alphonsus

Hi all, hopefully this is in the right forum, if not I'm sure a friendly moderator will move it... I'm considering adding a small, very unprototypical tram system to my n scale layout and having read various articles on the relative merits of Kato and Tomix/Tomytec Portram (sag, speed, internal lighting, etc.) have plumped for the Kato units. They are available if you look in the right places and are willing to pay for them, but before I invest I need to know they'll actually fit. One thing I just cannot find anywhere is the dimensions of one, panto raised and panto down. I know the size of the box they come in, but that's not helpful. Does anyone actually have a still intact one they could measure (I've read lots about them being cannibalised for other purposes)? Also, I've not seem much about minimum recommended radius and would like to know if I can use the rather tight 103mm radius Tomix curves. Hopefully someone can enlighten me! TIA, Alph

Thanks, SamThomas, you've solved a problem for me!

That's an excellent shout, Linny. It looks far more refined and a pack made up in single-long configuration provides the same width and slightly more length (to all intents and purposes, now I've got the distance between tracks and platform edges more correct). Investigating...

I'll keep you posted, though seeing as I've just finished buying basic scenery materials it might be a little while...

I think the side girders would be very large so I'd replace them with something more delicate. Uprights, as you say, should be fashionned with ease. In OO scale the canopy covers a double track and the Hornby platforms on either side, in N scale it covers a 3.4cm platform, double track, 7.6cm platform and single track. Thinking about the span of stations like Newcastle, I don't think that's excessive.

Thanks Dungrange, that makes sense. I've just discovered that Hornby does market n gauge track, but under the 'Arnold' brand, which isn't exactly helpful. Their R1 is 192mm/7.55" and R2 is 222mm/8.74", neither of which is quite right for Peco track at 8.5" and 10.375" for R1 and R2. I guess R2 platforms are most likely to fit, so I'll take the plunge, purchase and hope for the best!

Hello both, You're right, I am using Setrack points. Streamline would be more elegant but I'm happy enough with the appearance on a flat table test. My reasoning is that because the majority of the points are at the station speed across the points will be low anyway. The crossover and exit at the top of the layout (there is a sub-scenery matching exit on the right hand side) aren't planned to be used on a regular basis. I've checked almost everything and most of the locos and running stock I have so far seem happy at the speeds I intend using: Farish Virgin 220, Farish Earl of Dunraven with Cream/Umber Pullmans, Dapol Class 153. I've not tested a Farish Class 08 yet as I have to install a DCC chip and I don't yet have any wagons, but plan on using BR Bauxite conflats, 3, 5 and 7 plank wagons (despite that not really matching the 220 and 153 in era). I've not seen any mention of wagons having problems with Setrack points? Mr eBay has 4 canopies available sans stanchions at a very reasonable individual price at the moment... and I've just realised the title is wrong: it's the R334 dual track canopy!

Hi, newbie in the planning stage here. Has anyone used a Hornby OO scale station canopy on an N scale layout? I'm thinking that with replacement side girders and supports (the most out of scale parts) the transparent roof and curved girder parts (the curved girders being difficult to replace with N scale equivalents) could provide a very good station canopy. Three together would cover much of my proposed station - see below (the grey rectangles sent to back at the lower end of the plan are 3 of said canopies). They cover both platforms, the through lines and the branch platform. Please note: this isn't in any way a prototypical deisng and is meant for entertainment (i.e. 'play') only... Any thoughts?

Hi, I'm trying (without success) to find information on the geometry of Lyddle End curved platforms. I want to put a short country halt platform on the inside of a first radius (yes I know, but I don't have much space to work with) Setrack curve. Can anyone tell me the radii of the inner and outer curves on a first radius Lyddle End platform, please? And the second radius platform as well for future reference, if possible. The google is being surprisingly reticent, possibly because they are no longer in production as far as I can tell.

I've just found one the same size as yours. Handily, that's almost identical in dimensions to the Ikea table in the OP I was using for feasibility planning so I know the layout should fit. It's just occurred to me that because one half of the layout stays at 'normal' height, a considered design would allow some form of operation even while folded - a bit of station shunting, etc., leaving 'through trains' for when unfolded.

I'd never heard of these before. And rather coincidentally there's one on eBay right now that's 3' by 1'3" closed, expanding to 3' by 2'6" for a very good price (apart from the 200 mile round trip to collect...). This could be a serious possibility. I like Harlequin's idea as well, but suspect it's a little beyond my engineering skills. This has the bonus over the gate leg table and ping-pong table that the scenery stays horizontal. Also, the split is roughly where my planned scenic divide would be, meaning the track joins will all be under scenery (but accessible from the sides) avoiding the more complex track layout of the station area.

Hi all, thanks for your input: Nearholmer - no children but yes, a small dog, so that's a good point and I'll have to come up with a barrier of some form. Fortunately he's not overly inquisitive and hasn't got any teeth left, so scenery savaging would be limited to licking it to death. Which does lead to an additional issue about toxicity... One end of my proposed design is much flatter than the other so a fold-around case in thin ply (it doesn't have to support anything) should be achievable for the bit less than 2 feet of the floor that's within nose range traction - an interesting idea. A broomhandle in brackets on the base and flap might provide the support. Hinge-wise, that would be an opportunity to deploy piano hinges which would help with stability as well Michael Hodgson - I agree, a bracket / pocket would be essential ikcdab - I would really like a continuous run if I can manage it and yes, fixing things down is going to be a challenge. I'm hoping the lower mass of n-gauge structures will help. Sadly there's no clearance under the couch or bed for stowing a layout. I briefly considered pulleys and rope but wasn't happy with the idea of the mass of a baseboard, frame and scenery hanging above my (or more importantly, the dog's) head Kris - thanks for the suggestions. If I extend the middle section that would also give me clearance to have a pair of fold-up frames under the flaps that would offer similar support to trestles. The gatelegs on the ikea table above are a bit too long to suit, but I guess I could cut them down

Hi, complete newbie here (first post!). I want to get into some n-scale modelling but sadly have no garage, loft or spare bedroom to devote to the enterprise and therefore need a layout that can be stowed in some fashion. I've read various posts on using doors, etc. as baseboards but they still leave the problem of where to put a 6'6" door when not using it. I like the idea of modules and I'm happy with the idea of coming up with ways to disguise the joins. These can be put on a folding or gateleg table when in use. Then I got thinking: why not build the layout on a gateleg table? There would need to be two (or maybe only one) join in the centre of the layout, and scenery would have to be able to take being stored sideways, those bits that weren't removable (e.g. larger buildings) but a 1.5m by 0.8m layout could fold down into something about 0.8m by 0.5m (including depth of scenery). Sensible choice of table would also give storage space that could even be adapted on-rail loco storage (see below). I have a router I can use for creating space for point motors and wiring in the table surface. Has anybody tried this? Or can anybody see any fundamental flaws in the concept? All thoughts appreciated! Alph