Moving to N scale for the first time

[Littlethorpe]

Due to domestic re-organisations I have had to dismantle my OO layout. I now have less space available so I will take the plunge and move to N. The space that I will have of approx 7ft by 2.5ft is effectively bigger than I had in OO so I can run longer trains. The Farish Blue Pullman has been the final clincher in the decision to move to N.

 

I need to decide on some basics and the obvious initial decision is code 80 or code 55 trackwork. I will be purchasing Farish Blue Riband and similar spec Dapol items so I would value any advice on the pros & cons of trackage systems.

 

I will have baseboards from the dismantled OO layout but I did wonder about the option of utilising a Wickes internal flush door, possibly faced with 6mm ply?

 

Intially I'll be using DC but will design with the view to experimenting with DCC later.

 

Any other advice and guidance regarding N scale will be gratefully received.

 

David

[Katier]

I've been advised to avoid set track points as the more modern steam outline stock is less tolerant of tighter curves. That said 30" is plenty for fairly slack curves, my Park Lane plan is not much more than that in width and an oval is easy enough in 30". Thus either 55 or 80 is absolutely fine. Also I think ( from memory ) 55 is actually 80 just with 25 buried in the sleepers and thus you can mix the two.

 

When planning I would try to stick to 12" minimum radius curves, you might have to drop to 11 so you have room for pointwork. The plan below is my park street plan, a layout I am working on at the planning stages at the moment. The hidden inner tracks might be around 10-11" but all the rest are a minimum of 12, usually more. I've attached it to give you an idea of what's possible. This is a 80x39 layout so not much different to yours. All points are medium.

 

 

 

[Edwin_m]

I don't think there's any reason to use code 80, except perhaps in hidden sections. The Peco code 55 is far more realistic, actually stronger, and compatible with the wheels on everything with the possible exception of some really old stuff. It is only a little more expensive than the code 80 and the two can be joined quite easily.

[Kris]

To reiterate what has already been said. Use code 55 it looks much better than code 80. Stick to medium and long radius pointwork and despite the improvements made in n I would still recommend only using electrofrog points. Something to bear in mind is that many newer steam outline locos are now recommending 10.5 or 12 inch radiuses as a minimum (in some respects following what has happened with 4mm rtr stock), whilst they do run on tighter radiuses some problems have been reported. I would suggest that you stick to a minimum 12 inch radius which should future proof the layout to some extent.

[James]

If it's a completely fresh start how about 2mm Finescale?

[Kris]

If it's a completely fresh start how about 2mm Finescale?

 

Would work for end to end but for continuous running the curves would be problematic for many 2mm steam outline locos.

 

 

 

[James]

Would work for end to end but for continuous running the curves would be problematic for many 2mm steam outline locos.

I hadn't realised he wanted continuos running; maybe Easitrac could be used as discussed elsewhere on the forum and Peco Code 80 in non scenic areas?

[Katier]

Would work for end to end but for continuous running the curves would be problematic for many 2mm steam outline locos.

 

Why is that? I have to confess I'm considering FS ( or at least hand made track ) for Park Street.

[Kris]

Why is that? I have to confess I'm considering FS ( or at least hand made track ) for Park Street.

 

As I understand it, the finer tolerances and narrower tyres are a couple of parts involved are what causes the problems. You could get over these with a narrower chassis to allow more play on the axles but given how little space there is between the chassis frames with the normal settings you will rapidly run into other problems.

The narrower tyres mean that on tight curves with a fixed chassis (like a steam locos) the flanges on the front and rear wheels will be pushing hard against the outside rail where as the central wheel(s) flange will be pushing hard against the inside rail. You get to the point where something has to give either in the loco getting stuck or more likely derailing. You can just about run a 2mm loco on straight n gauge track but it is very tight, so tight that as soon as you get to even the smoothest curve problems start.

 

 

 

[Karhedron]

I would agree with the above points. Ignore code 80 completely.

 

Code 55 is reasonble for RTR if you don't mind the underscale sleeper spacing.

 

Easitrac is worth considering if you want finescale track work and do not mind build from kits.

[Katier]

As I understand it, the finer tolerances and narrower tyres are a couple of parts involved are what causes the problems. You could get over these with a narrower chassis to allow more play on the axles but given how little space there is between the chassis frames with the normal settings you will rapidly run into other problems.

The narrower tyres mean that on tight curves with a fixed chassis (like a steam locos) the flanges on the front and rear wheels will be pushing hard against the outside rail where as the central wheel(s) flange will be pushing hard against the inside rail. You get to the point where something has to give either in the loco getting stuck or more likely derailing. You can just about run a 2mm loco on straight n gauge track but it is very tight, so tight that as soon as you get to even the smoothest curve problems start.

Ahhh makes sense, would hand made n-gauge track be ok?

 

Guessing not many people hand make 9mm but I'm sure it's been done, just the minor problem of sorting out templates etc.

 

 

[Etched Pixels]

You can hand make 9mm trackwork but for plain track the Easitrac for 2mm fine scale is code 40 and 9.48mm wide. This works fine with N wheels (due to the wheel width) and looks better as it is closer to the right width for 1:148 N than the 9mm which is 1:160 scale. As ever the UK messed up its scales/gauges. Easitrac comes in various sleeper styles and you get a box of plastic mouldings each of several sleepers and some rail, clean the ends of the rail and slide the sleepers on. There is also a jig to get the spacing right and make it easier to thread.

 

It's possible to build easitrac points to 9mm (2mm finescale ones won't work) and Noel Leaver sells the needed extra gauges to do it. Or in my case I chickened out and use Peco code 55 points with the code 40 track. Needs a bit of packing to get it right but it does work although it doesn't look as good as pure easitrac. Most of the layout is plain track so overall it looks far better built this way.

 

Otherwise the Peco code 55 stuff is probably the best easily available and cheap trackwork. Sleeper spacing is a bit naff but its generally ok.

 

The usual official UK minimum radius is 9". Going to 10.5" (Peco R2) really helps close coupling and going to 12" is a win for some of the steam locos and visually, beyond that it's much less important.

[James]

Ignore code 80 completely.

Even in hidden areas?

[Katier]

Prejumably easitrak actually works better with tighter curves when running n-gauge stock, my logic being that there is an extra 0.42mm of 'play' between the flange and the rail allowing slightly better running in tighter curves?

 

Not that Eastitrak is, of course, intended for tighter curves, just something that occured to me.

 

 

[Kris]

Ahhh makes sense, would hand made n-gauge track be ok?

 

Yes because you still have the same n gauge wheels.

[Etched Pixels]

Even in hidden areas?

 

The peco code 55 is usually about the same price and its physically much stronger. The code 55 and code 80 rail also join nicely as the code 55 has the rail embedded into the sleeper base (hence the strength) so the actual rail top to bottom is the same.

[Etched Pixels]

Prejumably easitrak actually works better with tighter curves when running n-gauge stock, my logic being that there is an extra 0.42mm of 'play' between the flange and the rail allowing slightly better running in tighter curves?

 

Not that Eastitrak is, of course, intended for tighter curves, just something that occured to me.

 

 

 

Gauge widening is useful for various crazy microlayout tricks but for most of the bogie locos your limit is actually the drive shaft/bogie turn and for small steam locos below about 7" curve the couplings become the biggest problem in my experience. The sharp fleischmann curves are indeed something over 9mm (about 9.3 I think)

[Revolution Mike]

Even in hidden areas?

 

Code 80 set track can be useful for hidden curves as it is easier to get consistent curves with set track than flexi-track. Other than that I would agree with ignore code 80!

 

Cheers, Mike

[TomJ]

I've got a small N gauge layout with tightish hidden curves at either end. I'd go with everyone else and recommend code 55 wholeheartedly if you're not going down the finescale/handbuild route. If ballasted and painted well I think it looks pretty reasonable. If you're new to N gauge then anything you buy will be absolutely fine - its only the really old stuff that will struggle.

I've used code 80 for the fiddle yard as I had a load spare with setrack points. The minimum radius on the outer loop is 12inch (rad 3) and 10.5ish (rad 2) on the inner. The biggest locos I've run are a cl 37 and a Peco Collect Goods 0-6-0 tenner and they're both fine, as are all my coachs and wagons (the biggest are mk 1 coaches). I don't have any problems on the set-track points, either derailing or stalling on the electrofrog, but they look awful so I wouldn't use them for visible sections, or where I'm doing slow shunting. If I started afresh I would actually consider using setrack curves on the hidden loops as they are easier to lay and probably much more consistent - my curves probably range from 9.5 to 11.5inch rather ran being a smooth 10.5inch. Not had any problems where the code 55 and 80 or streamline and setrack meet.

 

HTH

Tom

[Dr Al]

The code 55 and code 80 rail also join nicely as the code 55 has the rail embedded into the sleeper base (hence the strength) so the actual rail top to bottom is the same.

 

This isn't true and is a commonly quoted myth. The heights are different (fractionally) so joining code 80 to code 55 will need either some bending of the fishplates or filing:

 

 

(code 55 here was originally called "super N")

 

There is enough of a bump for the transition to be rough if you don't do anything about it. The result will be rough running andf derailments.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[Littlethorpe]

Thanks for all the responses. Looks like a no-brainer. Code 55 it will be.

 

David

[Edwin_m]

This thread includes some photos of the two rail types joined together. The height is very close.

[grahame]

This isn't true and is a commonly quoted myth. The heights are different (fractionally) so joining code 80 to code 55 will need either some bending of the fishplates or filing. There is enough of a bump for the transition to be rough if you don't do anything about it. The result will be rough running andf derailments.

 

A gentle wipe over the join with a very fine file is sufficient to negate the very very small difference. Run your finger over afterwards to ensure there is no slight bump. I've certainly not had any problems having done that, even with extensive running on an exhibition layout.

 

G.