new n scale lay out, first one

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Due to a lack of space, we decided to go with n-scale and followed the N-17 layout plans we found in a magazine, I forget what the name was. (this is our first layout)

This plan calls for 9 and 3/4 inch radius curves on an inside main line…my passenger cars do not seem to like this radius.

The layout was stretched to 84 inches by 36 inches…I am considering making it 90x42.

The larger curves are 11" radius, and the passenger cars look a bit strained on those too.

Using flex track, by Atlas, code 80, would a 12 inch and 13 and 1/2 inch radius be acceptable?

I soldered all the track together and some one has said there should be gaps cut in the nickel-silver rails because they will expand and kink when the weather warms up…is this true, and since the track is already together, how would I go about this, and how big a gap is needed?

All of the freight cars run fine through all curves, all the engines run fine through them, RS-2s and GP9s…no problems at all with turnouts and electrical work…just long cars around the curves…no room to expand these curves on this layout, which is why we are considering making it a bit longer and wider.

2

wayburnski - Welcome to trains.com! [C):-)]

3

You mean this one from the Atlas Web Site

That makes sense since these are very sharp corners. What brand of passenger cars are they?

[/quote]
The layout was stretched to 84 inches by 36 inches…I am considering making it 90x42.The larger curves are 11" radius, and the passenger cars look a bit strained on those too.

Using flex track, by Atlas, code 80, would a 12 inch and 13 and 1/2 inch radius be acceptable?
[/quote]
Obviously the larger one can get the better it would be. 15" would be better. Why don’t you tack down a 12" curve on some foam, put the passenger cars on it a judge from that?

Yipes! Another reason I only solder track if essential to a specific situation. The normal way to cut a gap is with a Dremel type motor tool with a thin saw blade or cut-off disk. The thickness of the thin blade is sufficient for expansion gaps. I find the cut-off disks a bit too thick but like I said many people use this.

One of the wonders of N-scale with its truck mounted couplers. But it is also what I call the sucker hole of N. I switched to N-scale just because of the small size, but then I deside to start running l

4

hi,

it might me new to you, some easy rules of thumb might give you an idea.

The ratio between your longest car or coach and the minimum (mainline) radius is all important.

1:2 is cosidered pushing it

1:3 a reasonable compromise

1:4 needed for looking good.

Especially in N-scale i would try to stay close to the 1:3 ratio, which means 18" + radii for long passenger coaches in N. Compared to the 30" radii in HO it is still small. A 8x4 is a very small layout in HO, with tight radii and limitations for equipment. Going to N-scale does not mean you can have it all, in the same space you can have radii appropriate for long cars or coaches. With less space you are in the same situation as with HO: not enough space for long equipment.

Hard to find out after laying down tracks.

Paul

5

Welcome to the forums.

I’ve just started dabbling in N and have a small HO layout.

If you can make your surface larger so you can use larger radius curves, whatever scale you are in it will look better. As suggested tack some flex track down at various radii and see what is the smallest that you feel suits your taste. Nice thing with flex track is that you are not limited to a specific radius, make it what you want.

As for soldering it together, many folks seem to solder two pieces of flex together and make their curves, keeps it from kinking at the joint. I haven’t heard of many soldering more pieces together without leaving a gap (regular rail joiners). If you have some insulated rail joiners, the width the “bumper” creates between two sections should be sufficient for other joints. The environment your layout is in makes a difference in the amount or number of gaps you need. If you have a wide fluctuation in temperature and humidity, you need more than in a relatively stable environment.

Good luck,

Richard

6

Yes, N-17 by Atlas is the layout, thanks I couldn’t recall where I had gotten it. The passenger cars are modeled after the 64 foot NYC cars , one a 10-4and the rest coaches, in the old NYC two tone grey, lovely cars. I eliminated four of the spurs to get more room for buildings and scenery, but it isn’t really spacious enough for much in the way of structures. The engine is an Atlas RS-2 in the same NYC colors. There is also a PRR RS-1, a Boston & Maine GP7, and a Canadian GP9. On this railroad, we lease our engines!)

It’s a cookie cutter plan, and the plan shows the lower elevations being cut out of the cross beams, or having blocks glued to the tops of the cross beams for the higher elevations…

I gave up on that, made some separate blocks and screwed them to the cross beams, it being much easier to obtain the desired grade that way, and a lot easier to adjust if you were off a bit. I simply pushed wood shims under the ply until the desired elevation was reached, the fitted the blocks in and screwed them tight to the cross beams, then pulled out the shims

Then I glued pink insulation board on top of the plywood base, cutting it to the contours, and dug the lower elevations out of the pink board…much easier. The rail bed was glued down and the nails were easier to push through the pink board than trying to nail into hard plywood.

The trains run great! No electrical connection problems, no kinks, just too sharp for those 64 foot NYC cars.

I am going to redo on a larger bed and try to get some room for better turns and some scenery. We are in the North East, and were planning on modeling it after the logging country up here, with a logging camp, a pulp side and a paper mill, with a passenger station and a few buildings to simulate a local small town that doubles as a tourist attraction.

This is fun!

People would call my wife and ask for me and she would say, “Oh, he’s in the cellar playing with his trains”…one day I came home earlier than nor

7

I spent 2 years reading and on forums before I laid any track and I still made the mistake of using 9.5 curves. I had four axle engines and 40" and 50" freight cars. I have over the last year replaced all 9.5" with 11" curves minimum. Any engine or car longer then what I started with derailed badly.[|(] Now almost never a problem.

It is fun though.[:D]

8

WoW!

9

First [#welcome]

Yes, a lot of Atlas track plans are for the minimums and were ?built" when trains were GEnerally smaller in length, so running smaller equipment was good for 9-11 curves.

When we recently got a new GG1 and Some matching passenger cars from Santa Claus, and I also purchased the 12 inch curves as MINIMUM for them to run on. We are fortunate that we run the N scale only on the under the x-mas tree table top layout, which we were newly constructing. They negotiate those well.

I would stick with 12"r or higher for curves…

Soldering is good, BUT: You also always want to leave expansion gaps for the rails to expand. Use a dremel with cut off discs to do the job of slicing a gap in the rails. they WILL expand and contract, and you don’t want buckling track! even if kept in a fairly climate controlled environment, the track can still expand as the weather warms.

DO expand it and make it wider unless you only want to run 4 axle locos and 40, maybe 50’ RR cars ONLY. If you want an SD {6 axle engine} or somehting like a GG1 {long loco} you will be plagued with problems with the shorter curves.

Just my opinions, thoughts and experiences!

[8-|]

10

We went to 42 inches wide and 96 inches long, made the radius larger and extended the length which eased the grade somewhat…it runs well now