A possible new project

[Erik W]

After quite a bit of time away from the hobby, I'm interested in rolling up my sleeves and digging back in.  I feel like tackling an entirely new project, something of a manageable size and duration that I'd be able to work on upstairs in my home office, rather than down in the basement.  I came across this switching layout track plan below in one of the old track planning books I have.  Built in N scale, the layout would be 1' x 3.5', so fits the criteria of being small!  I like the looks of the new Arnold/Hornby SW-1, so would use that as the sole locomotive.  I would wire this layout for DC.  The era would be the 1940s, with its smaller sized rolling stock.  The setting would be a generic eastern US urban area.  I'm thinking the RR represented would be either Erie, Central of New Jersey, Lackawanna, or Reading. 

I have some questions.  I'd like to try my hand at hand laying the turnouts, but am not sure how to go about it.  Is this something that is doable freehand without a jig?  Or if the turnouts are all #4s (or whatever numbers they are) should I use some of the Fast Tracks products?  With something of this small size, can I build them in place on the layout?  Chris333, you had built me a turnout in the past, feel free to chime in here. 

Also, if I actually proceed with this, I'll start a thread in the Layout Engineering Reports section of the board.

These images are from the Kalmbach Publishing Co. book 48 Top Notch Track Plans.  The plan itself is by Larry Forgard on pages 14 and 15.




Erik

[pdx1955]

Nice plan with a lot of possibilities there!

Sure, all you need is a template to lay out the rails and ties against. I fooled around with making my own turnouts a couple of decades ago following an NMRA convention clinic. These were on separate pieces of wood as they were trials (nothing like the efforts seen on this forum) but with practice they would be quite doable built on a layout. With patience, it shouldn't be an issue.

A jig just makes things go faster and more reproducible. If all of the turnouts were the same, then a Fast Track jig would be worth it, but in many cases one size doesn't fit everywhere. If you cut your teeth on some jig-built ones first, then making template-based ones later to fit some custom locations would be easier to do. At the minimum using some of the Fast tracks frog and point rail tools would make life easier.

[Chris333]

You could build the turnouts on th FT templates. You could also build then in place, but I think it's easier to do it at the workbench.

That plan looks like 4' long in N.

[Dave V]

As awesome as that is, I'd be tempted to take a page from @David K. Smith and do some gritty 70s urban decay and make it Penn Central!

Those warehouses would be easier to model with no windows or boarded-up windows anyway!

[wazzou]

You could build the turnouts on th FT templates. You could also build then in place, but I think it's easier to do it at the workbench.

That plan looks like 4' long in N.

I think it's scaled at 6" squares x 7 squares or 42" long, right?

[Chris333]

I thought it was 2x7 feet in HO.

[pdx1955]

The plan uses a 12" grid judging from the tail track on the top left which looks to be just big enough for a small locomotive and one car in HO, so scaling it down and rounding up to the nearest inch results in 14" by 46" to do this plan in N. It's more or less in a 1x4 foot space.

[Cajonpassfan]

First of all, good to see you back Erik!

I like the idea of a finite doable project, and this one has a lot of character and potential. But, and there is always a but,  I think the plan, while good in schematic concept, suffers from HOitis like many layouts from that era and publication. The artist did a great job making the rendering look and feel bigger that the plan actually allows. The triangular brick building would be about 6". That's not quite two forty foot boxcars... I think he parked a narrow gauge tank car on the spur next to it

Without complicating the project and adding anything, I would take this plan and stretch it a bit to let it breathe. I don't know your space limitations, but I'd say in N scale this needs minimum of six feet in length and at least a couple of extra inches of depth. Suggestions:

I think all #4 turnouts will look wrong, and that's a lot of handlaid trackwork for it to not look right. One or two #4 may be okay on a tight spur, but I would use longer turnouts on the main and crossovers. I'd use the remaining length for a longer runaround, spurs, and the tail on the left.

As to hand building turnouts, that could bring this little layout from good to amazing, and I'd seriously consider using Code 40 for that. I find Code 40 is actually easier to work with, and new equipment runs well on it. Perhaps trying your hand at building one on the workbench will give you a feel for what's involved. You could always use it on a spur later if you decide it's too much work...

Whatever you decide, this looks like a fun and doable project.
Otto K.

[Angus Shops]

I'm currently in the process of building a bunch of turnouts using the Fast Tracks #7 code 55 N scale jig. It's an excellent product and produces consistent quality turnouts, but it's also a bit of an investment at $118.00 for the jig alone. I count 11 turnouts (and 1 crossing) on this plan so you're spending about $10.00/ turnout just on the jig. This makes templates seem a lot more reasonable dollar wise...
I'd also consider altering the track plan to allow you to use a #6 turnout; it'll look better and if you do go with a jig you'll have purchased a jig with better 'future prospects' than the #4.
I also recommend that you consider both the Fast Tracks point and frog rail tool and the "stock aid" tool; they both make filing these parts fast and precise. Their circuit board ties are a good investment as well.
All in all a complete FT 'setup' with jig and point/frog and stock aid tools adds up. Maybe you know someone who's already made the investment?
Geoff

[Spades]

The triangle shaped building on the center left.  other than rail how is the building accessed?

[Cajonpassfan]

The triangle shaped building on the center left.  other than rail how is the building accessed?

They must have built an elevator in that little shack when the road was grade separated
Otto K.

[Erik W]

Thanks for all the interest guys, and the advice.  When I really look at this track plan, I agree that it could be stretched a bit in length.  I'm trying to keep this relatively small in size, but stretching to 52" to 60" long and maybe 16" in width would allow for some more realistic sized structures . . . and some road access to the triangular building on the center left.     Also Dave V, a longer length would allow for increased siding length with the possibility for larger rolling stock, if I wanted to model the grungy early 70s.

As far as hand laying the turnouts, I'm committed to building my own.  Though I have few, if any, derailments on my D&RGW layout, I'm pretty underwhelmed with commercial turnouts.

I guess my first step, or actually my second step after posting about this idea here  , will be to draw it out life sized.  I still have a pad of 11" x 17" graph paper around here somewhere . . .

Erik

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The triangle shaped building on the center left.  other than rail how is the building accessed?

Such a classic model railroad plan! lol

I love this idea, Eric. Just, you know, do something about that detail.

Also, if you're interested, the Arnold SW-1s are perfect for this, and are probably still available for cheap on eBay. I know the Reading had them.

I'm happy to provide any Reading info you might need, since I'm the grandson of a Reading brakeman, I'd love to see a RDG layout out west.

[Chris333]

Every time I look at the plan I see a turnout at the road crossing going off to an industry where the gas tank is. Gas tank seems like it's sucking up a lot of space.

[wazzou]

Every time I look at the plan I see a turnout at the road crossing going off to an industry where the gas tank is. Gas tank seems like it's sucking up a lot of space.

Agreed, I'd add a yard track or two and some service facilities.