I’ve just joined your forum .Seems to be pretty Informitive.I have been out of railroading for about 10 to 15 years.Question is,what are your preferenes on scenery.Hardshell plaster or foam.I have always had very impresive results with plaster .I see that woodland scenics has come out with foam products.Are they any good.Used to have a 16x20 HO layout ,almost all of my equipment was stolen.So I gave away what was left over.I’m starting over in N scale.The new layout is L shaped 12’x28".How much harder is N to model than HO.
Welcome back to Model Railroading…I just returned to it myself after a 20 yr. hiatus. I have always modeled in HO so I can’t really answer your question from an experienced standpoint, however, it would seem to me that, the smaller the scale the more difficult the modeling, in general, especially as you get older, and it does seem that I got older. I haven’t started my new layout yet but hope to in a few months. I formerly used hydrocal hard-shell scenery but I intend to try and use all the new products and techniques that have developed over the interim years especially the new foam products. I, too, have joined this forum and have received answers to some of my questions. I wish you much good luck in your new endeavor.
Richard
I had ‘O’ trains when I was a kid (actually, my dad modeled ‘O’ trains and I played with them) [;)]
After far too long an absence I started modeling ‘N’ about 5 months ago at the age of 51. Although I have no HO experience to compare it to, I’ve noticed a couple of challenges in modeling N:
-
You need to spend a LOT of time getting your trackwork perfect. N equipment will derail fairly easily if your trackwork isn’t 100%. I found this out early on, and took the time to get my track in really good shape. Now I never derail, even though I am running inexpensive locos and rolling stock that is below NMRA weight standards.
-
The old bifocal thing. When I build structure or rolling stock kits, I spend a lot of time with my glasses off and holding whatever I’m working on about 3" from my face. [X-)]
I think the challenges are worth the effort, because my space is limited. Modeling in N allows a more detailed layout and longer trains than would be possible for me with HO.
Good luck! [:)]
My experience has been with foam so far. I used several layers of 1 inch blue foam board. It was easy to shape. I was able to create some nice detail using simple tools, a steak knife, a rasp, a wire wheel with my drill motor, and a sanding block. From reading previous posts, I get the impresion that it is as much a matter of preferance then anything else.
[:p] hey check the scenery clinic http://www.fcsme.org/bcarl/id132.htm
just what the doctor ordered
B -
Both. For some parts of the scenery, foam works better. On others, go with the hard shell. My layout uses both. Almost the entire thing is done on foam board. Low areas are cut out of the foam and the conture is covered with plaster cloth. Hills and elevated area are built up with foam and covered with plaster cloth and sculptamold.
If I may ask, how did your old trains get stolen? You don’t have to anwser if it makes you uncomfortable.
I use a combination of both. If building scenery that drops down from the tracks I use plaster soaked paper towels over carboard webbing. When building up from a surface I use foam, thought I do cover even my foam with a thin layer of plaster mixed thin and brushed on. I find the plaster is easier to color to my satisfaction than the bare foam.
Ron
I like to use a mixture of both foam and plaster…I have good access to “free” pink foam pipe insulation …it’s not flat but does the job anyway…I usually put the pieces together and hold them in place with old brass rail that was used on previous layouts…after I carve the rock formations into the foam I use plaster and pour it in the joints to further hold the mountains in place…Chuck
Smaller is definetly EASIER. The beleivable level of detail threshold is much lower in N than HO Just as HO has a lower detail threshold than O or G. For O or G, I’m talking “scale” layouts, not tinplate or garden layouts.
The level of believable level of detail is far greater in the larger scales than in the smaller scales. A building in N does not need much level of detail for it to be seen as believable, but at O or G a full interior might be necesary or getting super detailed with all the junk that makes a house look real are needed or the building just looks wrong. Empty cans, crates, garbage, weeds, all the stuff that the resolution of the eye in pasing would not look for in N or HO, would be very noticably absent in O or G.
Same with scenery. the smaller scales allow you to “blend” or “blur” the crispness of detail. Trees in N look more like miniature trees than does anything in large scale which look like big clumps of very obvious foam. N is much easier.