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'
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
OTOH, the difference in detail of a 1:12 house vs a 1:160 is
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)