I’m opening a new thread, rather than hijacking any of the current track planning threads. I’ve done some more thinking after reading and posting to the “In search of ideas” thread. I’m coming to the conclusion that choice of era is now more important than choice of scale in determining the space needed to depict scenes.
In the '50s and '60s, when 4x8 HO track plans were at their peak, available models could adequately manage the 18" radius curves. Protype freight cars were generally 50ft or less. Diesels are just starting to use six axles for more than load spreading to operate on lighter rail. Model manufacturers made “shorty” passenger cars for those who only had space, time, or inclination for a 4x8. Scale length trains weren’t much of a worry because few had the time to build and maintain 40 or 50 cars plus the rest of the layout anyway. So a five to seven car train on a 4x8 was an “acceptable” model railroad.
Enter the 21st century. Prototype freight cars of 80-90 ft length are common. 100 car trains headed by 4-5 monster six axle diesels are common. Our models - both engines and cars - are built with much more detail and prototype fidelity than before. They are available ready to run so we can build fleets of more than 100 cars, $$ permitting. We have much more emphasis on prototype-style operations. Compromises such as shorty passenger cars and truck-mounted couplers are sneered at. But many are still planning their layouts around a 4x8 and 18" radius curves.
Interesting that HO is slightly more than 1/2 the length of O, and N is slightly more than 1/2 the length of HO. Doing the math, the length of an average modern era train modeled in N is just as long as a transition era (or earlier) train modeled in HO. What this says to me is that if modeling the modern era, even N scale will give the same less than realistic r
I understand you perfectly, Fred. Part of any planning process is a combination of gathering facts and establishing parameters for one’s process, whatever that will be. None of us should pick a scale in isolation, and as you say, we should not settle on an era in isolation without considering what resources one will need (or skills to scratch-build if determined to proceed) to effect the desired state of layout in terms of operating reliability and visual appeal.
It is almost as if someone with the time and interest should devise a simple matrix that all modellers could use as an initial guide to layout planning, or for simple track planning if a “layout” is not being contemplated.
When I picked my eras 1885 and 1917 I did not have anything in mind except what I was going to model.
Now I thank my lucky stars that all my engines and rolling stock can not only navigate 18" turns and #4 turnouts, they don’t look out of place doing so. It sure makes planning a lot easier to be able to “cheat” when I need to.
I have several big steam that were common after the World War Two. A 4x8 is not adequate for these. I must allow for 28" - 30" radius on the main. My space is not all that big so my mainline will be rather simple, a twice around.
The rest of the stuff that goes into the layout after the main is set will take care of themselves. You will never have all the space you want for everything. Keep the good stuff and store the rest.
I do have a few modern 1980’s 2000’s trains. They get some time on the track once in a while. No worries. This is for fun, not strictly one era.
Like so much else in model railroading, choosing a scale forces compromises. When I moved from HO to O it was because I found HO too small for building cars, structures, etc. But I moved from O to S because O was too big for the amount of space I had and the layout I wanted. S has become for me the ideal size. Others may have had similar experiences with other scales combinations.
While a desire to run a long train of 100 modern, 80’ cars may be best satisfied by N scale, any train of 50 cars or more, even 40 footers, may require N scale for the amount of space available, regardless of era… On the other hand a shortline operation with a small engine, trains of a few cars, and slow speeds can be done in a small space in any era. So I would say that type of railroad to be modeled is probably more important than era.
Of course regardless of era, scale, or type of railroad none of us has the space for anything approaching the prototype in things like distance between stations.
In the end we’re all compromising, it just a question of where.
Enjoy
Paul
When I did my first layout (about 15 years ago); I went through the buy a little bit of everything and then figure out what would really work. The only happy person was the owner of my LHS. He has now retired and closed the shop; (probably on profits from my purchases).
I started with a 4 x 8 and progressed to 12 x 14 with multi levels and from a mixed steam/diesel to early steam in the 1900 time frame. My vacillations in theme are where I came up with the name of my rail road!
Now I am rebuilding (after a 13 year stretch with no layout or activity); however the theme and name (see the tender in my signature block) are the ones that I ended up with the first time around.
By all means pick an interesting theme that fits the space available and scale from that.
The scale/era equation works in the opposite direction too. On30 seems like the ideal choice for narrow gauge for many, both because it is large enough to permit the use of more reliable HO standard gauge equipment as a basis for narrow gauge equipment, and because, like the N scale 85’ container car being the same length as a 40-50’ HO boxcar, the typical 24 or so foot narrow gauge boxcar is also about the same length. Bachmann’s support of On30 also provides logistical support for this wedding of convenience between scale and era.
There are special circumstances for other niches of model railroading. HO and O (O in particular) are the scales of choice for trolley modelers, since they can run on sharp curves and a larger scale makes overhead trackwork far less like microsurgery. I think there is also some trolley modeling done by large-scale modelers, although I haven’t seen any examples with working overhead. Interurbans work fine in O for the same reasons, although they tend to be a bit large. There used to be a lot more support for interurbans back when folks like Paul Moore and Ed Suydam were importing lots of PE and SN models, of course.
I am fond of “transition era” short-line operations and always have been. I like dinky switchers, 40-50 foot cars and short trains that poke along through scruffy industrial parks at 5 MPH. When I was a kid, Docksides and Hustlers were the objects of my affection, and a GP-9 is the biggest “prime mover” on my roster. There are plenty of prototypes for this, and it becomes very, very easy to model this sort of operation on a limited-space HO layout–even one that is dwarfed by a 4x8 foot sheet of plywood.
As to those who like big power and long trains, N is the way to go. For all of those with a 4x8 sheet of plywood and dreams of seeing a Big Boy pulling a long string of coal, or a SD70MAC pulling an endless line of double-stacked containers, 1:160 scale is a simple solution. 22" radius i
IMHO the biggest driving forces in layout planning are (or should be) type of operation and choice of prototype (which includes era, since prototype equipment changes over time.)
If you insist on modeling the Horseshoe Curve in exact scale reduction, it is going to be the same size whether 4 2-8-0’s are heading up a mixed string of 36-foot cars or 4 6-axle diesels are heading up a string of articulated double-stacks. The driving consideration in choosing scale will be the amount of space available.
On the other hand, an awful lot of high-intensity urban operation can be crammed into a thimble! The trains will be short, but who can tell if you can’t see both ends at the same time. Running a short switcher and three cars can be an adventure, especially if you have to dodge streetcars (or, heaven forfend, operating motor vehicles!) Then there is the opportunity for detailing (does the chain-link fence around your industry have an operating gate?) Larger scale makes more sense, unless you can engrave the Magna Carta on a pinhead.
Modeling the wide open spaces is a challenge in ANY scale, unless you have a full size barn to work in. Modeling broken country hides the length of the train, in any scale. Heavy forest is the best for (lack of) visibility, but is a bear to model convincingly.
Some prototypes just lend themselves to tight curves - until somebody plays the joker in the deck. A train of 22 foot Minnesota ore cars should be able to take a street corner. That 2-8-8-4 on the head end won’t! On the other hand, some prototypes that ran short cars also ran short locomotives and short trains, in country where even tight curves couldn’t avoid tunneling. (Now you know why I model central Japan in 1964!)
The final driving force is an individual matter - what kind of model railroader are you. Do you want to model a few things with every detail as perfect as possible (down to the fing
While I agree there is a lot to reccommend the 1890-1905 era (I am converting to model 1900-1905) I didn’t do it for space. My dream would be to build a railroad of about 500-600 feet long with a junction terminal at each end and only 5 sidings, about 8 stations in between. Run 8-10 ft trains with 50-75 ft between sidings and a 3:1 fast clock.
The bummer part is that pre-WW1 is terribly ignored by model manufacturers. The last new, accurate plastic model by a major manufacturer that was made for the pre-1910 era was over 30 years ago. The last new pre 1910 era, non-brass engine was the MDC 4-4-0 made almost 10 years ago (and recently redesigned). Bachmann is coming out with a 4-4-0 but the initial run is a post WW1 engine.
As far as I can tell there has NEVER been an accurate model of a gondola or a hopper bottom gondola (the coal hopper of the 1880-1920’s, comprised about 25-30% of the US car fleet) or a 34’ boxcar. The 36’ plastic cars are all post WW1 models. If you like to kitbash and scratch built, pre WW1 is for you.
A very good book on this subject is “Creative Layout Design” by John Armstrong.
Chapters are:
Layout Design as influenced by Pike Location
Layout Design as influenced by Scale and Gauge
Layout Design as influenced by Scenic Realism
Layout Design as influenced by Prototypes
Layout Design as influenced by Pike Purpose
Layout Design as Influenced by a Unifying Theme
It is unfortunately out of print, but does turn up at train shows.
I have the “Creative Layout Design” book; I personally think that was Armstrong’s finest effort.
The point I was trying to make was, perhaps unsuccessfully, is that choice of era and prototype has more impact on space requirements than choice of scale. Or conversely, what can be achieved in a given space is more impacted by era and prototype than by modeling scale.
These thoughts came as a result of realizing that modeling modern era N convincingly takes as much space as modeling earlier era HO. The ratio of modern era equipment length to older era equipment length is in fact often bigger than the ratio between adjacent scales. Therefore, if scale is a druther rather than a given, it should be a druther subordinate to prototype and era.
I am not trying to start a discussion as to which era is better to model; that is a personal choice. I chose 1900 in Oregon in HO/HOn3 because I enjoy researching what life was like then (considerably different than now), I enjoy small steam, I prefer to build models that run well rather than buy them, and I have always been very limited as to space. The latter constraint - the biggest layout I’ve ever had is 4x8 - is what stopped me from moving to S or O.
Fred your point is one that I wish I had looked into when designing my railroad. It is now built with all the track in place and I will not rip it out but it should be according to the facts of the game:
era 1950’s 95% steam with 5% other.
Size of the rairoad is 850sq ft. Main line is 750 ft long min radius 30 with a few 28" curved turnouts (bad idea the passenger cars hate them).
Yard tracks that are 4 to 5 ft long and passenger station track at 6 ft long.
Looking at the above you would think that a 25 or 30 car train is no probelm. Wrong, the facts are IF I was running trains in a circle and not trying to make it run like a rail road I would be fine. My thought of long trains with multi units is history so I am making the best of what I built and will enjoy it.
Your points are spot on and a good lesson for someone just starting out.