I realize I’m probably opening myself up to much criticism but that’s OK. I would appreciate any input, good or bad, anyone wants to provide.
I am planning an N-scale layout with basically a lumber and mining theme. I am trying to cram way too much into the space I have available but I am just trying to incorporate the key elements that I desire which are:
A sawmill with log deck that gets its logs from a pond. (Lucas Sawmill)
A lumber yard to sell all that lumber. (Walton & Sons Lumber Co.)
A freight station (Water Street Freight Station)
A Coal mining company (New River Mining Co.)
A Yard. (on a separate shelf)
A mountain or elevated area containing an old abandoned mining facility or other industry. (Old Coal Mine)
My base layout is 36" x 72" with a shelf that tapers from 24" to 36" x 54" L.
The first picture is my first “rough draft” layout in RTS and I think it’s pretty self explanatory. The pinkish/magenta outline would be the mountain/hilly area. The brown track is the main level track. Red Incline Track, Blue descent track.
The second picture was my thought on running a loop to reverse down the grade instead of running a separate down grade. This gives me the chance to open up the inner loop quite a bit more (4" + or so) but I’m not sure if it is a practical design.
Wow. That’s a lot of track in a small space. It’s your layout, of course, but I think I’d look for a different approach that had much less parallel track and less track overall. You might be more satisfied.
In addition, many of the tracks look too close togehter for adequate clearance for trans on the parallel tracks and/or too close to gether to allow the vertical supports that you need. Just because CAD lets you draw it doesn’t mean it will work, sadly.
I fully agree with cuyama,way too much track indeed.6X3 isn’t that big a layout even in N scale,although quite sufficient for a very interesting design.I did the same mistake a while ago as I did try to cramp more tracks than my space allowed and ended tearing it down before even half of the trackwork had been done.Trains could run OK but the whole thing looked so unrealistic.I’m now re-thinking my next design and guess what…I’ll surely make other mistakes.
A layout features tracks and scenery…whatever space one element eats up isn’t available for the other and vice-versa.You probably will have to make choices,just as I did.
You know, I looked at this the other day and figured that I’d mull it over before I responded. I have to agree with the concensus, and that was my immediate response. You’ve got a lot of tracks in a small space. I too model N scale, so I am familiar with the benefits of it, and the drawbacks. Understand, what follows is mearly my opinion, and you can take it all, just part of it, or write me off as a complete idiot, it’s cool with me. I just want to help.
Here’s some food for thought.
I’d move the logging operation to the upper right hand corner. I’d still put it on a hill, but eliminate the two grades going up and down. Instead, how about a single switchback track to scale the hill, with a passing siding about half way up. That would be far more interesting to operate and it would eliminate alot of the extra tracks and open up some scenery area.
The lumber yard can move to the bottom left of the 6x3 or on the top left of the shelf. The freight station could be done as a semi-flat on the far left of the shelf towards the middle to top area. The rest of that far left of the shelf is done to represent a town. Continue this on the backdrop.
Your coal mine goes on a ledge on the top left of the 6x3 and can be accessed by a branch that weaves it’s way up off of the switchback for the logging company. You could model the tracks up the switchback to the point of the branch as older tracks (lighter ties, rails in worse shape, a little more rickety looking, etc.) and then from there on up to the logging company the tracks are newer.
Along the top of the 6x3 you now have a business on each upper corner, each on a hill. Now how about a valley between the two with a large, maybe curved, trestle connecting the mine track?
Now how about a track that runs from the yards and goes under that trestle and curves around to the upper righthand corner and disappears behind some trees. It actually goes under your mountain that has the lo
I agree with the other posters in that the drawing looks like a lot of track in the small space. Here’s how i’d fix that;
Determine what era your layout will fit, and what kind of equipment you will need. First generation geeps with 40-50 ft freight cars appear to fit in.
Big modern diesels with long freight cars may not fit. Your newest loco may be a GP38??
Now you have an idea of what curves will be required. Newer equipment requires larger curves. You may need 18" at best or 12" at worst for mainlines. Yards & sidings can be as tight as 9" snap trak.
Redraw your layout using the constraints mentioned. You could use smaller 3-6" to the foot squares to plan the curves correctly.
4} Try a 3d version. Redraw the layout using paper blocks to simulate the upper level. It’s all on paper, so don’t be afraid to cut away or make changes as necessary.
I agree with Wdlgln005 on the rolling stock and loco issue. I forgot to hit on that in my earlier post.
Another concideration is that sinse you will be going with sharper curves and smaller numbered turnouts you could look at doing earlier steam. Turn of the century or thereablouts would work really well. Most cars were about 36 ft. long and the 40 footers were coming into play. Loco’s were short wheelbase too. This all plays into your hands. These smaller loco’s and cars will also make your layout appear a little larger and your yard a little more busy.