I have been rethinking my ideas on a suitable plan for a home n gauge layout. I have started 3 different layouts in the last few years and not finished one of them, as I have always got feed up with the complexity of them, when what I really like is watching trains go by and doing the scenics. I am thinking of scrapping the 3 part built layouts and replaceing them with this simple track plan using a Grainge & Hodder traverser. The Traverser would probably end up with a movable cover that will be covered in scenics of some sort. This plan is 3000mm X 800mm and makes use of some of the already owned Grainge & Hodder base boards from Toothill and will sit on the rarther heavy weight MDF boards and legs from Plymbridge. This will also give me back some space in the Flat.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/110/3799-250521112246.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=110111)
To a relative neophyte like me that looks magnificent (but still a bit complex IMHO). I wish I had the room for such a layout.
I'm unfamiliar with how a traverser works - does it slide horizontally, and will it therefore extend beyond the bounds of the layout when in use.
I love the idea of concealing it with a cover - lots of space for some challenging scenic work there.
Good luck.
I'm not so sure about all that straight track.
That looks goid Di.
My only concern is the traverser arrangement.
I had a fairly complicated fiddle yard on Trepol Bay for some years and have recently replaced that with a scenic tolcarne Junction which now gives me s circular layout with two distinct scenic views as it were.
So....what I'm saying is, do you need the traverser?
You say your interest, like mine, is in scenics so why not livr with having 2 or 3 trains on the layout at a time and simply enjoy watching them.
Just a thought
Martin
A traverser like that is going to stick out a long way in order to access the farthest track, which means the support framework also needs to stick out that far. It might be a bit unwieldy? Perhaps a cassette system would work better?
Needs a Nelevator :D :D
If/when Nellies ever become available again I may consider one, I need something to replace the fiddleyard on my old exhibition layout so it can take up less space in its retirement home.
I agree with ntp on the need to stretch over the traverser.
I have almost finished my 120" x 36" effort and built a 16 track traverser, but when extended for the back track access it was extremely difficult to reach the 4 track running mainline. I invariably caught some part of the traverser and knocked it out of line which caused derailments and other problems. I am now in the process of re-design to use cassettes which I hope will improve the practical running arrangements.
Best of luck Di, hth.
Maurice C.
I had a quick look at the Grainge and Hodder stuff. The baseboards look to be too much flat solid top for my liking, however I see the traverser slides out on drawer runners so at least it doesn't need the underframe to extend outside the bounds of the layout.
How's about setting the traverser on a second level (linked by helices) below the running/scenic level?
I think if it was me I would have the approaches to the traverser on the inner circuit moved inwards some way. Your traverser would not need to come out so much. Chances are most trains on it will not be reversing, so do not need to access both circuits.
I have come up with a provisonal name for the new layout,"Regelenton" let's see if you can guess the origins. :idea:
Quote from: RailGooner on May 25, 2021, 04:24:13 PM
How's about setting the traverser on a second level (linked by helices) below the running/scenic level?
Respectively, not a traverser but a Regularien shadow fiddleyard on the loser level
A linguist friend of my said I should modify the name to Regelenby to be authentic. :dunce:
For me less can be more where layouts are concerned. The more complex a layout is the more issues will arise, the longer it will take make progress and the likelyhood of completing it becomes lower.
I decided to concentrate on a simple plan but with nice scenics and it does it for me. Others will want something more and that is also fine by me.
I agree that straight lines are bad, gentle curves always look much better.
I couldn't cope with not having storage sidings as the different trains passing through the scenic section are very important to me. I just use points for my storage sidings. Not as space efficient as a traverser but it is a better known technology to me. I don't have a problem with some shorter trains so long as I can get some longer trains as well.
If I was doing that plan, and I do quite like it, I would probably put all the platforms on a gentle curve. I would put conventional storage sidings round the back. I would then make the inner track a branch line which would rise fairly rapidly out of the station and plant a terminus station on top of the storage sidings. Obviously there would need to be a means of getting at the storage siding tracks if there was a branch terminus on top. There should also be some sort of join up between the branch and main line.
It seems a very complicated solution. Considering how much the traverse would stick out, why not just have a standard fiddle/staging area?
I agree with Chris that having the platforms on a gentle curve would look better. I realise you've used set track for the plan, and that would almost certainly necessitate flex track, but I think it would be much more pleasing and less 'train set' like.
For me the traverser eats too much space, but then its actually more efficient than an equivalent fiddle yard, so I think that's just how it appears on the plan! It's a shame the Nelevator hasn't become more reliably available, as that would be a great solution!
I don't know if this is what you want to hear but based on the criteria you stated I'm not sure this is the right track plan for you.
Whichever side of the layout you stand on you've not really left yourself much 'eye-room' to actually watch the trains go by, you might be catching glimpses of them between the trees and the very big station and before they head into the tunnels (which can work if that's what you like) but otherwise you won't be seeing them much.
You've got a lot of space for scenery but in my mind 'Mt. Traverser' is going to block the view of most of your work if you stand on that side of the layout. In some ways it might be easier to incorporate a backscene down the centre of the layout rather than a giant hill right up against the station. At least you can put low relief buildings against a backscene and suggest a larger town behind. This would also mean you always have easy access to the fiddle yard/traverser as you wouldn't have to cover it.
Take a look at this: (https://www.nscale.net/forums/cache.php?img=http:%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_IRTkGWAO7IY%2FTSaOscwc8HI%2FAAAAAAAAABg%2F6sPyfsNQdo0%2Fs1600%2FOrin_17.JPG)
This is by a guy called John Leader, I remember it from the Jan/Feb 2011 issue (#63) of N Scale Railroading Magazine. Very simple track plan, loads of space to watch the trains and make scenery, you'd just have to slightly alter things if you really want to incorporate a traverser.
Like others say, perhaps put the station on a curve and just model half or even a quarter of the station with a bridge as a break, platforms are boring and it leaves much more room for running trains through interesting scenery.
Plus if you've got the room, you could always create a junction in one of the corners and put the traverser off to the side.
If you made the traverser free standing you could run with just the loop or plug the traverser in when you want more variation.
I'll stop now :D
The plan as it stands fits my available space and makes use of my stock pile of Kato unitrack.
A conventional fiddle yard with anything like the capacity of the traverser would swallow too much length. So I'd suggest a couple of fiddle yard loops supplemented by cassettes.