Track Spacing

[mike_lawyer]

I am finally at the point of starting to lay track on my new layout this weekend.  I can't remember what the standard recommended spacing is between parallel tracks on straightaways and curves.  I tried looking on the NMRA site, but could not find it.

I remember on my old layout, I liked the spacing two Atlas #7 turnouts in a crossover configuration made.  Does anyone have that measurement (center to center) handy, or any recommendations for spacing?

[wazzou]

I "think" 1-1/4" is recommended, though I usually have narrowed it by 1/8", personally.

[Chris333]

The Erie railroad used 13 feet where I live.

[wazzou]

The Erie railroad used 13 feet where I live.

Yeah, the NP was 15' as a System Standard but 14' in Wisconsin, Minnesota, N Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washington and 15' in Oregon.
I laugh that the System Standard is 15' when the Transcon mainline runs through all of the states, listed at 14'
14' was pretty much the standard for yard tracks too.

[reinhardtjh]

I "think" 1-1/4" is recommended, though I usually have narrowed it by 1/8", personally.

The Erie railroad used 13 feet where I live.

Non N-Scale fingers often need a little larger.  I have seen some people use 1 1/2" or even 1 3/4" on straight and out to 2 1/4" on curves (mostly for overhang issues).

Yeah, the NP was 15' as a System Standard but 14' in Wisconsin, Minnesota, N Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washington and 15' in Oregon.
I laugh that the System Standard is 15' when the Transcon mainline runs through all of the states, listed at 14'
14' was pretty much the standard for yard tracks too.

Isn't the new standard 25' like on the BNSF Transcon and other new double and triple tracking projects?  Though in congested areas it probalby can't.  But out west?

[nickelplate759]

A common recommendation for N scale is 1.25", and a lot of sectional track is built that way.  N-Trak standard is 1.5".

1.25" is 16.67' scale feet, which is already pretty wide spacing for the prototype  1.5" is 20'!
1.125"  is 15 scale feet - still a little on the wide side for some prototypes, but looks noticeably nicer.  I'd be inclined to go with this.

A consideration is that you may want to be able to get your fingers between trains to re-rail or remove cars.  I think that's a large part of the reason that N-Trak is 1.5".

[learmoia]

A consideration is that you may want to be able to get your fingers between trains to re-rail or remove cars.  I think that's a large part of the reason that N-Trak is 1.5".

Unless you can scale down your fingers.. THIS ^^^

I have been designing my stuff for 1.25, with 1.5 in staging.

~Ian

[garethashenden]

The Erie railroad used 13 feet where I live.

The Boston & Maine's standard plans show 13' from centerline to centerline.

[Maletrain]

The B&O shows 13' center-to-center on double track, on straightaways and curves, even superelevated curves.  That is only 0.975" in N scale.

I think something close to that looks best for mainline trackage, but really can't be maintained on much less than prototype scale curve radius.  Often, passing sidings will be at greater distances from the mainline tracks, probably so that train crews can inspect for issues like hot boxes.

Yards are a different matter for the prototype as well as the modeler.  On the prototype, real people need to be able to walk safely between the cars/trains, as well as modelers needing to get fingers in to solve problems.  So, use what works for you there.

And for hidden tracks and staging, looks don't matter - functionality is the priority.  I would use at least 1.5" where I need to reach into a bunch of parallel tracks to pickup a car.

The problem is that making the spacing wider tends to lose tracks in a yard that is limited by available space - and who isn't limited when planning a layout?  So, there is a tendency to make things tighter while planning than is convenient when you finally get to operating.

If you can, just set up some sectional track or spike down some flex track and try different spacings in the actual context you will be using them.  It is a lot easier to deal with narrow spacing when looking and reaching down on multiple tracks at waist level than when reaching across multiple tracks at chin level.

[Point353]

I am finally at the point of starting to lay track on my new layout this weekend.  I can't remember what the standard recommended spacing is between parallel tracks on straightaways and curves.  I tried looking on the NMRA site, but could not find it.

https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-7.2_curved_track_centers_july_2017.pdf

[altohorn25]

I'm using 1.25" on my new layout.

[mike_lawyer]

Is the spacing everyone is talking about from center-to-center, or is it from rail to rail?  I was thinking of using 1.25 inches center to center.

[Bill H]

Having watched a lot of operation crews, most of whom usually work with HO, struggle with reading n scale reporting marks, uncoupling, and re railing, in siding where a lot of work is being done; I have increased the spacing to 2" center to center. I can clearly appreciate in many yard situations or stagings, 2" is extravagant and not appropriate especially in consideration of available space. But when I have the available space, well, I give fingers and eyes all the room I can.

[nickelplate759]

Is the spacing everyone is talking about from center-to-center, or is it from rail to rail?  I was thinking of using 1.25 inches center to center.

Center to  center

[robert3985]

Since I model the UP from 1947 thru 1956, I duplicate the prototype's track center-to-center spec's.

On the UP, mainline trackage...including double mainlines and double mainlines with center sidings...the center-to-center track spacing was a minimum of 20'.

This works out in N-scale to be exactly 1.50" between mainline track centers minimum.

However, at stations, the minimum center-to-center spacing was 14', or 1.05" in N-scale.

If memory serves me, yard center-to-center spacing on straight trackage was also a minimum of 14'.

Photo (1) - UP Double Track Roadbed for First-Class Main Lines:


As you can see, this was superseded in 1982, when a "preferred" center-to-center spacing was 20', but 14' became the new minimum.

Photo (2) - UP Common Standard Important Station Platform Specs:


From an N-scale operational standpoint, I think the bare minimum track center-to-center spacing should be 1.25"...which allows fat fingers to re-rail cars, 0-5-0 cars if needed without knocking cars off the adjacent track etc.

However, from a looks standpoint, a scale 14' center-to-center is going to look really good for yards and stations.

Also, remember that double bore tunnels required a track center-to-center spacing that was considerably more than 20'...so, if you've got double-bore tunnels planned on your layout, widen the center-to-center measurements. 

Bridges also required wider spacing sometimes (not all the time) between track centers, usually depending on what type of bridges were being used.

Also, some double-tracked mainline tracks weren't the same height, an east-bound track going a slightly different route for a few miles that was higher than the west-bound mainline for instance.  The tracks would widen in this instance too, and modeling that feature can add a real prototype look to your trackage.

Anyway, have fun!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore