As I go along, I find myself more and more interested in O scale. I started in HO, went down to N while in the military and came back to HO. Mainly because my desires are for a more "personal" interaction with the railroad. Hence the growing desire for larger scales.
The question I have for any O scalers out there, what is a good practical minimum room size to fit an O scale layout in. Now I know there are some extremes where you can cram anything in anywhere, but that's not what I mean. My interests are branch line switching so that does help some. The room I have is 12x12 -- would that work?
Thanks all.
jim
Are you talking O scale or O tinplate? O tinplate can run on 27 inch curves. This is tight for even HO. There is a multi scale club near me that has O scale division and layout with minimum radius of 50 inches. You need a lot of room for O scale but O tinplate can be had on a 4x8.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
I think the folks over at Classic Toy Trains forums could probably give you a pretty good idea of space requirements, whether tinplate or scale.
Have fun,
I am wondering if you have considered On30. A 12 x 12 gives enough room for a fairly decent run for it, BUT
- Being true to a specific prototype is virtually impossible
- Unless you are in to "Critters" or major scratch building, your locos will pretty much be steam
Just something else to consider
Kevin
If you are talking 2 rail scale O standard gauge, then 12x12 is tight. It's enough that you can get a small railroad in with some switching, but you probably will need 30' radius curves.. This will limit your possibilities.
I suggest you look at On30. It's narrow gauge using HO track. The cars and engines are about the size of S standard gauge, but you can use sharper curves - 24" and maybe 18" depending on equipment. This will allow for a more interesting layout.
Enjoy
Paul.
Thank you. Yes, I'm thinking O scale, not 3rail. Also giving On30 a thought, since I've seen some plans in small areas, but still wasn't sure how practical it is in a small space. My worry is even though the radius is small, buildings, and everything else isn't. Wish we had basements in the south, then this would be easy.
I am afraid, that a 12 by 12 room is not really big enough to build a layout in O scale, that will satisfy you, unless you go for a small switching layout. In HO scale, this space equals roughly a 6 by 6 foot print and there is not really much you can do with this.
On30 is a different story. In this scale, which uses HO gauge track, your space requirement is only a little more than what you need for an HO layout. The May 2008 issue of MR featured the Mojave & Death Valley RR, a quite interesting layout in a 10 by 12 room.
If you are a subscriber, you can see the track plan here.
jmbjmbThe question I have for any O scalers out there, what is a good practical minimum room size to fit an O scale layout in.
I am not an O scaler, so take this with a good pinch of salt - but wouldn't that depend a lot on how you want to configure your layout?
Biggest limiting factor would seem to be whether you want continuous run, and whether you want the operator to be on the inside or the outside of any 180 degree turn-back loops.
If (just for argument's sake) one were to assume e.g. 60" minimum radius for some kind of model railroad (just an example - I have no idea what an O scale layout needs), then for a turnback loop you would need 120+" - or about 10 feet of length/width - for the whole turnback curve.
It would seem that there would be no particular problem doing an 10 foot diameter turn-back loop along a 12 foot long walls, if you can be on the inside of the curve.You would get corners you can't reach all the way into, but nothing says you have to actually build your model all the way into those corners..
But it would most likely be a pain to do it on a table, and still have reach into the interior of your table, or room to walk around the layout in a 12 x 12 foot room.
So it all boils down to what you want to do and how. A point to point switching layout should work fine in a 12x12 foot room - after all - even the simplest configuration you will have something like 36-48 linear feet along the walls.
Here is a link to a very realistic switching layout in O scale - it has three tracks + buildings depth on a 32" deep shelf, 18 linear feet long along one wall: http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2010/02/trackplan-operations.html
A doughnut-shaped "operator in the central pit" type of layout with a lift-out or swing gate or duck-under might very well work fine.
A "continuous-run-loop-on-table, operator-on-outside" layout probably would be a pain in a 12 x 12 foot room.
Again - I am not an O scaler - these are just some general observations on curve radii vs reach and aisle space.
Smile,Stein
You are correct that in On30, the buildings are full size and take up quite a large footprint. I think it was Lou Sassi, and perhaps others, who stated that when building a pike in this scale, you should limit your structures, give them some space and detail the heck out of them. (The "Less is More" concept) The other thing you may consider is modeling smaller structures, and reducing the depth of them. I have some Bachmann On30 equipment. It seems to run well, and is nicely detailed (Though not prototype specific) I do know for a fact, that their claim of operation on 18" radius may technically be correct, some of their equipment looks really bad on that radius and is nearly impossible to stay coupled (Specifically the Forney). Also, someone who posts here is touting On30 as a Sn3 scale. Not sure who, but I know I have seen it on these MR Forums. Not sure of the validity of that idea since I haven't "Done the Math". Also not sure of the availability of structures/detail items or their affordability. To steal a line from another poster, "My thoughts, Your choices" Hope this helps more than it hurts.
If you are a subscriber, you can access the trackplan data base on this website. Put O scale and 100-300 square feet in the search boxes and you'll come up with 6 trackplans. Three of those will fit your proposed room size. But all three are either On-2.5 or On-3. The 3rd plan, Baypoint and Diablo (On2.5) looks like it would satisfy your switching requirement. If you can't access the database, the plan also appeared in the May 2005 MR.
There is no reason why a larger scale has to be in a large space to be believable. If you want to run long trains through the Rockies then yes you are going to need a large space. However if you like switching layouts then you can get away with so much more. My last several layouts have not had a run around in a loop ability and I have been far happier ever since I got rid of that design constraint. You can have as little as 2 sidings and a mainline keep you busy for well over an hour at a time and be quite realistic. A smaller space filled with a larger scale is much easier to add more detail to and not get overwhelmed with the prospects of having to fill that 1200 sq ft layout room. Too often people get caught up in having large complicated layouts but then end up with nothing more than huge benchwork that will never get completed.
I like the ideas of Pelle Soeborg and Lance Mindheim. They are both HO modellers and are both different than others. Pelle models from the perspective of a railfan and concentrates more on scenery aspects but still incorporates enough for operations. Lance is a bit different and specializes in industrial layouts where prototypical operations are the focus.
The link provided above is a good one although his layout is in the early stages. Reading through his page gives you a good idea of how he will operate his layout. Another very good site is the small layout webpage at www.carendt.com There are lots of good ideas there and some that are a bit silly. Although many of them may not appeal to you, I'm sure there are some ideas that you would probably find interesting and there are many very nice small layouts on there as well.
You don't need On30 to have O scale in a small space. That's an excuse for those who don't know how to incorporate realism into a small space but there are several of those layouts that can be fairly nice so I'm not knocking the scale but rather the logic that some have for going to it.
I too love the size of O scale and have been transitioning from N scale which is what I have always been into. I consider it the instant gratification scale. I am also currently building an O scale switching layout that is an L shape and will occupy roughly 8' x 8' and have a total of 3 switches on it. I am also going to limit them to #6's although I don't object to #4's if necessary.
Take a look at some back issues of O Scale Mag. http://www.oscalemag.com/docs/dwnld.html Issue #9 has some small room layout winners. Issue #18 is the start of an 18 part series on building a nice layout in a small 10' x 10' space. The trackplan in issue #18 is wrong. The correct one is in the next issue and by the end of the series you can see how it all is wonderfully tied together.
A fantastic rendering of a switching layout is in issue #11 It is one of my favorites and is also designed for a 10' x 10' space. Keep in mind it doesn't even take up the whole room yet could keep you busy for a very long time. Try those out but don't think that you can't have a large scale in a smaller space. That's not true and in many cases they can be nicer than many of the smaller scales in those same sizes. Pick a good theme and go for realism. It will be far more enjoyable than the smaller layout where a 12 car trains runs around in a circle and each end of the train is in a different town.
jmbjmbThank you. Yes, I'm thinking O scale, not 3rail. Also giving On30 a thought, since I've seen some plans in small areas, but still wasn't sure how practical it is in a small space. My worry is even though the radius is small, buildings, and everything else isn't. Wish we had basements in the south, then this would be easy.
The buildings can be a problem. The reason I'm in S instead of O is that I never can quite do what I want to in O, but I can in S.
Paul
You could use 50 radius or smaller (in the area of 45) on a switching pike, possibly# 6 turnouts if you keep it simple, you have no need for 60 radius unless you are operating large locomotives or full length passenger cars. I would consider an around the wall point-to point design that should provide room for industries and trackage, just don't succomb to the temptation to cram everything into your alloted space.
Dave
Thank you for all the answers. My current HO layout is a shelf around the walls; basically a much simplified version of Andy Sperandeo's San Jacinto (I'm also into the less is more philosophy when it comes to trackage). Definitely believe in structures with detail up front, though I haven't added too many yet. I keep shifting back and forth, mostly out of fear of making a big dollar mistake I think.
One of the challenging issues of "bigger" scales than HO scale is, aside from the space requirement, the amount of detail necessary for the layout to look "right". Things that you can simply ignore in N scale may require only a little "hint" in HO, but need a scale model in O scale. I have seen many a O scale and even 1 scale layout, which looked "barren" due to the lack of details.
jmbjmb.....I keep shifting back and forth, mostly out of fear of making a big dollar mistake I think.
.....I keep shifting back and forth, mostly out of fear of making a big dollar mistake I think.
As model railroaders, we tend to get a "pack rat" or "investment" philosophy towards the hobby due to its costs and the value of the models.
I have to remind myself at times - a hobby is a form of entertainment. It should consume discretionary dollars. Period.
If I choose to entertain myself by running Lionel trains through a store-bought tunnel one month, and spend time super-detailing an HOn3 caboose the next, then those are my entertainment choices. As long as I stay within my entertainment (hobby) budget, whether it be on a monthly cost or a cost per hour, life is good.
The fact that some of our models can be resold for a decent price is a bonus, not an expectation.
A fixed size layout usually costs the same or less to take to a reasonably detailed finished level in a larger scale than in a smaller scale, despite the increased cost of individual items - just because there are fewer items in a given space in a larger scale.
In the small room O scale layout you are discussing, you will have 1/4 the rolling stock that a similar size layout in HO would have. Where are you going to put more than 2 locomotives? Yes, O structures cost double (or more) their HO counterparts - but they take 4 times the surface space. You won't have many structures in that size layout in O. And if you scratch build instead of buying kits, your cost per hour of entertainment just went down considerably.
Again, model railroading is entertainment. If a small O layout entertains you more than a small to mid-size HO layout, than you should go to O. The only provision is that you have enough $$ budgeted to acquire the stuff you will need in a reasonable time frame. Basically, you want to drive your cost per hour of entertainment low enough that you run out of time each month before you run out of entertainment money. Selling your HO can help, as can limiting yourself to only stuff that will actually fit or be used on the layout. Since O tends to be a builder's scale, and you only have a small space to fill, it's pretty easy to make a small budget last through a month of building activity. Just focus on kits and scratch building instead of RTR.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W