Day 6
Have fun with your trains
day 5 of Mousewatch
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Gentlemen!
In case you haven't noticed, the contest deadline is history. At this point, discussion about the rules ranks with a discussion of the impact of hanging chads on the 2000 election.
IMHO, for the next contest (if there is one) the limiting dimensions should be given in Armstrong Squares, thereby making the playing field level for everyone from ZZZ-scale to Live Steam.
Incidentally, I didn't enter the contest, so I feel I can be impartial on the matter.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
wm3798 wrote: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?
Mousewatch - day 4
Geared Steam wrote: Here is my submission, its G scale on a 2 x 8 because I don't want the n-scalers to have all the fun.
Here is my submission, its G scale on a 2 x 8 because I don't want the n-scalers to have all the fun.
marknewton wrote:Well, there we'll have to agree to disagree. For every N scale layout I've seen that created a plausible, realistic scene - and I've seen a few - there must be ten that simply cram the maximum amount of track into the minimum amount of space, with no attempt to place the railway into it's surroundings.
Those jam packed N scale layouts are built by recently converted HO guys... They love that stuff!
marknewton wrote: Judging by your very jazzy layout photos*, you practice what you preach, but I think you're in a minority among N scale modellers.All the best,Mark.* I've always had a bit of a soft spot for the Wild Mary. I like what you're doing, and I'm impressed that you're working in N.
Judging by your very jazzy layout photos*, you practice what you preach, but I think you're in a minority among N scale modellers.All the best,Mark.* I've always had a bit of a soft spot for the Wild Mary. I like what you're doing, and I'm impressed that you're working in N.
Thanks for your analysis, and your kind words. I enjoy the operations aspect of model railroading as much as the next guy, I guess it's my artistic side that rejects the notion that an empty canvas is a completed project.
Lee
wm3798 wrote:In the given space of 2'x8', an HO scale modeler can represent the proposed farm community scene ... 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.
In the given space of 2'x8', an HO scale modeler can represent the proposed farm community scene ... 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.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
I already said I read the stated "rules", the point of my original inquiry was to question the reason for changing the basic size requirement for an N scale design. I'm satisfied now that this is an HO-centric exercise, and that if one were to submit an N scale plan, it has to basically be an HO plan, because the size parameter for N prohibits the N scale designer from working in his scale to its fullest advantage.
I understand how it works, no fishing here!
Welcome to the third layout contest.
Size: 24" x 96"
somewhere in or about a small agricultural town
no era limitations or location limits (in other words, it can be any time or place a railroad existed)
HO scale is specified, but N-scale can used if it is scaled down to 13" x 52"
So in other words 13" by 52" for the N scale size does not apply as you say then, even though it was spelled out in the rules. Hmmm, Lee is it me or are you still fishing for something in your comments from your last post.
After a lengthy conversation I can see now what the point of the exercise is (was?). I saw 2x8, and I thought that meant, well... 2 x 8.
Obviously 2x8 means different things to different people...
"Some animals are more equal than others..."
Lee,
I think you are taking this contest thing way too seriously. It's not about scalism, it about solving a puzzle and who can do it best.
Sure given the space you can do more with N. And if you had warehouse you could do it better. And if you had a necromancer you could dig up John Armstrong and pay him to do it for you.
It's just a game and the rules are meant to level the playing field. That's it. It's a game.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Mouse watch - day 3
wm3798 wrote: I dig. There you go, Stein, keeping my feet on the groundLet's just be a little more clear in the title and set up of these things.
I dig. There you go, Stein, keeping my feet on the ground
Let's just be a little more clear in the title and set up of these things.
I agree.
wm3798 wrote: And just to back up my smoke with some fire, here's a couple shots of a module that I built that is about 2x8...<images not quoted>
And just to back up my smoke with some fire, here's a couple shots of a module that I built that is about 2x8...
<images not quoted>
Beautiful ! You wouldn't want to come over on vacation to Norway for maybe a decade or two and build something like this for meg for free ?
Grin, Stein
Thanks for the lively conversation, gents!
wm3798 wrote: 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!Lee
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!
Well, if all you wanted to hear was "you can fit more in a given area using N scale than H0 scale", you have now heard that. It is a very uncontroversial (and obvious) statement.
The 10x12 contest was "here is a room of a given size - how would you fill this room with a railroad, in any scale you like".
This contest is different - it is really: "Design a small agricultural town as a standalone module that could be integrated in a larger layout, town will have to fit within a footprint of about 700 scale feet in length x about 175 scale feet wide- which would 8x2 feet in H0 scale, 13" by 56" in N scale".
We don't have 2x8 feet available. We have a design contest where you could have designed an agricultural town selectively compressed to about 700x175 scale feet. If you had chosen to participate while submissions were accepted.
Clear enough ?
But again - yes - you can fit more in a given space in N scale than you can in H0 scale. And you can fit more in a given space in Z scale than you can in N scale. That is uncontroversial.
So all good layout designers should chose to go to Z scale instead of big clunky N scale (or even bigger)
Smile, Stein
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.
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?
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 ?"
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) ?
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
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.
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.
wm3798 wrote:But scale is a key element of design.
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 ?"
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
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.
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.
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.
Where are those plans??
CF
Mousewatch-Day 2
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!