Arroyo Tortuga is making me scratch my head

[johnb]

So I got some free time today, and a new 2x4 of plywood. I have spent the better part of an hour scratching my head trying to figure out how Jim Kelly got the Turtle Creek Central into a 4x8 in HO. I have been wanting to build the classic, tight roundy-round, but set in Los Angeles. I am beginning to think that I will be better off with a 5x2.5 to get the turns to fit better....

I am using Peco small switches/turnouts, Atlas crossings and flex...this is driving me ape...



I can get away with 9 inch radius curves due to me only running switchers and street cars..

What would you guys do?

[Chris333]

4x8 in N scale is 26x52".

[milw12]

Chris nailed it. I've found or was directed to this website at some point, which is useful for converting between scales:

https://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRconvcharts.html

If you do go 30"x60", you could widen the curves and let everything stretch a bit. I imagine Jim Kelly used a 18" radius (9 3/4-10" in N) on that plan, but I can't say that I'm familiar with it.

Lucas

[thomasjmdavis]

I see that 2 posters got there while I was typing.  But just to reiterate what they had to say, based on my own experience....

Yep, it will fit better on 2.5x5

I get caught in this sort of thing frequently, myself.  N scale is not 0.50 HO, it is 0.54375 (0.55 to be safe).  So 48x96 in HO reduces down to 26.4x52.8, several inches larger in each dimension than a 2'x4' panel.  Going to 2.5'x5' allows for differences in track sizes (not every piece of HO track has an exact N scale equivalent) and may even allow for a bit of foreground detail and/or an extra structure.

On the N layout I am currently planning, I had thought I could adapt an HO plan for a 25' wide room with a center "Island" and big "around the room" track run, to my 12.5' wide basement room.  And it all looked great on the piece of paper I sketched it on.  Only problem, once I had everything drawn to scale, the difference between 0.5 and 0.55 meant that the "pinch points" in the aisles were so tight that I would have had difficulty moving to all areas of the layout, and some of my friends would have found it impossible.

[johnb]

I totally understand that 9.75 inch thing, I was just hoping to avoid it...

[randgust]

Oh, you can probably do it, but you'll have to end-run on several issues.

1)  Forget sectional track, 9 3/4 is wider than HO 18".   So.... your track software design programs won't work.    Just draw it full size with components rather than on a computer.  You'll lay flex, and watch your kinking.
   
2)  Anything that small, you can actually draw up on a piece of plywood with a compass to true 9" radius, or 8 1/2", or whatever it takes.   

3)  You may have to resort to at least a few extremely tight switches, like the Peco SL1, or the old Trix R1 switches, etc.   On a 'normal' switch you can cut back toward the frog, tighten the diverging curve by removing ties, all kinds of nonsense (none advised!)

4)   My 18x36" Hickory Valley has 8 1/2" curves and a 4% grade, which limits my 'road' train to a 2-6-0, 4 cars, and a caboose.   So yeah, it can be done.  Stacked loop to loop.

5)   When it was time to make the next module I increased the dimensions so that 9 3/4" sectional curves worked.   My Atlas Shay would run on 8", but it was right on the ragged edge.

6)   Don't forget curved switches, old Trix did R1 and R2, and now even Rokuhan has stuff like that.

7)   Make sure your motive power has OUTSTANDING electrical pickup and low speed, you'll need both.   Anything even close to that would be operated at walking speed, no faster.

[johnb]

Oh, you can probably do it, but you'll have to end-run on several issues.

1)  Forget sectional track, 9 3/4 is wider than HO 18".   So.... your track software design programs won't work.    Just draw it full size with components rather than on a computer.  You'll lay flex, and watch your kinking.
   
2)  Anything that small, you can actually draw up on a piece of plywood with a compass to true 9" radius, or 8 1/2", or whatever it takes.   

3)  You may have to resort to at least a few extremely tight switches, like the Peco SL1, or the old Trix R1 switches, etc.   On a 'normal' switch you can cut back toward the frog, tighten the diverging curve by removing ties, all kinds of nonsense (none advised!)

4)   My 18x36" Hickory Valley has 8 1/2" curves and a 4% grade, which limits my 'road' train to a 2-6-0, 4 cars, and a caboose.   So yeah, it can be done.  Stacked loop to loop.

5)   When it was time to make the next module I increased the dimensions so that 9 3/4" sectional curves worked.   My Atlas Shay would run on 8", but it was right on the ragged edge.

6)   Don't forget curved switches, old Trix did R1 and R2, and now even Rokuhan has stuff like that.

7)   Make sure your motive power has OUTSTANDING electrical pickup and low speed, you'll need both.   Anything even close to that would be operated at walking speed, no faster.

I was planning on my Atlas VO-1000 and BLI NW2,  plus Tomix chassis...

[GimpLizard]

JohnB,

I have an AnyRail plan for the TCC, in 2.5' x 5', using Peco Streamline Code 80 track. Minimum radius is 11". If you can use the AnyRail file PM me with your email addy and I'll send it to you.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Mike

[johnb]

JohnB,

I have an AnyRail plan for the TCC, in 2.5' x 5', using Peco Streamline Code 80 track. Minimum radius is 11". If you can use the AnyRail file PM me with your email addy and I'll send it to you.

(Attachment Link)

Mike

wow, that is great, unfortunately, I don't have a PC right now.  is that using the tiny Pecos?

[mmagliaro]

Is fitting this into as small a surface as possible a critical priority?  I ask because it seems to me that even going to 3' x 6' would relax a lot of painful constraints on the curve radii and turnouts, and still fit into a very small space, even for an apartment.  And it would still be small enough to shove in the back of a station wagon or SUV.

[johnb]

Is fitting this into as small a surface as possible a critical priority?  I ask because it seems to me that even going to 3' x 6' would relax a lot of painful constraints on the curve radii and turnouts, and still fit into a very small space, even for an apartment.  And it would still be small enough to shove in the back of a station wagon or SUV.

yes and no, I have already taken over a huge chunk of my loft for work, trains and my record collection. I am a single dad with a crappy Chrysler 200, so no SUV for me....yet

[mmagliaro]

I'd take that as a "yes" the space constraints are important.   Fair enough.

[GimpLizard]

wow, that is great, unfortunately, I don't have a PC right now.  is that using the tiny Pecos?

No, it uses the Peco "#4" turnouts. P/N SL-E395 & SL-E396. The 'E' denotes Electrofrog. Omit it for for Insulfrog.

Here's the full track list.

Track
2568, N Atlas Code 80, Crossing 3.819". 60º   1
2569a, N Atlas Code 80, Crossing 1.299". 90º   2
SL-300, N Peco Streamline Code 80, Flex 35.984". (wood)   38    (Minimum number of units: 9)
SL-E395, N Peco Streamline Code 80, Right turnout 4.882". 14º (conductive frog)   4
SL-E396, N Peco Streamline Code 80, Left turnout 4.882". 14º (conductive frog)   4

You could do the same plan with Atlas Code 80 #4 turnouts & flex, as they're basically the same - dimensionally - as the Peco. That might save you a few bucks.