OK this is where I’m at…LOST, layout??? I can’t even figure out what scale to go with!! Here are some rough drawing of my train room. (Working with winRail8.0 now).
The first one is an existing 2x4 and drywall shelf that covers the main drain pipe in the basement, It’s 34" tall so strength and height is good (will be using 2" foam giving me 36").
The second would be an easy upgrade with some 3/4" plywood.
Here is my dilemma…SCALE! I’ve thought about it so much I was sure I would have to call Dr.Phil to regain my sanity. I went to the LHS and bought two piece of flextrack one N and one HO also got 4 22" curves in HO and equivalent in N so I could get a visual. N scale is really small and I’ve also been told DCC sound for N scale is just not that great.
Layout will not be of a prototype will just fit in what I like.
Going with Digitrax Zephyr DCC
Will be using Diesel engines like GP35 and SD40.
Will be modeling 1950 era with some mountains,
Would like to have a mining Co. And a lumber Co. As main revenue makers.
90’ Turntable (yea yea I know…)
2 main lines around perimeter of layout I want 2 trains that can run none stop.
Going with Atlas flextrack and switches LHS stocks every item in Atlas (code 80 or 100 depending) and are only 4 miles for home
Things I don’t know
Scale I originally had my heart set on N scale but thinking HO now
DO I have ROOM??? (and my eyesight sucks)
2.Grade I’ve read 1 to 1.5% is about all that can be done…what is the formula for grade? Or how many feet/inches of rise?
Turntable (see above) VS yard cost($299) vs space
Did I mention scale???
Would like to go with code 55 but not sure under track switch machines will work due to 2x4, drywall plus 2"foam con
Youll be able to put more N scale into any space. But HO is much easier on the eyes.
Grade % is just that …a 1% grade is a 1 cm rise in 1 meter. Most model railroads use up to 3% grade…but 2% is usually the max.
TTs are great, expecially if you have alot of locos. Speaking of Locos, you mention you want to model the 50’s and you want to use Second Generation EMD units…which came out in the 60’s
HO or N
Tortiose SMs will work just fine for you. mounting them will have its issues though.
Yes…expecially with DCC…very easy
7.Only if you have 48" arms…most people have 34-37 inch arms…Keep your depth to 3’ unless you want to have access hatches.
My 2cents:
I was an N scale modeler for about a decade and I recently converted to HO. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned sound. N scale will always be behind in that department…no matter what technology comes along, sound in N scale will always be too big of a comprimise.
If you intend to go with HO…I offer one point of advice…keep it simple and focused. Try not to have everything in your layout…itll just look like a mess…Less is more in HO.
If you go with N scale, I would suggest you def go with cd55. It looks much better than cd80 and is just a reliable (if layed correctly)
#2 - I run 4% grades on my layout and have no troubles. Now I sometimes run 2 engines and stay with 15 cars. Or I use a helper engine
#7 - No you won’t be able to reach easily over a 4 foot section. at 30 inches wide and at 34” off the floor this is about all I want to reach comfortablely and not bump anything claoe to the front edge of the layout.
As for scale N scale you can run longer trains but if you do a lot of switching into industries they tend to be easily derailed.
HO while it takes up more space, the switching part the cars tend to stay on the track when hand uncoupling the cars.
Code 100 HO track is much more durable but code 83 HO track looks more scale (according to some modelers).
First, choosing your scale is very important.
I personally use HO scale, but both HO and N will fit in your space and have pros and cons. I won’t go into details on these, as I need to leave soon and the differences between HO and N justifies its own topic. If your eyesight is not optimum, go with HO.
Grades can plausibly be up to 4%. This will be quite steep, but if you are running relatively short trains, common to your size space, this will be fine. A grade more like 2% is optimum.
No, you do not want to and will not be able to reach over 4 feet of layout.
Since you are running DCC, you can definitely and easily run multiple locomotives up a hill.
It may be better in your space to use a single track main. When two trains are running in the same direction, two trains can run simultaneously and easily, especially with DCC. To run trains against each other, you can use passing sidings, which will greatly enhance your operations.
Two trains can orbit with a single main line using the Zephyr DCC system.
I don’t know… without crossing the entry into the room with a drawbridge or something it is going to be pretty tight getting in the two blobs needed to turn continuously running trains at each end. That would make one dandy N-scale layout as is. The deciding factor might be how well do you like sound?
Grade = the number of units rise per 100 units horizontal run.
If a turntable is in the “what I know” list, I don’t understand the question.
To make things really difficult for you - I think if I were starting over from ground zero today, I just might go with O-scale with all that neat On30 equipment from Bachmann.
This is going to be an issue reguardless of scale and track code. But wait - drywall and 2x4? I don’t think using drywall as a base is a good idea. It won’t work to mount anything into. 1/4" plywood would be way better. Then I have one layout that I inherite
[quote]
QUOTE: If a turntable is in the “what I know” list, I don’t understand the question.[/qoute]
just about have myself talked out of it
This is going to be an issue reguardless of scale and track code. But wait - drywall and 2x4? I don’t think using drywall as a base is a good idea. It won’t work to mount anything into. 1/4" plywood would be way better. Then I have one layout that I inherited from a friend that used 2x4 construction - WAY over built, and hard to work with. Highly not recommended.
drywall structure already in place but looks like i will go with 3/4" playwwod to bring it out to 30" then cover with 2" foam
[/qoute]
If you have a whole room to play with then i would go HO. There is much more equipment available, It looks alot nicer and if you are anything like me and not good at fine hand movements then detailing in Nis going to be real bad.
If, as you said, “My eyesight sucks,” N scale reporting marks will be a serious challenge if you ever decide to put in a car card or waybill operating system. HO numbers are twice as large, which can make a world of difference.
24" radius is satisfactory for all but the most extreme rolling stock in HO. It will certainly handle the locos you mentioned. If you have to embargo 89’ hi-cubes and Schnaebel cars, so be it. (One caveat. Use easements on all mainline curves. Not only do they look better, but they also improve rolling stock tracking.)
I don’t use sound (yet,) but simple physics says that the larger speakers in HO equipment will always produce better-quality sound.
Just a few thoughts. Good luck on your choice, and with your layout.
Chuck (who models in 1:80 scale - twice N, known as HOj.)
I model the 1960’s in HO. Most of my engines are GP-9’s and F-7’s. Since my space, too, is pretty limited, I use a lot of 18-inch radius curves. Everything I run works fine on those. Present-day equipment is much longer, though. I have a 6-axle Alco which is perfectly happy with the 18-inch curves. My freight cars are mostly 40 footers, with a few 50 foot gondolas and flats, and I have some 72-foot passenger cars (with truck-mounted couplers to make the curves.) I’ve got no big-steam, although at some point I’d like to have one, just to run an “excursion train.” (That’s my excuse for running a too-old-for-the-prototype-era engine on my layout.)
I’ve found that the curves can be disguised with scenery - smal hills, trees and buildings, so that very little of the curve can be seen at one time. This takes the visual aspect of the tight curves down a lot.
there is lots of neat On30 equipment out there , but none of it is GP35’s or SD40’s , and very little of it would be appropriate for the 1950’s , so unless fannblade is considering going in a completely different direction than he’s previously stated On30 isn’t a likely choice .
on the other hand , On30 would be great for a highly detailed logging and mining layout , and a turntable would be appropriate too . the dissadvantage would be that you would probably have less track and less switching areas due to the larger size of the building etc.
Since your eyesight is a problem I would go with S. It’s a delightful size to work with - easy to see and build with, small enough to have a nice layout in a reasonable space.
scale wise HO brings more bang for the buck, selections etc; N gives you more trains for given space, but with eyesight mentioned, you may want to consider S, slightly bigger the HO, but great for detailing. Gp35/40’s are diffently mid-sixties,for fifties go with gp 7’s/9’s, or rs units Take yard over turntable, you’ll have more operations that way.fwiw, mike
Turntables pretty much are for steam use. If you think you need to turn F units a lot, sure, you need a turn table, but if you run then double unit with 2 A units back to back you never need a turntable.
But a turntable is just so much the thing for a railroad why the heck not and still use a roundhouse, you won’t need a wye.
Spacewise for the layout looks like you may have enough room for a folded dogbone design if you limit radius under 24", including doubletrack for 2 trains running continuous.
Larger scales, like S, O, or G scale may need around the room design and a lift bridge across the gap at the entry.
If you go for around the room design you can go wide radius up to 36 inch which is good for any model HO layout.
HO has been the more popular scale and availability and variety of stuff is higher than other scales.
N scale and Z scale have been for those with really limited space, but if you went N scale you would be able to design in 4 times the railroad than in HO.
If your happy with the smaller size of N, OK, figuring out a layout starting what scale you like is an interesting problem. I went to HO after as a kid I had fun with O27 layouts. I have too much HO to go to N scale.
Since you mention lumber and coal mines you want to do some operation.
As mentioned reporting marks on cars is important if you take up more serious operation style, most cars you buy will have the same numbers on them meaning is decal time to change the numbers. Wanna do that in N scale? not me.
If your not that concerned about reporting marks and just run a coal train to the mine and move cars to industries without too much concern, thats doable, but a really good operating system will help make a cool layout better and you won’t lose interest. You don’t wanna put all this time into a layout and lose interest.
So a good layout design is key.
It seems that you like the turntable. I have a several books showing that there were still a number of turntables in use during the 60s (Pennsy in Altoona for example), but these were the exception rather than the rule. Many turntables were being deactivated and pits filled in.
Here’s a monkey wrench for you: A few years ago on the tv show “TRACKS AHEAD” a short line railroad ( I think it was called Minnesota Transfer & Commercial Railway - but I’m not sure) showed a working turntable. A CF7 was being turned on it. So it seems that excpetions to what is commonly known, do exist in railroading.
If YOU want a turntable…go for it. When building a model railroad, don’t neglect to include the facets or elements that will give you the enjoyment. It has to be frustrating to build a layout, and then after all that hard work you wind up saying “Aw, man! I should have installed this and done that!”
There are still a lot of turnouts out there. BNSF and UP each still have one in Denver. I understand they tore the roundhouse down but the turntable still exists in Newton Kansas. UP has one in Cheyenne of course. The C&S one in Denver lasted until 1986 or so.