N gauge continuous run - 6' x 2'6" - inspiration needed...

[south_tyne]

I am doing a bit of soul searching with regard to my modelling. Over the last 3 to 4 years I have started countless small/micro layouts in 4mm scale, most of them.have progressed to completion of trackwork and wiring and then... Loss of interest has consigned then to the skip.

 

I like small layouts, I like shunting wagons around but increasingly I am thinking that maybe I need to return to basics and what I want from a layout is "play value"... In other words a roundy roundy trainset type set up!

 

With that in mind I am thinking of maybe trying a small continuous run N gauge layout as I haven't got room for such a set up in 4mm scale. With that in mind, and as a complete 2mm novice, can anyone suggest any good examples of continous run n gauge layouts in a small space? Probably a max of 6' x 2'6". I really don't know what would be feasible in a size of the kind...

 

Any inspiration welcomed and thank you in advance to anyone who replies, I just feel I need some pointers as to what would be feasible!!

 

Thanks,

David

[Revolution Mike]

In that sort of space one of the best layouts I've seen is something like Grahame Hedges's "Hedges Hill Cutting" now owned by the Bentley Model Railway Group

Description: http://www.bmrg.org.uk/layouts/hedges/index.php

Pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/monitor-computing/sets/72157626685543852/

 

Cheers, Mike

[DavidB-AU]

Back in 1981 there was a landmark OO layout called Bredon in RM which generated a lot of discussion at the time. IIRC it is now housed at Pecorama. There are photos of it here and the track plan here. Probably one of the best OO layouts ever. You simply forget that it's Setrack.

 

Given roughly the same length and slightly over half the width, you could do much the same in N with gentler curves, longer trains and more scenery. And you wouldn't have to use tight Setrack, you could probably use code 55.

 

Of course it all depends on your era and prototype.

 

Cheers

David

[Karhedron]

A very nice layout this size is Welham Green which was constructed by the late Andy Calvert and is now owned by Dave Jones.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=46634&start=25

 

A couple of years ago, the N gauge society ran a competition to design a "Layout on a door". You can buy plywood doors which are around 6'x2'6" (give or take a bit) which make quite good cheap baseboards. There were some very good plans which would suit your needs but you will probably need to look in the NGS journals from 2012 onwards to find them.

[TomJ]

That size would get a decent N gauge layout in. You could easily have a continuous run with a classical country passing station. If you like shunting you could probably put a bay platform for a simple junction, a branch off a branch scenario. The tight curves would need disguising but one option would be 9inch setrack at the back behind a backscene and much more generous curves on the front half

[shortliner]

A couple of years ago, the N gauge society ran a competition to design a "Layout on a door". You can buy plywood doors which are around 6'x2'6" (give or take a bit) which make quite good cheap baseboards. There were some very good plans which would suit your needs but you will probably need to look in the NGS journals from 2012 onwards to find them.

 

Big, heavy, nasty, unmanoeuverable things - that take up much more room than you expect - did it once, never again!  If you don't believe me, take a matress off a single bed and try to take it downstairs by yourself, and then imagine doing the same thing with it covered in scenery. Not recommended for baseboards, Use 48"x18" or smaller and assemble the layout from those. Relations with Domestic Authorities will be a lot happierwithout chipped walls and paint!

[south_tyne]

In that sort of space one of the best layouts I've seen is something like Grahame Hedges's "Hedges Hill Cutting" now owned by the Bentley Model Railway Group

Description: http://www.bmrg.org.uk/layouts/hedges/index.php

Pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/monitor-computing/sets/72157626685543852/

 

Cheers, Mike

Hi Mike, thank you for the link, it is exactly the kind of thing I was after. It gives a flavour of a mainline in a small space, food for thought definitely.

 

David

[south_tyne]

Back in 1981 there was a landmark OO layout called Bredon in RM which generated a lot of discussion at the time. IIRC it is now housed at Pecorama. There are photos of it here and the track plan here. Probably one of the best OO layouts ever. You simply forget that it's Setrack.

 

Given roughly the same length and slightly over half the width, you could do much the same in N with gentler curves, longer trains and more scenery. And you wouldn't have to use tight Setrack, you could probably use code 55.

 

Of course it all depends on your era and prototype.

 

Cheers

David

Hi David,

 

All I can say is thanks! I have never come across this layout before but the photos are stunning, it is difficult to comprehend that this is a setrack layout... on a trainset sized baseboard. Amazing! I am sure there are many who have used it as a base for their own ideas. Interestingly it is not outside the realms of possibility for the area I have to play with but the problem comes in portability... if I am reading the plan right it seems to be around 7' x 3.5' but the question would be how to break that into maneagable chunks. Of transferred to n gauge it might be possible to get away with maybe 5' x 2.5' (as you suggest with more generous curves and code 55 rather than setrack).

 

I might try and dig out the Freezer book of plans I have, I am sure there might be variations on this sort of idea in there.

 

Thanks again and any other info on this layout would be appreciated!!

 

David

[south_tyne]

A very nice layout this size is Welham Green which was constructed by the late Andy Calvert and is now owned by Dave Jones.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=46634&start=25

 

Hi,

 

thanks for the link. I have come across Andy Calvert's layouts before but never this one, but it looks a compact but interesting little scene. The door idea is an interesting one...

 

A couple of years ago, the N gauge society ran a competition to design a "Layout on a door". You can buy plywood doors which are around 6'x2'6" (give or take a bit) which make quite good cheap baseboards. There were some very good plans which would suit your needs but you will probably need to look in the NGS journals from 2012 onwards to find them.

[south_tyne]

That size would get a decent N gauge layout in. You could easily have a continuous run with a classical country passing station. If you like shunting you could probably put a bay platform for a simple junction, a branch off a branch scenario. The tight curves would need disguising but one option would be 9inch setrack at the back behind a backscene and much more generous curves on the front half

Hi Tom,

 

thanks that is really useful, I will play around with some ideas. I presume 2'6" is best for a continuous run and that 2' would be too tight. Are 9" curves acceptable to modern n gauge stock?

 

Thanks,

David

[Pete 75C]

Contrary to some opinion, I think a flush door would be a fair choice or, if your carpentry skills are reasonable, a simple braced frame with ply top. I don't subscribe to the theory that a door sized board is totally unmanageable. It is awkward, granted. As long as you're not planning to move it around continuously and can get hold of another person to help when you do need to move it...

2'6" is a decent width in N. As has been mentioned, you can keep the hidden return curve down to 1st radius - most modern stock will cope but beware long wheelbase locos, Dapol's 9F and the Farish 40/45 spring to mind. They may be fine, they may not. By keeping the hidden curve tight, you have more width available for a gentler curve on the viewing side of the board, plan example shown below. If your width is only 24", your visible curves have to tighten up as well, spoiling the visual effect. I've also included a pic from a previous layout of mine which shows pretty much the same thing from above. Pete.

 

[PatB]

My recently purchased Farish 46 specifies 2nd radius as a minimum on the instruction sheet, but then so does my equally recently purchased Farish 24 with bogies half the length but which I'd be pretty confident would go round 1st radius (9"). I have no track at the moment so I have no means of testing the truth, or otherwise, of the claims.

[Pete 75C]

My recently purchased Farish 46 specifies 2nd radius as a minimum on the instruction sheet, but then so does my equally recently purchased Farish 24 with bogies half the length but which I'd be pretty confident would go round 1st radius (9"). I have no track at the moment so I have no means of testing the truth, or otherwise, of the claims.

 

Pat, I've got a Farish 24 that will quite happily whizz round a 9" radius circle all day with no issues whatsoever. There is a thread on here somewhere that tests the minimum radius of most modern N stock. From memory the 44/45/46 will do it. I don't have a link to that RMWeb thread, it may be worth a search. Pete.

[south_tyne]

Contrary to some opinion, I think a flush door would be a fair choice or, if your carpentry skills are reasonable, a simple braced frame with ply top. I don't subscribe to the theory that a door sized board is totally unmanageable. It is awkward, granted. As long as you're not planning to move it around continuously and can get hold of another person to help when you do need to move it...

2'6" is a decent width in N. As has been mentioned, you can keep the hidden return curve down to 1st radius - most modern stock will cope but beware long wheelbase locos, Dapol's 9F and the Farish 40/45 spring to mind. They may be fine, they may not. By keeping the hidden curve tight, you have more width available for a gentler curve on the viewing side of the board, plan example shown below. If your width is only 24", your visible curves have to tighten up as well, spoiling the visual effect. I've also included a pic from a previous layout of mine which shows pretty much the same thing from above. Pete.

 

door.jpg

torbay.jpg

Hi Pete,

 

Many thanks for your reply, it is very helpful. When you used such a method do you use setrack behind the scenes to keep the curve consistent? I am thinking 9" setrack curves behind the backscene then flexi in front.

 

If there were any to hand I'd be interested in any other pics of your layout too!

 

I can understand the reluctance of some to use a door... It could be unwieldy but as you say it could be a positive step of it were not likely to be moved. The alternative I suspect would be two 3' x 2'6" baseboards. That is really taking things to the max of any potential space to be honest but I think 6' in length would be needed given there is going to be 12"+ lost at each end of the scenic section for the curves... That would leave around 4' to play with in the middle. Hmm interesting.

 

Thanks again,

David

[DavidB-AU]

I might try and dig out the Freezer book of plans I have, I am sure there might be variations on this sort of idea in there.

Just be wary of the Freezer plans. Many of them were designed for earlier generations of track with very different geometry to modern Peco track. Even in OO it would be impossible to replicate many of them exactly as designed. If you do scale any of them down to N, allow plenty of extra space to suit Peco point geometry.

 

Cheers

David

[Black Sheep]

Following with interest, hoping to start on my layout this winter...

[Pete 75C]

Hi David. I found the link to the RMWeb thread that tests minimum radius:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48509-minimum-radius-for-locos-test/

The list of locos is not as large as I thought, but it may be useful.

The few N gauge layouts I've built to date have all used set track. Peco minimum radius behind the backscene and Kato Unitrack on view. Kato has quite a comprehensive range covering some fairly gentle curves. It's not everyone's cup of tea due to the height of the ballast shoulder and the fact that it's Code 80. Most people will recommend Peco Code 55 for a finer scale look, but I admit it's never bothered me. Try to avoid the "straight track between two tunnel mouths" look. Make at least some of the curve visible. By just having straight track visible, as you say, you will only have 4' or so to use. By making at least some of the curve at either end "scenic", personally I think it will look better and make longer trains look a little more realistic. The pic above was from a layout called Tor Bay which was recently sold:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80229-tor-bay-west-country-6x3-in-n/

If you view the link in my signature, I'm just about to have a go at Mk2 using the same track plan!

The only other tip I can think of is not to be tempted to cram as much track into the layout as possible. Good luck with whatever you decide. Pete.

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello David,

 

I have been very impressed with Pete's work above using Kato Unitrack. I have used Unitrack myself for a display layout and it is very solid and reliable, and a great way to get things moving quickly. It can be made far more realistic with painting amd gentle weathering.

 

If I was planning to do what you're planning to do I'd give it serious consideration.

 

Of course at the other end of the scale there is the very new Finetrax which offers superb appearance and is very "buildable" with minimal tools...

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

 

(Edited to correct helpful iPad autocorrections.  Sigh.)

[Izzy]

 

Having built a couple of circular layouts in the general space you have, one in N and the other 2mm, both using a minimum of 12" radius at the 'back' curves, I would suggest that using a single fixed baseboard size as large as a door, I.e. 6x2.6, is only really feasible if you don't intend to move it much, and you have plenty of help and lots of room when you do. As a flat sheet the size doesn't seem much, but when it's framed, and with a layout stuck on top the size and weight become another matter.

 

Far better, if you can do it, to build two baseboards 16" deep joined length ways. I hinged my last one so the two folded over to form a box. Far easier to both move around, and work on when wiring etc - easy to turn half of it up side down to work on the underside.

 

I managed to get a nice simple layout on two boards each 54"x16" and I'm now trying another design on some smaller ones, this time just 46"x16". I did think about just one board 46"x 32" but tests and previous experience tells me that it would still be too big as a single lump and this is nowhere near the size of a door, plenty of which I've moved about in recent years when replacing them, but not with a layout on them, and I wouldn't want to either.

 

Izzy

[Kris]

Regarding the minimum radius' and set track 1, most loco's will cope with this, the problems I have seen when testing revolve around set track point work. Locos that happily go round the radius 1 track have come unstuck on the crossing. Possibly with better (narrower) flange ways there would be fewer problems. 

[L&Y]

Having changed from OO to N I would just add a few observations. Freezer plans are books of ideas. You need to redraw them with scarm or similar to check it fits the way you want it to. N gauge steam loco's hate inclines. The nikel silver wheels are low on friction & you can't add weight as you can in oo. Deasels with rubber tyres work better. You don't specify your era. Avoid long crossings. The coarse track standards in N are it's worst enemy. They are more akin to O gauge tin plate than anything else. The wheels drop into the crossing v's on points which is a particular problem with long crossings. I never achieved good running with them & ended up taking them out. Watch clearances for access. track must be accessible for maintenance. This is harder to achieve in N!

  A light weight door on a couple of DIY trestles is a good cheap baseboard for a semi permanent layout. I've done this once. BUT you will need to edge it with plywood. & raise the trackbed off the door so the scenery can drop below track level. As much of the wiring as possible can be on top of the door providing you test the set up properly before adding scenery. It will end up getting pretty heavy by the time you've finished with the plaster. (Screwing handles to the ends makes it easier to move. ) Be ware of 9" radius in hidden loops. You will need more clearance between the tracks to allow for overhang of bogie stock. Test first to see if what you intend to run on it can cope with that. The finer wheel standards of modern stock do effect what you can get away with. Take a look at Southern Boys Frankland layout on here to see what you can achieve. The new stock available is tempting though this is a fairly large layout &  you will need to consider the cost. Though I think that "less is more," is particularly true in N. I sold up everything five years ago when my daughter came along. Now just starting again but am undecided which scale to choose. Though 7mm is looking tempting at the moment.....

[Karhedron]

Take a look at Southern Boys Frankland layout on here to see what you can achieve.

Just to save you having to search.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/19461-frankland-n-gauge-southern-railway/page-10

[jpendle]

Just to add my tuppence worth

I found that long crossings and turnouts work fine but all my stock is new.

I struggled with gradients and ended up using the shallowest of the Woodland scenics subterrain range, anything steeper burned out the motor of my Farish 66 but it did have 21 bogie coal hoppers on. Now I can run up to 18 bogies and thing just about work.

I would recommend set track for hidden curves. I have used flex track and find that on long trains bogie wagons can derail even on a 12" radius curve. I think this may be due to the curve changing radius due to my imperfect track laying. The rest of the layout has 24" min radius curves and everything runs fine.

 

John P

[south_tyne]

Just be wary of the Freezer plans. Many of them were designed for earlier generations of track with very different geometry to modern Peco track. Even in OO it would be impossible to replicate many of them exactly as designed. If you do scale any of them down to N, allow plenty of extra space to suit Peco point geometry.

 

Cheers

David

 

Thanks David,

 

I have dug out the Freezer plan book I have and do understand what you mean. I am just using for inspiration but I suppose using 2/3 of the space suggested for 00 for a N gauge interpretation could be used as a fairly rough guide.   

[south_tyne]

Hi David. I found the link to the RMWeb thread that tests minimum radius:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48509-minimum-radius-for-locos-test/

The list of locos is not as large as I thought, but it may be useful.

The few N gauge layouts I've built to date have all used set track. Peco minimum radius behind the backscene and Kato Unitrack on view. Kato has quite a comprehensive range covering some fairly gentle curves. It's not everyone's cup of tea due to the height of the ballast shoulder and the fact that it's Code 80. Most people will recommend Peco Code 55 for a finer scale look, but I admit it's never bothered me. Try to avoid the "straight track between two tunnel mouths" look. Make at least some of the curve visible. By just having straight track visible, as you say, you will only have 4' or so to use. By making at least some of the curve at either end "scenic", personally I think it will look better and make longer trains look a little more realistic. The pic above was from a layout called Tor Bay which was recently sold:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80229-tor-bay-west-country-6x3-in-n/

If you view the link in my signature, I'm just about to have a go at Mk2 using the same track plan!

The only other tip I can think of is not to be tempted to cram as much track into the layout as possible. Good luck with whatever you decide. Pete.

 

Hi Pete,

 

thank you again for your reply, that is very useful. I have been reading through your threads and I must say your work is fantastic. To be honest if you hadn't told me that it was Kato Unitrack I would never have guessed, a testament to your skills in weathering and bed the whole scene in, I am going to be following your new layout with interest. 

 

Yes with the track plan it will be about keeping things simple but also interesting with a limited space to play with. I have always loved Littleton Curve as an example of superb, small space, simple modelling. It is that kind of modelling that I would like to emulate, maybe expanded a little, in my modelling.

 

 

 

Hello David,

 

I have been very impressed with Pete's work above using Kato Unitrack. I have used Unitrack myself for a display layout and it is very solid and reliable, and a great way to get things moving quickly. It can be made far more realistic with painting amd gentle weathering.

 

If I was planning to do what you're planning to do I'd give it serious consideration.

 

Of course at the other end of the scale there is the very new Finetrax which offers superb appearance and is very "buildable" with minimal tools...

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

 

(Edited to correct helpful iPad autocorrections.  Sigh.)

 

Thanks Ben. The way Pete has used Kato track is amazing isn't it, as I said above I would never have realised to be honest without being told. I'll have a look at the Finetrax stuff...