"Do Overs"
All of my trains are either HO or G scale. I originally wanted to do an outdoor layout in G scale so I started accumulating G scale equipment. But then as things turned out, we didn't end up getting a house with a big back yard so they are now mostly packed away for some future day. I do have some of them out for my kids to play with. But otherwise, that branch is closed off for the time being, so I've been concentrating on HO scale. When I started getting back into the hobby I got a few things in HO, which was the scale I used when I was a kid-- which was the scale my uncle introduced me to and that he modeled in. So by the time I started thinking about a layout I had accumulated enough HO scale equipment for that to become the logical choice.
As I've grown older-- I'm nearing 50 now-- my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be and its a little harder to work on things than when I was younger. Additionally, as big as my basement is, my ambitions are even bigger! So I often find myself wondering if I had it all to do over again-- meaning more purposefully and with forethought-- would I choose N-scale so as to be able to model more railroad and scenery, or would I select a larger scale, perhaps S or O scale..? Obviously that is a subjective choice and only one that I can really answer for myself, but I was wondering how many other people find themselves in the same or similar situations and what choices they would make if they had it to do all over again.
So My Questions For Today Are:
-- If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice?
-- What about your location, era and all of that? If you could start again and do it all over, what would you change, if anything?
As usual, I'm looking forward to your thoughts and opinions!
John
Interesting topic (as usual), John, and one that I gave a lot of thought to during the last few years.
Like you, I grew up with HO, even though we also had a good amount of Lionel and my uncle had a lot of pretty cool American Flyer equipment. But HO seemed like the right choice for me, although I'd been tempted by N scale as far back as the mid '80s.
So almost all of my model railroading experience as an adult has been in HO. But when it came time to dive back into the hobby recently after having been in the armchair for several years, I made the switch to N (even though like you I'm closing in on 50). Why did I switch? Simply because you can do so much more in a given space because of its smaller scale.
And since I don't currently have the space I need, I'm building an "impermanent permanent" layout on hollow-core doors. Or more accurately, on a single door at the moment. But that 30" x 80" door provides the same railroading space as 55" x 147" (a little more than 4.5 x 12.25 feet) in HO. Two doors provides the equivalent of a room-sized HO layout. And if I need to take it down temporarily (and I will), I can fold up the legs and lean the doors against the wall and not take up more than 4-5 square feet of floor space (about the same as a chair).
Now, I'm not knocking HO by any means. It can be a great scale to work with, even if you only have room for a small switching layout. But like you, I dream big. I had more than 1,500 square feet to play with when building my last HO layout, but it's highly unlikely I'll ever have space like that again. I hope to have about a quarter of that (about 400 square feet) in the next few years, and that's just enough to build the layout I want ... in N scale.
As far as era goes, I'm pretty firmly stuck in the ever-popular transition era, 1954-55 to be exact. I love everything about that era. But the railroad industry was already going down hill by then, so I have practically no interest in a later date. One thing I'm going to try to do, though, is build my layout so I can at least somewhat easily backdate it to the '20s or '30s if I'm ever so inclined.
Location? Well, I've lived all but 2-3 years of my life in southern Minnesota (those other years were up on the Iron Range), so I've always felt like I would "settle" for a prairie route. I'm extremely happy with the fiction and history I've blended to concoct the backstory for my current layout, which is set in southwest Iowa, so there I go again. But you gotta love mountains, and mining and logging operations, and none of those things are going to fit in with what I have planned. That's my only regret with what I'm currently building. (On the other hand, I'm going to have a lot of crack passenger trains and priority freights, and there's a lot to be said for that, too!)
Looking forward to hearing the other responses!
jwhitten -- If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice? -- What about your location, era and all of that? If you could start again and do it all over, what would you change, if anything?
Wouldn't change scale (HO), location (somewhere along the NYC), era (early 40s), or prototype (NYC): Zip...Zilch...Nada...Nothing. I'm quite content to learn what I can and apply it to my small and modest 4 x 8. Really...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
jwhitten So My Questions For Today Are: -- If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice? -- What about your location, era and all of that? If you could start again and do it all over, what would you change, if anything? As usual, I'm looking forward to your thoughts and opinions!
A resounding "Yes!" in the first instance and a similarly emphatic "No!" on the second count.
I find that HO scale, which is what I've always modeled in, absolutely is the most perfect scale for both my interests and my modeling approach. The equipment is the ideal size to be easily modified, or scratchbuilt, without the need to resort to extremes in detail, or to loose them because of being too small. At the same time, the range of commercial items for HO is larger than for probably all the other scales combined, today offering me just about anything I might desire.
With regard to scenery, HO allows me to detail fully realistic appearing representations of the real world much more easily than would be the case in the smaller scales and likewise without requiring far more effort to detail realistically in the larger ones.
My current layout loosely models the area I live in, one which includes just about every sort of terrain, except desert, one would ever care to model. The era I have chosen, along with the locomotives and rollingstock, are representative of those I have always loved.
I really couldn't be more satisfied with my current situation.
CNJ831
The general wisdom is that one ought to at least consider moving up a scale as one moves through the 50-60 age range for the sake of handling and appreciation of details. I can't argue, but I don't see that coming down the pike for me any time soon...not even any black smoke on the horizon. I will be 59 next June, and my eyesight seems stable. All I want is more light as I go along. 50 watt halogens do a bang-up job of that for me.
I don't relish the thought of selling off my relatively few locomotives because I chose all of them with care and with a fair whack of visceral desire. I would not keep what I can't use, and if I have to up-scale in order to get the benefits I mentioned, what would be the point of keeping them, say to display them? What could I see?! It means having to scrounge around for replacements in O scale. Oddly, that doesn't sound very appealing to me. But, we can talk in about 10 years.
Crandell
I have changed Scales twice, but neither time for age or health reasons.
I started in HO in 1971. I had some HO as a child and that influenced the choice. I started with Tyco ready to run and progressed to building a Bowser Pacific, MDC Boxcab, MDC kits, LaBelle kits, Central Valley kits, Atlas kits, AHM kits and eventually scratch building a couple of boxcars and small buildings. Built a couple of small layouts, 4x8 and 6x6.5. Along the way I decided that while HO was fun it was a little small.
I looked at S scale in 1976. Bought a Northeastern kit and decided I really liked the scale. But it didn't look like it was going to survive. With the demise of Gilbert, S looked to be going down the same road as TT and American OO.
So I move on to O. I acquired some rolling stock and engines. Built an All Nation Boxcar and started a small O scale layout. A move finished that layout and with my 3 boys getting old enough for Scouts I became an armchair modeler for awhile.
In 1993 I finally had an 11x18 ft room and time for a layout. S had made a revival so I bought and built a plastic S boxcar kit and a plastic O boxcar kit to compare the two. I liked both about equally, but realized I could get more railroad with S. So I went with S.
As for era, well initially I had none, just bought what I liked. After a while I had a loose idea of a free lance Class 1 running from Norfolk Va to Western Pa and on to Chicago some where in the 30's to 50's. Along the way I picked up some Sn2 stuff figuring I would have a little narrow gauge. After getting a small mainline built in my 11x18 ft room, I decided that what really interested me was having a shortline and modeling the Maryland and Pennsylvania. I decided on the early 50's so I could include passenger service (ended August 1954) and the early diesels as well as several steam locomotives and truss rod cars.
I got lucky because over the last decade I have been able to acquire the 4 early diesels of the Ma&Pa (RTR in unlettered black) as well as the last 3 consolidations (41, 42, 43 in kit form) along with a flatcar kit in S. That's enough to get the railroad running. I now have a basement that's a nominal 1400 sq ft. It has about 1100 sq ft that could be used for the layout, but I'll use about 850 sq ft. I feel this is about right for an S scale home layout where I'll do all the building and maintenance.
I don't see any further changes in the future, but I still have all my HO and O - you just never know.
i also don't think I would do anything differently if I was starting over. I have had fun being in 3 scales. Eventually, I'll probably build a small display layout for HO and O. I also have some G, O27, and my son's N scale.
It's all fun
Enjoy
Paul
If I had to do it over again, I would PROBABLY choose HO again. If space and budget were not factors, I would give serious consideration to S scale because I think that is the ideal scale. The problem with S is that there is nowhere near the the choice of equipment, structures, etc. that there is in HO. So even though I would prefer S scale for its size, practicality would probably steer me back to HO.
As for my choice of era and locale, that would not change. The transition era gives me the best of both worlds, late steam and first generation diesels. I love both. I am a protolancer and my layout is set in the northeast. I like lots of passenger traffic and that certainly justifies that. Freight traffic doesn't have to take a back seat, however. My first layout was a freelanced Union Pacific based scheme from the same era. For my current layout, I chose to move east. The concentrated urban settings is to me much more compatible with model railroading. Whereas western railroading is through vast regions of rural settings between sparsely populated towns, eastern railroading features, denser population through towns spaced more closely together.
I like the question, though. It is one of the best I've seen on Philosophy Friday.
In my 47 years as a model railroader, I have built layouts in Z scale, N scale, HO scale and G scale. All of them had different themes and were not huge layouts (except my venture into a G scale garden layout).
I find that interest varies with time, and hanging on to a once selected theme may prove to be too restrictive over a longer period of time. That´s why I prefer smaller, more manageable layouts.
Although my (bespectacled) eyes still work fine, I have developed a strong taste for larger scales. O scale would be just perfect for me. The wealth of detail, the sheer size and weight give me more of a feeling of operating the real thing. Add a good sound system - and you´ve got the perfect illusion!
Unfortunately, building an O scale layout is way beyond my means, in terms of required funds and available space.
I would have designed my layout to be an around the wall shelf layout. Personally, I've found that it would have been easier to make more realistic scenery than a layout with a peninsula. I didn't want to make a divider backdrop, so I have enough hills and structures on the peninsula to make it appear that the trains don't "drive around" the town, instead of passing through it.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
-I would have to say I would stick with my HO scale, even though it affords me such a small, but happy MRR. I had O, O/27 as a kis and dabbled in some N as a teen. When I got back into the hobby, I dug out my N scale stuff, but was soon discouraged. WhY? Because I always wanted HO. ANd my old N scale stuff doesn't run as well as today's stuff, and because I found Nscale frustratingly small to work with now. SO I built my very small HO "empire" and am happy with it.
-Would I change eras? I DO Already! I swap out a few things to run early-later 20th century steam, swap out to transition diesels, and run more modern Geep diesels all except the newest Diesels that are so big I can't run them on my 18R curves. That way I DON'T get bored with one era and stuff.
-If I could start over I would wish for a bigger space to have my HO layout.
I still run N scale stuff at xmas times as we have a board to go under the table top tree that has a ring of HO and 2 loops of Nscale track. It is whne i can run my N scale 2-8-8-2 that I affectionately call My "big boy" though it is not a true "big boy".
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice?
--------------------
Absolutely! I will model in N as long as I can and after that I'll sell and use my HO..Thankfully there's a lot of us old fogeys in N Scale.
As far as my HO nothing since I use it at the club.
As far as my N Scale maybe backdating to the 60s.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I actually HAVE started over after a 20 year hiatus. I chose to stay in HO scale primarily for the wealth of products available and for the (for my taste) perfect balance between detail and space requirements.
However, when I started over, I began with a mishmash of stuff from various eras, locations, and railroads. I have since locked in an era (1956), a road (NH), and a location (my local area). I'm gradually getting rid of stuff that doesn't conform.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
I like long trains and big spaces, and have considered switching from HO to N, to get more railroad in my given 13' x 24' space. However my eyes have never been good to begin with and my fingers are as big as ever. I believe I would quickly get frustrated working with N, so HO it is.
I am now working on the second iteration of my second layout (so perhaps it is my third..) and am sticking with the St. Louis, MO area where I grew up. However the specific locale has moved from west St. Louis county to the east, as there is more industry, switching yards and activity from a variety of prototypes on both sides of the Mississippi. The entry way to my layout room is the river, with MO on one side and IL on the other, which I really like.
Era wise, I have thus far been focused on the early '60s, when I was a kid. However, I really like passenger operations and first gen diesels, and have come to realize I am really fudging my chosen era. Given the equipment and operations I like, it would make sense to backdate at least 10 years. I have not formally made the switch though, because I don't have a personal connection with the transition era, before I was born. So will I change eras? Maybe, but I'm still on the fence.
Bill
tstage jwhitten: -- If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice? -- What about your location, era and all of that? If you could start again and do it all over, what would you change, if anything? Wouldn't change scale (HO), location (somewhere along the NYC), era (early 40s), or prototype (NYC): Zip...Zilch...Nada...Nothing. I'm quite content to learn what I can and apply it to my small and modest 4 x 8. Really... Tom
jwhitten: -- If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice? -- What about your location, era and all of that? If you could start again and do it all over, what would you change, if anything?
I totally agree with the basic thought - but differ in scale (1:80, aka HOj,) time (September, 1964,) location (upper Kiso valley) and size of layout (approximately 16 x 20 walk-in.)
I have already passed through that doorway marked Failing eyes and clumsy fingers, and I can still handle my models and build hand-laid specialwork to spec. IMHO, with modern medicine, that doorway doesn't seem to have much impact on abilities. Thanks to Lasik surgery, my eyesight is better now than it was thirty years ago. As for the arthritis, let's hear it for (name of pharmaceutical omitted.)
OTOH, I MIGHT consider changing scales (to On762) to do greater justice to a subset of my present modeling (and my very favorite prototypes.) Not likely - but the thought of Kiso Rintetsu and/or Kurobe Gorge Railway modeling in larger scale does sometimes enter my mind.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Right now i model both Ho scale and N scale. I started off in HO many moons ago, ever since then my dad has been trying to get me into n scale(his scale). I use to go to train shows showing off my ho scale with friends. Since they got busy or moved away i have been doing more n scale at shows with my dad. For the near future i will be doing n scale at shows and my apartment. My dad is giving me a level in his train room for my ho scale stuff.
I went through this about 6 years ago when I realized the kids no longer cared about the Lionel and 3 rail O layouts I had been building. And the narrow gauge bug had bit pretty badly. Era and region (1900, coastal Oregon) was already set, and I really don't want to do anything else. I might tolerate 1920s era locomotives and rolling stock to get going. So I considered the various combinations:
- O (3 rail) and On30: Looked like a lot of fun - could even use some of my Lionel operating accessories that I always enjoyed. Realism would not be the high point, obviously. Plenty of RTR, including track. Maybe too much for my wallet. The show stopper was the space required for structures and trees, if they weren't to be total caricatures. Another disadvantage was dual gauge track doesn't look right with On30 - the 3rd rail is centered, not offset. even if standard gauge is 2 rail.
- O (Proto48) and On3: Much more realistic, the opposite of the toy train/cartoon fun of the 3 rail O/On30 combo. Too serious, and too much scratching/bashing when considering my wallet. Minimum radius becomes very difficult for my space in addition to the issue with structures and scenery.
- S and Sn3: Probably the ideal scale if more were available at On30 and/or HOn3 prices. I like the extra room in Sn3 locomotives to fit decent drive trains. Almost nothing available for the era.
- HO and HOn3: Ended up choosing this combo due to availability of era-suitable stuff in both narrow and standard gauge. Much better proportioned scenery and structures relative to train size. Downside is the HOn3 mechs of small prototypes are tough to work on and get to run well - and the same applies to 19th Century standard gauge in HO.
- N and Nn3: Ideal from a scenery to train ratio and perspective. Terrible, given my aging eyes. I would have to wear magnifiers at all times. And I wonder about my dexterity in modifying rolling stock.
Of course, I always wonder about whether I chose correctly - especially when I see the latest On30 at the LHS. Then I review my reasons, and resume working on the layout - satisfied to have a hobby I enjoy.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
jwhitten So My Questions For Today Are: -- If you had to, or were given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice? -- What about your location, era and all of that? If you could start again and do it all over, what would you change, if anything? John
Hello John, and Others.
Well, I recently had such an opportunity and I took it.
I changed scales. I had just retired and we were selling our house, so the large TT scale narrow gauge layout (you can call it N scale size) that I had built over 15 years and counting was taken down. Dismantled if you will.
At that time I also decide to change scale to a larger one, HO. Why? Several reasons. One was increased quality of DCC sound in locomotives, availability of products were plentiful, and my eyes were getting older.
The type and location of the railroad changed also. My old layout was narrow gauge in the west. The new railroad was Eastern standard gauge in the 1960's where I used mostly small diesels (for ease of real maintenance) and could also run some steam for special occasions and excursions.
My railroad is also smaller, taking up about one-third the space of my previous one, so I do expect to be able to completely scenic it in about 7 to 8 years. Then with whatever time I have left I will continue to add details.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Sorry I missed yesterday. I checked several times in afternoon, and I thought early evening.
Given the opportunity to reconsider your selection of scale, would you make the same choice?
Yes, I think I would still choose N scale. I had O gauge as a kid, tried HO in teens, and on a layout I build at friend’s house, partly for them, partly for me.
And HO on club layouts. I have built lots of HO structures for club layouts...
S gauge cars and structures for friends.
½” scale for a G gauge friend.
Dollhouse scale for a relative.
Even one-fourth actual size scale for a movie.
But I prefer N for myself.
What about your location, era and all of that?
In my early 2 rail modeling, I did “generic mountain railroading”
I dabbled in German railroading after a couple trips to Europe.
I began to settle on Santa Fe, at first in a kind of generic “Monument Valley”, or desert, somewhere in the Southwest...
Then I settled in on more familiar scenes of Santa Fe in Texas. I think I will stick with Santa Fe in the transition era in southeast Texas. But that includes several sub locations. I spent 20 years with a Piney Woods of East Texas layout...
with the idea of that being one part of what would have to be a huge layout with scenes like Houston, the piney woods scenes 50 miles north of Houston, and the Port of Galveston 50 miles south of Galveston.
I built a tiny 2x3 foot switching layout of the trackage on a Navy blimp base just inland of Galveston. That scene would be part of my big master plan, though the layout itself was built as self-contained.
When I had problems with the piney woods layout, I weighed rebuilding it better or trying a different but related scene. I opted for the port of Galveston. Have just started.
If I have to abandon this for lack or space or whatever, I will probably build another element of the same “master plan” for the overly big layout which will probably never be built. Maybe just an industrial switching district. Or maybe just one town out in the country with some run-run-running. If I can’t see clearly to superdetail my N scale, I will probably just do what might be called “N tinplate.”
Of course, some people will probably say what I am doing NOW is "N tinplate."
As usual, good questions.
I thought about changing scales (HO to N) when my father got interested in model railroading some years ago before his death and built a rather nifty N-scale empire in about half the space of what I was doing in my 2-car garage. Everytime I visited him and saw what he was doing--and of course chipped in and helped him with it--I kept thinking of how much more SPACE I could utilize if I dropped HO and went to N.
I thought about this for some time until I realized that I was modeling a SPECIFIC railroad and I was modeling steam, and N was never, at least as I could see, a strong scale for either steam or what I needed in specific motive power. So I stuck with HO. I've never regretted it, though I will admit that with my garage 'empire' (24x24') I could have modeled at least TWICE the Sierra Nevada mountains as I've presently got, LOL!
So I'm very happy with the scale I've stuck with. Oddly enough, age doesn't seem to have dulled whatever skills I have--the hands still work (I'm a pianist, so the fingers are still limber), and my eyesight is still very good, even at 70, and I've got all my 'natural' joints, so mobility is not a problem, at least not yet. And it's still a comfortable scale for me.
Would I change one thing? Definitely YES!
I'd insulate the whole darned GARAGE is what I'd do!
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
In my youth I was an N-scale modeler of the contemporary era. Many of my decisions were made because of limited funds and limited space. I doubt that a day went by that I didn't wish I was modeling steam in HO scale. During that time-frame my answers would have been a resounding YES on both counts. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the hobby and built good skills and a good looking layout - but HO offers a much better balance of size and detail:
N scale layout:
When I returned to the hobby after a 20-year hiatus I didn't compromise - I model steam in the early 20th century. I have space and funds to do it the way I always wanted, so my current answer is no, I wouldn't change a thing.
Current HO layout:
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Interesting question. If I could go back (50-ish years) and start over, I probably would go with N scale rather than HO just because you can get a lot mote modeling in the same space with N. I always seem to plan a lot more in my mind than the actual space I have available. That being said, there were a lot of quality problems with N scale in the '60s probably because it was so new. So how knows??
As to location and era, once I decided to do a prototype or freelanced RR rather than just buying anything that struck my fancy, I probably would have remained with Maine railroading. I have started with a freelanced Maine railroad set in the 50s, changed to modeling MEC and B&M in 1980, and am currently doing both with 1980 on one side and 50s on the other side of the room, but concentrating on 50s again, but with more MEC than the freelanced line
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch