Texas Zepher wrote:That was way too long a "design" time for a 2x8 in HO. I'm surprised everyone didn't do 5 or 10 entries - but I guess they would all be really similar.
I was surprised that the one that had so much discussion on here had a curved main line. I have railfaned in the midwest and the tracks through these little towns are usually perefectly straight. I wonder if most of the entries will be curved. I can see that its easier to get more in the layout by curving the main line, but it just doesn't seem like the midwest. Yeah, there are a few places where the main curves through town, but most are straight. Even the real place that layout was about.
One other one I saw was maybe a joke. Seven inch radius in HOn3 does not seem practical. Probably wouldn't even work for N gauge. But I've never done HOn3 or N, so I can't say its impossible.
alco_fan wrote: Texas Zepher wrote:That was way too long a "design" time for a 2x8 in HO. I'm surprised everyone didn't do 5 or 10 entries - but I guess they would all be really similar.I was surprised that the one that had so much discussion on here had a curved main line. I have railfaned in the midwest and the tracks through these little towns are usually perefectly straight. I wonder if most of the entries will be curved. I can see that its easier to get more in the layout by curving the main line, but it just doesn't seem like the midwest. Yeah, there are a few places where the main curves through town, but most are straight. Even the real place that layout was about.
It all comes down to what aspect or aspects you chose to model. A model is a representation of some part of reality - you just pick what is most important to you and model that.
Thawville, version 01 (the one submitted was version 10) - mainline straight past the depot:
Here is a different design with a perfectly straight mainline - version 01 of Dalton, MN - not developed further and not submitted:
And here is version 02 of a layout where the mainline is mostly straight - Fergus Falls, MN (also submitted)
What was most important to me was to model single track mainline, typical smalltown industries (several of them on the same siding), and try to resist overloading the thing with trackage - fergus is borderline too much - even though prototypical.
If a straight mainline is the most important to you, then you just straighten the mainline - that makes the siding a little longer, and leaves less space for switching on the outside of the turnouts to the siding when you operate the layout as stand alone module.
Anyways - I am really looking forward to seeing what others have done with their 2x8 - whenever SpaceMouse gets a change to post the layouts he has received from various people.
Smile, Stein
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
alco_fan wrote: One other one I saw was maybe a joke. Seven inch radius in HOn3 does not seem practical. Probably wouldn't even work for N gauge. But I've never done HOn3 or N, so I can't say its impossible.
If your refering to my withheld submission posted above,
No Joke Sparky! 7 inch radius, I've done it.
Reread the submission, its HOn30 (HOn 2-1/2) not HOn3, HO on N track. I have an HOn30 microlayout that operates even smaller radius, try 4"... and thats with stock equipped with Kadee couplers!
Since I decided to drop my submission I didnt write a description to go with it so I didnt include the breakdown of engines and rolling stock, but it was designed to operate with my current HOn30 collection with consist of vintage 2-axle AHM Minitrain Locos and uber-short 2 axle Egger-bahn/Roco rolling stock! so it not only is possible, its actually been done!
Old AHM ad
My microlayout under construction...and Yes, I know I'm completley Nuts!
Have fun with your trains
SpaceMouse wrote:How does tomorrow, Saturday sound?
Sounds good! I can't wait to see what everyone came up with.
chadw wrote:So when are the layouts going up? We don't need a repeat of "Mouse-watch"
Hey...dont diss the mouse....
Mouse watch.....11 hours, 35 minutes till Saturday
So did I
Mousewatch 3 hours, 48 minutes till Saturday
LOLOLOL! vssmith, there is always some humor that you always add to a post. I'm still laughing at the funny's you added today.
Here is a small history lesson on the small town I grew up in. Back in the 1850's Thomas Thaw, and another man who's last name was Roberts built a small rooming house just north, about 2 miles from the current location of Thawville on the IC tracks. There was just these 2 men who had built the rooming house, and then added a very small water tower. They did this in hopes of attracting people to settle a town there. Now as the story was told, the 2 men, Thaw & Roberts had a dispute over the what to name the town. So they abandon their current location of the future site, selling it to another person and parted company, never to speak to each other again. Two towns were later plotted out. Thawville and Roberts, Roberts is 7 miles south of Thawville on the IC line.
When I was a young boy my brother and I use to walk the tracks to the north of Thawville to go fishing about 2 miles total distance. There was a medium size foundation close to the tracks, and other small concrete walls and footings. Allot of the old timers always spoke of this place, but there was no documents to prove it was there. I tried for years to find some information on it, but never did.
ICRR1964
vsmith wrote: Reread the submission, its HOn30 (HOn 2-1/2) not HOn3, HO on N track. I have an HOn30 microlayout that operates even smaller radius, try 4"... and thats with stock equipped with Kadee couplers!
I stand corrected. If you can make seven inch radius work on a 4% grade with those tiny engines, it's quite a feat.
alco_fan wrote: vsmith wrote: Reread the submission, its HOn30 (HOn 2-1/2) not HOn3, HO on N track. I have an HOn30 microlayout that operates even smaller radius, try 4"... and thats with stock equipped with Kadee couplers! I stand corrected. If you can make seven inch radius work on a 4% grade with those tiny engines, it's quite a feat.
Its actually easy when using those tiny Roco freight cars as shown in the advertisment, they weight next to nothing, so they dont tax the engines very much. Its mostly just the engine pulling its own weight around.
BTW Mousewatch over, its saturday.
Oops! Sorry to hear that Chip
Mouse watch ON!
Day 1
I didn't see this until just now, but I must again protest the handling of scale. 2x8 for HO, but N has to be cramped down to 13 x 52? What is the point of that? Would an O scale plan then be allowed to work up to 36 x 12?
Available space is available space. Choice of scale determines how you can use that space. If you force the available space to change proportionally with the scale used, you've defeated the point of the exercise, and forced N scale to into the same crowded box with HO.
If you're only interested in tangled webs, don't even throw a bone to N scalers.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798 wrote:I didn't see this until just now, but I must again protest the handling of scale. 2x8 for HO, but N has to be cramped down to 13 x 52? What is the point of that?
Would an O scale plan then be allowed to work up to 36 x 12?
Available space is available space.
you've defeated the point of the exercise,
But scale is a key element of design. And yes, I realize I'm coming in at the end here.
I can't understand why you HO guys are so myopic. You'd think with all the eye strain us N scalers put up with, that would be our problem!
Mousewatch-Day 2
wm3798 wrote:But scale is a key element of design.
Where are those plans??
CF
Texas Zepher wrote: wm3798 wrote:But scale is a key element of design.No it isn't. Scale has nothing to do with the design. A good design will work in any scale. Scale only matters in the engineering. The engineering might have to be altered to make a given design work, but physics don't scale. Nor for a "track plan" do we need them too.
Only if you've never considered scale as a variable.
A model railroader first has to address the available space in order to develop a plan. That's a fundamental truth whether you're building your layout in a barn or on a bookshelf. The available space creates the parameters of what the layout can hold, and scale determines how well it can hold it.
One simple exercise to prove my point would be to take your typical 4x8 HO track plan from a book or magazine, and simply replace the track with N scale. The table top, the radius of the curves, the location of turnouts remains exactly the same in 1:1 scale, only the distance between the rails is changed. Suddenly, you've exponentially increased the volume of the layout, creating sidings long enough to hold a decent length train, the possibility of double-track operations without cutting into the available space for scenery significantly... I could go on and on..
In the given space of 2'x8', an HO scale modeler can represent the proposed farm community scene with a short siding, a small grain elevator, maybe an abandoned coal pier and an old freight house. There can be a grade crossing for a country road, perhaps a couple of small town buildings, and a backdrop that shows some surrounding countryside.
Using the same space and the same concept, the N scale model railroader can do all of the above, plus create a creek meandering in the foreground, winding through a cow pasture, the siding can hold a 20 car train, the grain elevator can be closer to scale height and serve 12 cars instead of 2, The town can consist of 10 buildings instead of four, and the railroad can look like it is running through a pasture instead of through a narrow slice of scenery.
The engineering would actually be BETTER because the turnouts could be longer, the sidings more realistically long, and there'd be more room to effectively switch the industries.
Designing a layout requires a whole lot more than sticking track down to make a switching puzzle. The idea is to create a plausibly realistic scene (at least in my opinion) and effectively capture the atmosphere of the railroad's environment, not just a representative slice of it. A good track plan should take into account the aesthetics of the railroad and its surroundings, not just the track arrangement.
N scale, I believe, accomplishes this with the most success.
Lee,
Just off hand did you read the rules in the contest? Space Mouse set this up with some rules for a simple contest. The rules state that the 2 different sizes for N and HO in the same "scale" feet. This was done so the contest would come out fair for both HO and N users.
If the Mouse was to just allow 2 by 8 for both HO and N, this would have created a problem for how many scale feet of track could be used, in other words the N scale would have more of an advantage. Or lets say we had and S, O, and G scales in the same amount of space of the 2 by 8 area. The HO would have the advantage over the other's. This is why there was one size for HO and one size for N.
I have yet to figure out what you are getting at Lee, this was just a simple contest set up with the same rules with 2 different size tables. But I am under the impression that you are wanting the 2 by 8 for the N scale table. If I read the rules right that would not be fair to the HO crowd then. Sure throwing the N scale setup on the 2 by 8 would have worked better and made use of the extra room with more buildings and extra details.
Anyway its a contest, it has rules, and they were fair to both HO and N scale modelers. I'm sure the Mouse can't change the rules since most of the plans have already been turned in. I don't think it would be fair to the HO modelers to allow the 2 by 8 to the N modelers. So your arguement has no meaning if you think about it as far as the contest goes, sorry Lee.
Back 20 years ago All I had room for was a small 14 inch by 10ft shelf layout, it did not to well for me in HO so I took it apart and went to N, this worked great, it seemed like I almost got about 3 times the scale feet of track on the shelf, and it had more depth. But when I moved into a large home and had the room, I went back to HO.
I have to agree with ICRR,
If you looked at the 10x12 layout contest to rate the overall layouts in the different scales ended up being hard to compare to each other. Like you said the n scale gives you twice the scale space to use than HO or even in that contest a quarter of the space with the G scale layout. It was interesting to see the different scales in the same space but as I said earlier it was a little of comparing apples to oranges and in this case bananas as well. I think limiting the space to the same "scale" area made it an interesting contest that you took out the inherent advantage that N scale has in the same footprint and made it about who had the best design in the "scale" space.
This was an interesting way to level the planning field.
Chris
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
wm3798 wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: wm3798 wrote:But scale is a key element of design.No it isn't. Scale has nothing to do with the design. A good design will work in any scale. Scale only matters in the engineering. The engineering might have to be altered to make a given design work, but physics don't scale. Nor for a "track plan" do we need them too.Only if you've never considered scale as a variable. A model railroader first has to address the available space in order to develop a plan. That's a fundamental truth whether you're building your layout in a barn or on a bookshelf. The available space creates the parameters of what the layout can hold, and scale determines how well it can hold it.
The contest idea was not: "how big a layout can you fit in a 2x8 space ?". It was "how would you as a designer solve the problem of selective compression if you only had this many scale feet for your module ?"
The challenge of selective compression gets a lot smaller if you allow people to in effect double the space available. An example:
A H0 scale town in 2x8 feet:
Same town in 14x2 feet H0 scale (no compression - real town siding was only about 400 yards):
Would you say that I should have gotten extra points in the latter case for cleverly having double the real estate available (and pretty much totally having removed the challenge of selective compression) ?
Grin, Stein
steinjr wrote: [ The contest idea was not: "how big a layout can you fit in a 2x8 space ?". It was "how would you as a designer solve the problem of selective compression if you only had this many scale feet for your module ?" The challenge of selective compression gets a lot smaller if you allow people to in effect double the space available. An example: A H0 scale town in 2x8 feet: Same town in 14x2 feet H0 scale (no compression - real town siding was only about 400 yards): Would you say that I should have gotten extra points in the latter case for cleverly having double the real estate available (and pretty much totally having removed the challenge of selective compression) ? Grin, Stein
[ The contest idea was not: "how big a layout can you fit in a 2x8 space ?". It was "how would you as a designer solve the problem of selective compression if you only had this many scale feet for your module ?"
Actually, a 2x8 N scale layout is equivalent to about four times the area of an HO scale layout with the same 1'=1' dimensions.
Mark
Yes, I did read the rules, and that's why I initiated this discussion. The rules artificially set limits on the planning process if I choose to work in my scale.
But you're totally missing the basic point, that available space is available space! If I have 2'x8' available, why would I choose to reduce that simply because I'm using a more flexible scale? The 10x12 contest was a more level playing field, and I think resulted in some very creative designs in both HO and N.
So, you're conceding that in this case, N scale in the same space always produces a better design, so you have to bend rules around it so HO has half a chance...
That's all I wanted to hear! Thanks!
There is "no" bending of rules here as far as an attempt to design a drawing of a set up for the contest. The point of the contest is to build in HO or N in the same number of scale feet of the table or bench, that is why there are 2 different size tables, in other words 2 different scales.
It seems you are fishing for a debate on an issue that does not even apply here, again we have HO and N with 2 by 8 for HO and 13" by 56" for N, same number of scale feet per length and width. We are comparing Apples to Apples here from a design point of veiw, scale is not the issue as far as being fair or bending the rules, design is the issue as to what, how and where it can be built, and workable.
I think everyone here is under the impression that in your opinion, that the size that is issued for the N scale is not fair? Is this what you keep trying to point out here? As I said and everyone else seems to agree, Apples to Apples from a design point of veiw. Right?
If that's the case, then why set a scale parameter at all? Why not just say, draw a plan representing 4 scale acres, or whatever.
My contention is that regardless of scale, every model railroad design problem begins with the space available to work in. In planning and zoning circles, this is called the "Building Envelope". Your layout room, or part of your family room, or garage or what have you, is a fixed quantity. It does not scale up or down. It provides you with the basic canvas on which you will develop your plan.
The title of the thread is "2x8 layout Contest", not "2X8 or maybe 13x56 because we say so contest"
I opened the thread in the first place, because I enjoy designing compact track plans, and 2x8 is good size to start with, being the stock size of 2" foam panels. When I saw the limitation for N scale, I wrinkled my nose and wondered "wha...?" Clearly the motivation was to arbitrarily handicap N scale to suffer the same limits as HO, limits which in practical applications DO NOT EXIST. This essentially serves to tell N scale designers that they "need not apply".
Perhaps a better way to couch this exercise would be to give the designer a scale quarter mile, and go from there. I'm seeing that that's where you were going with this, and that's a reasonable direction, it was just clumsily worded.
I just think if there are going to be these design exercises, there should be a little more consideration given to how they are set up and how they can apply to actual layout-building situations. Choice of scale, I insist, IS a key factor in ANY design exercise.