# Bedroom N-Scale Layout



## mwsmith34 (Apr 14, 2011)

My son wants to build a DCC N-scale layout in his bedroom. The layout picture below was my somewhat too aggressive plans. The upper right corner was to have an elevated and recessed track. When figuring out the slopes, i was only planning on 2" vertical separation, used 9 3/4 turns in some places, and was coming in with 3% grade. Trying to stretch things out will likley break the three layer concept (-2, 0 +2). 

The blue rectangles are his bookshelf and headboard/footboard shelves. The yellow rectangle is bed. My plan was to build it on top of the shelves and span the other areas with frames and long spans.

Anyone try anything like this? Any advice? THinking I should thin down the track to just have two mainlines vs the three (giving up the mine/subway lower one).


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Is this the first layout for both of you? If so, dial it WAAAAAAY back. A small layout... maybe just the pieces over and around the bed, with a closed loop at the top. This will be a good way to get your feet wet and learn the ropes without getting overwhelmed.

Secondly, it's not clear what you're trying to do where. You say "giving up the mine / subway lower one" but it's not at all clear from the drawings what you mean. If it were me, I would just completely get rid of that upper right corner. I think, maybe, conceptually, it's a kind of a helix intended to gain elevation, but there is no real need to have different elevations, and it adds layers of complexity and potential problems to a layout, especially if you're flirting with 3% grades. I'm also not sure what the scale of the drawing is, but if that's a standard twin bed, and it's to scale, then most or all of the track in the upper right corner is going to be unreachable, so if you have a derailment (a virtual certainty with that track arrangement), you'll have a heck of a time reaching it.

What is the purpose of the layout? Are you just trying to create fancy trackage to watch a train run around on? Or is this supposed to look / operate more like a real railroad.? If it's the former, you should dispense with the sidings / yard in the lower right. If you want more like real operations, where the layout operator actually has some interaction with the trains, then you want to look at simplifying the track arrangements on the running track and adding some more sidings and industry. Depending on how you do the layout base (which you didn't draw), you really don't have much room for anything but track: no structures and no scenery, both of which add significant interest, especially if the layout is just a place for a train to chase its tail.

At the end of the day, it's your project. You do what you want. Plenty of people have built layouts around bedrooms. But I'd have a more cohesive approach to what you're trying to accomplish before you even start trying to design a track plan.


----------



## QueenoftheGN (Dec 10, 2019)

mwsmith34 said:


> My son wants to build a DCC N-scale layout in his bedroom. The layout picture below was my somewhat too aggressive plans. The upper right corner was to have an elevated and recessed track. When figuring out the slopes, i was only planning on 2" vertical separation, used 9 3/4 turns in some places, and was coming in with 3% grade. Trying to stretch things out will likley break the three layer concept (-2, 0 +2).
> 
> The blue rectangles are his bookshelf and headboard/footboard shelves. The yellow rectangle is bed. My plan was to build it on top of the shelves and span the other areas with frames and long spans.
> 
> ...


I agree with CTV, if this is you/your sons first layout then this is far to big, I would keep it to 
the shelves section, maybe add a siding or something there, and cut out the rest, how are your going to get the power Necessary to that loop and large yard by the bookcase? That’ll need more than a few powered track pieces, it’ll be an electrical nightmare (at least in my experience) but it is your room, and your hobby, I’d just maybe dial it back a bit.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

WOW that's quite a basket of snakes there in the corner! I really doubt you can sucessfully do all those crossovers in the allotted space using 3% grades. I don't know what track plan software you are using but does it take into account the thickness of the track, roadbed and under support when calculating slope? Most don't, they only calculate the clearance distance between tracks as measured from railhead to railhead as if the track was a self supporting zero vertical thickness plane. In the real world to have 2" of actual clearance between crossing tracks for rolling stock the elevation of the lower track is set to the thickness of the roadbed + the thickness of the track to the railhead, Approximately 1/4" with code 80 and 3mm roadbed (assuming the lower level roadbed is attached to the "zero" height subroadbed support, i.e. foam or plywood deck. Now to determine the elevation needed for upper track you need to add that 1/4" to the clearance (2.0" for mid 20th century equipment, 2. 25" for modern cars and locomotives such as double stack intermodals etc. PLUS another 0.17" for the bare upper track height, plus whatever support is under the upper track. The thinnest bridge deck in N scale is about 0.25", most are much deeper. Using minimums that means the upper track elevation needs to be at 2.67" or 2-5/8" above the baseboard minimum. Now plug those numbers into your track plan and see what slopes you get?


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

I will agree with the others, it’s too complicated with way too much trackage and elevation changes. 
If you can find a basic track plan for your space, the good N scalers on here can help you achieve a successful layout. With your current plan, I don’t think anyone would know where to start. 
At any rate, best of success and have fun.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

Yes, simplify the plan (i.e., less trackage) and stay away from 9-3/4" radius curves if you can avoid it. Go with around 11" minimum radius or larger if space permits. Some 6-axle locos don't work or play well with 9-3/4" radius curves.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Elevation changes add interest to a layout design, but there should be a (scenic) reason for them, besides just complexity, again your planning software has also not taken into account the horizontal space required for roadbed and supports, (about twice the width of the track itself at a minimum) and the space for scenic transitions between levels. Unless you are modeling a steep hardrock mountain side you will end up with very unrealistic looking vertical walls between levels broken at the crossings, (basically track perched on narrow ridges). It is best to imagine what the original land contour and composition was before the railroad came thru the area. A vertical shelf cut is only possible where there is solid geological structure below and ABOVE the track. Less solid terrain requires a much lower slope: <45% to not collapse and slide down under the track. They would do the minimum cut and fill necessary to achieve a usable roadbed. 
You could do a much more simplified track plan for that corner that would accomplish the same basic purpose. As a mid 20th century era N scale modeler I agree stick with minimum 11" curves except occasionally in a very slow speed yard with just a few cars. On mainline track a train of more than 6 or 8 cars will derail on a smaller radius curve at speed due to "_stringlining_", especially if you don't build in easements at transitions in direction and collisions between passing trains in parallel curves.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

mwsmith34 said:


> My son wants to build a DCC N-scale layout in his bedroom. The layout picture below was my somewhat too aggressive plans. The upper right corner was to have an elevated and recessed track. When figuring out the slopes, i was only planning on 2" vertical separation, used 9 3/4 turns in some places, and was coming in with 3% grade. Trying to stretch things out will likley break the three layer concept (-2, 0 +2).
> 
> The blue rectangles are his bookshelf and headboard/footboard shelves. The yellow rectangle is bed. My plan was to build it on top of the shelves and span the other areas with frames and long spans.
> 
> ...


If you ever got this layout built, I don't know how you would ever maintain it. Track cleaning for that complex "spaghetti bowl" of track in the upper right would be a nightmare. Just buying that much track, including about a dozen turnouts,(track switches) will be quite expensive. I also see 2-4 turnouts on the right side which may be hard to reach. They may also be hidden inside a tunnel? Both are very bad ideas. Turnouts need maintenance, & sometimes replacement. That's going to be tough to do if you can't see, and reach, them. Turnouts are also responsible for 90% of all derailments, so that's another reason to keep them in plain sight, and within easy reach. 

I recommend what others already have, start with something simpler. An "along the walls" shelf layout is a good idea, but I would not only cut back on the sheer amount of track, but also rearrange it in a more realistic pattern. The only "prototype" (real railroad) I can think of that comes close to your spaghetti bowl would be the tracks in an open pit mine. Unless that's what you're modeling, there is nothing like that track layout in the real world. Realistic appearance may not be one of your goals though, and that's your choice.
This track plan, like many others, fills practically all the available space with track, leaving little room for scenery or structures. The yard tracks at the lower right, look short enough that they probably won't hold many cars. A few, longer, yard tracks might be better.
The files below have more information on planning a model railroad.

Traction Fan


----------

