General Discussion (Model Railroader)

Hello guys and gals,

This past weekend I have demolished my layout I have work on over the past four years.  Crazy I know.  I did salvage the track and structures.  The major reason I would have to say was reliability.  With the wood frame construction and the highly variable humidity, there were many problems with the track.  Also, like is common in Alaska house construction, adding on can cause problems and a lack of continuity.

I have learned a lot but realize that I have much more to learn.  I plan to start rebuilding this fall/winter.  I will plan this one out first (another reason the first one failed).

One of the big issues I am getting hung up with right now is the fact I had a double deck with HO on top (simple passenger loop with a couple of sidings) and N on the bottom (industry, yard, depot).  I have a big investment in both so I would like to have both in the new layout.  However, I am not thrilled with two layers.  I would like to integrate both on the same level.  After I post this I plan to search the Track Plan Database and search the web for dual scale plans/layouts.  If you have some information / comments please reply.  By the way, I have a 13' x 12' area to work with.

Thanks for listening,

Peter

 Tearing down a layout is some task, Peter! Didn´t it hurt a lot?

Well, since you will be building a new layout I guess the pain was not too big. As to your question - mixing scales in one layout is not really advisable. I have seen attempts, where the smaller scale was to create some kind of a depth. This may work in photographs, but not when you are viewing the layout, IMHO. I am not quite sure, but there was a layout proposal in one of the MR books - was 48 Top Notch Track Plans?

If I were in your position I would decide either to go HO scale or N scale and sell the surplus equipment, although you will nver recover your investment.

ModelAlaska: 

Ulrich is pretty much right on about mixing the scales.  I have seen it done fairly successfully, as long as the N scale is kept to the background and at or above normal viewing height.  This can fool the eye into creating its own 'depth' perception, but the minute you start looking 'down' at the smaller scale, the impression is ruined. 

I'd say that if you want to do it, keep the N-scale to the background as a 'mountain' or 'ridge-top' route well above and to the back of the HO, in a 'forced perspective' style.  But always either at or above viewing level. 

Tom

twhite:

Ulrich is pretty much right on about mixing the scales.  I have seen it done fairly successfully, as long as the N scale is kept to the background and at or above normal viewing height.  This can fool the eye into creating its own 'depth' perception, but the minute you start looking 'down' at the smaller scale, the impression is ruined. 

Agreed.  It can work very well if you have enough depth on the layout.  The photo below is in an area that is about 5' deep.  No one who has visited the layout has noticed the change of scale I used here until I pointed it out to them.  

I have seen "N" used quite successfully as a separate line up the mountains on a couple of layouts.  Mine is just a couple of buildings to add to the feeling of depth.

Thanks to Ray for the inspiration for this idea...

You could model a pretty neat layout built on a 3' or so wide shelf around a room with a theme of two parallel lines, like PRR/NYC out of New York (20th Century and Broadway Ltd) or many other scenerios with HO scale in the front an N scale in the back, peridically vanishing behind building flats, hills, etc. The N scale would just be a 2 track mainline, maybe with some dummy spurs or a visible staging yard (that looks like a classification yard) to add interest. Only mainline trains would run on the N scale track.

The HO would be in front, and be the main operating fun. Don't venture (visibly, anyway) too far back towards the N scale track, because even if the N scale is hidden at that point, you'll notice that the HO equipment still looks pretty big back there, and then looking at the N scale again will ruin the effect.

Basically you can enjoy running the HO scale in the front, punctuated every few minutes by your railroad competitor's train rolling past off in the distance. That would add some interest while waiting in a siding, etc.

There used to be--it may still be there for all I know--a club located somewhere on the peninsula south of Frisco--I know, you people don't appreciate it being called that--that featured three scales on the same layout: HO, S, and O. MR  did a spread on this layout sometime in 1963 or '64; a mural of Mt Shasta had been painted on the back wall and this MR feature was the first color presentation I remember in the magazine. I remembered this press feature and so I signed up for a layout tour at the San Mateo convention in 1981. The different scales were well blended with HO-Scale always being in the foreground and O-Scale in the background although, admittedly, perspective was better when viewed from a very low angle.

R. T. POTEET:

There used to be--it may still be there for all I know--a club located somewhere on the peninsula south of Frisco--I know, you people don't appreciate it being called that--that featured three scales on the same layout: HO, S, and O. MR  did a spread on this layout sometime in 1963 or '64; a mural of Mt Shasta had been painted on the back wall and this MR feature was the first color presentation I remember in the magazine. I remembered this press feature and so I signed up for a layout tour at the San Mateo convention in 1981. The different scales were well blended with HO-Scale always being in the foreground and O-Scale in the background although, admittedly, perspective was better when viewed from a very low angle.

You're probably talking about the West Bay Model Railroad Association. They do have a website, but it's pretty primitive. Here's a pic: http://home.earthlink.net/~pesce/wbc-pics/P1010014.JPG

GS-4's in O, S, and HO from all appearances.

Website: http://home.earthlink.net/~pesce/westbay.htm

Andre

The above guys are right about mixing scales
BUT
It's called Live Steam, or H(ernia) scale by those who model it. Z is most assuradly closer, but if you steal a few pages from the world of Narrow Gauge, (And possibly some help from Jack Daniels... You have to be crazy for this to work) you could come up with a doozy of a story for such a small railway, even maybe do some buisness with it. Or not, your choice. Youc could make removable floors for gons and hoppers, and glue people sitting to them.

 The purpose of the N scale dogbone loop on my HO scale layout is strictly for forced perspective. I was fortunale to have a 23ft wall with mountains on each end to hide the loops at the ends. The single track N scale on this photo is actually built on a rough gray 2inx2in, With low hills in the background on SceniKing photo continuous background.  This required DCC operation, with reverse loop modules at both ends, so I converted it to a single DC continuous loop which runs on its own power supply and is completely independent of the HO layout. One could insert flat N scale structures against the background. Click on photo to enlarge it, then click on the photo series at the left, to see parts of my HO scale layout.

Thanks for the input guys and Ray thanks for the photo.  I probably wouldn't have the depth to make it work.  I would likely stick with N if I had to pick but I'm not.  I suspect I will have a multi-layer layout again... just done better (I hope).

Peter

 I'd suggest a two-deck layout, one deck HO and one N. Each could be on shelfs 16-24" wide. I use John Sterling shelving components, this allows you to experiment with height etc.

Use each scale to it's best capability. N is well suited for doubletrack mainlines and long trains. "Broad" curves are only 15-18" radius so you don't need much room to turn around. N has lots of room for great scenery, mountains and rivers, etc.

HO could be used as an urban switching layout on that deck. Use No.5 turnouts or better - if you don't have to turn around, you can go with broad curves and large turnouts (like Walthers No. 8's) and get a very realistic looking HO layout.

For either/both, you could use Kato Unitrack by the way. 

IVRW:

I just read about, in 12 tailor made track plans, about how a guy wanted to model in both HOn3 and On2.5. What he did was have both tracks on the same level. In the middle there was a mountain where both railroads hid their return loops. I really recommend getting 12 tailor made track plans for more information.

It seems that your post is factually incorrect on multiple points. You are probably referring to John Armstrong's book 18 Tailor-Made Model Railroad Track Plans (Kalmbach, 1983). The two layouts were HO standard-gauge Union Pacific (late steam era) and On3 D&RGW -- there was little or no On30 in those days.

The two quite separate layouts are cleverly intertwined so that only one is visible at any one time, but they are not on the same level, that is, elevation. (There is only one deck visible at any point, which may be what you meant.)

Armstrong used scenery to hide overlapping portions of the two layouts in a number of places, not simply the turnback curve. Since both rosters demanded similar minimum radii, there were a number of efficiencies.

When one posts on a public forum, it's a courtesy to do a little homework so that what is posted is correct. If one doesn't know enough of the specifics to provide useful information, it might be better not to post. Especially when "recommending" a title that does not exist. 

It could be that you are referring to a different book and a different layout, but this is my best deduction based on what you have posted.