cutter bench work is obviously going to be the better option when it comes to wiring this thing up as I think there is going to be a lot of that to contend with and wiring isn't what I would call my strong point.

I don't know if this will work but I am contemplating using a "tabletop/cookie cutter" combination. Build the bench work for open grid but drop all of the ply that isn't supporting the track work down onto the frame work to support the scenery. The other thing I considered was to build an initial "table top" bench work then use hand cut risers for the elevations as for an open grid style of bench work.
 
One spot I can see where, especially using the cookie cutter method, where you might have a problem, is at the top where your red, elevated track is close to the green, lower elevation track. Probably need to increase the distance between them a bit, i.e. flatten out the curve in the red track.
 
Toot'n,

The horizontal distance between the elevated red tracks and lower level green track on the N/E side is about 7" each, so I don't think that will be a problem. That is, if that there area you are referring to.
 
No, the N/W side, to the left of the upper lake. Assuming you're going to start the red track's upward grade once it crosses the bridge over the lower lake in the S/W, then through the tunnel, in order to get enough elevation to have that inner red branch (N/E) cross back over the green track, there's going to be a vertical separation in that section between the N/W tunnel and the lake.
 
Ah okay, I see where you mean now. At the western end of the top lake are three turnouts so that is where the climb begins for the red line to cross the green line. You are right, there is going to be a vertical difference between the red and the green lines but the majority of that vertical difference is going to be at the widest horizontal separation between the two tracks. While the red line has an upward grade of 2.2% from those turnouts, the green line has a downward grade of 2.2%.

The red and green lines run at virtually the same grade from the bridges in the S/W corner to those turnouts to the north and at the western end of the top lake.

That being said, it is an area I may have to look at once I get track on the ground so to speak.
 
No problem mate, the screen shots don't tend to give a very clear picture.

Actually, your thoughts concerning that area have raised an issue with the grade around that top lake to where the red track goes over the green track (tunnel). While the grade is 2.2% (up and down for each track) I don't think it is enough to properly clear the tunnel. I might have to look at trying to lengthen those sections of track to ensure where the cross over is has enough clearance. Looking at the 3D version, I think I need to raise the red track another 1/8" and lower the green track 1/8" to ensure a 2.25" tunnel clearance. Not sure what 1/8" is in terms of grade % over those distances though and I definitely do not want to have grades any steeper than 2.5%, especially on a curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top