Next N Scale Layout ...


wombat457 said:
Um, yep it is mate - identicle ;)

Basically, 20" radius is 20" radius whether it is on an N Scale, HO or Z scale layout ;)

Only thing that changes, radius wise, is the minimum radius needed to run your loco's rollingstock. For me the recommended is 15" (will run everything available) with an absolute minimum of 9.75" . For HO it is what a recommended 18" minimum but possibly 15" ... something like that from memory.
Click to expand...
I think my question was more toward if the minimum radius changes, so that’s a good thing.
 
Sorry mate I was surprised by the question the way I interpreted it.

Is it a good thing? That depends on your point of view. My way of thinking is the bigger you can have your radius, the smoother your trains will run; however, if you were to use a smaller radius you can do more with the track plan as has been suggested.

In short - if I stuck with 18" radius I could run absolutely anything N Scale has to offer and should have nice smooth running trains that could be as long as I wished them to be. If I go down to 15" Radius, I will still be able to run the majority of N Scale stuff and (most likely) trains as long as my layout would accommodate without looking ridiculous BUT could have a more "interesting" and possibly "complex track plan.

So a smaller radius, from my perspective, can be both good and not so good depending on what you want. For me, going down to 15" radius in some places would definitely be beneficial and; therefore, a good thing :)
 
wombat457 said:
Sorry mate I was surprised by the question the way I interpreted it.

Is it a good thing? That depends on your point of view. My way of thinking is the bigger you can have your radius, the smoother your trains will run; however, if you were to use a smaller radius you can do more with the track plan as has been suggested.

In short - if I stuck with 18" radius I could run absolutely anything N Scale has to offer and should have nice smooth running trains that could be as long as I wished them to be. If I go down to 15" Radius, I will still be able to run the majority of N Scale stuff and (most likely) trains as long as my layout would accommodate without looking ridiculous BUT could have a more "interesting" and possibly "complex track plan.

So a smaller radius, from my perspective, can be both good and not so good depending on what you want. For me, going down to 15" radius in some places would definitely be beneficial and; therefore, a good thing :)
Click to expand...
I was thinking it is a good thing in places where you have no choice but to have a minimum radius but yes bigger and wider is definitely best.
You’re definitely stuck on a double track mainline right?
 
Lynnb said:
In N scale is a 20” radius the same as an Ho scale 20” radius ?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. The difference is that in HO-scale a 20" radius is small and tight, in N-scale that same 20" radius is considered a broad curve.

One generally always wants the biggest widest curves that can be fit. The compromise comes on layout design. Do you want just a loop of broad radius, or do you want some interesting twists and turns with a smaller radius.
 
Last edited:
Lynnb said:
I was thinking it is a good thing in places where you have no choice but to have a minimum radius but yes bigger and wider is definitely best.
You’re definitely stuck on a double track mainline right?
Click to expand...
@Lynnb

You know me mate - yep - the double track stays :)

But here is a modified version of the above, with some 15" Radius curves and some additions:

wZoTmYO.jpg
 
Iron Horseman said:
Don't know if I should say this or not. ... You know with this plan, watching the trains they don't necessarily look like they are going in circles. They are passing through the scenery. With the other I am afraid they might look like they are circling the scenery.
Click to expand...

@Iron Horseman

Mate, I respect your opinions - always have, so say what you think ... 👍

That pretty much goes for everyone so long as the opinions are constructive and not just for the sake of "not liking something" :)

I hadn't thought about that, but for what it is worth - the scenery will be built up and around the track work - it (hopefully) wont look as barren in real life and after the scenery as it does at the moment.
 
wombat457 said:
@Lynnb

You know me mate - yep - the double track stays :)

But here is a modified version of the above, with some 15" Radius curves and some additions:

wZoTmYO.jpg
Click to expand...
Well there’s the extended length you wanted on the top seperate loop. i can only see one problem , you will be limiting and serviceable industries to only be accessed from the very inner branch, but this may be ok for you.
 
Lynnb said:
Well there’s the extended length you wanted on the top seperate loop. i can only see one problem , you will be limiting and serviceable industries to only be accessed from the very inner branch, but this may be ok for you.
Click to expand...
Industries ..... hmm, well that's okay as this is an industry free section of the railroad; although, I might put some "small industry" in somewhere so will need to keep your observations in mind.

With that in mind, I was thinking about a "small 3 or 4 track" yard some where - an Engine Servicing Area if you like. Any thoughts on where and how I might do that? I will be reserving the main central part of the plan for the Town/City area.
 
wombat457 said:
@Lynnb

Okay, so out of curiosity - lets say I DID get rid of the double track, what would you do?
Click to expand...
Lol how did I know this question was coming. I just prefer single track runs because it allows so much more real estate . Looking at the double tracks that will cross over other tracks will require two separate bridges ( I would think ) , this could get complicated. I think I would remove the two rails to start with , you would still have the long run branch and free up some open space. That third passing siding would be good if it didn’t have the next track over which comes from the separate branch blocking any spurs.
 

Attachments

  • 9C3352D4-8085-4189-958C-15E4D0298F88.jpeg
    9C3352D4-8085-4189-958C-15E4D0298F88.jpeg
    56.8 KB · Views: 49
@Lynnb

Thanks mate and I do see what are saying and understand your thoughts. Real estate isn't an issue with this in N Scale - I'll have plenty of "open areas" for scenery and structures etc. As for the bridges - I intend to build my own bridges that will span the tracks as needed. That being said, I haven't fully committed to bridges or tunnels or which crossing will have which :)

Anyway, here is a virtual run of the last plan:

 
Ok I get the idea now after watching the animation. Are you going to be wanting to add trees and hills behind the double track like around the walls as well as between a double track and a third single ? I’ve found the higher the mountains the more space you need between wall and tracks.
 
Lynnb said:
Ok I get the idea now after watching the animation. Are you going to be wanting to add trees and hills behind the double track like around the walls as well as between a double track and a third single ? I’ve found the higher the mountains the more space you need between wall and tracks.
Click to expand...
That was my plan - at least where they can be, otherwise it will just be flat with ground cover or whatever I can fit.
 
@Lynnb

Mmm, I think I am in so far as the track plan is concerned. Of course, that will probably have small changes made to it as it is laid. All I need to do is wait for the weather to improve so I can "bulldoze" all the crud off of the current benchwork etc, and so I can get the new ply without fear of it getting wet.

I think it might be a couple of months before I can get into the physical build.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top