Hi
I have been looking around at many sources, such as publications from this site, for a suitable layout that would fit the 12 X 12 ft area that is available to me. Not surprisingly, I find many more HO then N which limits the N choices. My question is: Are there any problems that I should be aware of if I find an HO layout I really like and want to do it as an N scale project? How should I proceed? Hope this isn’t to silly a question but I want to do what is best the first time.
Thanks,
Fran
Why don´t you just adapt a HO scale track plan to N scale by just reducing the spacing between tracks, but keeping the wide radii?
This would be a fantastic looking layout, certainly with not very much track for the space, but lots of scenery.
Just a thought [8D]
A plan designed for HO can make a very noie N scale railroad. The main change would be to place parallel tracks (sidings and yard tracks) closer together. You can also add additional track (for instance 2 tracks serving an industry instead of 1).
You can also look at HO plans for a larger space. N is 54% of HO. You might look at HO plans up to 24x24 and reducing them 50% , akthough I recommend staying with plans no larger than 16x16 and using 75"% .
When chosing a plan, consider the minimum radius you will need for the type of equipment you want to operate.
It is better to use published plans a inspiration. Adopt fratures you like and arrange them to fit your space.
Right! An N-scale layout “comes into its own” if it takes the space of an HO layout. Just reduce the spaces between parallel tracks. You’ll have wide open spaces and gracious curves.
Sorry. My thumbs/fingers and eyes can’t “do” N. I’ve had to use a magnifier for the last 20 years to even model in HO.
Mark
The thing to watch for when converting an HO plan is aisles. While it may seem like you could just cut everything in half to convert a 24x24 ft HO plan to 12 x 12 ft N, the aisles most likely will be too small. You are better off using a 20 x 20 ft HO plan as your starting point. This way you can maintain aisle size.
You can also use a smaller plan and stretch it.
Enjoy
Paul
Here’s a website with a handy scale conversion chart.
In addition to the above comments, one thing to keep in mind is that the HO plan is probably the result of a number of compromises, compressions, and tradeoffs made in light of the old size vs. available space dilemma. If you just do the math on a plan, you would likely just be scaling those compromises.
You may want to take a step back from the track plan databases and think about your vision for this layout. How do you see yourself running the layout? What things do you want to make sure are included? What kind of equipment are you going to run? Is continuous running (looping) necessary, or is point-to-point OK? What’s my available space, and what are the restrictions? You probably have a start on this list in your head, but write it all down, and what you have before you are your “givens and druthers”. Let them, and your vision for the layout, drive what’s in the track plan.
If you do happen to find an existing track plan that satisfies your vision, givens, and druthers, then after doing the math, take a look at what’s on the track plan and see what would benefit from more elbow room. Curve radii (for longer equipment) is one thing, passing siding lengths are another. Larger / more industries and yard capacity too. And lots more - anything that the HO designers would banged their heads and said “if only I had more room!” would be candidates for improvement.
You’ve probably seen references to John Armstrong’s track planning book - I would definitely give it a read to help in your journey.
Good Luck!
102 Realistic Trackplans is a great starting point including a scale conversion article.
Human operators are the same size regardless of scale. Watch your aisles.
Mark
John Armstrong designed a fold-up layout which he called the Murphy Bed and Credenza, with both HO and N scale versions of the track plan. The HO version was the usual ‘size ten lady in a size five dress;’ short trains, short sidings, caboose just leaving one siding as the engine headed into the next…
In the same space, with the same track layout, N scale enjoyed longer trains, could run full-length passenger cars and was just generally an easier fit. Plus, the ‘credenza’(fixed yard) had more tracks.
So, building a layout in N scale that was designed to be built in HO, in the space intended for the HO version, means that the curves go from tight to broad, the effective length of the sidings stretches and there’s more room for believable scenery. Also, since the aisleway width remans the same, that’s not a problem.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
All of the above points are very valid… and I heartily concur with them. To add my viewpoint can I refer to my “Hints and Tips” which I edit for the British MREMag.
Number 102 in the series of 240 so far reads…
N scale has proved a real boon for those of us who do not have the space availability for a larger scale layout. The temptation is to try to cram as much in a space or to take an OO/HO track plan and halve it for N.
Rather than take this approach, by all means cut down the use of space. However if it is at all possible either try to use the same size layout for N as you would the larger scale except alter the double track spacings etc, or split the difference and where you would have had a 8 x4 layout, reduce it to say 6 x 3 feet rather than 4 x 2 as tempting as that may be.
… and, by any means, build your layout as high up as possible! N scale wins a lot when you can view the layout at near eye-level, but also loses quite a bit when view from a bird´s eye view.
By “a little” I understand you mean “tremendously.”
Mark