N Gauge curve radius

[lee2017]

I'm still in the process of 'decision making' and playing with ideas. I've been playing around creating possible track plans for a 00 gauge layout, however after having read many helpful comments and also had some really good responses to my previous questions, I'd like to consider looking at going for an 'n' gauge layout . . . Anyway to try to keep this post on topic.

I was wondering so I can have a play and sketch some 'possible plans' what the recommended minimum curve radius is for n gauge. With 00 Gauge sketching I'm trying to keep a minimum radius to 24", but I'm assuming, hoping that 'n gauge' radius can go much lower than that.

[Emettman]

With 00 Gauge sketching I'm trying to keep a minimum radius to 24", but I'm assuming, hoping that 'n gauge' radius can go much lower than that.

Yes, but the rule of "the gentlest curves that you can fit in" still very much applies. And in N the eye takes in more at once, so 180 degree "end curves"
can look even more toy like than their direct OO equivalent.

12" & 13" radius for double track curves will be OK for almost all stock, but cosmetically really could do with being hidden, especially with long locos and coaches.

"special purpose" and "tight places" N gauge track goes from 9" right down to 4.5" radius, but here very careful selection of locos and stock and couplings gets involved. A single-car street tram doesn't have to couple to anything!

Chris

[CandO]

Whilst understanding the reasons not to have tight curves on a layout would it still be considered bad practice to use 9" radius curves 'off scene' - say at the entrance to the fiddle yard? Or would there be a chance of derailment?

[Ironduke]

I tried 9" radius curves in my tunnels and they are nothing but trouble. I have some coaches that will not go around them at all, the bogies simply will not turn that far. But I model US N gauge where realistic details and body mounted knuckle couplers are all the rage. Lovely to look at but definitely not made for train set track. I've had to take a Dremmel to a few of them unfortunately but I'm going to have to rebuild the layout eventually.

For my new layout I've set myself an absolute minimum radius of 33cm (12.99") and no set track curves or points.

[b308]

I've had no issues with 9" radius curves in OO9/HOe using N scale chassis, but as said it's best to keep sharp curves (of whatever radius) out of tunnels unless you can easily get at them!

[CandO]

I've had no issues with 9" radius curves in OO9/HOe using N scale chassis, but as said it's best to keep sharp curves (of whatever radius) out of tunnels unless you can easily get at them!

No tunnels involved....just thinking behind the backboard/backscene and into the fiddleyard....whilst running primarily coal wagons I don't want to be picking trains and carriages up every time when they do run on the layout

[b308]

My fiddle yards have always used 9" set-track and so have many N gauge layouts I've seen. As long as it's laid properly on decent baseboards it should be OK. Only thing is to check that your stock will go round 9" radius, most will but I know some of my NG stuff need 10.5" minimum (provided by Roco!) and there may be some N gauge stuff that's the same...

[Emettman]

I have the impression from years back that not all 9" tracks are alike.

I found locos and stock that were perfectly happy on 9" Fleischmann Piccolo curves were decidedly unhappy on some Graham Farish curves marked and appearing to be the same radius.
Thinking back, I think I concluded that against a range of brands the Piccolo was unusually tolerant rather than the GF being particularly mean.
In fact a surprising amount went round the 7.5" radius.

Chris.