The druthers of this topic (for a friend) - would be to get as much railroad interest in an ‘N’ Scale layout plan on a 4x8.
The search is not for a simple loop with a couple of spurs here folks. He’d like to see what people have done with the famous 4x8 in N
Go wiht HO it is alot better and much more affordable!
In the March 2005 issue of Tetsudo Mokei Shumi there is a photo article about a 720 x 1200 mm (29 x 48 inches, to the next higher inch) N scale layout which incorporates what appears to me to be an incredible amount of trackwork (the highest is two full levels above the lowest) but avoids the bowl of spaghetti look with nicely detailed urban scenery. The models are Japanese prototype and there are some limitations on what can be operated (minimum radius is about 10.5 inches, and the grades are horrendous.)
If the modeler could cram that much into the space he had, I can’t help but wonder what he might have done with three plus times the area.
Sorry I can’t provide any of the (copyrighted) illustrations.
If you have any old MR back issues, take a look at the plan on page 112 of the November 1996 issue - the Western Illinois RR. It’s based on a midwestern junction between a shortline and Class 1 with a grain elevator and flour mill, intermodal terminal, and engine facility to provide switching opportunities. Lots of staging tracks for the mainline trains. Looks like it could keep a couple guys busy building and operating it.
Tom
http://www.atlasrr.com
Go to the layouts section. They have a bunch of HO and N layout examples. Some are pretty complicated for a 4x8.
There may be something for you here.
I haven’t checked it all out but it’s a possible start.
dwRavenstar
That’s funny, thankyou for a giggle.
Ken.
Sounds like the money and time are there to do a layout right, but maybe a little short on space. I can relate.
But 4x8 is really 4x8x8 or even higher, and if you think in the vertical dimension, you can find a lot of room.
For starters, you could devote an entire 4x8 sheet to a staging yard, freeing up the entire layout for operations and scenery, not train storage. If you’re like most people, you’ll have at least 3 or 4 trains for every train that you can actually run at one time.
You avoid the spaghetti bowl look with vertical scenery, tunnels, etc. Trains that disappear one place and reqppear elsewhere fascinate people.
I ended up with a pair of eight foot mainlines to nowhere, at the extreme edge of the layout, matrixed onto the mainline of the layout with a series of turnouts, and now have easy access to as many future 4x8 modules as I care to build.
Your mainline will probably end up being some variant of folded dogbone, the only decision left before hardcore planning begins is to decide if you need a two track main or not, and how many folds and switchbacks you end up with. The primary purpose of the railroad’s existence will determine how many industries you need access to.
For your siding placement, consider which direction the mainline runs most often, and whether your spurs are set up to pick up and spot cars that way, or if the spurs are opposite from each other, requiring you to turn the train every time you pick up and drop off there.
Since you will be stacking curves, make sure to leave some horizontal seperation, vertical walls in tight spots are hard to model and asking to obstruct train passage. When tracks stack one over the other, try to build your supports wider rather than narrower. Too much clearance for the lower track is infinitely preferable to not enough clearance.
Your toughest challenge will be to get enough turnouts in the design to keep it complex enough, while making sure that
lol
thats my plan
spaghetti
4X8s are about my least favorite form-factor for a layout in HO, but you can do quite a bit in N. And it doesn’t have to be a mindless spaghetti bowl. Consider this prototype-based layout from my article in the 2002 edition of Model Railroad Planning, based on Houston’s real-life Port Terminal Railroad Association
Regards,
Byron
It is tempting to translate experience in one scale to another, but personally I’ve had good luck with curved PECO N scale turnouts in C80 and C55.
http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/pages/10023.htm is that complex enough? It’s HO scale.
Agreed. The Peco curved turnouts have a sterling reputation. I suspect the minimum radius HO turnouts aren’t used very often. At a ~17" radius, the tiny bumps from frogs and points are just too much. This is probably a physics problem, not a Peco problem.
Still, in trying to fit a lot on a 4x8 layout, the pressure to use these TO’s goes up, and in that light, the issue deserves a mention.