Need some advice on measurements

[Reptilian Feline]

I'm sorry if I'm not "fine" enough, but I'm hoping for some help anyway... even if it's just to point me to a different part of the forum.

I'm modelling N gauge, and being in Sweden, the lack of clubs etc. to help with finescale is non existent. I have to stick with RTR for the locos, and have already built a few Metcalf buildings, so I guess my scale is stuck on 1:148. None the less, I was advised to use finescale tracks, and have pulled up the Peco range in my software. I'm curious to know if there is any known problems with any of the tracks or points from Peco, or if I can just pick any of them and they will all be fine.

 

Then there is the question of radius and gradients and the inside size of tunnels and bridges. I've been told to not using anything less than the R3 Peco curves. Is that only for the visual bit, or for running as well? How high does a bridge need to be to accommodate the track and the train that goes under? How wide need the tunnels be in the curves?

 

The model will be fictional branch line northern Yorkshire, 1942-45, mostly rural. Lots of freight, no fancy Flying Scotsman, local passenger train, maybe a passing express.

 

I need the gradient for letting the track pass over the other track for more length of running track. I like the visual bit of trains passing over each other, and I'd like all my tracks to be accessible by the same train. My space is limited, and finescale might give me more, just a tad, but it would be a lot more difficult to get the engines (I think), and I think that maybe the Spitfires in 1:144 might be just a bit too large as well.

 

I thank you for your help in advance.

[D869]

Hi, you should probably ask in an 'N' gauge forum to reach those with more up to date knowledge of Peco track but let's not worry about that just now.

 

There are a couple of issues with tight radii...

 

1. They don't look very much like the real thing (unless you are modelling a dockside or industrial scene). There are exceptions but most rural railways had plenty of space so tended not to need to resort to tight radii within station limits. Some were lightly built (often the later ones built under light railway orders) and followed the contours closely so their running lines could be somewhat twisty and limited to low speeds.

 

2. They do create clearance issues - bogie coaches and long locos can foul bridges and platforms, both at the ends (outside the curve) and in the centre (inside the curve). Increasing clearances on bridges etc is probably not a big issue but definitely avoid tightly curved platforms because otherwise your passengers will need to be olympic athletes to jump the gap. The clearance issues extend to rolling stock too with compromises needed to allow bogies to swing, bigger gaps between vehicles etc.

 

In many cases the compromises needed to allow stock to run on tight curves will be 'baked in' to RTR stock already but I suspect that some of the more recent RTR stuff may not work on 9 inch radius Settrack curves - I'm thinking mainly of main line tender locos though but it would be worth checking things like 2-6-2 tanks to make sure that the pony trucks can clear the cylinders on tight radii.

 

FYI, the folks in this forum work to 2mm Finescale (2FS) on a track gauge of 9.42mm. What Peco call Finescale is a different thing - it's still 9mm gauge and I think pluggable into their coarse scale track. Many of us are reformed 'N' gaugers and in many cases we run converted 'N' scale locos and stock so we do know a bit but RTR compatibility with tight radii is not something we are typically experts on.

 

Of course should you wish to convert to the true path then you will find a lot of support here

 

[Ian Morgan]

You will come across various scales that seem to come under the N scale banner, 1:144, 1:148, 1:150, 1:152 and 1:160 for example.

 

The differences can be quite small, and is often not noticeable, unless you have two similar items of different scale next to each other. A Mk1 coach in 1:160 (e.g. an old Minitrix one) next to a Bachmann 1:148 Mk1 coach will have very diffent height and width. However, with careful placement, it is possible to mix scales. Indeed, with 1:144 models in the foreground and 1:160 buildings in the background, you can achieve some 'forced perspective' making the layout appear to be deeper than it actually is.

 

 

[Caley Jim]

6 hours ago, D869 said:

2. They do create clearance issues - bogie coaches and long locos can foul bridges and platforms, both at the ends (outside the curve) and in the centre (inside the curve). Increasing clearances on bridges etc is probably not a big issue but definitely avoid tightly curved platforms because otherwise your passengers will need to be olympic athletes to jump the gap. The clearance issues extend to rolling stock too with compromises needed to allow bogies to swing, bigger gaps between vehicles etc.

That also applies on double track where the ends of vehicles on the inside of curves could strike the centres of those going the opposite way on the outside.

 

Thought : is this why the 6ft always looks, to my eye at least, too wide in 'N', in order to allow for this?

 

Jim

[D869]

1 hour ago, Caley Jim said:

Thought : is this why the 6ft always looks, to my eye at least, too wide in 'N', in order to allow for this?

 

In case the terminology is not clear outside of this island... the 'six foot' is the space between double tracks (between adjacent rails, not track centre lines). The 'four foot' is the space between the running rails of a track. They are not exact measurements... the four foot one being particularly inexact.

 

And then there is Brunel's broad gauge.

[Caley Jim]

Another point is that the distance between running lines and loops/sidings is generally at least ten feet, hence referred to as 'the ten foot'.

 

Jim