# New Kato N Scale Layout



## tman2005 (Sep 30, 2017)

Hi all.

I'm in the planning stages of my new N scale layout, and I would like some feedback on my design.

Main things I want from my layout.

Run two long trains at the same time.
A staging yard
Run operations between several industries

I'm using Kato Unitrack.

Cheers!


----------



## Ace (Mar 30, 2016)

That's a good plan for starters. My first thought: what is the grade? And how much grade can your trains easily handle? Considering that the roundhouse suggests steam power, and N-scale steam power may be more challenged with grades.

Another thought: if you want staging, can you maybe work it in on a mostly hidden lower level? Preferably with switches readily accessible.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Track and expense*



tman2005 said:


> Hi all.
> 
> I'm in the planning stages of my new N scale layout, and I would like some feedback on my design.
> 
> ...


Tman2005;

The layout is good, if you like plans with track everywhere. I don't happen to like them, since real railroads don't have lots of tracks all over the place. However many modelers do like such plans very much. If you like it that's all that matters. 
Have you added up the cost of all that Kato Unitrack? It's a good product, but it's expensive too. A look at your proposed track plan looks very, very expensive to me. Again though, that's your concern, not mine. If you can afford it, and you like it, go for it, and enjoy it!

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2017)

I like your trackplan tman. Lots of operation in a small space. Unitrack can be expensive but if you consider the price of flex track, roadbed, ballast, quality switches like Peco and switch machines the difference isn't bad. I had an N scale Unitrack layout for about 10 years and never had operating problems with the track. It performed flawlessly.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

To have the type of operation you have listed
you definitely will want to consider DCC controls.

If you go with ordinary DC you will need several
power packs, a maze of DPDT switches to control
what power goes to what track and a rats nest of
wiring. 

With DCC you would have a bus that powers all of
the tracks with only 2 wires, you would need no
DPDT switches and you could run 3 or 4 or more
trains at the same time.

I agree, tho, go with flex track and compatible
turnouts and crossings. Less expensive and
you control the radius of curves.

Don


----------



## PRR1950 (Oct 26, 2013)

Please don't "shoot the messenger," but I note several operational problems in meeting your desired goals. First, your yard lead is not long enough without fouling the mainline. This can be rectified by placing another switch where the lead first comes off of the mainline so that a separate lead extension runs farther "north" to the layout edge.

Second, all trains leaving the yard can only travel in one direction and then must back into the yard to return. How about making the yard entrance/exit a wye scenario to improve operations?

Third, any engine moving to the roundhouse from the yard, or vice versa, must also foul the mainline for a considerable amount of time. Can you relocate the roundhouse to the same peninsula where your yard is going to be?

Fourth, you seem to have only one location for industries to be served. If you are truly seeking to serve complementary industries on your layout, you will need multiple locations at which to put them, and preferably not that close together.

Hope this helps.
Chuck


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Assuming the squares are 12" X 12"...
-the layout is limited in space,even in N scale.
-the proposed track plan leaves very little room for industries at all,certainly not "several".
-the "up and over" crossing setup will need rising a track (either) right next to the turntable.Even more,the rise percentage will be quite high given the space available.
-the "twice around" trackage makes the layout look even smaller.
-the turntable is too small to turn anything but diesels and the smaller steamers yet takes up a lot of room.Moving it near the storage tracks on the left would free more room for industries or else.


----------



## bpiperjr (Dec 12, 2011)

You might consider a reverse loop. It adds another aspect to running trains in a circle. Just my opinion.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I would be a little concerned with that design. I don't think it's going to accomplish what you want.

It really depends on what you want out of your layout. Most fundamentally, a layout can do two things: simulate real railroad operations, or provide a venue for "railfanning", that is, watching trains run. Your layout accomplishes the latter fairly well, but your stated desires seem to tend more to the former. Note that this is NOT a judgment. Doing either is a great way to enjoy the hobby, and you will eventually discover that your tastes lean in one direction or the other.

As others have pointed out, you really don't have anywhere for industries to be located. You have too much track, much of which will be at an incline unsuited for industries, and too few sidings. In fact, really only two. You say you want to run trains "between industries", yet real trains transport goods over long distances, not just a mile or so. This is accomplished in two ways. First is by breaking the layout area up into visually (if not physically) distinct areas representing different towns. Your trains then appear to be moving goods over longer distances. The second is to use "staging", which represents the rest of the world.

And this brings up the second thing to consider: Is the area in the lower left "staging", or a "yard"? These are very different from a model railroading perspective. In a yard, you would expect to be using a locomotive to actually sort cars and make up trains, just like a real railroad would do. As you can probably tell, your "yard" would be completely ineffective for performing this task. Staging, on the other hand, is either a parking lot for equipment not currently in use, a place to represent "the rest of the world" from which your trains arrive and depart, or both. To serve this function, stuff needs to be able to head either direction out of staging, or you need to have separate staging areas at each end of a point-to-point layout (although you could link point-to-point staging for better flow -- look at my track plan in this thread http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=66578 Post #7 -- for an idea of how that could work).

Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to figure out what you REALLY want is to build something and run it for a while. Good luck!


----------



## Ace (Mar 30, 2016)

Seems like a lot of talk and criticism and paralysis of analysis for a new person on the forum who probably just wants to get some trains running. At least he did show a track plan idea for a talking point. He hasn't returned, incidentally.

How about some more constructive ideas, like an actual alternative track plan within the constraints of his layout space?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Ace said:


> Seems like a lot of talk and criticism and paralysis of analysis for a new person on the forum who probably just wants to get some trains running. At least he did show a track plan idea for a talking point. He hasn't returned, incidentally.
> 
> How about some more constructive ideas, like an actual alternative track plan within the constraints of his layout space?


I have worked with many people on this forum who have asked me for help because they couldn't come through it on their own. But I would never jump right in and just do it for them without being asked.

The criticism here is entirely constructive -- because where it isn't obvious, people do tell him how to correct it. Theoretically, without doing it for him. Pointing out things that aren't going to work, and why, is (or should be) a valuable learning experience for a new member. Next time he does a design, he can incorporate (or not) what he's learned, and if he's stuck, he can ask for help. Personally, I've found beginners often don't even realize that their trains can only go one direction.

Just because we're not jumping in and doing it for him doesn't mean we're not offering good advice.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

When the bite gets us to start building a layout,we all have a clear view of what we want.But then starts the measuring of the space available to accommodate our dream and the real world strikes us...these dreams need a lot of space.

There are the lucky ones who can spare a whole room or better still,a whole basement to accommodate these dream triggering pikes we see now and then,but a whole lot of us can only spare a corner,often times after stiff negociations with the better half.Do I understand the restrictions that come with designing a small layout?You bet I do and when I pitch in with my comments,my goal is to help the newcomer avoid a lot of building efforts and costs,not counting the eventual frustration of tearing down and starting over or worse still,quit the hobby as a whole.

I've been working on my layout for six years now,tearing down two previous partially tracked benchwork and spent hundreds of hours drawing twenty plus trackplans to come up with my present version wich I admit,still doesn't fill my original wish list.

I may get criticized for my un-sweetened comments but I don't believe pushing sunshine up someone's....helps any.Sorry for telling the truth and only the truth.


----------



## tman2005 (Sep 30, 2017)

*New Design.*

Thanks for all the great advice guys. I have decided to just use an 8 x 4 board, which I have built. I have quite a bit of Kato track now, and I'm glad I went with this brand. The picture is of my current design, which I have tested out, and works well. I know some of you love the true to life prototypical layout, which is great, but I'm interested in running all types of trains. I'm currently running DC, but I will be converting over to DCC in the near future. My layout lets me run continuous trains, plus allows for switching operations. As always, I'm open for helpful advice


----------



## Massey (Apr 16, 2011)

Welcome to the forums! and glad to see another Washingtonian here. You have an interesting design but one that gets 3 loops but only one train can run at any given time with out the fear of a collision. I'm going to number the layout like a typical graph starting at the lower left with 1-4 going up (north) and A-H going West (A) to east (H) The outer loop and next inside loop share a switch at A-2 which then puts the train on the outer loop. They can get back on the middle loop with the switch at G-4, but then can the trains from the outer loop. The inner loop is a folded over dog bone and works well but it has access to 2 tracks in your station... you have a 3 track but 2 platform station. 

Here is what I would suggest to assist your train running. 

Have the center track of the station used for a through track and primary track for the middle loop, the outer loop runs the northern platform having only the cross overs as the access points to the middle loop. This will allow 2 trains to run at the same time, and allow each train to access the station. The center dog bone should have access to the southern most station platform (maybe as an inner city small commuter train or tram) but could access the middle loop through a couple of switches. This will allow 3 trains to run at the same time, no train shares a track unless you choose and the rail road will flow a bit smoother. 

Lastly the yard. you may want to consider removing the northern 2 yard tracks. They are really too small to hold much and dont really benefit the switching much. The industries look pretty good how they are. 

Hope this helps.


----------

