Hey, I just put together an 4x8 N-Scale layout using the RTS 7.0 software.
Wanted to have tracks of varying heights and this was one idea I came up with.
The Green grid is 2x2".
The Orange track is 2.5" high.
The Blue track is at 0.0" level.
The Red track is the descending track at a 2.4% grade.
The Purple track is the ascending track at a 1.7% grade. Just worried about the length being very long for a loco to climb.
Substituted flex track in many places for easier fitting.
All Blue track running under the orange will either be in tunnels or using underpasses. Haven’t decided yet. Just wanted to throw something together.
Is 2.5" enough height clearance for N-scale? for trains to run under?
Was also considering putting in a small stage under the table and having it run into the blue track out of a tunnel. Again I would love to get any thoughts or ideas from the forum so I can improve on my layouts.
Thanks in advance.
Rob
2-1/2" is more than enough if it is really “clearance” (clear distance between the railhead and whatever is passing over it), and not just the distance between the top of one track and the top of the other track (railhead to railhead). In that case you need to take into consideration the thickness of the track, roadbed, bridge and/or any plywood/foam you have the track supported on, in order to calculate the actual clearance.
The NMRA Recommended Practice S-7 gives 1-23/32" as the minimum clear distance above the railhead. But you’re always better allowing a bit more. http://www.nmra.org/standards/s-7.html
Here’s your layout plan, click on it to show it larger.
The length of the grade isn’t as important as the % of the grade. What happens when you reverse direction, then the 2.4% becomes the ascending grade. Probably okay for diesels, but tough for N scale steam.
Consider what happens when a train derails on the blue track. Can you reach into the tunnels to rerail or extract it? Be sure it will derail at the farthest spot from the tunnel portal.
Depends in a large degree on what you want to do. What you’ve designed will allow you to run trains in circles. There are almost no industrial sidings, no passing sidings (for meets), and no yard. You might want to make a list of features you want to have on the layout, then start designing to fit them in. If not, it’s real easy to try to fit too much track into a given spa
I just built a 3x6 n scale layout, the tunnel issue and access is something to keep in mind. I thought my tunnel and track installation was perfect not thinking about a derailment, which occured. Now I have an access panel on the outside edge of the tunnel to gain access to the track. And your inclines shouldn’t be an issue I have a 4% grade on one of my inclines and the larger engines pull it fine under a resonable size load, although my switcher can only make it pulling 2-3 cars. So just some thoughts from a model railroader returning to the hobby.
Ed said it very well. The layout is fine if you just want to watch trains run. It is a very good representation of the designs found in the Atlas track plan books, sometimes they are referred to as spaghetti bowl layouts. To more accurately model a railroad you need o consider what is is a railroad does. Move freight from point A to point B. Squeezing as much into the available space as possible is a real temptation. The real railroads have to pay very good money for every foot of track they lay so have a reason for ever scale foot you put down and show why it is there.
Thanks everyone, some of the issues you mentioned were on my mind as well. I just bought John Armstrong’s Track Planning For Realistic Operation. One thing I wasn’t thinking at all was my trains going in reverse. Figured I’d avoid this if I could. This is just an example of my inexperience of seeing a model railroad in operation. I should probably let go the idea of the multi level tracks on a 4x8 table.
I do want some continuous operation with industry switching as well. I’ll keep trying, thanks again. [:D]
Rob
