4x2 N Gauge First Layout in 45 Years

[Phaeton]

My Grandson (8 years old) is train mad & has a OO Hornby based layout which has sparked my interest again, we have no room but I can fit a 4x2 in the corner of my office/bedroom. Biggest problem is I don't know what I want it for, to run trains or to model it. So need a halfway house, some running so I think it needs to have an element of RnR don't think E2E appeals but it does needs to have other interests, it does not need to be prototypical as I know square root of all about railways & how they run. I've tried to design one of my own but not knowing anything makes it difficult so I have found these 2 designs on a webpage http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm

 

My initial reaction was for the 2x40001 (Upper) but the more I look at 2x40007 (Lower) it grows on me.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Phaeton
Name images

[Zomboid]

The top one has much more play value as it'll support two trains on the layout at once and has a couple of shunting areas. I'd go with that of the two as it'll give you ample scope to run trains and build models, and you'll find out what you like. It'll need modifying in the green area if you want to shunt both sidings from the same train without having a loco in the middle of some wagons, though.

 

The second would be good if you want to build lots of scenery (hills and the like), but the play value is relatively limited - only one train can run on that one.

[Robert Stokes]

I don't work in N-gauge, but I suspect the second one with the bridge taking one track over another will require quite severe gradients. Perhaps an experienced N-gauge modeller will be along soon to confirm or deny that.

 

Good luck with the project whichever one you choose.

 

Robert

 

Edit. I've just realised that the first one has the same feature. I would check the gradients carefully.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Robert Stokes
Additional comment.

[Aire Head]

The top plan has much more play value in my opinion.

 

I'd be tempted to turn the Paralell siding in the area at the centre of the board and then it into a run round loop.

 

That way you can avoid having to do and propelling manoeuvre when you send a train back down to the mainline.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Robert Stokes said:

I don't work in N-gauge, but I suspect the second one with the bridge taking one track over another will require quite severe gradients. Perhaps an experienced N-gauge modeller will be along soon to confirm or deny that.

 

Good luck with the project whichever one you choose.

 

Robert

 

Edit. I've just realised that the first one has the same feature. I would check the gradients carefully.

 

At a rough estimate, the first plan is going to need around 1 in 30 to 1 in 35 to give a 30mm rise to the bridge at the top of the gradient.  Changes in gradient will need to be smooth, especially at the top where there is also a change in curvature, to avoid derailment and unwanted uncoupling.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that both are trying to pack far too much into a small space.

 

A better option for this space would be OO9/HOe with station and/or goods yard at the front and hidden sidings behind. Allows the option of at least two trains running plus others on the layout but in the hidden area. Both the layouts shown are only really suitable for one train. 

[Phaeton]

34 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

I'd be tempted to turn the Paralell siding in the area at the centre of the board and then it into a run round loop.

 

Sorry may seem a basic question, but I'm not sure what you mean, 

 

7 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

At a rough estimate, the first plan is going to need around 1 in 30 to 1 in 35 to give a 30mm rise to the bridge at the top of the gradient.  Changes in gradient will need to be smooth, especially at the top where there is also a change in curvature, to avoid derailment and unwanted uncoupling.

 

I've been trying to plan them via Railway Modeller on Mac  using Peco set track I think it comes out as 3% is that acceptable?

 

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

A better option for this space would be OO9/HOe with station and/or goods yard at the front and hidden sidings behind. Allows the option of at least two trains running plus others on the layout but in the hidden area. Both the layouts shown are only really suitable for one train. 

 

I've only got 2ft width I can't get a double loop in that space, can I?

[Aire Head]

1 minute ago, Phaeton said:

Sorry may seem a basic question, but I'm not sure what you mean, 

 

 

No need to apologise.

 

On the top plan you currently have 2 sidings in the raised area in the centre.

 

I would take the siding parallel to the mainline and turn it into a loop so that you can take the locomotive to the other end of the train for when it returns to the mainline.

 

Hope this makes a bit more sense, if not I will do a diagram when I get home to illustrate what I am trying to say 

[Phaeton]

Do you mean like so? ignore the lack of the other track I'm trying to use the free software which restricts me to 50 items

 

[Aire Head]

15 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

Do you mean like so? ignore the lack of the other track I'm trying to use the free software which restricts me to 50 items

 

 

Yes exactly like that! 

[Joseph_Pestell]

39 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

 

 

I've only got 2ft width I can't get a double loop in that space, can I?

 

Yes, you can go double track in 2' width. The inner curves would be 9" radius and the outer curve about 10.25" radius (20.5" diameter).

 

I would still recommend 009 for this unless you don't like narrow gauge trains. Additional advantage is that it can share some accessories with your grandson's 00.

[Aire Head]

I'd also suggest using Xtrackcad aswell as it's free and doesn't restrict the numbers of track pieces you can use

[Phaeton]

I installed Xtrackcad one of my Linux machines yesterday but it didn't jump out at me as being as easy as Railway Modeller was on the Mac, I'll have another look shortly.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Phaeton said:

I've been trying to plan them via Railway Modeller on Mac  using Peco set track I think it comes out as 3% is that acceptable?

 

If my maths is right that's 1:33, so about the same as my estimate.  There's a recent thread on gradients which may help you:

 

 

[Phaeton]

According to RM it's 1372mm to rise 30mm although it might be slightly shorter as I would allow 30mm or so after the end of the turnout before starting to rise

[Harlequin]

Remember there needs to be a gentle transition to and from level at each end of the gradient.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Harlequin

[03060]

The 2nd plan is the same basic trackplan (without sidings) as is used in the Woodland Sceenics Sub Terrain System layout as seen in magazine adverts, whilst not sure of the size (or even the gauge) of the layout on show but it may give you a good visualisation of what it could look like in terms of gradients, etc and possibly a method of achieving them.

 

I'm currently considering this as a basic design starting point for a West Highland themed layout to fit into a space of 9'x 2'6" ....and I'm not convinced that I can adequately fit in a station with some sidings to satisfy the train lengths that I am looking to run.

 

It all keeps the mind active though, enjoying the thread and other peoples observations.

 

Best wishes,

Ian.

Edited January 18, 2020 by 03060
Correction.

[DCB]

1 hour ago, 03060 said:

The 2nd plan is the same basic trackplan (without sidings) as is used in the Woodland Sceenics Sub Terrain System layout as seen in magazine adverts, whilst not sure of the size (or even the gauge) of the layout on show but it may give you a good visualisation of what it could look like in terms of gradients, etc and possibly a method of achieving them.

 

I'm currently considering this as a basic design starting point for a West Highland themed layout to fit into a space of 9'x 2'6" ....and I'm not convinced that I can adequately fit in a station with some sidings to satisfy the train lengths that I am looking to run.

 

It all keeps the mind active though, enjoying the thread and other peoples observations.

 

Best wishes,

Ian.

I reckon you are looking at 4ft + platforms as the West Highland was limited to a loco and 9 coaches, otherwise one had to set back into a siding when two 9+ coach trains passed.  My own scottish themed station "Goat of Barton" takes 9 coach trains at its West Highland style island platform.

 

From the O.P the top one has more play value with a loop so two trains can be operated, Bottom is very much one engine in steam.  Both look more 009 than N but 009 usually needs more headroom for bridges and tunnels, 10ft 40mm in 009 instead of 15ft 30mm in N.

[Joseph_Pestell]

54 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

I reckon you are looking at 4ft + platforms as the West Highland was limited to a loco and 9 coaches, otherwise one had to set back into a siding when two 9+ coach trains passed.  My own scottish themed station "Goat of Barton" takes 9 coach trains at its West Highland style island platform.

 

From the O.P the top one has more play value with a loop so two trains can be operated, Bottom is very much one engine in steam.  Both look more 009 than N but 009 usually needs more headroom for bridges and tunnels, 10ft 40mm in 009 instead of 15ft 30mm in N.

 

The loops would need to be about 5' long for 9 coach trains. But the many (most even) West Highlands platforms would be quite a bit shorter. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

It might help us if the OP tells us what aspect of railways is of most interest.

 

The two plans look very American.

 

For a UK layout in this kind of space, it may be worth looking at some of CJ Freezers designs for 8' x 4' in 00.

[Phaeton]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

It might help us if the OP tells us what aspect of railways is of most interest.

 

The two plans look very American.

 

For a UK layout in this kind of space, it may be worth looking at some of CJ Freezers designs for 8' x 4' in 00.

 

Now you've taken the lid right off the can of worms, I'm sure this is going to upset a few, but whatever aspect I fancy at that time, it will be totally none prototypical, look at it as I am a multi billionaire & this  is my real life back garden. I may have a GWR pannier tank (always liked the look of them), a nice 0-6-0 LMS shunter & maybe a 2-6-4 LNER loco along with a BR or even Virgin trains 0-6-0 Type 8, all together in the same siding or in the engine shed. As far as rolling stock is concerned again anything goes, I know I'm never going to be running 9 coaches at once, maybe 4 at most, probably only 2, but again these might be different liveries.

 

If I go with the top one, then the works area in the middle is going to be something to do with livestock, a farm, maybe a milking depot, or a cattle loading area. This is not serious for me this is a distraction a bit of fun, sorry guys, I am a heretic. But one of the reasons for that is that I know I am not good enough to put together anything anywhere near to the standard that some of you guys do, although as we all know that may change once I start.

 

Yep they are American, I couldn't find any UK N gauge 4x2's to try to copy, tbh never thought of looking at 8x4 & halfing them.

 

The baseboard was built last night, just need to decide what to do with it, but whatever I do it has to have an incline or at least split levels, a bridge, a tunnel, a road ideally a crossing, not urban, river or canal would be nice (are there any n gauge canal boats?) but not essential.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Phaeton

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

 

Now you've taken the lid right off the can of worms, I'm sure this is going to upset a few, but whatever aspect I fancy at that time, it will be totally none prototypical, look at it as I am a multi billionaire & this  is my real life back garden. I may have a GWR pannier tank (always liked the look of them), a nice 0-6-0 LMS shunter & maybe a 2-6-4 LNER loco along with a BR or even Virgin trains 0-6-0 Type 8, all together in the same siding or in the engine shed. As far as rolling stock is concerned again anything goes, I know I'm never going to be running 9 coaches at once, maybe 4 at most, probably only 2, but again these might be different liveries.

 

If I go with the top one, then the works area in the middle is going to be something to do with livestock, a farm, maybe a milking depot, or a cattle loading area. This is not serious for me this is a distraction a bit of fun, sorry guys, I am a heretic. But one of the reasons for that is that I know I am not good enough to put together anything anywhere near to the standard that some of you guys do, although as we all know that may change once I start.

 

Yep they are American, I couldn't find any UK N gauge 4x2's to try to copy, tbh never thought of looking at 8x4 & halfing them.

 

The baseboard was built last night, just need to decide what to do with it, but whatever I do it has to have an incline or at least split levels, a bridge, a tunnel, a road ideally a crossing, not urban, river or canal would be nice (are there any n gauge canal boats?) but not essential.

 

OK, that's a lot clearer.

 

On that basis, I would suggest a double track circuit at a lower level and a separate higher level with that agricultural "works".

 

US modellers using a solid 8x4 board often put a backscene diagonally across the middle and  model two distinct scenes. An incline will complicate things a bit but can be squeezed in if you absolutely want it.

 

There are 1:148 canal boats, Langley???

 

Edit: Yes, it is Langley. Quite a large range of UK canal boats in 1:148 as well as some very nice European canal barges in 1:160 (Artitec probably).

Edited January 18, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Phaeton said:

 

Now you've taken the lid right off the can of worms, I'm sure this is going to upset a few, but whatever aspect I fancy at that time, it will be totally none prototypical,

 

It's your layout, you can do what you want with it (and in fact you likely are in the 80% of this hobby who just like to run what they like).

 

But, and the reason behind the question that was asked, is the best way to provide advice that gets you where *you* want to go is to provide as much information as possible as to what you want to achieve.

 

 

[DCB]

Didn't Mc Alpine or some such have a private line with a 1 in 10 gradient and sharp curves, and Bressingham had a shed and almost no running line and the  Rev Teddy Boston had a narrow gauge line around his garden.   All good  concepts  for  a  layout.  But the best ever in my opinion was John Ahearn with Madderport to Much Madder, etc, with Ffestiniog Prince  and Darjeling Himalaya  0-4-0 sharing standard gauge tracks with 00 and H0 stock.

Common gauge, Common loading gauge it all looked right (ish) scale doesn't matter  when it looks right. Oh the other hand a Hornby  China King  in Hornby Khaki with a Hornby Margate King in BR Green  just looks wrong.  Its your layout.

 

[Anglian]

I'd have a look at the track plan for Bredon.

 

https://www.osbornsmodels.com/peco-setrack-oo-plan-7--bredon---a-classic-scenic-oval-layout-22372-p.asp

 

Although designed for OO I think the actual layout it fitted 7' x 3' 6" so would easily fit the space you have available once scaled down for an N gauge layout.

It has been discussed here before and the some images posted. It has a good measure of operational interest and I think the original plan differed slightly from that shown in the link in that there was possibly a connection with further storage roads.