Metro Red Line tugboat95 I should have read this article before I spent a lot of money on Ho. ... After seeing this article, I think I should have gone with N. Our space is very limited and we could have done so much more with it. The article made modeling N look so easy. It was an awesome layout and I greatly enjoyed my reintroduction to the hobby. Unfortunately, the money has been spent and some of it is still being delivered so we will stay with HO. Even though you're sticking with HO, your post made me smile. I think it's safe to say that in this day and age, N scale is no longer the "tinier, more expensive, limited selection, not-as-prototypical cousin to HO." Many major manufacturers do N scale as well, and there's even newer companies that specialize in N or do N exclusively (BLMA, DeLuxe, etc). I've also heard of talk on other forums and by friends about this article, on how it's either inspiring them or making them contemplate about going N scale. If you're into modern-era trains, N scale is the best choice. You can run autoracks, TOFC flats and Superliners on 18" radius curves, whereas in HO, the whole world will laugh at you. You can model big scenery, longer trains, have multiple-unit lashups that really matter. In the 21st century, as homes get smaller and space is at a premium, Now that N scale trains are about equal to (and in some cases less expensive then) HO, N is the only real choice. HO seems, as they say, "Horribly Oversized." Sorry if I'm being such an evaNgelist here :) But I'm glad I made the switch 3 years ago. HO no more! I hope the 2010s become *the* N scale decade! :)
tugboat95 I should have read this article before I spent a lot of money on Ho. ... After seeing this article, I think I should have gone with N. Our space is very limited and we could have done so much more with it. The article made modeling N look so easy. It was an awesome layout and I greatly enjoyed my reintroduction to the hobby. Unfortunately, the money has been spent and some of it is still being delivered so we will stay with HO.
I should have read this article before I spent a lot of money on Ho.
...
After seeing this article, I think I should have gone with N. Our space is very limited and we could have done so much more with it. The article made modeling N look so easy. It was an awesome layout and I greatly enjoyed my reintroduction to the hobby. Unfortunately, the money has been spent and some of it is still being delivered so we will stay with HO.
Even though you're sticking with HO, your post made me smile. I think it's safe to say that in this day and age, N scale is no longer the "tinier, more expensive, limited selection, not-as-prototypical cousin to HO." Many major manufacturers do N scale as well, and there's even newer companies that specialize in N or do N exclusively (BLMA, DeLuxe, etc). I've also heard of talk on other forums and by friends about this article, on how it's either inspiring them or making them contemplate about going N scale.
If you're into modern-era trains, N scale is the best choice. You can run autoracks, TOFC flats and Superliners on 18" radius curves, whereas in HO, the whole world will laugh at you. You can model big scenery, longer trains, have multiple-unit lashups that really matter. In the 21st century, as homes get smaller and space is at a premium, Now that N scale trains are about equal to (and in some cases less expensive then) HO, N is the only real choice. HO seems, as they say, "Horribly Oversized."
Sorry if I'm being such an evaNgelist here :) But I'm glad I made the switch 3 years ago. HO no more!
I hope the 2010s become *the* N scale decade! :)
And just to vindicate myself and everyone else reading cause I really did get off track there, you could always build the layout as they did and use the modeling license to change structures or business'. Like add a second fueling track (someone I would likely do), add a cement facility (although that idea comes from a love of PS-2 2-bay covered hoppers) or grain elevator. The intermodel yard area has enough room a freight house could easily be placed there with 2 service tracks, skip the 3rd track, and have the track closest to the edge be a TOFC track with ramp or lift crane. Those tracks could even be where an oil dealer or LP dealer could go. As everyone was kind of saying with out saying it, you don't neccesarily have to go with exactly what MR did (like as I sort of mentioned, I love the track plan more than the structures). Now if I could just find away to arrange the single bed, storage shelves, storage bins, and two computer desks so I could fit that layout in the spare room...
Metro Red Line N is the only real choice.
Nah - there is no such thing as the "only real choice". N scale certainly is a good choice, and in particular it is a very good choice if you want curves that are below 20" radius while running longer RR cars.
But the key to an attractive and functional layout is to choose a modeling subject that you can model in the available space, and to use the available space in a sensible way. That can be done in pretty much any scale and modeling any era. "Modern era trains" doesn't necessarily mean multiple-unit lash-ups pulling 200 double stack container car or unit coal trains on a mainline. Those are hard to model well in both H0 and N scale in a modest sized room (say a spare 12x12 foot bedroom, a 10x20 foot garage or in the corner of a basement den).
But you could also choose to model e.g. a modern short line where a refurbished CF7 trundles through a suburban industrial park in the Twin Cities with a handful of cars for local industries on a sleepy summer morning. Works perfectly fine in both N scale and H0 scale.
Okay, nuff said about that - let's not hijack this thread and turn it into a religious debate about N vs H0 scale.
I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the articles in this MR project series in the next couple of issues.
Btw - they have been choosing (IMO) interesting project layouts these last two years - modular industrial switching layout last year, N scale two scene island layout this year - wonder what they will come up with next year ? :-)
Smile, Stein
steinjrMetro Red Line N is the only real choice. Nah - there is no such thing as the "only real choice". N scale certainly is a good choice, and in particular it is a very good choice if you want curves that are below 20" radius while running longer RR cars. But the key to an attractive and functional layout is to choose a modeling subject that you can model in the available space, and to use the available space in a sensible way. That can be done in pretty much any scale and modeling any era.
But the key to an attractive and functional layout is to choose a modeling subject that you can model in the available space, and to use the available space in a sensible way. That can be done in pretty much any scale and modeling any era.
I made that statement with more than an ounce of hyperbole :)
Also, I said it as a bitter ex-HO scaler. Sometime in the early '90s, I was finishing up my 4x12 layout with the 18" radius curves, only to learn that certain locos and rolling stock will not run on my layout. That hurt!
If you got the room and the space for HO and 42" radius corves, more (motive) power to ya! If not...drop HO and go N!
hi Metro,
Metro Red LineAlso, I said it as a bitter ex-HO scaler. Sometime in the early '90s, I was finishing up my 4x12 layout with the 18" radius curves, only to learn that certain locos and rolling stock will not run on my layout. That hurt!
Question is why did you hurt yourself? You can write, read, talk and listen, but your eye's and ears have to be open. As long as I am reading about modelrailroading (over 55 yrs) the "first" thing to learn was accepting the ratio between the longest car and the minimum radius ( about 1 : 3 ).
I experimented with Marklin stuff; when just pulling short trains, a 1: 2 ratio worked out fine, but trying to push longer trains made it very clear immediately. Reliable Operation Through Standards the late John Armstrong called it in his famous book Track Planning for Realistic Operation; written 50 years ago.
I am participating on this forum for half a year, rushing to the store and just buying the stuff you fancy seems to be error #1 for us modelrailroaders. I' ve some nice brass steamers and never really fancied them on my 18"radii. Why be bitter? Next time new chances, it's life man.
Paul
hi Stein,
thx for the great video. I was really impressed by the way the two sides were treated. The feeling of a narrow canyon at one side against the wide open spaces of Caliente on the other side. Dick Christianson did an outstanding job.
Having a past in townplanning I was hoping to see a bit more of a genuine (semi) desert town. Especially in a magazine that learned us about LDE's and Building Blocks. I even suspected for a moment Walthers was behind the choices.
I still hope MR will come up with a version for a small room, with staging or/and an interchange. A plan better suited to become someone's home layout.
Merry Chrismas to all
Paulus Jashi Metro, Metro Red LineAlso, I said it as a bitter ex-HO scaler. Sometime in the early '90s, I was finishing up my 4x12 layout with the 18" radius curves, only to learn that certain locos and rolling stock will not run on my layout. That hurt! Question is why did you hurt yourself? You can write, read, talk and listen, but your eye's and ears have to be open. As long as I am reading about modelrailroading (over 55 yrs) the "first" thing to learn was accepting the ratio between the longest car and the minimum radius ( about 1 : 3 ). Paul
Pardon me, but the Internet as we know it today did not exist in the early 1990s (it did, but it was all text-based). Certainly this forum did not exist. Certainly the web did not exist. Certainly most hobby shops did not sell sectional track wider than 18" radius (the highest I could find was 22" radius). "Radius warnings" did not appear on most rolling stock. I'm a (relatively) young modeler, I'm "only" in my late 30s.I was 16 years old when I started building that HO layout. Did I have the luxury of joining a club where I could learn about that stuff? No. Modelers come from different perspectives.
Why be bitter? Next time new chances, it's life man.
Of course, that's why I converted to N!
Anyway, no big deal for me since I don't care much for HO anymore, and the selection of N nowadays is so much better now, I rarely find myself saying, "I wish they had that in N" these days.
Paulus JasHaving a past in townplanning I was hoping to see a bit more of a genuine (semi) desert town. Especially in a magazine that learned us about LDE's and Building Blocks. I even suspected for a moment Walthers was behind the choices.Paul
It's a conspiracy organized by Walthers and Kato! :) Think about it... :)
I dabble in community planning myself. A layout is a perfect way to plan your own municipality.
Actually, the LA&SL has possibilities in any scale. The project layout in N is excellent for the spacially challenged, but someone with a big, empty basement and a heritage Lobaugh Challenger could have a ball in O scale. My double garage would accommodate an HO scale rendition as easily as it accepts the foundations for a 1:80 scale sample of the Central Japan Alps.
Looking a little way into the future, I believe that Caliente is supposed to be the starting point for the 160 mile line which may get built to the Yucca Mountain facility. Think of the fun of handling nuclear waste trains on your layout...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in 1:80 scale)
Metro Red Line Paulus Jas Having a past in townplanning I was hoping to see a bit more of a genuine (semi) desert town. Especially in a magazine that learned us about LDE's and Building Blocks. I even suspected for a moment Walthers was behind the choices. Paul It's a conspiracy organized by Walthers and Kato! :) Think about it... :) I dabble in community planning myself. A layout is a perfect way to plan your own municipality.
Paulus Jas Having a past in townplanning I was hoping to see a bit more of a genuine (semi) desert town. Especially in a magazine that learned us about LDE's and Building Blocks. I even suspected for a moment Walthers was behind the choices. Paul
On the subject of community planning, I'm reminded of one of the funniest cartoons about model railroaders I ever saw. (I wish I had a copy.) It shows a man in engineer's clothes at the controls of a small MR layout, including a town, some homes, etc., along with the RR. He has a blissful expression on his face and is saying: "L'etat, c'est moi."
For those of you not familiar with the history of French kings, it roughly translates as "I am the government."
And as Mel Brooks pointed out, "It's good to be the king".
Andre