# N Gauge Track Plan



## Texas Pete (Sep 28, 2011)

I got a wild hair to make a small, portable N guage layout with Unitrack. It will be 28"x56" and stood on end when not in use. Still not sure what I will use for the platform, but I'm old so it's gotta be lightweight. Track plan is attached.

Observations welcome.

Pete


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

What I notice is that a train can, in practicality, only operate in a clockwise direction in order to do any switching at the "yard". Also, to get to the yard requires a lot of backing.

JMHO...


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

I agree that the proposed plan would gain by re-thinking its operational potential.If you look around on Internet for layout plans,you'll likely find a few ideas you'll like.

Then your base...I suggest that you glue a one inch (two inches better) pink foam to a 1/4 in. ply board.Light and sturdy,the foam would give you ground to dig in for ditches,ponds,etc.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

That meandering dead-end seems ill-advised. Up until I got to the end of those tracks, it was looking petty good.

Find a way to return the figure 8 back into the main line.


----------



## Texas Pete (Sep 28, 2011)

Thank you for the comments.

The purpose of the branch line will be to serve an industry. It "meanders" mainly for a longer run. The mainline loop is mostly for continuous (display) running while I play on the branch line. For economic reasons I hope to keep the number of turnouts to a minimum.

The plan is "borrowed" from a 4x8 HO plan in a magazine.

Pete


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

The proposed plan is a poor design that likely has never been built.In the lower right corner,the plan suggests that the main goes through a tunnel and the storage tracks are in a steep climb to go up hill over it.
This plan likely was never actually built.

At 28" X 56",you're quite limited in your options.However,if you keep looking,you'll likely find something suitable.Then,if you could stretch an extra foot to your bench,it would make a huge difference.


----------



## Texas Pete (Sep 28, 2011)

Brakeman Jake said:


> The proposed plan is a poor design that likely has never been built.In the lower right corner,the plan suggests that the main goes through a tunnel and the storage tracks are in a steep climb to go up hill over it.
> This plan likely was never actually built.


The HO plan was actually the subject of a construction article in MR. It most assuredly was built, it turned out nice, and I think it's a pretty ingenious plan for a small railroad.

It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.

Pete


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Texas Pete said:


> The HO plan was actually the subject of a construction article in MR. It most assuredly was built, it turned out nice, and I think it's a pretty ingenious plan for a small railroad.
> 
> It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
> 
> Pete


Just so you know, it is actually very common for those layouts to not get built, or if they do, the published illustration is not an exact track plan (and yes, I have this from Steve Ott himself), but an illustration. When trying to build an actual layout from one of those illustrations, it is often necessary to make significant modifications (because I have done it, which is what led me to send the "what gives?" E-mail to Steve in the first place). Most especially, MR's small track plans often incorporate grades that many of us would consider unacceptably steep.

That plan has to please exactly one person: you. If it does, then go ahead and build it.

But in many folks opinions, that layout has some serious shortcomings. If you don't care to hear those opinions, don't ask. It may be that things that bother others won't bother you. You're perfectly free to ignore our advice. Your layout, your rules.


----------



## Texas Pete (Sep 28, 2011)

CTValleyRR said:


> . . . it is actually very common for those layouts to not get built . . . . . . MR's small track plans often incorporate grades that many of us would consider unacceptably steep.
> 
> That plan has to please exactly one person: you. If it does, then go ahead and build it.
> 
> But in many folks opinions, that layout has some serious shortcomings. If you don't care to hear those opinions, don't ask. It may be that things that bother others won't bother you. You're perfectly free to ignore our advice. Your layout, your rules.


For photos of the completed layout, built as per the "illustration," see the January 2002 issue of MR. The steep grade doesn't bother me, it's a small layout and the trains will be short.

Thank you for sharing your opinions, I'm glad you did.

Pete


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Just keep in mind that N scale engines are much lighter and run on much smaller wheels than an HO engine,making them less tolerant of steep climbs.An "acceptable" climb for an HO may very well be a culprit for an N engine.

The plan also calls for pushing strings of cars on a long distance including curves and an uphill climb,not ideal in any way.Trains are designed to be pulled and while they can actually be pushed,it's generally done in flat yards.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Texas Pete said:


> For photos of the completed layout, built as per the "illustration," see the January 2002 issue of MR. The steep grade doesn't bother me, it's a small layout and the trains will be short.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your opinions, I'm glad you did.
> 
> Pete


I don't doubt that something resembling that illustration was actually built (in ffact, since I've been reading MR since 2000, I'm sure I read the original article). The point is that what is published in the magazine is an illustration, not a track plan, and it may not go together exactly as shown in their illustration.


----------

