"Best" Scale for small layout?

[Musicman59]

Had a reality check and decided to pass on one of those layouts that
eats your garage.

So the space I can use is the size of a door I have, 30"x70".

Thinking that either N or O would be the best to get a layout that is
not too crowded.

Sound about right?

And in terms of rolling stock, I want to work in an era from the
1940's and earlier.
Hopefuly there is stuff out there in that era.

Thx much for any advice you can offer.


Craig

[Twibil]

On Nov 16, 7:37 pm, Musicman59 <cwestbro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> So the space I can use is the size of a door I have,  30"x70".
>
> Thinking that either N or O would be the best to get a layout that is
> not too crowded.
>
> Sound about right?

Well, no. O gauge rolling stock would be far too large for a 30"x70"
space unless you were thinking of a John Allen "Timesaver"-style
switching puzzle layout.

HOn2 1/2, N, or Z would probably be your best options for door-sized
limitations.

You could even have curves! :-P

~Pete

[Sir Ray]

N Scale for sure - decent number of steamers out there, your choices in
1940s switchers may be a bit limited, but still you should be able to
assemble a decent roster of rolling stock.
O scale on a door on those dimensions would be more a diorama or small
switching layout.

[Carl Heinz]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:01:06 -0500, Sir Ray <waterb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>N Scale for sure - decent number of steamers out there, your choices in
>1940s switchers may be a bit limited, but still you should be able to
>assemble a decent roster of rolling stock.
>O scale on a door on those dimensions would be more a diorama or small
>switching layout.

N scale. I had N until my hands got too twitchy. You can create realistic
layouts in a small space. My O layout is pretty realistic, but it's 18' x
30'. Also the cost of motive power and rolling stock is substantially less
using N.
--
Carl Heinz
cfhe...@charter.net
(Remove number)

[Wolf K]

True, when you thin of them one at a time. Since people usually end up
with a lot more rolling stock etc in N scale, an N scale layout can end
up costing much more than an O scale one in the same space.

HTH
Wolf K.

[Norvin Gordon]

Your reference to John's Timesaver layout brought back many memories, tks.

[Jan Van Gerwen]

"Wolf K" schreef in bericht
news:Kxuxq.114260$bf1....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

Not only the rolling stock adds up but also scenery as in structures,
vehicles, figures. All in all I believe an N-scale layout is more expensive
per square meter/yard, especially when building a layout with a large city
or towns. A real city scene can easily have plus 40 structures and still not
look convincing because theres too much vacant room left.

Greetz Jan

[Jan Van Gerwen]

"Musicman59" schreef in bericht
news:c2cd1a5c-0283-4435...@p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

Craig, what do you want to do, operate the layout and run trains on such a
small base , yes then N or Z ( not much choice in that era ) is your scale.
I f you want to build a beautiful layout with details everywhere, craftsmen
structures and the building of the layout is more important then the
operating possibilities , I would suggest H0 , 0 or one of the narrow gauge
layouts.

Greetz Jan

[Robert Heller]

OTOH, the 'cost' can be spread over a (large) period of time --
*individualy*, N scale rolling stock, engines, and structures are
fairly cheap, cheaper than the same item in 0 scale. And the OP was
talking about a *small* layout. A small layout will have less 'stuff'
on it.

>
> Greetz Jan
>
>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

[J.B. Wood]

On 11/17/2011 10:01 PM, Sir Ray wrote:

> N Scale for sure - decent number of steamers out there, your choices in
> 1940s switchers may be a bit limited, but still you should be able to
> assemble a decent roster of rolling stock.
> O scale on a door on those dimensions would be more a diorama or small
> switching layout.

Well, if it was a choice between O and N I'd pick S ;-) (Sorry but I'm
quite partial to A.C. Gilbert's easy-to-work-on 1:64 size. Still a bit
big for a door-size layout, though. And 3-rail model RR track is just
too unrealistic IMHO) <Sigh> Probably N or Z is the best bet here.
Sincerely,


--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com

[Lobby Dosser]

"J.B. Wood" <john...@nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:jadd6q$c1c$1...@ra.nrl.navy.mil...

Note that not all O scale is three rail. There are a bunch of us in two
rail. Unfortunately the track gauge is off, but that's another story ...

--
" Well you can't trust a special like the old time coppers
When you can't find your way 'ome"

[Ken]

> J. B. Wood                  e-mail: arl_123...@hotmail.com

FINALLY someone mentions S Scale:) As you note, S Scale is a little
large for a door sized layout, but only if it's standard gauge. Sn3
cars and locos are bout the same size as HO scale standard gauge
equipment and if cost is more important than absolute scale fidelity
you could use HO scale track, trucks, and mechanisms and have a 42"
narrow gauge. The Model Power DDT switcher scales nicely to S Scale
(it's way to large for an HO locomotive) and they are cheap on eBay.
Titchy makes HO scale ore cars that also "scale" well to S narrow
gauge. I case you can't tell by now I really like S Scale - the Ideal
Scale:) here's why http://www.squidoo.com/S-Scale-Trains

Cheers,
Ken

[pyotr filipivich]

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:36:45 -0600
typed in rec.models.railroad the following:

>
>> Not only the rolling stock adds up but also scenery as in structures,
>> vehicles, figures. All in all I believe an N-scale layout is more expensive
>> per square meter/yard, especially when building a layout with a large city
>> or towns. A real city scene can easily have plus 40 structures and still not
>> look convincing because theres too much vacant room left.
>
>OTOH, the 'cost' can be spread over a (large) period of time --
>*individualy*, N scale rolling stock, engines, and structures are
>fairly cheap, cheaper than the same item in 0 scale. And the OP was
>talking about a *small* layout. A small layout will have less 'stuff'
>on it.

A smaller layout ... um, depends. A 30 x 24' house on a 75 x 50
foot lot, ten feet of street, 8 feet of alley, is the same regardless
of the scale (1' to 1', 1":12" 1:160, etc). That city block has just
as many buildings, they just require less space in the room to be
displayed.
OTOH, the difference in detail of a 1:12 house vs a 1:160 is
incredible.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)