Yet another newbie


StarikIgolkin

StarikIgolkin

New Member
Greetings, Everyone!

Well, I'm probably not completely new (had a small HO floor layout when I was a kid), but pretty close.

Just started getting back into it couple of weeks ago, this time in N scale. It's great to find a forum like this.

Since I don't have a lot of space that can permanently host a layout, and don't want a shelf or ceiling layout, I'm thinking about making a mobile layout - four 2x4 desks, each can run independently, or they can be connected together into either a 4x8, or a corner.
Basically, I'm planning a design where any two desks can be connected along any side, with track close to edge of the desk ending with small bumper that can be replaced with long track section, connecting the desks (I probably should just post a drawing, the description seems very clumsy).

Has anyone done something similar?

Thanks
 
Hi newbie , welcome to the forum . SpaceMouse is also a N scaler and he has some good advise on layouts and starting out . I would look him up on the forum !
 
SpaceMouse said:
I just put together a contest where the contestants get a sheet of plywood to cut up any way they want to make a layout. You might be interested in how the N-scalers handled it.

Sheet-o-ply contest
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I see a lot of interchange lines - are they typically used to connect to other layouts, or just "for show"?

BTW, I found a bunch of 2x4 N scale layouts here - http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm, which sort of led me to the idea to design four connecting 2x4 layouts.
 
StarikIgolkin said:
Very interesting. I see a lot of interchange lines - are they typically used to connect to other layouts, or just "for show"?

BTW, I found a bunch of 2x4 N scale layouts here - http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm, which sort of led me to the idea to design four connecting 2x4 layouts.
Click to expand...

Interchange tracks are where two railroads meet. One train will set out cars for the other railroad on the interchange track and pick up the ones that go to destinations on their line. It is an easy way to model a lot of action on a model railroad in a small space.

Most of the entries shown stress operations as well as looking good. Some are models of actual locations. They are all meant to be stand alone.

A 2 x 4 layout in N scale is slightly smaller than a 4 x 8 layout in HO. Either way, it is a limiting design. The six wheeled trucks diesels and longer steam engines will not be able to make the curve radii that will be needed to turn around. If you can avoid it you will ultimately be happier.

2 x 4 are good for modular clubs, but not so good for personal use.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpaceMouse said:
Interchange tracks are where two railroads meet. One train will set out cars for the other railroad on the interchange track and pick up the ones that go to destinations on their line. It is an easy way to model a lot of action on a model railroad in a small space.
Click to expand...

So, do the two railroads meet "virtually", and the interchange tracks model that, or do people physically connect layouts together by running some sort of removable track between their respective interchange lines? Sorry, if this is a dumb question, my sig applies to me quite often :eek:

SpaceMouse said:
A 2 x 4 layout in N scale is slightly smaller than a 4 x 8 layout in HO. Either way, it is a limiting design. The six wheeled trucks diesels and longer steam engines will not be able to make the curve radii that will be needed to turn around. If you can avoid it you will ultimately be happier.
Click to expand...

That's good to know, thanks. I like being happier :)
My problem is space - I need a layout that can be broken up into "portable" size pieces. I wasn't thinking that each 2x4 would be a complete layout - one would be the yard, another - city, third - industrial zone, fourth - mountain terrain with some mining works, and each would have part of the big loop; each of them could be used independently for testing out ideas and playing with specific theme, but the full layout would be when all four are connected together in one of the configurations in attachments.

The six wheeled diesels - they can't make any curve on 2', or only smaller radius internal curves would be impractical? Could they be kept on outside loop with smaller locomotives used for local works and yard?
 
StarikIgolkin said:
So, do the two railroads meet "virtually", and the interchange tracks model that, or do people physically connect layouts together by running some sort of removable track between their respective interchange lines? Sorry, if this is a dumb question, my sig applies to me quite often :eek:
Click to expand...

No dumb question. Interchange tracks can service virtual tracks or real tracks. But you want the interchange tracks themselves where you can work them. The same goes for industries.

Look again at #4, which is my design. The interchange track is on the layout, but the Northwestern Pacific RR is located off the layout as staging. See my article: What is Staging and Why do I need it? The main industry, logging (at least the harvesting aspect), is also located off layout in staging. You can do that with a lot of industries. Coal mines, for instance, can be represented by a conveyor belt that comes from over a hill to the track. This happens enough in the prototype that no one will question it.


That's good to know, thanks. I like being happier :)
My problem is space - I need a layout that can be broken up into "portable" size pieces. I wasn't thinking that each 2x4 would be a complete layout - one would be the yard, another - city, third - industrial zone, fourth - mountain terrain with some mining works, and each would have part of the big loop; each of them could be used independently for testing out ideas and playing with specific theme, but the full layout would be when all four are connected together in one of the configurations in attachments.

The six wheeled diesels - they can't make any curve on 2', or only smaller radius internal curves would be impractical? Could they be kept on outside loop with smaller locomotives used for local works and yard?
Click to expand...

A picture is worth 1000 words right? To make a turn on 2 x 4 the most you can expect is 11" (which is either measured from the center of the track or inside rail) and that takes the track right up to the edge of the layout--which unless you like to spend money on engines or don't mind cracked shells, you don't want.

This is a 12.5 inch radius turn--

DSC00488.jpg
 
SpaceMouse said:
A picture is worth 1000 words right? To make a turn on 2 x 4 the most you can expect is 11" (which is either measured from the center of the track or inside rail) and that takes the track right up to the edge of the layout--which unless you like to spend money on engines or don't mind cracked shells, you don't want.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that explains it best way possible :)
What would you recommend as minimum safe distance from the track to edge of layout?
 
There are a couple ways to go. The width of your loco lying on it's side. Or build a lip 1/2 as high as the engine. The lip then as to be factored into re-railing. You also have to factor your reach into it.

How is this for an idea?

1) First determine your vision. What do you want to see when you run trains?

2) Then look at your space. What would your ideal layout look like in the space you have now?

3) How can you build it so you can take it apart to move it?

Take a look at this layout. It's built on a door and he takes it to shows.

Dave Volmer's PRR Middle Division, 1956

One last thing. It may seem like you are keeping your options open, but the sooner you narrow your preferences to a specific railroad, location and era, the easier it will be to build a "model railroad." IT will be cheaper as well, as you can focus your dollars on what will build your vision.

By "keeping your options open" you are almost guaranteeing you will build a "toy train."
 
SpaceMouse said:
There are a couple ways to go. The width of your loco lying on it's side. Or build a lip 1/2 as high as the engine. The lip then as to be factored into re-railing. You also have to factor your reach into it.

How is this for an idea?

1) First determine your vision. What do you want to see when you run trains?

2) Then look at your space. What would your ideal layout look like in the space you have now?

3) How can you build it so you can take it apart to move it?

Take a look at this layout. It's built on a door and he takes it to shows.

Dave Volmer's PRR Middle Division, 1956

One last thing. It may seem like you are keeping your options open, but the sooner you narrow your preferences to a specific railroad, location and era, the easier it will be to build a "model railroad." IT will be cheaper as well, as you can focus your dollars on what will build your vision.

By "keeping your options open" you are almost guaranteeing you will build a "toy train."
Click to expand...

Thank you. Dave's layout is very impressive.
Lots of ideas, I'll have to spend some time thinking and trying.

Lots of planning while I'm waiting for some of the stuff I ordered to arrive.
 
What do I think? My personal view is that the square design is very limiting. If I had to choose I'd try to work the blocks you showed me first.

Also consider this. Atlas designs are there to sell track. Their designs tend to have a lot of track in the plan. They tend to be hard to make look good scenically.

Go back to my design contests and look at the 4 x 8 Contest. Notice how some of them have scene dividers. If you go the table route think in terms of scenes. Maybe a good compromise might be a 30-36" wide layout that is 6 feet long with a scenic divider down the center. You would still have the ability to run loops and at the same time have the "here to there" feel and a sense of purpose to your switching. You could easily do two of the designs from the 2 x 8 contest in that space.
 
SpaceMouse said:
Also consider this. Atlas designs are there to sell track. Their designs tend to have a lot of track in the plan. They tend to be hard to make look good scenically.
Click to expand...

This is what was bothering me about the octopus, but I couldn't quite put it into words.

OK, I think I'll stop looking for ready layouts and try to design one myself, using some of the ideas in your contests, but in smaller space than solid 4x8.

Thanks
 
The 4 x 8's are all HO s you could do the same thing in 26" x 51" in N scale. You have more leeway than that.

Think also what I just said above about the 2 x 8 (Also HO) contest. Picture a loop in which a 49 Inch x 13" section was in the center of each long side of the loop. You could take two of those and put it into a 30" x 6' table layout, still have your loop and have two excellent, operationally sound scenes.
 
Please excuse an intrusion, Gentlemen.

An important part of a finished layout is that is has believable visual appeal. That is what Dave Vollmer recognized at the outset. It had to stand on its own framed almost everywhere in a still image. That means there has to be a convincing confluence between the structures, the greenery, and the right of way. It has to work.

What Chip and I know to be called "spaghetti bowl" track plans are wonderfully intricate and convoluted and chock full of trackage. Unfortunately, they almost never win bragging rights on any other dimension than that...they're a one-hit jukebox in all but the mose exceptional cases.

It is a grave mistake to want to cram more track into a small space, no matter what the scale. It isn't as if one should just have a simple oval, but the oval may have to be the spine of the track plan to permit a bit of railfanning when you don't want to do more than chat with a bud and enjoy the train running hands-free. Too, an oval doesn't have to be ovoid in shape...it can be a folded loop, or a pinched loop. As long as the train can go and come continuously.

But only if you want that function. If you would rather switch and do realistic operations, then the oval will perhaps have to fade in importance. At the same time, several parallel tracks and multiple switches will quickly take up a great deal of real estate. What is beyond it? Any streets, a fence, a row of elms...how about main street of Small Town with some low relief business frontage set up tight against a backdrop?

Does the railroad just pass through Small Town, or is there a basic switching sub there? An interchange? Stock yards? A couple of furniture factories?

I am trying to make the point that the more you invest up front in defining your layout on quite a few dimensions, the more joy it will bring you for its initial purpose, its emotional appeal, its promise of interesting operations, and its variety. From all of those will come its believability and then its appeal.

-Crandell
 
I'll just add this. My wife describes my layout to others as a "model village" rather than a model railroad. In many ways, she's right. I would guess my layout is 30% tracks and right of way and 70% is scenery, mostly of a small southern town with a few hills and cuts thrown in to give the layout some dimension other than flat. Non-MR people who see my layout rarely spend much time looking at my trains or track but they spend a lot of time looking at all the little detail scenes I've set up all over town. I still have enough trackage for operations but I've tried to make it look like the track is there for a reason. My loop in a folded dogbone but even there, I have about half the trackage at the back disguised by a range of small hills so the train disappears from the town and shows up about 30 seconds later at the overpass way at the other end of town. Just having a train that you can watch go round and round really does get boring without some scenery to look at as well.
 
Crandell, UP2CSX, thank you, these are great points, and another reason I was somewhat concerned about the octopus.
In the original 4-table plan I was thinking that one would have nature settings - forest and mountains, the other - town, third - industrial, and fourth - the yard.

Now I'm starting to like Chip's idea of taking two 2x8 HO layouts and scaling them down into one 3x6 N layout. I probably won't take them "as is", but use them for ideas.
Main "target audience" for this work are my kids, so their wishes are definitely a priority :)
There will be an overall loop, small part of which will be running through a mountain. If I can squeeze it in without taking too much space, there will be two ways to run through that loop continuously.
And as second priority, I do want to play with switching at least a little. So, the way I'm seeing it now, the two main areas, separated by what Chip called scenic divider would be "nature" and industrial zone, and maybe a port. Possibly industrial zone and nature will combine - lumber operation, a mine and/or a quarry are the possibilities I've been thinking about. Town will be hinted at by a couple of buildings and piece of a street, but I'm not planning it to be a major part of layout.
And none of this (except for the loop running through mountains - kids demand it) is set in stone, so if I see that I can't lay it out in that space, plans will change ... again :eek:
 
Keep the kids in mind, but build for yourself. Don't build anything that you wouldn't want to use. I say this from experieince. Kids burn out and want to do other things. They might come back at times, but...

If you build it for you, you can enjoy it when they don't. If they like the RR, they'll like what you like.

Look over this layout for kids I built.

Hogwart's Freight and Ferry

Be sure to look at the Engines and Rolling Stock section. (just because I put a lot of work into it.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top