Some basic questions!

So I've been reading the discussions and looking at all the Z gauge webpages and blogs I can find. There's a couple of things I wanted to ask.

Whats the usually minimum amount of vertical clearance? I was hoping to run some Intermodel stock, does this need more clearence?

I've been using Anyrail software to draw the trackplan ( I think I've got a nice "folded" figure 8 in a 2x4 foot board) The Marklin track templates work just great for this but do all their turnouts have those ugly motors attached to them or is there an alternative?
I've built some turnouts using a Fast Track jig in HOn3 and could probably do the same in Z. I could combine these with Peco flex track (more easily available here) but the FT jigs are made for Code 40 and 55 rail while Peco use 60. Is there are lot of difference between 55 and 60 in 1:220 scale or could I "fudge" it?

The group's opinions or comments on any or all of the above would be of value to me

Many thanks, Les

Hi Les, I probably can't answer all the questions about the turnouts and compatablilty, but I can speak to clearances. A bare minimum for intermodel would be 3.1 cm. Off the top of my head a 3% grade will get to that height in approx. 90 cm. Less of course for 2% grade. 3% is considered fairly steep, but can be used if space demands it. As for melding tracks I'll let someone with the proper expertise answer. I will say that the difference between heights of Code 55 and Code 60 rail is nothing a good metal file can't care of. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

One question I can answer is re the ugly Marklin turnout motors. Yes, all their turnouts have them, even the manual ones for some reason.

Les, Upon further thinking. You mentioned intermodal. Your layout curves will be very sharp with this track plan. Your intermodal rolling stock are going to look frightful on these curves I'm thinking. I was thinking you could get by with Euro rolling stock but many of these NA models are 53 foot minimums and much larger. Also you will be severely limited in your choice of motive power in this era. Certainly no AZL SD 70's and such. Hopefully someone else will put their 2cw in here. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

Socalz44 wrote:

Les, Upon further thinking. You mentioned intermodal. Your layout curves will be very sharp with this track plan. Your intermodal rolling stock are going to look frightful on these curves I'm thinking. quote]

I was thinking more in terms of flatcars with trailers than stack cars probably nothing longer the 50'. I'm also quite fond of the classic 40' boxcars so I'm looking at a late 50's early 60s timeframe. The base board size is arbitary at the moment and could be extended to 2'6"x5'. I don't have room at home for anything bigger.
Possible candidates are SF,SP&S or Gn.
I built a british outline layout to a similar design in N gauge some years ago and was very pleased with how that looked. I'm not sure what the scaled down size of a 6x4 base board would be in Z but coaching stock didn't look bad on the N gauge.

Hi Les,
the other fella's have got you covered on most of your questions, but i'll jump in on the track inquieres.

Fast tracks are for either code 40 or 55 rail. the tie spacing on the quick sticks used to finish the turnouts will match up with MTL flex track. Peco and Marklin tie spacing are wider, and will not match the quick sticks. Peco code 60 rail will be slightly taller as well, and may cause problems.

I've used all MTL flex with both #6 and #8 fast tracks turnouts on my current modules, and it looks and runs very good. Once weathered, the stock flex track and the hand built turnouts match very well.

Tony B...
Wasatch Z ClubB)

Les, Ok, this sounds better to me now. Many new Z scalers dropping down for N or HO are surprised that the mathematical reduction ratio doesn't seem to work on conversions of 'X' layout to Z scale. Space is important for all of us, that is why Z exists. You mentioned you can go to 2.5 feet. This is great I really recommend it. Your scenery will look better and so will your trailer trains. Length of 4 feet is fine. I build these small layouts for people and I can say the difference in possibilties available in 2.5 feet as opposed to 2 feet is astounding. Keep us posted. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

You mentioned you can go to 2.5 feet. This is great I really recommend it. Your scenery will look better and so will your trailer trains.

I agree completely I went with two feet and I felt like I had to "squish" everything I wanted in there. If I had 6 more inches I could of theoretically ran a whole other line or dogboned the mainline. As it stands with the MTL track I am using you can't put a dogbone in 2 ft. very well with out the track being right on the edges.

Zac

Once I complete the home renovations, I have to move my layout to the basement. It is U-shaped now, the two legs being 82" x 36" and 126" x 24", the end is 41" x 36". I am 7'2" tall and have no problem reaching across 36" width. But I find the 24" leg too narrow and should have made both legs 30". Anyways, when I move the layout to the basement, I will make it 4' x 10' rectangle, with a complete walk around area. Then I can easily reach anything and have unlimited potential for track layouts.

Zac, I would add the other 6" onto your layout, if you have the room, so many more possibilities for you.

Les, 6' x 4' in N would theoretically work out at about 4'4" x 2'9" in Z scale. Don't forget that US passenger coaches are typically much longer than British coaches, especially for the era you're interested in.

Nice looking N scale layout

TailUK wrote:

So I've been reading the discussions and looking at all the Z gauge webpages and blogs I can find. There's a couple of things I wanted to ask.

Whats the usually minimum amount of vertical clearance? I was hoping to run some Intermodel stock, does this need more clearence?

I've been using Anyrail software to draw the trackplan ( I think I've got a nice "folded" figure 8 in a 2x4 foot board) The Marklin track templates work just great for this but do all their turnouts have those ugly motors attached to them or is there an alternative?
I've built some turnouts using a Fast Track jig in HOn3 and could probably do the same in Z. I could combine these with Peco flex track (more easily available here) but the FT jigs are made for Code 40 and 55 rail while Peco use 60. Is there are lot of difference between 55 and 60 in 1:220 scale or could I "fudge" it?

The group's opinions or comments on any or all of the above would be of value to me

Many thanks, Les

I took measurements on my MTL double-stack car with its containers. The whole is slightly higher than its FR Models counterpart. I measured 2.56 cm from railhead to upper container top, so roughly one inch.

Now about your trackplan:

-1st I should insert at least one turnout (but the greatest number the best) as running your train all the way long without any switching possibilities is ought to become quickly boring.

-2nd: instead of Peco flex I should choose MTL counterpart which is far more prototypical with its accurate tie spacing.

-3rd: for the bridge, I'm very happy with brass Micronart's girder bridge.

Hope this helps,

Dom