Yard Track Spacing

[6axlepwr]

Hi All, it has been a very long time for me in N-Scale. So my first question back is to ask.

What is normal track spacing for a yard in N-Scale?

Brian

[nickelplate759]

It depends (you knew that was coming, didn't you)?    Many people (including me), and a lot of sectional track, use 1.25" - that's a little over 16 scale feet. 14 scale feet is about 1".

The advantage of wider is more space when you need to use an 0-5-0.

[6axlepwr]

Thank you for a quick response George. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for.

Brian

[jagged ben]

1.25" is exactly 16'-8" in N scale.  1" is exactly 13'-4".   The latter would be closer to prototype on most cases.   As mentioned above, we usually go bigger than prototype for practical reasons.

[spr1955]

I believe the NMRA specs call for 1-3/16" which is what I used for straight tracks but in reality I could see 1-1/4" being a little more friendly for fiddling.

[jpwisc]

The yards I have modeled have worked out to 1.125”. I’ve been very happy with that.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[6axlepwr]

I really like those trees! For my layout, I need LOADS of trees. I mean loads of them.

Tonight I took my shelves down and patched all the holes in the walls to prep the room to start building the layout shelving. My goal is to have the layout done and scenery started by mid summer or fall.

Brian

[robert3985]

When designing my Park City Yard and contiguous Echo Yard located at Echo Junction on my layout, I kept the 1.50" (20 scale feet) between centers for the two mainlines running through it for spacing of adjacent yard trackage, but in the yards, I dropped the spacing to 1.25" (16' 8" in 1:1 scale) between yard tracks.  This both differentiates between mainline trackage...which also has granite ballast...and yard trackage, which has cinder ballast. 

1.5" between mainline tracks for UP is the minimum standard, and frankly from an appearance standpoint, I really don't notice any difference between the spacing at normal operating height above the layout. 

When viewed without any cars in the yards, you can see the spacing differences if you squint real hard, but when the yards fill up, the differences go away visually.

1.25" gives enough room to 0-5-0 a car or train when the trackage is filled up, and when it's crowded, any excess space between tracks as opposed to scaled-down actual track spacing isn't apparent at all.

Photo (1) - Echo Junction with Park City Yard in the foreground with Echo Yard in the distance:


Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Slim Rail Mike]

Just started a yard, using 1.125" spacing. I scaled down a Sanborn map of my yard. The spacing is what could be inferred from the map. Hoping it's not too tight to use easily.

[Spades]

6axlepwr

Are you going to build the Copper State Railway in N?  I have followed your work in HO on the web/YouTube.  Great stuff. It made try things I thought I would never do.

I have seen jpwisc (trees) work and it is impressive.

[6axlepwr]

No, I am going to be building my Midwest railroad. Cairo Port Terminal & Chicago In N-Scale. A New York Central controlled railroad. The subject is Karnak, IL. The interchange with the Missouri Pacific. I gave a lot of thought about the Copper State Railway, but the CPT&C is more along the lines of what I like and enjoy.

Once I get the room dialed in, I will start sharing all my layout adventures.

Brian

[Rossford Yard]

Atlas C55 is 1.25". On older layouts when I used Peco, I think they naturally came out at 1.125 (1' and an 1/8th) which I preferred for looks.  To get that with Atlas track, I think you have to trim a few ties and rail off the point end, not a huge deal with rail cutters.  To my eye, the 1.25" just looks to wide.  If you lay track well and switch slowly, I wouldn't think the trade off between fiddle ability and looks would make a big difference and I would go with the 1.125" myself.

If you have any hidden staging yards, years of experience taught me that spacing the tracks far enough apart to allow the tallest cars to flop over is a great idea, even at a loss of a track or two of staging, i.e., 2" if you have hi-cubes or autoracks.  For those, adding a small 1/2" tob1" spacer to the C55 ladder works.

As always, just my humble opinion.

[robert3985]

Atlas C55 is 1.25". On older layouts when I used Peco, I think they naturally came out at 1.125 (1' and an 1/8th) which I preferred for looks.  To get that with Atlas track, I think you have to trim a few ties and rail off the point end, not a huge deal with rail cutters.  To my eye, the 1.25" just looks to wide.  If you lay track well and switch slowly, I wouldn't think the trade off between fiddle ability and looks would make a big difference and I would go with the 1.125" myself.

If you have any hidden staging yards, years of experience taught me that spacing the tracks far enough apart to allow the tallest cars to flop over is a great idea, even at a loss of a track or two of staging, i.e., 2" if you have hi-cubes or autoracks.  For those, adding a small 1/2" tob1" spacer to the C55 ladder works.

As always, just my humble opinion.

I think you need to re-do your math.  I don't have any Atlas55 on hand right now, but ME55 measures tie-end to tie-end only .672" in total width.  If I butt ME track together with the tie-ends touching...the center-to-center measurement is the same, .672" or 43/64ths of an inch...MUCH less than 1.125" center-to-center.  With a 1.125" center-to-center measurement, the distance between adjacent tie ends is .453"...almost half an inch of space.

Although Atlas55 ties are a bit longer if memory serves me, they're not going to come even close to touching with a center-to-center space of 1.125".

EDIT:  Ohhhh...you're talking about turnouts and yard ladders.  Gotcha!  Since I hand-lay my yard ladders in one monolithic unit with track centers figured into it, using RTR turnouts is something I've never thought about using. Thanks Ed  @Ed Kapuscinski for making that clear

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Do yourself a favor. Figure out what the natural spacing is using the turnouts you're using (I think it's about 1.125 with Atlas #7s) and go with it. You don't want to be splcing in tiny little lengths to make it wider and you're also likely not going to want to cut every turnout back.

As long as it's somewhat close, make your life easier.

Also, don't do what I did (somehow) and make the tracks that don't follow this rule too close. I did that on two tracks of my current yard and it's driving me nuts.

[Rossford Yard]

I think you need to re-do your math.  I don't have any Atlas55 on hand right now, but ME55 measures tie-end to tie-end only .672" in total width.  If I butt ME track together with the tie-ends touching...the center-to-center measurement is the same, .672" or 43/64ths of an inch...MUCH less than 1.125" center-to-center.  With a 1.125" center-to-center measurement, the distance between adjacent tie ends is .453"...almost half an inch of space.

Although Atlas55 ties are a bit longer if memory serves me, they're not going to come even close to touching with a center-to-center space of 1.125".

EDIT:  Ohhhh...you're talking about turnouts and yard ladders.  Gotcha!  Since I hand-lay my yard ladders in one monolithic unit with track centers figured into it, using RTR turnouts is something I've never thought about using. Thanks Ed  @Ed Kapuscinski for making that clear

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Bob, I was wondering where my math was wrong!  I did check my layout (Atlas C 55) and the "natural" yard spacing is 1.25" with no trimming.  All the Atlas turnouts seem to have at least 5/16th of an inch to trim before the point rail closure, which would bring spacing down.  On the angle, I am not sure if trimming 1/4" would reduce track spacing by the same amount.  I think it would  slightly different.