The last few days, in another thread,some of you may have seen my whining about not being able to come up with a layout for my small space that I was happy with. A lot of the advice that followed boiled down to just start with a simple oval and just do something…anything…to break the analytical deadlock I’m in. Towards that end, I went back to the Xtrkcad drawing board and tried to follow the KISS principal but still get as many of my druthers as possible. KISS is probably a good rule for me now, seeing this will be my first actual layout.
Givens:
N scale
Must be designed to be constructed and used on a 42"x62" dining room table.
Must be easily moveable…“Dirtywork” must be done outside on picnic table.
Maximum length before fascia: 74" (~!@#$%^& odd sized door!)
Maximum width before fascia: 48"
In it’s normal position, when facing the front/long edge of the layout, access to the left end and rear will be limited…the layout will be viewed and mostly operated from the front/long and right sides
Kato Unitrack main (already have a bunch). Sidings and hidden track are open for discussion
Santa Fe line (I have Kato SF F3 & F7, and a Super Chief set A)
Druthers:
50s through early 60s period.
Midwest small town theme…More or less Kansas or so…grain elevator, oil & coal dealer, small passenger and freight depots, team track, etc.
Continuous operation
I’m not big on strict prototype adherence…and definitely not a rivet counter. The fact that the SF Super Chief would not have been stopping at a small town depot in the Midwest does not worry me. In my little world it will.
Diesels…about the only likely steam might be a little 0-6-0 switcher, and even that would be dependant on finding one with an excellent reliability rep. and DCC friendl
This does not fit your givens and druthers. It is not designed for Kato Unitrack, but for a 3 x 4’ space in N, Midwestern plains protytype, and it would be best with access on the two long sides of the layout and one end.
Designed for two or possibly three trains…through freight, peddler freight and short passenger train. Same double ended track is scenically treated as one end of a passing track going under highway overpass on town side of layout, and as part of a small out-in-the-country yard on the other side.
Is kato unitrack more a code 80 than 55 for n-scale though? (not sure myself). There are a couple other manufacturers that make it I’ve found, roco and fleischman make one, and if I recall piko does as well (funny you brought up, a n-scale doubleslip, I was about to make a post about this, http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2).
The only other option that comes to mind to replace the doubleslip would be two turnouts butted upto one another such that the spurs are part of the main line (hope I’m using my terminology right). I doubt this would be proper though and would require some rethinking on that section of the layout.
I love double-slips, but I wouldn’t use one out there. Why not just flip the yard and make its throat come off the other side of the oval…with appropriate changes elsewhere on that side of the layout…river course, etc?
An interesting little layout. Apparently, like most of the small layout plans I’ve run across, to fit in that small of a space the curves are tight. I tried reproducing it in Xtrkcad with pseudo eased 15" minimum on the main loop, and I ended up with a 5x6 footprint. My 4 foot short dimension is already pushed 6" beyond what I’d ideally want for the space I have. Adding another foot on that is just too far beyond what I have to work with.
One thing that did really catch my eye was the truss bridge on a curve. Is there such a beast? with a 15" minimum Radius?
I am keeping a copy of the plan…If I have enough left over smaller radius Unitrack, I may take a shot at a variation of that on a 4x5 folding table on a cart that I have.
The reason for going with the Peco 55 is that I’ve found no other sources for N double slips of other brands (except a discontinued Model Power that appeared to be a much higher angle unit). I’ve been told that Peco 55 mates well with Unitrack 80. I’m also planning on using it for the spurs also.
I’ve tried pairs of points-to-points turnouts…even Peco’s curved turnouts…and every attempt has blown out the dimensions I have to work with, or makes the staging pocket on the left too short to hold my Mini Chief consist…what I have in that plan is pretty much the minimum for them to fit.
Unless I misunderstand, you’re basically talking mirror imaging the plan. Right? I do have access back there where I have it…just an inconvienant for me squeeze around the table. Am I missing anything in what you are proposing other than getting the slip more accessible?
Instead of a double slip why not a turnout to the yard, then the next straight have a turnout going back the other way from the yard entrance. then the yard lead will not cause interference with the main.
What I mean is mirror only the yard and its current throat to where the double slip is currently shown. That would obviate your double-slip (sob!) {never thought I would try to talk someone out of a double-slip!!!}. To access that blue trackage you have curving down at extreme left, since you are not mirroring the rest of the trackplan, simply use a #6 curved, although a W/S #7.5 should do there, too. Either way, you still keep your cool fantasy bridge at upper right. [8D]
[later] - Mouse’s point is that all that is in blue at left seems to be a lead to your yard, but you have it kissing the main at the double-slip…if I understand his observation. It is not clear to me what that extreme descending blue track is coming off the double-slip, but if you do what I suggest, you eliminate that congested area. Simply use a curved turnout.
Would you describe to me what that extreme left hand track is all about?
If I’m envisioning what you are saying correctly, that would leave trains traveling in one direction having to back out onto the main…and the other having to back in. What I was going for with the double slip was not having to back into or out of the scene, and the “sawing” being off stage so to speak.
My idea for the blue trackage on the left was that for clockwise travel on the loop, instead of backing into the scene from the yard, it would back into that “leg”, then proceed forward into the scene. For counter clockwise trains, they could exit forward into that leg, then back into the staging yard somewhat behind the scenes. To me, with what little onstage space I have, and with even the relatively short trains that small space can handle taking up a large portion of the loop, having the trains backing in/out of the scene spoils the illusion of them going somewhere.
Thanks for the link! I took a quick look and it appears at least Fleischmann and Trix might be possible alternative sources for double slips and/or curved turnouts. With a very quick search I was able to find out the degree of the Trix DSs, but only found “R4” for the curvature radii. I’ve run into these R numbers before (on the Model Power DSs and curved turnouts I mentioned) and had no luck finding what those R numbers translate to in MM, IN, or frog numbers. Any way, I will be doing more research on those.
I know…and on a larger layout it would not be an issue for me…but with what little stage I have, backing a train onto the little loop gets the tail end of the train almost to where it would be going in the forward direction…to me making it look excessively toy-like. I know…probably a screwy hang-up on my part, but that’s where this warped mind is right now. [%-)]
Okay, I finally get what you are trying to do. But, the double slip is not the right piece of track, if you want to do what you want and use the yard as a viable yard with switching and not foul the main. You need a double crossover. Same amount of space, but keeps the yard lead separate from the main.
Well, not quite the same space…it took some squeezing of things to the front of the layout…but it gained double duty as a passing track. Keeping that left staging leg straight and dead-ended left it too short for the Mini Chief consist. Curving it gave me the needed length, but by then it was so close to the team track siding it just made sense to me to connect them. The worst part for me was losing some depth between the truss bridge and the view block. The 5 turnouts and a crossing will end up costing more on a tight budget, but since I can break that up over time, I think I’ll manage. An OK trade I guess.
That’s the general idea, but I think XtraCAD has one of these. Look in Peco.
Also I’d lose the atlas switches going into the yard. Once you figure out that you like switching around in the yard, you’re going to want to make it look pretty. If cost is a factor, go with ground throws.
After running ops sessions on different layouts, they are the easiest to use and most reliable–as well as cheapest.
