Railway Modeller January 2010

[80064]

IN the current issue of RM, page 11 shows an intriguing little plan based on an industrial line in Sheppey, Kent. I was wondering what this would equate to in N Gauge size wise? Is there any easy formula to convert 00 plans to N gauge sizes? I have tried reproducing it in Xtracad but it simply drives me insane it is so complicated to use and have given up.....

Often I see good 00 plans and would appreciate an easy rule of thumb for conversion into N scale.....

[locoworks]

there isn't an easy rule of thumb because regarding radii and point radii, N isn't half of OO. personally i would avoid set track points in N, they are first radius ( not like OO's 2nd radius ). and also the first radius curves in N set track as many modern loco's are listing 2nd radius in N as a minimum. i would use code 55 live frog pointwork and if space was an issue i'd use the small points which are 12 inch radius, and limit my curves to 12 inches too as a minimum. in round numbers this is like using 3rd radius in OO as a minimum. maybe reduce a OO plan to 60 or 65 % and see what the radii work out at, but i'd reduce it in size so that 2nd radius in OO works out at 12 inch radius in N, that way if you do end up with a first radius curve in OO ( i believe most modern plan books don't use 1st radius anymore anyway ) it will actually equate to around 2nd radius in N.

[phonebook]

even tho locoworks is right generally, his numbers are out, 12 inches in N gauge is the equivalent of FOURTH radius in OO, thats because in peco n setrack, first radius is just short of 9 inches, which is half SECOND radius in OO. the thing is, first radius in N in other parts of the world, is half OO first radius- its only Peco who are different. oh and Kato too, but Minitrix, Arnold and Flieschman have radius number 1 of seven and a half inches (however their standard points, crossings and slips are where radius 6 or 7 would be in OO or peco N, tho confusingly they themselves call it radius 4). There is actually very little that WONT get through Peco setrack points( as i've said before even the kato eurostar will , JUST and on a good day), and a few people have posted that small radius minitrix points(they make more gradual ones too) are generally negotiable too (tho like 1st radius in OO its got to be hit and miss).

have a look in the topics concerning minimum radius. in the topics threads n gauge, plenty of people chime in saying their trains get round first radius (peco that is), the same isnt true for OO gauge based threads, and most likely thats because it isnt like for like. The few n gauge trainsets in british outline that exist ship with first radius peco geometry curves (as do OO sets- but they are called second radius)

whether it is desirable to use setrack points is another matter. In N there is usually the space to go for bigger radii in every respect- and there being in the UK a hell of a lot less of it means that we are less contrained to stick to setrack. Add to that, the very limited ammount of pointwork in Peco's setrack geometry and switching to more forgiving curves and nicer points is a no brainer

also into that consideration is that once you start going over 12 inch radius in N gauge, the tracks can be closer together, so you gain some space!!! well ok the rate of increase in space required is less.

messing arround with this very thing, i think an N gauage layout, the same as an OO one will come out roughly two thirds the size, and not only that, the curves will be more gradual and the points will look nicer too. Tho theoreticaly you can halve the dimensions and do it like that- that is if the original OO plan is for Hornby or Peco OO setrack and that a minimum of second radius was used(OO 2nd that is)

[locoworks]

i knew about the other track with smaller radii, but it gets confusing when R1 with peco is R2 with minitrix, which is why i left them out of the equation. when working in OO, R1 is the same between peco and hornby tracks. so standardising on radii designations seemed a good idea. an update on the setrack in hornby sets though, is that they are using 3rd radius as standard nowadays, but the track mat requires 2nd radius to fill in the ballast . it used to be that sets came with 2nd and you needed to add third, now it's the other way round. i guess it makes for more reliable faster running round the gentler curves to keep the campers happy?? i have an oval of lima O gauge somewhere in a box and that for the scale is really tight radius, much tighter than what R1 would be if scaled up from OO.

[phonebook]

my mistake! i mean about the ovals hornby trainsets ship with! but still there is the factor that peco n radius 1 is equivalent to peco OO radius 2 (and hornby). So the thing really can be made at 50 percent if you REALLY wanted to. The problem that arrises is when the OO plan uses both setrack and crossings- there is no n equivalent, the peco n crossing doesnt do the same job.

this vexes me far too much than is reasonable i'm sure, but when this splendid layout turned up a few months ago :

http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22010

i was curious to see how the crossing in the bottom left had been fitted in, so much so, that i rang up the Goods Yard who did the trackwork and asked them, the answer was "with a lot of bother!!!", but to a modeller they may not mind the bother.

so i'm sticking to a quarter of the size of the OO layout

[phonebook]

update !!!

i have just laid out hornby's trackmat plan using N setrack and the space needed is 3' 3'' by 2' 4'' - so a little more than half in each dimension, almost fills a third of the space i should say

[80064]

So if a layout is just over 8' long and about 18" wide, would it scale down roughly to N gauge at 4' x 1'?

[80064]

Sorry forgot to say thans for the prevous replies and in-depth detail, but curvature radii confuses the hell outta me!

[phonebook]

4' 6'' by 9'' and you'll be laughing probly - remember the track spacing will be in the same ratio, a little bit longer if you decide to go streamline rather than setrack, but certainly no bigger than 5 foot

[phonebook]

more workings out on this

i have just done the hornbt trackmat in N, in xtrakad and in code 55 using minimum radius of 12" and 12" points. the space required is 3' 10'' by 2' 7''

so, thats just short of half the size, rather than a quarter, however it looks bloody good!!!! to do the same thing in OO would need 7' by 5' (peco code 100, small points, minimum radius 24" and using streamline spacing)

so - If your original plan is in streamline(rather than setrack) then indeed N gauge takes a quarter of the space

[locoworks]

more workings out on this

i have just done the hornbt trackmat in N, in xtrakad and in code 55 using minimum radius of 12" and 12" points. the space required is 3' 10'' by 2' 7''

so, thats just short of half the size, rather than a quarter, however it looks bloody good!!!! to do the same thing in OO would need 7' by 5' (peco code 100, small points, minimum radius 24" and using streamline spacing)

so - If your original plan is in streamline(rather than setrack) then indeed N gauge takes a quarter of the space

the only question i would have with what you have done using code 55 is, at 12 inch radius as the inner loop and streamline centres, IS the track spacing enough on the corners for overhangs and underhangs to miss using MK4's etc??

[phonebook]

i did the inner loop of the twin track as 12 and the outside as 13, the curve in the middle i did as 11- but i figured because it can be traversed slowly no harm would come, and its a single line

i dont know about the the mark 4 question, as i only have used setrack spacing in reall life

but, changing the spacing wouldnt take up more than an inch in each dimension