As I’ve indicated in other threads, due to financial situations I’m in “Use what I have” mode, rather than giving up again on having a layout. I’m pondering two approaches, and hoping for some opinions on which way to go.
Givens:
N scale Kato Unitrack
Limited to a small tabletop layout…4’x6’ or less
First real layout
A Super Chief A set with F7
An F3 and half dozen assorted rollingstock
No room for a yard…just a “fiddle track”
Both choices featuring the same sidings
Both choices using the same radii and pseudo-eased curves
Additional locomotives & rollingstock will be VERY slowly aquired
Non railroad structures will be VERY slowly aquired
Choices:
A Twice around with no runaround, simpler scenery, and less room for non-railroad scenery
A Single oval with a small run around, more complex scenery, and more room for non-railroad scenery
A single oval with a passing track and at least two industrial spurs. Leave as much space as possible open for now. You may find you like building scenery as much as track or you may find that plenty of track has more appeal. Leaving space allows you to pick either option as you go along. Having a passing track and a couple of industrial spurs will give you enough operation to keep it interesting while you slowly build your empire. [:)]
I’m with Jim here. But I would know where I would put two turnouts to get off the table top and back on, for when space opens up and there is room for a shelf layout extention and maybe even area for a second table top.
I am in that stage right now, discovering I have some extra room near by where I can add a roundhouse and am glad I disigned in the place for the enterence and exit turnouts.
What is the Chief A set? Is it passenger? Then I agree with the others about a single loop, but perhaps you can have a terminal of sorts? If you have freight, or all freight, then perhaps a 4X6 would be best with switching and industry.
The problem with one oval is that it gets boring, even deathly so, after a few weeks. If you absolutely have to be able to let trains run so that you can sit back and watch, and are limited financially and spatially, then an oval it must be. You’ll need at least one siding on the main for meets. A small, modest servicing track for locomotives would add that much more realism and variety to your train sessions, even if it has to branch off one of the industry tracks.
In table top layouts, the typical twice-around has the advantage of a much longer run, and usually features grades and a bridge where one track passes over the other. Many of us especially enjoy the bridge scene. I am assuming the reason for no runaround on the twice-around is cost of turnouts because there is certainly room for one in N scale in the space you mention.
The real disadvantage of the up and over twice-around on a table top layout is lack of level track where turnouts for spurs and runarounds can be installed. However, you should be able to do reasonably well in N if you are bigger than 3ft x 5ft. The other disadvantage is that the layout tends (but not always) to have a “toy-like” appearance.
John Allen’s original 4x7 HO G&D (in 101 track plans) is a good example of a twice-around in a modest space.
A single oval will have a run that is half as long, and likely will be level. It generally won’t be as fun to railfan. There will be more room for structures assuming there aren’t mountains taking table space. And possibilities for switching and prototype operations are improved. It will be easier to add in turnouts as you can afford them. Use one of the better HO 4x8 plans as a starting point.
Personally, I prefer the twice-around, but that’s me, and that’s also assuming 4 turnouts (2 for a passing siding, and 2 for spurs) from the beginning. What really matters is your priorities and preferences.
If money is such an issue, why not use Atlas flex track and turnouts instead (I again assume you already have a loop’s worth of Kato track). They will take a little more care to lay and make work well - but what we are talking about is trading time for money. Plenty of fine layouts have been built with Atlas track.
I’ve found that you can cover a lot more ground financially with scenery. Building scenery lends it self well to scavaging. Dumpster diving and nature are your friends. Scrap foam from construction sites work well for hills and such. Weeds from the yard make decent trees. Sand makes decent dirt. Hobby paints from Hobby Lobby are like 79 cents. I’m in the same boat as you. My business is really slow right now so my wife has enacted a strict, almost non existent budget for modeling. Buildings, engines, and rolling stock have to wait for a cash surplus(birthday or Christmas). I’m lucky because I prefer the scenery side of modeling. If you are in to operations, why not try to join a club. You may even learn thrifty new ways of modeling. Oh, by the way, are you limited to these loop options because of lack of track? I wouldn’t think it would be for a lack of space.
First off, there will be no more space, short of moving to another house, which is beyond unlikely. At 4x6 the layout will be nestled into a corner on 2 sides…to get access to 2 sides of the layout, it will have to be slid around on the table. The other two sides must be kept open for main walkways through the house.
Second, with the limited footprint, and the limited options of Unitrack turnouts, there is not going to be room or track geometry to be able to add more trackage in the future.
Finally, Both plans feature the same siding configurations, including sidings heading off to the three accessible corners… with one of them eventually to be configured with the possibility of interfacing with T-Trak modules.
Yes, the Super Chief A set are passenger cars…and the increased curve radii required for them is part of what has combined to limit my options. Historically, from my arm chair prospective, the passenger cars are what have held my interest. The discovering of the N scale Kato Super Chiefs is what prompted me to take another shot at building a layout. My space situation had made an HO passenger car capable layout impossible.
The fear of SOB Syndrom (Simple Oval Boredom) is what drove me to come up with the twice around variation for a longer run possibility. At this point, if no continious running was my only option, I’d probably not even be attempting a layout. I have another space in another part of the house that I could do an 8’ x 15" switching layout, but so far the idea of a non continious running layout has not tripped my trigger.
Both plans would feature similar dead-end fiddle tracks that could serve as a pull off…And both feature similar short local switcher pocket sidings.
The limitations are a combination of space with virtually no expansion possibilities, large radii curves for the passenger cars in that small space, and limited Unitrack turnout & crossing geometry. With either layout, even if I had money for additional turnouts, I’d have no place to put them.
I’d love to be able to get involved in a club situation, but disability mobility issues, among other things make that impractical.
I’m sure that Fred was talking about using a 4x8 HO scale layout as a starting point. That would give you more than enough room.
Next, you have resources that you are not thinking about. Fred mentioned Atlas track. I’m sure that you have Kato track and that you think you are stuck. If you sold that track on eBay and bought Atlas track to replace it (also from EBay) you would have a lot more options. In fact, if it were me, and I had only what you had now, I would design my layout to be the best possible design I could come up with for the space, sell off my Kato track and anything else in the house that no longer has interest to you and buy what you need to make it work.
You get the best layout you can have in the space. Objections? No guts, no glory.
Currently I am working on an HO 4x6, which I hope to be able to have travel.
View block diagonally across, have a passing siding on each side (using part of the curve on both sides). Have three industrial sidings on one side, room for one or two on the other, but might look crowded. N scale should give you more options as you have more space.
My plan is to have two trains running, one in each direction. If I want constant running, no problem, there are switching options and onlookers can’t see the whole layout from either side.
Other than the availability of flex track, going Atlas would give me no advantage. I’d still need the same or near the same radii curves…Atlas & Kato both offer #4 & #6 turnouts. The only thing I would gain is a Wye, which right off hand, I don’t see a need for. The real space saving features like curved turnouts, 3 ways, and slip switches require going elsewhere other than Atlas, and as far as I’ve been able to find, more pricey. Also, being a tabletop layout and given my mobility issues, I want to stay with table top mounted remote turnout activation. As far as I’ve been able to find, the Kato #6s have a lot better rep than the standard Atlas units. Even if I sold what I have for what I paid for it (and I would not in good conscience gouge anyone for more than that), I could not recoup the original shipping costs, and would incur another round of shipping costs that would cut into what I could afford to buy.
Finally, if I did sell what I have, I’m not in the financial position to in good conscience use the proceeds for hobby stuff…there would be more pressing uses.
If the space I have to work with allowed for viewing & operations on more than two adjacent sides, I would be going with some type of divider to stretch the scene…and I’d probably go with a completely different configuration. The space saving of N scale kind of disappears when using larger radii curves so that 85’ passenger cars do not look excessively toy like.
I may have missed reading how you will manage this layout electrically…DCC or DC. In any event, DC with one or two sets of feeders will probably mean only one locomotive on the layout at a time, unless you have a siding that is accessed by power routing turnouts. When a train occupies the siding, but the turnouts line the main, the locomotive on the siding will not move while the other zips around the loop. So, I would favour the siding over a longer loop, and I’d use what’s left over for industrial track.
Hang on a minute, I cannot believe what I have been reading in this thread, or maybe I have just been giving the N scale guys more credit than they are due. If you were modeling in HO, you would be limited to a layout of 8’ by 12’ which is one big lot of space! I’ve seen some pretty interesting, though small layouts for sale at train shows that are down right kewl with over and unders, sidings etc, in even less space than what you have. As a kid, my Lionel 027 layout was on a 4X6 and I thought it was just wonderful.
An 8’ x 12’ HO layout does not have to be boring and I don’t think your N scale pike has to be either.
DC, with an MRC 280 Tech 4, and a couple of Atlas Selectors. Kato turnouts are power routing, but I planned on isolating the tracks just beyond the diverging leg and feeding them from their own selector switch.
Because I was planning the twice around to have a bypass of the inner loop, it would have a slight bit more potential for running more than one train at a time.
You are right…assuming using the smaller radii trackage available in N scale, and running smaller freight rolling stock. In that realm, there are all kinds of neat things that could be done in the space. But when large portions of the curves are 19" and 28.25" radii to make the 85’ passenger cars look and run half way decently (the popular consensus is that 19" is the minimum to look good, at less than 15" serious “toyness” sets in, and less than 13.75" reliability starts to drop fast), that space quickly gets eaten up. Also, the bridge scene I want, and wanting to avoid turnouts in inconvienant access areas due to my mobility issues, also seriously cut into the possibilities. Plus I am not a big fan of spaghetti bowls.
The NMRA RP-11 guidlines list 17.375-21.5" radius for N scale 85’ cars, depending on configuration.
Regarding 85’ passenger cars, I too love passenger trains, long ones and all my locomotives are ATSF. Watched the Texas Chief run through Oklahoma all during the 50’s, never once thought of getting my Kodak Hawkeye out and taking their picture!
Walthers recommends min 24" (HO) for 85’ which would be ~12 in N. I run 30" min and the King of passenger, Mr. Sperandeo recommends 32" min. You could have a mainline folded over itself with 15" (N) and a ton of sidings, passing tracks using #4 or #5 for the yard and keep the passenger train(s) on the mainline and let the freight dodge them on the smaller radii.
As for toyness, there are those who insist anything less than code 70, 40’’ and #8 is tinplate toy territory. Remember, 28" radius in N is almost 60" in HO, you will look long and hard to find a railroad this side of the Chicago Science museum that is all 60".
My whole point is that you really have a large area to work with in N scale and with some creativity and research, could have a tremendous layout. While I personally have ripped out my two level layout and intend never again in the future, some would tell you that you can stack a couple of layers there and have a field day.
Your 30" HO minimum standard translates to a roughly 16.2" radius in N. The visible main minimum standard I’m trying to stick to is 15" with 19" and 28.25" sections forming pseudo easements. I’m also sticking with the often recomended 2% maximum grade.
After 8 months of searching and experimenting with xtrkcad, I’ve yet to see or achieve any kind of folded over on itself dog-bone (I’ve seen several smaller radius of this configuration I like) that will fit in a 4’x6’ footprint and maintain those standards. Plus there is the issue of not having #4s or #5s to work with. Kato only makes #4s and #6s, and and based on a number of recomendations against using Kato’s #4s on mains due to derailment problems, what I have is all #6s. Right now, and for the forseeable future, there will be no point in a yard anyway…not enough rolling stock on hand to justify one, plus not enough turnouts on hand to make one. At one point I had worked up a similar siding feature oval that had a 3 track staging yard, a staging lead that doubled as a a passing track, and a small one or two car runaround. If the budget would support it, I’d build it, but with the budget functionally at zero, it would be years before I could afford to build it. As is, my fiddle/pull-off track can handle my longest train (the Super Chiefs), which coincidentally happens to be half the locomotives and rollingstock that I have.