One of the big issues in model railroading is the time and the distance our trains travel between two stops. Those blessed with a large basement (or garage) and the necessary funds to support a large layout may find it not that important, but those of us, who have to do their model railroading in tight spaces do have an issue here. Usually, we can measure the time between two stops in seconds - not enough to give us that feeling of distance trains travel in the real world. Letting a train “circle the loop” a couple of times in between stops is not really a solution to the problem. The only option we have is to reduce the scale - going “down” from HO scale to N scale gives you 1.84 times the distance for your train to travel, from HO scale to Z scale the factor is 2.53. On a typical 4 by 8 HO scale layout, one full circle gives you, say, a run of a little less than 20 feet or a third of a scale mile. In N scale that figure goes up to .6 scale miles and in Z scale to .83 scale miles.
Objective achieved - choosing a smaller scale will give you the distance you cannot have in a bigger scale!
But hold it - something is wrong in this! All we actually see is an “object” traveling a distance of 20 feet, but at different speeds, depending on the scale. If you let your HO scale train travel at a scale speed of 30mph, the time it takes to travel those 20 feet is roughly 40 seconds. An N scale train traveling at the same scale speed therefore takes 72 seconds and a Z scale train requires about 100 seconds to complete the loop.
Objective achieved - if not in terms of distance, but in terms of time?
Aside from the fact, that the smaller the scale, the faster we let our trains run in terms of scale speed, I doubt that we have achieved our objective. What we see is a train traveling at a lower speed, but still only that distance of 20 feet. Picture yourself looking down at three layouts, all you see is objects of different sizes traveling at different speeds. The
If what your saying is true, then I could have S scale and then try to run it on a 20 foot loop the distance the train traveled looks the same as if I had a N scale train. I think scale helps a bit, especially if you have scenery, by having a few bridges and buildings, maybe a few branches or spurs, you could make the distance seem greater in Z scale then HO scale. However I agree that it the distance doesn’t seem that drastic of a change as the change in size. Maybe by changing the climate and terrain of the scenery you could make it seem farther. Maybe have different types of buildings and structures in different parts to create different regions would also help.
Let me assure you that even those of us with large basements and large layout stil struggle with the same issues that you mention. No matter how large the home layout, the prespectives of distance and time affect one’s viewing of the moving train.
Perhaps part of the solution is hidden track so that trains appear to be coming and going. On the other hand, when viewing real trains from the ground, we only see them for a few seconds anyhow or at least the portion of them passing in front of us.
When I view my trains in motion (HO scale), I tend to fixate on a certain point such as a bridge or a street crossing or a specific scene on the layout. A train running at a slower scale speed looks quite believable to be in such a situation.
Gidday Ulrich, as it is now getting very close to Monday morning for me it is heavy stuff.[swg] I don’t think there is a lesson to be learnt ,but perhaps one to be relearnt, to be able to use our imagination. If we can do that then our trains can have traveled from where we imagine them to have been.
But it’s still not quite the same as standing track side when a train goes by. As the scale gets smaller, the “presence” of the train diminishes as well. Standing closer doesn’t really change that, it’s still a small model train.
It is, I think, the lure of the larger scales. A G scale train at 50+ inches off the floor has a lot of “presence”. But it takes a really large basement for a layout beyond the simple oval.
It always comes back to tradeoffs no matter how much room you have or don’t have.
are you trying to model a railroad or operate a model railroad?
Many modelers, such as Bruce Chubb in How to Operate Your Model Railroad, describe the use of fast-clocks and scale miles, smiles, to make operation of a model railroad seem more realistic. With fast-clocks, the scaled up time between stations is longer and the actual locomotive speed (ft /sec) can be slower to more accurately represent scale speed both in terms of smiles and fast-clock time.
I am taking a different tack. I am modeling one scale mile of the PRR in Philly with appropriate sized buildings and plan to run in real time. The biggest problem I foresee is slowing down the operators to take the time it takes to do something in real life like walk back four or five cars to uncouple one.
My approach is similar to this. I model only one “stop” or city alone a busy line. I have a large space, and this allows modling the whole “city” to some degree, and the various rail activities that happen in different places around that city - passenger terminal, freight operations, industies, coach yard, engine terminal - all only modeled ONCE.
I also model some of the “rural” scenery approaching and leaving my citiy, as well as a few of the “rural” juctions and communities just out side my “city” - but I make no pretense that they are places far away from the main “city”.
Trains enter and leave the modeled area to/from staging. They travel over about 5 scale miles of visable track as they enter the “city”, do their work there, and leave the “city” and its general area.
This whole concepts makes the viewers, just that, viewers just like rail fans in real life - who are “stuck” in one place watching trains as they come and go from that place. As opposed to being able to majicly fly along with the train and watch it from the outside as it travels hundreds of miles - who can do that? a witch?
But, that said, good operating speeds, and good viewing angles always improve the effect.
And even with this approach, I will use a fast clock for timetable operations when I get to that point.
My railroad is similar to ndbprr’s and Sheldon’s, I am modeling a small section of a subdivision. When I operate I will take many breaks while my crew is doing something that takes time. I may come to the computer and read a forum thread or look at something on Ebay while the conductor is walking the train or while the crew is performing an air test, or even taking a lunch break. This will draw out running a train for quite some time.
AS you know, the LION models the New York City Subway. Him has 9 scale miles of track (on the Broadway Local) and it takes 22 real time minutes to run the round trip from 242nd Street to South Ferry and back.
Guess what? The stations are still too close together, although it does begin to look realistic. LION only runs six train sets (at the moment) on this local run, so him can dispatch them every 4 minutes. That at least makes the operation at 242nd street, or at any other station for that matter look realistic.
Adjusting the dwell time in the station helps, the speed between stations is irrelevant, a little faster seems to look a little better. But once a visitor is in the room watching the trains, there is just too much going on for them to notice the short comings. Indeed, with all of the trains running, it is quite noisy in the train room. Well, good! Subways are supposed to be noisy.
But LION does have a plan that would run a credible subway on a 4x8 layout, and if you just want to model the terminals, that can be done too. A layout with a two track terminal, an intermediate station, and a hidden return track could work very nicely.
Look at a layout you like, and see how you can fit an element of it in your living room.
It helps if you have a space big enough, although still small, to allow a meandering loop, where the train is over here and then over there. And a town on one end and a mountain on the other so it looks like its gone someplace.
A 4x8 oval O gauge allows you to see what the train looks like running instead of a static display and thats about all.
I also am including North Philadelphia tower which will be manned. In addition to tower duties the operator will be responsible for the through trains stopping only at North Philly and through freights.
I think there are other factors. Assuming a layout and layout room of roughly comparable size (which we shouldn’t assume actually), then it seems the smaller scales run longer trains (by car count) and might also cram in more cities and towns. Thus in many cases the “engine in one town, caboose in another” phenomenon does not change as much as it in theory should with the smaller scale.
If you go to an O scale layout a 10 car train can look like a really long train. 10 cars in HO or N does not look at all long.
It also seems to me that the smaller the scale, the faster the trains seem to be run (on a scale mph basis).
Indeed it might be that there is surprising similarity in train length in “real” length and train speed in “real” speed regardless of scale.
My layout is a long loop. I disguise this by putting scenery in the foreground, high enough to hide the trains over parts of their journey. Rather than put tracks on the edge, I put buildings and hills on the edge so that the trains are visible when they are seen down a street between two blocking buildings. On the narrow shelf part of the layout, where I have 6 parallel tracks, I hide the 4 closest to the wall behind a group of structures.
When a train is lost from view, it seems to take longer to get around, and the fact that it’s running in a loop is much less obvious.
My current layout is 12x23. I run 6-8 ft long trains and have about one train length between stations/sidings.
A person I know is building a large layout (about 1800 sq ft, double decked) with 20-30 feet between stations/sidings. But he is planning to operate 40 car trains. That makes his sidings about 1 train length apart. He is essentially ending up with the same spacing that I have. I have had this discussion with several people. They are unhappy with their sidings being too close, they get a bigger space, they separate the sidings, then increase the train size so they are right back at having the caboose in one station and the engines at the next.
I am about to get a larger space for my layout. My intent is to double or triple the distance between stations and KEEP the train size the same, 12-15 cars, about 8 ft (I model 1900-1905 so my cars are all in the 30-36 ft range.)
I also wonder about people’s choice of era with regard to this space/time issue.
People who are space constrained choose the modern era? Why?
Modern eras have bigger engines, bigger cars, longer trains, larger number switches and faster speeds. One of the reasons I choose my era was it has smaller engines, smaller cars, shorter trains, smaller switches and slower speeds. On a modern layout a coal train will have a couple SD’s and a string of 50 ft cars, with a mx speed of 50 mph. On a 1880 era layout it would have one small steamerm a string of 30 ft cars and be limited to 10 mph (maybe, 1876 P&R rules limit loaded coal trains to 6 mph).
Modern cars look marginal going around a 24" radius curve. Its a crap shoot whether cars and engines will negoiate an 18" radius curve. Early era equimpnet doesn’t look bad on a 24" radius curve and will negoiate 18" radius with minimal problems.
Modern operations has a large bias to unit trains. Most bulk commodity and intermodal is in unit trains or the equivalent of unit trains. The drive is to efficiency. Locomotives run coast to coast on the same train and may not be service for literally 1000 miles or once a week for local. Early era operations is all carload business. More industries, more detail switching, frequent engine changes, frequent stops for water and fuel.
If you are trying to maximize your space and mximize operation, consider the era, because era drives the operations and the size of the equipment.
I have come to the point that the scale of the cityscape is critical to producing the correct effect. Selective compression is a bane to scale modeling. How long does a train take to pass by in real life compared to models? Trying to compress steel mills that cover miles in all directions into 2 x 4 areas are always going to be toy trains not scale modeling. Until we return to making the scene scaled from full dimensions we will always wonder why our trains are missing sonething intangible. A 4 x 8 is never going to allow full scale modeling but a 2 x 8 shelf layout Is probably going to be far superior in creating what we want to achieve. More space Is always better but limiting the scene can be done realistically on a very small layout.
I have mentioned this before and fully agree. My little 4-4-0 with five cars behind it putting around the layout at 25MPH makes my layout seem much larger. Even my 32" min. curves really look more sweeping with smaller steam. The layout still looks okay with two or three diesels pulling forty or fifty cars. However a t