Wait a sec–4 to 5 foot width?
Is that total depth, or can there be multiple tables leaving the same spot, and each 4-5 feet deep?
If it’s a total depth of 5 feet, there’s no way to do it–not even with R1.
Robbie,
Yep, that would be “a bit of a handicap” in 1:29. 
Apart from that, knowing how much square footage and in which config is available for the project would also help. I guess the minimal 100 feet of track would in a way also govern the number of turnouts, but even then … taking one passing siding of 15 feet each together with the main track and a bit of lead) for each of the RRs adds up to 90++ feet. That doesn’t include any sidings to industry, sorting yards, interchanges etc. never mind mainline, wye and other good stuff.
But 100 ft in N scale should be possible.
Well,
Although there are those that may not agree with me, Steve was not born yesterday.
Being the Joker that he is (not a bad thing, mind you), I would guess he is planning an N scale layout.
And having a good laugh every time someone tells him it is not enough track or space.
Ralph
Sure Ralph,
Too bad we sold that piece of Class1 wetlands more than 10 years ago, would have been an opportunity.
BTW that Class1 wetland had some real flavour. :lol:
Oh, sure, have some laffs at my expense! :lol: 
N Scale, indeed. O gauge 3 rail, maybe, but N?
Forget about curves. Straighten it out and see what comes of it. I just want somewhere to start… I may not be able to get it all done this year, but I need a plan.
The wye will be replaced with a TT, somewhere. I plan to use the idea that Fred stole from Dave.
I am working on one, now, and will post it later for comment.
And how long is this supposed to be (max length)? Why the 5ft width restriction? Plan and build it so you can access it from both sides, quite logical considering there are two RRs running through more or less parallel and the third gets squeezed in between to make interchange from either of the other two a bit easier.
Well, I used the 5 ft restriction because my arms aren’t any longer.
If you look at the yard that occupies the almost “U” curve, it is only 6 tracks wide at it’s widest. Using RRTrack and #6 Aristo switches, I was able to easily fit 9 tracks, and could probably squeeze another siding in there. Not that I want to get 9-10 tracks on the bench, but I really think that 5-6 feet is sufficient.
Later today I’ll have an RRTrack sketch to look at.
In case anyone cares…after a few years of experience; I have come to the conclusion that any raised benchwork for a yard; accessable from both sides, should not exceed 4 feet in width.
Try going wider if you care to, but I don’t rcommend it.
When you try to exceed the two foot reach, and are really wanting to OPERATE; you will find the extra width, a royal pain.
Remember that OPERATION involves actual uncoupling of rolling stock. Kadee couplers are the best choice for serious operation; but don’t depend on the magnetic uncoupling. The long handled slot scewdriver is the tool of choice, and over a two foot reach is by far the maximum you will want to reach.
I just rebuilt two yards, in order to better enjoy operation at one end of my pike. The 2 foot reach was one of my design rules…I learned the hard way.!!!
http://www.lscdata.com/users/stevef/_forumfiles/Palouse_Yards1.bmp
As you can see, the bench is 6 feet wide, but the track can easily fit into a 4 ft wide bench. The only thing that is missing is the crossing that connects the GN and NP yards. Plenty of room for industries.
Oh, the 20 ft curve on the left is the WI&M mainline. I forgot to include the switch for the rest of the NP mainline. As you can see, the GN main will have to be represented by a crossover a bit beyond the 20 ft curve.
Now, can this be smoothed out.
My arms aren’t any longer than Fred’s.
Mine is 4’ wide. But not for reaching. It was for economy. 8’ is the only length I could find for 2x2 to make the bents. (I wouldn’t want them any longer. the 8 footers looked like spaghetti anyway.) But Fred is right. 4 foot is perfect for reaching into. Heck, it could be 8 feet wide, with the center empty for buildings if Steve wanted.
Steve has 10 acres to work with. He could run “arms” out for hundreds of feet if he so desired.
John Bouck said:
Mine is 4' wide. But not for reaching. It was for economy. 8' is the only length I could find for 2x2 to make the bents. (I wouldn't want them any longer. the 8 footers looked like spaghetti anyway.) But Fred is right. 4 foot is perfect for reaching into. Heck, it could be 8 feet wide, with the center empty for buildings if Steve wanted.Steve has 10 acres to work with. He could run “arms” out for hundreds of feet if he so desired.
In that case, why wouldn’t he, for once in his life, capture the true prototype flavour?
The width restriction could easily be 4ft, the separate segments of the original - with some compression - don’t need to be all that wide. OTOH the 100ft of track… hmmmm… yeah right! 
My “Preda” has slightly more than that - it being a smallish NG station for relatively short trains.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:HJ,
In that case, why wouldn't he, for once in his life, capture the true prototype flavour?
I am trying to capture the “true prototype flavour(sic).” I just don’t have the money to do it all at once. Be patient. Every journey begins with a single step.
Also, for once in your life, try to be helpful.
Hey Steve, I was being helpful
HJ said:But that looses the proto flavour, with only the function left behind.
However, doing the GN and the NP as two mainlines running parallel in linear fashion, the stations staggered and the WI&M' interchange in between the two with their branch climbing out of the interchange, then crossing over the GN could be a possibility, but that will take a lot of linear space.
Now if this were my problem and space as such were no restriction … what would I do? I’d build the portion of whichever RR got to Palouse first as Stage1 and leave Stage2 and 3 for a later date. However positioning Stage1 in such a manner as to allow for the other stages and also allow for the city as such. Could be a very nice and busy place where operators don’t get into each other’s way and through trains are a possibility since the trackage could not be overloaded.
Thanks, HJ. Sorry I was so cranky this morning.
I’ll probably do just that, with the exception of not having the GN cross over, but meet at a crossing of about 60 degrees or so. Doing the crossover will be too difficult, I think. At least with the resources I have.
I’ll probably start with the GN. The railroad I am modeling was the last to arrive in Palouse, getting there in 1905 or so. The other end of the WI&M interchanges with the MILW. Next year, perhaps.