A Veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life."
QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr Wait unitl you get my age and you need bifocals then you will be jealous of O gauge!
Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern
QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly Why is it that when laying out track curves HO is sooooooo big, but when painting window frames, figures etc HO is sooooo small?
QUOTE: OK, maybe I’m a bit slow here, but both these replies have me doing a big: HUH???? I just don’t understand what you guys are trying to say.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dannydd QUOTE: Originally posted by tangerine-jack Why even think about N? I found that you can either wish for more space that you will never get, or do something with the space you have. Where does your heart lie- HO or G, um excuse me I meant HO or N? And if you had all the space you wanted, you couldn't fini***he whole lot before you died anyway!
QUOTE: Originally posted by tangerine-jack Why even think about N? I found that you can either wish for more space that you will never get, or do something with the space you have. Where does your heart lie- HO or G, um excuse me I meant HO or N?
QUOTE: I'm doing N-scale,and I'm jealous of Z-scalers! heh,just kidding.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister QUOTE: Originally posted by Tracklayer Scale really doesn't matter in a situation like yours. It's more of a room issue... Tracklayer (N scaler - for now.) Good point... I often hear people say "oh, well if N-scale is half the size, I can have twice the layout in the same space" Not true. First of all, their math is off. Geometrically, you should be able to get FOUR times the layout into the same space. (a one-inch-per-side square is one square inch, a two-inch-per-side square is four square inches...) But theory and practice differ. One problem is that we're all 1:1 scale. We need the same aisle widths regardless of scale. We need to be able to keep our "reach" on the layout to 24" or so, regardless of scale. Another problem is that while going down in scale allows you to cram more track in the same space... it can also allow you to ease your curves, use larger number turnouts, etc. In many cases the "best" way to convert a layout from HO to N is not to add a bunch of new track, but rather keep the same basic track plan with less-unprototypical curves, a double- instead of single-track mainline, etc. That's probably a very good idea, but you don't get "4 times" the layout. I was reading an old "starting a toy train layout" book I came across, and when talking about scale, the author said "N scale is good for people who want to run very long trains and be able to have their scenery tower over the trains"... A bit trite and over-generalization... But also not the worst way to consider it. It's all about what _you_ want out of it. At the end of the day, I still say it boils down to a very subjective decision. If N is equally pleasing to you as HO, then you should probably consider N strongly, regardless of space... Even if you have a 5,000 sq. ft. train room, you will never model anything close to prototypical distances anyhow, and N will always let you fit "more" into a given space.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tracklayer Scale really doesn't matter in a situation like yours. It's more of a room issue... Tracklayer (N scaler - for now.)
QUOTE: One problem is that we're all 1:1 scale. We need the same aisle widths regardless of scale. We need to be able to keep our "reach" on the layout to 24" or so, regardless of scale.
QUOTE: Another problem is that while going down in scale allows you to cram more track in the same space... it can also allow you to ease your curves, use larger number turnouts, etc..
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"