Small N gauge terminus to fiddle - Ideas?

[Steam Rich]

Hi all

I've been a long time reader but never posted (or even joined!). However as things are looking good to start a small layout after christmas as a project for next year, and seeing the details of the 2010 competition, I thought it about time I registered and started posting.

 

I've always liked the look for the plan Hugh posted on the old forum...

 

So my first question, is does anyone have the XTC file for this layout or can anyone convert it or draw a N gauge (code 55) equivelant for me? I have Xtrakcad but have never mastered doing anything in it!

 

My renewed enthusiasm comes from seeing the latest RM with the Rowthorne layout - it just struck me as something small that I could enjoy building and operating - other projects have failed due to being too large for just one person to build!

 

Luckily, I have the baseboards already (from one of the above mentioned failed projects). Space is limited, but I have room for a four foot x one foot scenic board, with a removable 2 ft x 1 fx fiddle yard board. This will let me keep the scenic board in an alcove and work on it, just removing it for operating sessions with the fiddle yard attached.

 

 

Stock wise, I don't have much at the moment, a GWR Pannier, two Dapol maroon coaches and some coal wagons. This is probably enough to get me started although ideally I would like to set the layout in the late BR steam/early diesel period.

 

I would welcome any comments, suggestions etc etc.

Rich

[Etched Pixels]

I would welcome any comments, suggestions etc etc.

Rich

 

Given you are working in flexitrack I would stick the pointwork together on the right (the four that join each other) slap the other point down somewhere that looks right on the board and then lay flex to join them. Not sure some whizzo xtrackcad plot is actually going to help. Peco now have PDFs of some of their trackwork online as printable scale files, but annoyingly code 55 hasn't appeared yet. http://teladesign.com/british-n-scale/peco-turnouts.html has the dimensions but that is a little harder to work with when deciding which type of point you want. I'd guess medium.

 

Not sure the stock is a problem. Two coaches, a single loco that works the line all day and some trucks sounds a pretty good description of many a small branch line.

[Kenton]

I'd agree with Etched Pixels. Forget the Xtrak plan and just use it as a guide.

 

You are trying to fit a concept plan to an actual board - most but not all - tend to work the other way (start with an approximate area and design a concept plan then build the boards) This is important, especially in building the boards to miss the tie bars on points so that they are not coinciding with board supports.

 

That plan is certainly for medium (if not small) radius points in OO. That will not translate straight to N.

 

So as Etched Pixels says, download and print off some templates - stick to medium points or large (stay away from small on the above plan) Lay out the 4 point run a short distance from the board edge. I would start by making this distance at least one loco length - then at least you will be able to operate it a bit to test without the FY - these are laid almost parallel to the board edge.

 

Then place the other point at the far end of the loop - noting it is almost in the board corner it is the resulting gentle curve which gives this plan appeal. It is important that the end of this loop is long enough to take the largest loco you will ever run on the layout not just your small pannier.

 

The only other thing to consider is the width of your FY and its style. I has to be big enough to take the whole of your largest train from the layout - traversers in N are not easy and sector plates are not that much easier but a point ladder is going to take up valuable space. Still you can probably worry about that a bit later.

[Dave777]

traversers in N are not easy and sector plates are not that much easier but a point ladder is going to take up valuable space.

 

That's interesting/useful because I was weighing up building just such a device on my next N gauge layout. Is the alignment of the tracks the problem? It was more the general construction that I was wary of, it had never occured to me that the scale may be an issue.

 

 

 

I always liked this plan, it's very 'classic' model railway layout. I always mentally picture it with the Airfix/Dapol kits for the engine shed, station building and signal box in OO.

 

N gauge Code 55 medium radius points are 4.5 inches long, so that should help you a bit with fiddleyard planning (there are no short radius points in Code 55). With a 2 foot long fiddleyard you could easily fit in two points to create a 3 track fiddleyard (probably enough for this size of layout), and even the shortest track would still be 15 inches long which is long enough to take the two coaches.

 

The only comment I would make on the plan is that the two back sidings are a bit non-descript. That does mean you can run pretty much whatever freight you like, but if it were me I'd make them a bit more 'allocated' by having a coal yard, private siding, goods shed, etc. Another angle to think about is to maybe move the engine shed so that it kicks back off the runround loop (so it would sit where the signal box is now, with an extra point added). This then makes for a more interesting shunting setup (useful on so small/simple a layout) because you've got an additional goods siding and also one that faces a different direction to the other two, plus the engine shed would form a useful scenic block to trains entering and exiting the fiddleyard. It does mean you're getting further away from the simplicity of original plan though.

 

If well presented this could form a very attactive setup.

[Kenton]

That's interesting/useful because I was weighing up building just such a device on my next N gauge layout. Is the alignment of the tracks the problem? It was more the general construction that I was wary of, it had never occured to me that the scale may be an issue.

 

Constructing traversers presents a much bigger problem in 2mm than in 4mm and 7mm. It is not only the track alignment is is the woodwork.

Aligning a single track is fairly straightforward but aligning multiple tracks can become very difficult as the mechanism of the traverser can effect the alignment considerably. The simplest traverser a simple drop on platform with guides rather than rails is the easiest option. The whole traverser table is flat on the lowered surface of the board. But you still have the problem of locking the board in alignment with the reception track.

 

A Sector plate is simpler just because it has a fixed pivot point and fewer tracks.

 

It is not that they cannot be done - it is just for a beginner they can be quite a challenge compared to point ladders. But they do save so much space that they cannot be ignored.

 

2mm is always a bigger challenge than the larger scales when it comes to track laying. This layout only works with a FY (like most end to end layouts) so it is a task that has not to be ignored.

[shortliner]

Etched Pixels and Kenton are both quite right - converting the basic plan is timewasting - a good rule of thumb is that an N gauge plan will fit into approx 2/3 the space required for OO/HO so you should be able to fit it onto your 48" board, and using templates, but following the original design will show you if it is feasible. The only really difficult bit about building a traverser is to get yourself a quality right angle square - If everything isn't ABSOLUTELY square it will bind and drive you nuts! If you'd like some info on what I think is the easiest way to make one, email me