"Large" N-Scale Layout


John Henry Pritzlaff said:
Could a moderator please transfer this thread to the N-Scale forum for me? I've decided, at least for now, that we will indeed go N.
Click to expand...

No need to move it, and here’s why: The focus of this discussion is layout design. The concepts we’re discussing, how to connect two modules across the room from each other, are applicable to more than just N scale. Some things do change based on scale, but general design concepts are more broad based.
 
Thank you Bob. That seems especially appropriate given how early I am in the planning stages. I'm currently trying to figure out how to make track with tighter than normal turn radiuses... And to what extent one can make their own track at all.

I've seen all kinds of real world exceptions to what is normally thought of as prototypical and I have an interest in incorporating this attitude into my futuristic fantasy model. An off-topic example being a stretch of track that was very poorly maintained and looked monstrous, had a lot of derailments... I'll try to find it on YouTube.
 
John,

Your plan certainly looks interesting and your thoughts for the layout are likewise.

Your thoughts about including a "poorly maintained" section of track and how to do that made me think about the type of track you would be using. As you are starting from scratch then I would recommend using "Flex Track". You will be able to very easily replicate poorly maintained track with that. You can remove ties altogether, remove one end of a set of ties from the rail, bend the rail to form a "buckle in the track" and so forth. Because it is "Flex" track, you can shape it any way you want and create your own radii as well.

Should you go this route, then you will have two "main" options for flex track, Code 55 or Code 80. There is also a Code 50 but not as common. Next you need to choose a manufacturer. There are numerous; however the two most common and perhaps popular are Atlas and Peco. Personally, I use Peco (code 80) and would recommend that make.
 
Real Flex track does have limitations, it can only bend/flex so far before it buckles. I don't know what the minimum radii scarm can make but how small a radius do you want? Even if you are not going to run trains over the poorly maintained section of track you really wouldn't want curves less than 9" in N Scale.
 
John Henry Pritzlaff said:
I have an interest in incorporating this attitude into my futuristic fantasy model. An off-topic example being a stretch of track that was very poorly maintained and looked monstrous, had a lot of derailments... I'll try to find it on YouTube.
Click to expand...
The goal in a model would be to have track that looks poorly maintained and looks like it would have a lot of derailments but as far as the model goes it does NOT have a lot of derailments. Trying to think where I saw someone who was working on this technique. They had the cars wobbling and the whole nine yards.
 
John Henry Pritzlaff said:
So using flexitrack could I form tighter curves than SCARM allows?
Click to expand...

Yes. Go to "Tools" > "Settings" > "Edit" > "Flex-tracks" and in the drop-down item "Minimum radius for Curve" select "User-defined (global)". Then set the minimum required radius and enable "The global value always takes precedence" check-box. That will allow you to make tighter radii on your own risk.

Mixy
 
>;;;;;;,;;,;;< Hi.Though the thread is fascinating in and of itself, I wish to emphasize my enjoyment of Roy Smith's Vid. above. Roy, I have always had reservations about helixes and double decker layouts since the beginnings of these two MRRing advents. I have never built a helix, yet in my mind's eye I've always seen the very same 5-6 things you bring up about it. Thanks Roy..Very well done treatus on all dat jazz. Mark, Los Angeles >;;,;,;;;;;,;<

-[] love is in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to hobbies and other romance []
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top