WP Feather River Canyon in <4'x8', in N

[otiscnj]

Hi Everyone, especially you WP fans, and N-scalers,

Any favorites of the 3 plans? All are in N. All with 11" minimum radius.

Aim was to keep this small(smaller than 4'x 8'), so it could be easier to transport. Also was interested in what could be done on a hollow core door, or similar.

The smaller it gets, the more compromises required.

The focus was to include Keddie Wye, and some Feather River Canyon, or Sierra type scenery. Looking to run Kato's CZ, although maybe not the full 10-11 car train.

Again, the focus was to keep the size as close to a hollow core door, and in N scale, as possible. I know the CZ cars won't like 11" radius.

Comments/suggestions/modificaitons welcome.

Thanks in advance,
Otis

 

[Burlington Bob]

I'll take "C" with Ragu Chunky. "B" makes me dizzy and "A" is hard to see. You've certainly included a lot of track in a small area, but what about room for scenery? Also, as you said, long passenger cars won't look very good going around those tight radius curves.

Sometimes less is more and I think this is one of those occasions. To include all of the track that you have would take a much larger space than a 4x8 can provide to do it justice. I'm not knocking your track plans, just lamenting the space constraints you've put them in. Another consideration is operation. What industries are you going to switch and where. This looks to me to be more of a "watch the trains run" layout to me.

These are my opinions and you need to remember the old saying about opinions. To me, one of the advantages of N scale is the opportunity to include a little more scenery, as well as track, in a smaller area than HO. I think your track to scenery ratio is too imbalanced. As you said, "The smaller it gets, the more compromises required." I just think there are too many compromises involved for my tastes.

 

[joed2323]

I totally agree with bob, going n scale gives you alot more room for scenery and track. It doesnt mean you have to see how much track you can squeeze into your plan

You have way to much track in that space, what about industries and scenery? Its a good idea to atleast try and balance scenery and track some people would agree more scenery then track is better.

What are you trying to do with your layout? What do you have for wants on this layout? Do you want to be able to drop off and pick up cars at industries? Are you interested in switching or just rail fanning, or a little of both? Where would you like your train to come from? Is there a outside world to this layout as in where do your loads come and go?

Atleast you made a good start with posting your ideas, now we just need to fine tune your plan.

 

[steinjr]

All of these seemingly are bigger than a hollow core door, and would be hard to further compress - they are already pretty compressed.

All have the "amusement park ride" look - ie track that loop over and under, and first go one way and then come back in the opposite direction a short while later. Btw - nothing wrong with that, if that is is the look you actually want.

Have you considered not having continuous run? Adding a couple of removable shelves or tables for staging on either side of the layout, and have trains come from "down that way", go through your area, and then leave for "up that way"?

Say five-seven staging tracks on either side

Trains could be turned on the wye and backed into the appropriate staging before heading back in the opposite direction for the next running session. Or just backed across the wye to be reset to run in the same direction in the next running session.

Operations on the main layout could consist of engine changes, setting out or picking up blocks of cars, meeting other trains etc.

Quick concept sketch:

Anyways, just a suggestion - the nice thing about suggestions is that we don't have to follow them

Smile,
Stein

 

[cajon]

There's a Z scale Western Pacific layout at the RR museum in Portola CA.

 

[otiscnj]

Thanks for the comments everyone. Just a bit more feedback on the comments provided.

The main design constraint of this project was to keep the size of the layout small, to a hollow core door, or something under 4'x 8'. From that point, it more or less implies a small minimum radius. As the main features I wanted to include were some scenic feature approximating Keddie Wye, a mainline paralleling a river, + have a spot to store a train or two, hence, the 3-4 track yard, on the order of Keddie Yard.

Digressing for the moment, in 1989, I east drove over Donner Pass, on I-80, stayed in Truckee, and continued on the next day to Qunicy and thru the Feather River Canyon. At that time, there wasn't much in the way of industry within the canyon, and I only saw 1 hirail vehicle the whole day. Northern California isn't part of my normal stomping grounds, or main modeling interest, however, since that time, I've debated about coming up with a small N scale layout design, which captures some of the most interesting facets of both railroads.

As most of the route west from Keddie to Oroville is a route mainly for overhead/bridge traffic, and given such a small footprint to work with, the result is primarily a 'roundy-round,' type of design-which doesn't bother me, as when I come home, sometimes all I want to do is watch the trains go around and around.

Although I haven't been to the museum in Portola, yet, I do recall many years ago when Z gauge first came to the US, Model Railroader had an article about 'Modeling the WP in Z Scale,' article, maybe back in the late 1980's. In some ways, being mostly an HO scale modeler, the article gave me some ideas about what might be possible in a smaller scale, when I returned home to NJ in 1989. I had, and still pretty much have no interest in trying Z scale, my consideration was what could be done in N.

Ultimately, my plan is to connect this layout to a 4'x8' layout with a Rio-Grande themed layout, in one direction, and a more urban/industrial/harbor type of layout in the other direction, representing the SF Bay area, which will provide more switching operations and operational variety. This 'layout' represents what I envision as one 'module' in a larger 'CZ Route,' layout design.

Last night when I started the thread, I was trying to get something up quick, and didn't explain as much about how the design was a part of a larger plan, etc. I'm to blame for not including this info up front.

Everybody brought up valid points, including Stein, regarding following up on suggestions.

Again, thanks for the input-I'll try and provide more info up front, next time.
Otis

 

[steinjr]

Your focus is on building this on a small table - preferably a hollow core door. Let us for arguments sake say a HCD is e.g. 32" x 80" (2'8" x 6'8") . You can get narrower or wider doors, but let is take that as a starting point.

Your three proposals are respectively 3x8 (i.e 36" x 96"), 3.5 x 8 (42" x 96") and 4x6 (48" x 72"). - I.e. all larger than a HCD.

They also have far smaller radii - in order to give you "live routes" in all directions through the wye.

Do you actually need to be able to loop trains in all directions through the wye?

Or could at least one end of the wye go "off layout" (i.e. end at the table edge), leaving you with one loop on the table (at 13" or 15" radius), plus Keddie yard and scenery?

Smile,
Stein

 

[otiscnj]

I've been chewing on this one a while. What's old is new again. The purpose is to lengthen the mainline, and provide some scenic interest.

Earlier this Fall, I bit the bullet, and decided to attempt something of the same concept, only on 2 HCDs(Hollow Core Doors). I'm still considering how to integrate it with another 4'x8' D&RGW layout based on a plan in 101 Trackplans. (Denver & South Park). At this point, I'm looking at using more 19" radius sections, as I have them left over from the previous layout. Here are some photos:

Left top photo: Area of Keddie Wye. Includes section of the 'High Line' to Beiber, in addition to mainline to Orroville. High line may join the Oroville mainline in a the tunnel under High Line curve.

Right top photo: Area that includes Keddie Yard, and run portion of Feather River Canyon. Lower left corner will be Reno Jct. area, with view break from Keddie. The middle portion of the door may have a number of bridges, and trestles, running thru a canyon. Unfortunately, railroad may be on both sides of the canyon, with road and river at the bottom , in the center.

Bottom photo: General orientation of the 2 HCDs. May shift forground door to the left, instead of it being on the right.

I'd like to place a couple of sidings along the mainline in places, to give the trains places to meet.

Ideas/thoughts/comments/suggestions?

Thanks!

 

[Pacodutaco]

I find your plan "C" rather interesting but as earlier posted, none of your choices will fit on a HCD. I like the wye idea.