Inspirational (N Scale) Bedroom Layouts

[James Costello]

I'm working my way through years of MR, MR Planning etc etc looking at track plans and layouts etc for a future N Scale layout.

I was just wondering if anyone had any favorite or inspirational layouts for a spare bedroom? I have roughly a 11' x 13' space I can use, looking at a round-the-walls with an aisle option with a fair length of continuous running. Single deck with staging below preferred.

An example, and my current favorite, is this Wisconsin Central one from October 2005 Model Railroader:
https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/track-plan-database/wisconsin-central/

Lets see what you've got. Thanks!

[GimpLizard]

One of my favorites is the "Peace River" layout, from the March 1987 MRR. It's HO scale, but could adapted to N.

[packers#1]

The Otter Creek one is good, I forgot what issue it was but it’s within the last few years.

[Rivet Miscounter]

If you like that plan, I would use that as your starting point.   IMHO it's a really nice track-to-scenery ratio and good potential for meaningful ops sessions.   I would say maybe light on staging is the only knock, and that's probably fixable.  And I'm not a big fan of duckunders either, (probably why I'm in Z now) but I would take that over some other concessions.

It's hard for me to recommend a specific plan without some vision of what you're trying to accomplish. (aside from Espee in the 90s, and a few other tidbits about your "m.o." here and there)   I will say that the "43 Track Plans from the Experts" book I have (from 2011) seems to have a lot of good ideas for around the walls layouts.

[milw156]

Capitol City Ngineers had a bedroom size BN Prairie du Chien project layout in Feb 1990 MR, and also did another MR project layout of the WC Waukesha sub in 7/97 which was a bit bigger and had a different footprint as built, but could be modified to be around walls w/ peninsula. Dont remember the year, but MR ran a series on the Southern RR's Murphy branch in HO that may scale down. I would also recommend looking at Thomas Klimoski's (also in MR recently)  and Tim Garland's (old )HO layouts on you tube for some switching layouts. QNERailrioad has an interesting track plan that might scale down if you open it up & wrap it around the walls with a peninsula https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/sites/model-railroad-hobbyist.com/files/qne_as_built_2014_visible_level.pdf

[Rivet Miscounter]

So I dug a little more and took a few notes....here are the plans that I found inspiration from.  (clarifying that it doesn't necessarily mean the overall plan suits me or you, just that I got ideas and inspiration from them)   These are all from the aforementioned "43 Track Plans from the Experts".

-Piedmont Subdivision by Bernard Kempinski; 43TPftE2011 pg.16; Appealing from an ops perspective...the interchange, etc.

-Iowa Central by Iain Rice 43TPftE2011 pg. 26; If you can look past the riced-up-hyper-scenery drawing, it could really do 90s SP justice.

-B&O Morgantown Glass by Eric Hansmann 43TPftE2011 pg. 34; I find that staging/helix implementation interesting.
http://www.hansmanns.org/mrp_hansmann_2001.pdf

-UP Wyoming Division by Steven Orth 43TPftE2011 pg. 62;  Similar space and another unconventional way to get multiple levels.

I always liked that "Peace River" layout too...it is aesthetically pleasing and flows well and the writeup on it was done well.

[Rivet Miscounter]

Next round is from 102 Realistic Track Plans

-Dakota Northern by Ole Melhouse. 102RTP pg. 59; Including this one because I have personally operated on it many, many times.   It looks very track heavy but when you're in the room it really doesn't come across that way.   It is designed for ops and is a very fun layout to run on.   

-Santa Fe Needles Sub.  102RTP pg. 64;  This one seems like it could be adapted to the space and to SP, and would check a lot of the boxes from what I know.
https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/track-plan-database/santa-fe-needles-district

-C&O Alleghany Sub. 102RTP pg. 72;   Doing away with the branch on the right, this could be adapted to your space, no duckunders, good staging.
https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/track-plan-database/candos-alleghany-subdivision

-SP Bakersfield Sub and UP Daneville-Donner Sub layouts on pg. 74; Just full of ideas of all kinds.  SP-heavy and overall great designs.

[GimpLizard]

Another source for inspiration would be Rob Chant. (http://www.jomrd.com/) He's done track plans in all scales from Z to G, and sizes from micro & small switching layouts up to multi-deck "empires". Here are links to a couple of his "room-sized" N scale plans;

Norfolk Southern – 8’8’’ x 11’8’’: http://www.jomrd.com/index.php?page=ShowRecord&ID=219

Western Maryland Railway – 17’6’’x12’0’’: http://www.jomrd.com/index.php?page=ShowRecord&ID=11

[BCR 570]

I recall that it was a track plan based on the Reno branch that got me going in the right direction for my 11 x 13 bedroom layout.  Cant remember which publication it was in.

Tim

[James Costello]

Thanks for the ideas and links gents - plenty for me to go away to look at. I've got the 102/103 trackplan books but the "43 Track Plans from the Experts" seems to have escaped my notice - I've found an online version now to peruse. I wasn't aware of the JoMRD site either so thanks for that source.

If you like that plan, I would use that as your starting point.   IMHO it's a really nice track-to-scenery ratio and good potential for meaningful ops sessions.   I would say maybe light on staging is the only knock, and that's probably fixable.  And I'm not a big fan of duckunders either, (probably why I'm in Z now) but I would take that over some other concessions.

It's hard for me to recommend a specific plan without some vision of what you're trying to accomplish. (aside from Espee in the 90s, and a few other tidbits about your "m.o." here and there)   I will say that the "43 Track Plans from the Experts" book I have (from 2011) seems to have a lot of good ideas for around the walls layouts.

Thanks Doug - appreciate it. I'm pretty flexible with the locale at the moment, as the SP along the I-5 gives me some decent scenery or urban options. You've hit on some key points though - good track-to-scenery ratio, the ability to have a couple of decent mainline trains on a continuous run and some switching options - either shared with a shortline with a little interchange or as part of the host railroad. It could be urban LA or Portland with some port action, it could be CA Central Valley and incorporating ME&T, CCT, Cal Northern or the like. But to be honest, considering this is not going to be my dream layout and for the next few years I want to be able to run some trains and build some structures/scenery, I think I want to get the "feel" right and not be too proto accurate - as I don't think it's particularly feasible. Places like Fresno, Empire (ME&T), Stockton, Davis etc all kinda fit the bill for what I'm thinking and will definitely form part of the inspiration if it ends up with the Central Valley theme.

The dream layout would revolve around Tehachapi and the City of Industry intermodal yard (LA) and a yet to be determined northern end, so the same freight and consists would be suitable for the Central Valley option. Going a bit free-lance / proto-lance frees up the ability to throw in some passenger options that aren't strictly proto for the SP mainline - but are suitable for the nearby ATSF/BNSF main.

Wants:

• Decent mainline run for 15-20 car train in a continuous operation
• Visible yard with some minor facilities
• Maybe 1-2 main industries with plenty of smaller options
• Ops for 2-4 people
• Decent sized "real" industries and not overly cluttered track arrangements
• Maybe an interchange that allows switching or ops with a second railroad
• Adequate staging
• Ability to JFRTM, especially on my own or with my kids

Like to Haves:

• Parallel second main (or double track in places) to represent SP & ATSF in Cali. Could be part of the interchange.
• As my primary modeling focus is intermodal equipment, a small representation of an intermodal yard would be great, but it would also be the first to be culled due to space considerations. Even just being able to see the intermodal equipment on the mainline would be a good improvement.
• Use for the couple of BLMA brass bridges I've got in storage among some scenery.
• One main industry probably to be a ballast / hard rock quarry

More to come - but thanks guys.

[Rivet Miscounter]

Another one that came to mind...I've admired @mark.hinds Tehachapi layout plan for some time now.   Definitely a good one to draw ideas from. (or copy outright.    )
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28831

[altohorn25]

I always liked the plan for that Wisconsin Central layout as it could be modified to fit almost any midwestern railroad.

I think the Thompson River Canyon layout (although freestanding) would fit in a bedroom; always liked the scenery to track ratio with that one: 

/>

[wm3798]

There's some good stuff happening here.  Thanks for putting all these great designs in one place.  Maybe a Best Of for this thread!
Lee

[randgust]

I'm not sure how inspirational this is.... but it's worked for me.

http://www.randgust.com/atsfplan.htm

Overall size is 8' x 5' 6", and was designed to fit in a small bedroom.   It's essentially three levels; staging yard (big), a Nolix up to the second level for a reversing loop, and the third visible level.   Grades max out a 2.5%, I regularly run 30-35 car trains.    Staging holds eight trains.   While it looks like it's double track, "Williams" Jct. goes to one track and allows all trains to reverse into and out of staging so that all trains are bidirectional.

While I did this for the ATSF Third District, and all the photos you see of that are this plan (which has held up amazingly well with few modifications) this plan really works for a lot of reasons; the "Flagstaff" area is semi-industrial, and the "Winslow" area makes for a nice little class yard where through freights can set off their blocks with locals handling the industrial activity.    And the "S" curve at Challendar was to be the signature spot of the layout, with the San Francisco peaks in the distance, right off of the McMillan calendar shots.....



Link:  http://www.randgust.com/AlcoPASFpeak1.jpg



I'd done the Winslow station back in the 70's on another layout, but that got expanded.   But like the Peaks, this view had to be done:

Link:  http://www.randgust.com/F7_Winslow_3.jpg


I took out the one leg of the hidden wye so that it's one way in, one way out.   Also added another hidden industrial spur off of Flagstaff right over top of the hidden loop to simulate the Southwest Forest Products interchange.

Now to really make it complicated, the entire layout tears down into six modules, none over 4' by 30" so that I can get them through a door.   It's in its third house now, which is the only way a layout can ever be this 'finished'.  So it was an engineering challenge, all wiring goes through Moulex plugs at the table joints.

Yes, it has a duckunder and I built it when I was younger.   But, minimum under-table clearance is about 50", and I have a rolling desk chair that I sit in rather than bend over all the time.   And under the entire layout is material storage shelves, bookshelves, workbench, part storage, etc.

While I'm now big into T-trak and other portable modules, and will never have much more space, this plan has done me well.    The usual visitor impression is that they thought I had a MUCH larger layout.   Objectives on the ATSF were wider curves, no visible duplicate main line tracks, completely separate 'scenes' via backdrops, a yard, industrial area, big staging yard, and designed around actual prototype track plans at Winslow and Flagstaff.   This layout was an upgrade from my original door-sized 3x6 previous layout that was in RMC.

While it's tempting to have the 'no duckunder' rule, if you make it high enough it's a lot less of a problem.   I didn't want big visible 180-degree curves except from the INSIDE of the curve, and even as I'm getting older the low-rolling desk chair has removed that problem entirely.   And after having to destroy my first layout just to clear the room when I sold the house, I vowed I'd never get burned like that again.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Whoa, Randy, I'll immediately say "I thought it was bigger", even without actually seeing it!