N Gauge Room Layout help

[UKN_Downunder]

Looking for some help or suggestions. I now have a spare bedroom available to build a new N gauge uk outline layout. Recent purchases of 2 LNER Azumas Kato Class 800s have now got me wanting to get started.

 

The room measures 11ft x 8ft with the door on a short wall.  There are no wardrobes to worry about and the window is set high. For when the grandkids arrive, I would like to have a decent continuous run layout so I can let the Class 800s stretch their legs without them looking like a tailchaser and an additional track for commuter/freight traffic. I am thinking a main terminating station at one end a through station at the other end (thinking something similar to Wimbledon) with MTD and a commuter stop midway. Also if I could get a freight handling facility in  that would be good but not a biggie as a hidden fiddle yard could hold complete made up rakes.

So am I trying to get too much in? Any suggestions or inspirations. It will be DCC using Peco Streamline. What are recommended incline/declines to/from fiddle yard.

Thanks.

[Kris]

I would go for a less is more approach with gentle curves throughout the whole "scenic" layout.  If you wanted to you could go for a folded figure of 8 layout with the fiddle yard on the bottom layer. For your gradients try not to exceed 1 in 50. 

[RobinofLoxley]

The thing about N gauge is that it's much easier to have split levels and gradients than HO/OO and this is the way to avoid the appearance of tailchasing. Needs careful planning but can be done. 

 

Do you know what code of track?

 

Does the door open out of the room - makes life easier if so, instead of reducing layout space it becomes the spot for a lift-out section

[Chimer]

Couldn't resist this .... but it's only a concept, so no point in criticising the finer details i don't think.

 

Two problems, I think in 4mm/foot and believe that fast LNER trains should be headed by A4s, but I've had a go nonetheless.  I've used my OO XTrackCad files so all the dimensions need to be halved (so squares are 6" in N) - even so I recognise it's a stretch into the right hand corners so there's some adjustments needing to be made there.

 

So, we've got a double track mainline with fast lines through the station, the assumption being that the tracks continue straight and only half the platforms are visible.  Storage loops for the main lines behind the backscene at the bottom, more loops could be added depending on how much variety (including freight rakes) is wanted.

 

And 4 terminal platforms serving an intensive commuter network, with one single track branch running to a branch terminus bottom left, having climbed to cross the mainlines bottom right, but the majority of suburban trains running to the hidden sidings in the bottom corner (I'm assuming these will all be multiple units of some sort).  I'm thinking the branch terminus would have been heavily rationalised, but some evidence of steam age glories might still be visible.

 

Platforms 3 & 4 can be used to exchange stock between main and suburban lines, but an extra hidden crossover would be needed somewhere to get trains leaving these platforms for the main line back again.  And I'm not entirely happy with the approaches to these two platforms.

 

The green line is the line of the backscene.  Not too high as there'll be a need to reach over it if things go pear-shaped. 

 

I've used large radius Streamline points in all visible areas and small radius in the storage yards.  Minimum radius for hidden curves 24" (so 12" in N)  which could probably be increased by 50% in most places.

 

You will gather I think the answer to the question "am I trying to get too much in?" is probably yes, But hopefully this will give some food for thought.

 

Cheers, Chris

 

[RobinofLoxley]

TBH @chimer a bit premature until the status with the door is known. But I like messing about with layouts too.......

[DCB]

On 23/08/2022 at 10:14, UKN_Downunder said:

The room measures 11ft x 8ft with the door on a short wall. 

Where on the short wall?     A Four track main line would look good in that space, especially if the fast lines are in the middle with slow lines to the sides.  as a fast train overtaking a slow has a certain fascination, I love watching trains at Thirsk on the ECML as often an Express overtakes a local or a freight within view of the station, the track is dead straight for miles.

Or if you have grandkids, you might be getting on a bit, and a U shaped  layout might be more sensible avoiding the duck under/ lifting section completely.  I would shy away from a terminus station, they tend to become non hidden Fiddle yards and many models are hugely complex compared to what exists outside London and the South East,  Designing double track so pairs of trains can race each other around the layout is fun.   Grand children might also enjoy it.

[UKN_Downunder]

Thanks, thats all great food for thought to get me started. Unfortuntely the door opens inwards but it is hinged in a corner opening 90 degrees from a short wall to the adjacent long wall.

I like the idea of a 4 track main line so maybe having a central through station would work well with adjoing terminating platforms.

Assuming i avoid a duck under option would I be able to tun a 4 track main line 180 degrees in the space I have?

 

[RobinofLoxley]

4 hours ago, UKN_Downunder said:

Thanks, thats all great food for thought to get me started. Unfortuntely the door opens inwards but it is hinged in a corner opening 90 degrees from a short wall to the adjacent long wall.

I like the idea of a 4 track main line so maybe having a central through station would work well with adjoing terminating platforms.

Assuming i avoid a duck under option would I be able to tun a 4 track main line 180 degrees in the space I have?

 

First of all we usually first welcome folk to the forum/madhouse!

 

Then it must be said that you need to have some idea about your own capabilities in building a layout. The track plan below was drawn in Anyrail, and as the DCB idea isnt really my cup of tea, and 11 x 8' is actually quite a good size in N gauge, I have just drawn an outline to show how the track fits - you can anticipate there would be space from the amount of track @chimer fitted in, albeit in a different scale. Its a thing with Setrack that while a larger radius might be better, you are constrained by the track available. Its easier to insert short straights to widen the curves than build outside radius from flexible track.

 

This shows a four track plan fits easily with a fair amount of scope for introducing additional features. It would be quite a lot of work to develop this into a fully fledged thing which is why I have left it as it is. There would be room for an operating well about three feet across, which is about the usuable minimum (humans dont scale down unfortunately) but is a decent length. I cant see the point in curving the sections beyond 180 degrees, to me that would be an ugly look and it isnt necessary. The well is 8 feet at its longest and there is a good space even if the door suddenly opens (grandkids).

 

The other point, which maybe you arent aware of, is that having acquired modern stock you could run it on code 55 track as well. This is much finer track but a trickier build altogether. In OO gauge the difference between standard code 100 and the more accurate to scale code 83 is not in my opinion so noticeable as between code 80 and code 55.

[Chimer]

Or another way, with the door in the other corner, but mirror-able.  Once again, drawn in 4mm so 6" squares in N, and nothing smaller than N Setrack radius 3.  It looks like a 4 track main line but is actually a 2 track dumbbell, obviously you could put whatever you want between the tunnel portals.

 

(Very) late edit to say I've realised I've drawn the door arc half size, but it should still fit!!

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Chimer

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The other point, which maybe you arent aware of, is that having acquired modern stock you could run it on code 55 track as well. This is much finer track but a trickier build altogether.

 

Are you thinking of code 40?  Peco code 55 is just another kind of Streamline and actually more robust than code 80.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I’ve recently bought a few N Scale models and a test circuit - the first time I’ve had some N Scale since about 1980 (when I was a kid).  I’ve been happily playing with modelling in H0e so have got used to 9mm track (and fishplates) again, but looking at how N has progressed has been quite eye-opening - and very impressive.  An Azuma starting off or at speed could look great and the new Kato N Scale motors I have under my narrow gauge locos simply glide around the track, so I can see the appeal.

 

In case it helps anyone not used to the smaller scale when considering track plan options, here are a couple of photos that may be of assistance, although I’m afraid I don’t have the appropriate rolling stock for a good comparison, sorry.

 

Track is Peco Setrack 4th radius (333.4mm) curves, and the coaches are scale 86’ European models (albeit in the smaller 1:160 Continental N Scale):

 

 

 

There is still some overhang, but it’s not too pronounced - I reckon 400mm+ radius curves would eliminate it (OO gauge second radius Setrack curves have a 438mm radius for reference).

 

A couple of shots with Peco medium and long N Gauge point templates printed off to scale (same coach as above).  Squares on my cutting mat are in centimetres:

 

 

 

My own personal conclusion is that 4th radius represents a workable minimum, and although the 18” radius of the medium points seems generous in N, I think the 36” radius of the long points is worth it visually if there is room.

 

Overall this gives me a slightly broader mainline radius than @Chimer tried above, but the same thinking on points in visible areas.  While conventional wisdom does allow for tighter points in hidden sidings, where they are hard to reach it may still be worth going for the largest possible points (if space and budget allow) to reduce the risk of derailments when shunting trains.

 

Just some thoughts - an exciting project to work on - and I’m sure there’ll be room for an A4 as well?  Keith.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[RobinofLoxley]

On 25/08/2022 at 23:36, Flying Pig said:

 

Are you thinking of code 40?  Peco code 55 is just another kind of Streamline and actually more robust than code 80.

No. I wasnt looking to have a debate but to stimulate the OP to check his track options. Yes the track profile is the same but the mouldings are very different, giving rise to a totally different appearance.

[UKN_Downunder]

I'm thinking code 55 in visual areas and 80 in hidden areas.

 

[njee20]

On 27/08/2022 at 09:42, RobinofLoxley said:

No. I wasnt looking to have a debate but to stimulate the OP to check his track options. Yes the track profile is the same but the mouldings are very different, giving rise to a totally different appearance.

But then your original comment is misleading. Code 55 is easier to work with than code 80, most certainly not “tricker altogether”. It is stiffer, you have less chance of ripping the rail out of the sleepers and all pointwork shares a common angle, so you can build crossovers comprising any two sizes of turnout. The track profile is not the same. Peco “code 55” is actually 0.083” rail, but with a sort of ‘inverted double-T’ profile with the bottom bit buried in the sleepers. Other brands’ (Atlas spring to mind) code 55 is true 0.055” rail, and consequently more delicate, but I can only think of US prototypes. 
 

Code 40 is close to scale for the UK but certainly is much trickier to use, as it all needs building, and is much less resilient than anything from Peco. It does yield a far more realistic look though. I’m using code 40 in my glacially paced layout build linked in my signature. For me the primary benefit is more prototypical pointwork, although scale rail profile and accurate sleeper spacing is a nice to have.  
 

On 23/08/2022 at 16:45, RobinofLoxley said:

The thing about N gauge is that it's much easier to have split levels and gradients than HO/OO and this is the way to avoid the appearance of tailchasing. Needs careful planning but can be done. 

 

I’m not sure I agree with that. Haulage in N is proportionally worse than OO; and although the minimum separation needed for trains to get under an upper level is reduced, if you’re aspiring to (for example) a lower level fiddle yard, hands don’t change scale, so you still need the same separation as in a larger scale. For a first layout I’d be minded to avoid gradients. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by njee20

[RobinofLoxley]

My point about track laying relates to building free-form with flexi curves as opposed to the fixed geometry of setrack. I guess its a matter of opinion on that. I have never knowingly seen code 40 in the flesh but I do have a local friend with a layout in N with mixed 80/55. He has 2% gradients.

[njee20]

Ah ok, but that’s not a code 80/55 thing though, that’s set track versus flex track. You can get code 80 flex track. 
 

This is code 40 alongside code 80 FWIW. 
 

 

you can of course put gradients in N gauge layouts, I just argue that it’s not inherently easier. Like I say, haulage is proportionately worse in N than OO. Even large diesels will struggle with comparatively modest rakes of wagons. 

[RJS1977]

On 25/08/2022 at 22:51, Chimer said:

Or another way, with the door in the other corner, but mirror-able.  Once again, drawn in 4mm so 6" squares in N, and nothing smaller than N Setrack radius 3.  It looks like a 4 track main line but is actually a 2 track dumbbell, obviously you could put whatever you want between the tunnel portals.

 

(Very) late edit to say I've realised I've drawn the door arc half size, but it should still fit!!

 

 

I like the thinking on this one. My father's 00 layout is a similar concept, albeit straighter and with only two tracks rather than four. Having a train appear to come back from where it's gone to is much more interesting than watching it chasing its tail. If you can introduce some form of automatic block working, so that a train entering the reversing loop isn't the same one that comes out, better still.

Another refinement is automatic station stops at any intermediate platforms - all of which helps build up the illusion.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

7 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I like the thinking on this one. My father's 00 layout is a similar concept, albeit straighter and with only two tracks rather than four. Having a train appear to come back from where it's gone to is much more interesting than watching it chasing its tail. If you can introduce some form of automatic block working, so that a train entering the reversing loop isn't the same one that comes out, better still.

Another refinement is automatic station stops at any intermediate platforms - all of which helps build up the illusion.

I agree it’s a nicely flowing walk-in layout that makes good use of the space.  Automatic block wiring on the reversing loops so a different train appears is also a good move, although the hidden portion may start to grow if each turnback must accommodate two full-length trains (nothing wrong in that - it’s a choice of priorities).

 

Personally I don’t so much enjoy watching the same train that just left a scenic section heading Up almost immediately appearing heading Down again having obviously just turned round without stopping, but I don’t mind seeing the same train building up the miles on a continuous run layout where it always heading the same way.  That’s just me, so my suggestion at this point to @UKN_Downunder would be to look up some videos online and see what type of layout makes an impression.  If you search for German N gauge layouts for example there are lots of examples of both types of continuous run layout to check out (guess what: I’ve been watching them 😀).  That said, I do like @Chimer’s second outline drawing a lot - and there’s less track laying!

 

Both @Chimer’s second plan and @RobinofLoxley’s suggestions offer a walk-in four track main line that showcase the space advantages of N very well - both the opportunity for an impressive scenic run and the ability to do so without a duck-under, Keith.

[Flying Pig]

42 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I agree it’s a nicely flowing walk-in layout that makes good use of the space.  Automatic block wiring on the reversing loops so a different train appears is also a good move, although the hidden portion may start to grow if each turnback must accommodate two full-length trains (nothing wrong in that - it’s a choice of priorities).

 

Personally I don’t so much enjoy watching the same train that just left a scenic section heading Up almost immediately appearing heading Down again having obviously just turned round without stopping, but I don’t mind seeing the same train building up the miles on a continuous run layout where it always heading the same way.  That’s just me, so my suggestion at this point to @UKN_Downunder would be to look up some videos online and see what type of layout makes an impression.  If you search for German N gauge layouts for example there are lots of examples of both types of continuous run layout to check out (guess what: I’ve been watching them 😀).  That said, I do like @Chimer’s second outline drawing a lot - and there’s less track laying!

 

Both @Chimer’s second plan and @RobinofLoxley’s suggestions offer a walk-in four track main line that showcase the space advantages of N very well - both the opportunity for an impressive scenic run and the ability to do so without a duck-under, Keith.

 

You could split the pairs of lines at an intermediate point and have the rear pair run via hidden sidings with the front pair continuing in view.  With @UKN_Downunder's Azumas in mind I'm thinking of an amalgamation of Colton Junction and Church Fenton, which would also provide an intermediate station for stopping trains.  If the junction crossovers were included 'realistic' running would be an option with this scheme, trains disappearing along the correct route and reversing in the hidden sidings.

 

At the other end of the layout, and with the same part of the world in mind, trains could disappear under Holgate Bridge on the approaches to York station.  There's less need to sort the trains out there as they can run through any of the platforms but part of the station throat could be included if there was room and perhaps even the adjacent sidings.  Lots of specials, both steam and diesel hauled run through this area.  Some dead end sidings within the balloon loop could be included for trains terminating at York.

 

None of this would impede wall of death running when required.

[Flying Pig]

On further thought, schematically something like this.  I've overlapped the crossovers to form a single compact junction and save space, but in the real world, the ladders are separated by a considerable distance here.  There's cope for further features such as the suggested freight terminal as space and inclination permit.  

 

The actual current layout between Church Fenton and Colton Junctions can be seen on Traksy here (live train map). 

 

[RJS1977]

On 28/08/2022 at 12:48, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I agree it’s a nicely flowing walk-in layout that makes good use of the space.  Automatic block wiring on the reversing loops so a different train appears is also a good move, although the hidden portion may start to grow if each turnback must accommodate two full-length trains (nothing wrong in that - it’s a choice of priorities).

 

Personally I don’t so much enjoy watching the same train that just left a scenic section heading Up almost immediately appearing heading Down again having obviously just turned round without stopping, but I don’t mind seeing the same train building up the miles on a continuous run layout where it always heading the same way.  That’s just me, so my suggestion at this point to @UKN_Downunder would be to look up some videos online and see what type of layout makes an impression.  If you search for German N gauge layouts for example there are lots of examples of both types of continuous run layout to check out (guess what: I’ve been watching them 😀).  That said, I do like @Chimer’s second outline drawing a lot - and there’s less track laying!

 

Both @Chimer’s second plan and @RobinofLoxley’s suggestions offer a walk-in four track main line that showcase the space advantages of N very well - both the opportunity for an impressive scenic run and the ability to do so without a duck-under, Keith.

 

And in some ways, perhaps the best is a mix of both - reversing loops each end, so that trains appear to have come back from where they went to, but also combined with a conventional run so that loaded coal/mineral trains etc can circulate in one direction and empties the other.