# Floundering new guy



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

I am having a lot of trouble deciding between N and HO scale. I made a nice, fun to me to operate N layout in SCARM but my concern is with the size of the scenery, that I won't be able to make the EXCEPTIONAL detailing to make it look real where with the bigger HO size it may be easier.

THAT said, I can do SO MUCH MORE with an N Scale layout and have seen GREAT detail work on N from videos I am returning to the hobby after MANY years and have nothing but a Kato Silver Streak set and the following SCARM diagram.

The board size in the diagram is my absolute maximum. The right side of the layout will be mountains. The tracks never intersect, they are at different elevations. The scenery is very important on my list.

They layout will be on a tilting table and on wheels for easy access. What are your thoughts on being able to make 1 scale more realistic than another? Am I missing something with my layout plan? Maybe I am over thinking this.....


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

You won’t be able to get that amount of track in HO scale in the same area….and as far as scenery goes, N is smaller, so minute details are less noticeable anyway….

I’d go with N to retain all that trackage, but maybe that‘s just me….


----------



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> You won’t be able to get that amount of track in HO scale in the same area….and as far as scenery goes, N is smaller, so minute details are less noticeable anyway….
> 
> I’d go with N to retain all that trackage, but maybe that‘s just me….


Your point is excellent. With HO I can model nearly as much. With N I have enough room for distinct separation of areas on one layout.


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

Whichever you do (and I've attempted both), IMHO that's an awfully big layout if you've never built one in a long time; and quite expensive too when you start adding up the turnouts. I'm just sayin' . . .


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Unfortunately, no one can make that decision for you, or even make a valid recommendation. I have seen equally realistic layouts in both scales, so that really isn't a factor. As far as which is better, you've already identified the main tradeoff -- more layout in the available space versus the greater difficulty in working with the smaller items. Personally, N is too small for me, but it might not be for you.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> I am having a lot of trouble deciding between N and HO scale. I made a nice, fun to me to operate N layout in SCARM but my concern is with the size of the scenery, that I won't be able to make the EXCEPTIONAL detailing to make it look real where with the bigger HO size it may be easier.
> 
> THAT said, I can do SO MUCH MORE with an N Scale layout and have seen GREAT detail work on N from videos I am returning to the hobby after MANY years and have nothing but a Kato Silver Streak set and the following SCARM diagram.
> 
> ...


Bigfoot;

Please see my detailed response to your other post. Scale choice is a matter of individual preference. It is possible to do nearly anything in one scale that can be done in another. With the exception of being able to sit astride our locomotives and ride them down the track, like those Live Steam guys can! 
Realistic appearance is much more a function of talent, experience, and effort, than of scale choice. The photos show some N-scale structures I have scratchbuilt. They have what I feel is good detail.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

I am relatively new to model railroading and still building my first layout. We (my son and I) chose N gauge because we were effectively limited to a 4x8 sheet of plywood. One of the lessons I have learned is that a person needs to determine what their primary interest in the hobby is and design the layout for that. I like running trains and built a layout that allows for a lot of trains to run (3 loops that interconnect with each other plus a fourth loop that is too small for most trains but I use for a couple trolleys). I did not think about doing any switching operations, so there are no spurs or freight yards for that. But now that we have the track laid out and working, we are working on the scenery and there is not enough room to put in the scenery we had thought we would end up with. 

I like the layout you have designed, but, as others have said, I doubt if you could put anywhere near that much HO track in your area. It would be even less track if you want to still have room for much scenery to be done.

From what I have seen so far, I can get very detailed scenery in N gauge and I can build it as detailed as I want. For detailed scenery, the gauge should not matter too much but I have noticed a slightly smaller selection of things for N gauge than for HO. If you have a specific building or object you want in your scenery, check if it is available (kit or pre-built) in the gauge you are leaning towards. If you are a scratch builder, this is obviously not a consideration.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

I started with HO and somewhat regret that. Even at 4x15' is limiting in HO unless you ONLY run short stock. I can 89' stock, but only on my outer loop, and its a bit tight. 

I'm doing N scale now on a 33' long wall and I'm much happier with that. They are small but I can work on them ok and I have essential tremors pretty bad. God luck either way and have fun!

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> I am having a lot of trouble deciding between N and HO scale. I made a nice, fun to me to operate N layout in SCARM but my concern is with the size of the scenery, that I won't be able to make the EXCEPTIONAL detailing to make it look real where with the bigger HO size it may be easier.
> 
> THAT said, I can do SO MUCH MORE with an N Scale layout and have seen GREAT detail work on N from videos I am returning to the hobby after MANY years and have nothing but a Kato Silver Streak set and the following SCARM diagram.
> 
> ...


I went through the same thing when I started into the hobby just over a year ago. I was confined to a certain amount of space, but I wanted to get as much into that space as I could without cramming everything together. I was concerned about the smallness of N scale with regard to scenery and detail, but ultimately space mattered more, being able to put twice as much into an N scale layout as I would have been able to with an HO layout. I'm glad I decided on N. Making some progress, although progress has slowed over the summer months.


----------



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

WOW! There has been some GREAT information related to this post and mine in the HO forum. I am astonished at how amazing this group is. Traction Fan, your documents are an education on their own. They made me realize I am trying to CRAM several things in HO in my limited space because of a false preconceived notion. This has helped me make my final decision to go all in on N. That and setting up my Kato Silver Streak Set and admiring its precision and detail didn't hurt. I think it will be a challenge to take it to museum quality reality but that is part of what I find fun. My hands are still steady and my eye sight is good (I do have Opti visors) and I have years of different modeling experience. I may changeup my layout and move away from the 5x9 L, although I think that track plan will be a lot of fun. I THANK YOU AGAIN and will keep you all posted along the way.

Rob


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm all in with N Gauge too. I have been having a lot of fun assembling buildings, building trees and making tufts of grass.

I'm lucky that my wife already had 100's of colors of acrylic paints. She's been into crafting for a long time, so I haven't had a need to buy any paint yet.

It's pretty fun assembling and building things that I plan to use on a good size build that will start this Fall when the weather starts to get cold.

I look forward to following your build.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> WOW! There has been some GREAT information related to this post and mine in the HO forum. I am astonished at how amazing this group is. Traction Fan, your documents are an education on their own. They made me realize I am trying to CRAM several things in HO in my limited space because of a false preconceived notion. This has helped me make my final decision to go all in on N. That and setting up my Kato Silver Streak Set and admiring its precision and detail didn't hurt. I think it will be a challenge to take it to museum quality reality but that is part of what I find fun. My hands are still steady and my eye sight is good (I do have Opti visors) and I have years of different modeling experience. I may changeup my layout and move away from the 5x9 L, although I think that track plan will be a lot of fun. I THANK YOU AGAIN and will keep you all posted along the way.
> 
> Rob


Bigfoot;

The reason I wrote those files that I've sent to you, and others,* is simple. I have been a model railroader for many decades, and in the course of building seven layouts, I've made plenty of mistakes. Making those mistakes has been educational, and I naturally know more about model railroading now, than I did when I started out. However, a whole lot of time and money went into those layouts and I wanted to try to pass along a little of my hard won knowledge to new modelers. Hopefully, the files will help some people from making some of the same mistakes that I have, and thus increase their satisfaction with their first layout. I'm always gratified when someone feeds back that they found the files helpful.


* All of my files, and a ton of useful information from other forum members, can be found in the "Beginner's Q & A" section of this forum. My files are inside a thread titled "Help a new modeler to get started."

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Bluwtr (Feb 28, 2021)

Man what an amazing N-scale layout. I'm a newbie also and I went to N-scale for one simple reason--more stuff in a small space. I have found that I've had almost no problem finding what I want in N-scale--from buildings to scenery. I personally am not a big train fan, but my 13 y.o. is much more into them (as much as a 13 y.o can be) but I love the modeling and scenery aspect. I'm getting the most enjoyment making rocks; building contours etc. I grew up building plastic models and was always in awe over some of the ones I'd seen. The detail astounded me. Still does. One thing I honestly feel is that N-scale is a little more forgiving in that the details fade together for a more realistic look without looking "fake" or "cheap". One thing I notice on the larger scales is that stuff just looks fake (not always). I think this is because you can see the finer details more easily in the larger scale and therefore you can see the poor quality of some stuff. This is just my opinion so no one excoriate me for it. I know there are LOTS of N-scale that are crap and lots of O-scale that are phenomenal. I'm just speaking from a lot of what I've seen.

Regardless of anything, like several others have said--DO WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY! That's the most important thing in ANY hobby.

Regards,

W


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Bluwtr said:


> Man what an amazing N-scale layout. I'm a newbie also and I went to N-scale for one simple reason--more stuff in a small space. I have found that I've had almost no problem finding what I want in N-scale--from buildings to scenery. I personally am not a big train fan, but my 13 y.o. is much more into them (as much as a 13 y.o can be) but I love the modeling and scenery aspect. I'm getting the most enjoyment making rocks; building contours etc. I grew up building plastic models and was always in awe over some of the ones I'd seen. The detail astounded me. Still does. One thing I honestly feel is that N-scale is a little more forgiving in that the details fade together for a more realistic look without looking "fake" or "cheap". One thing I notice on the larger scales is that stuff just looks fake (not always). I think this is because you can see the finer details more easily in the larger scale and therefore you can see the poor quality of some stuff. This is just my opinion so no one excoriate me for it. I know there are LOTS of N-scale that are crap and lots of O-scale that are phenomenal. I'm just speaking from a lot of what I've seen.
> 
> Regardless of anything, like several others have said--DO WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY! That's the most important thing in ANY hobby.
> 
> ...


Bluwtr;

What size is your "small space" N-scale layout? Mine is an N-scale shelf layout on two walls of my garage. I model part of the Milwaukee Road's passenger operations in the Seattle, Washington area.

As you say, N-scale can be "more stuff in a small space", Or it can be "more space between less stuff."
Most published track plans seem to be an exercise in cramming way too much track, + accompanying bunches of "stuff", into the space. Look at real railroads. Do they have multiple loops of track? Figure 8s? Track laid through every back yard in town? Nope. They don't. Now they do "cheat" by having huge amounts of space to build in, but then, they are working in a much larger scale too! 😄
My point is simply that a model railroad should resemble the real thing, (at least to the extent that our own space & scale situation allows.)

When you built a model of an airplane, car, or tank, each model looked very much like a miniature version of the real item it was supposed to be a model of.
In my opinion, so should our model railroads. However, unlike those static models, model trains move. Realistic movement should be as much a part of the "modeling a railroad" process as the locomotives and cars themselves. Our model trains should move along tracks that resemble the long, mostly straight, skinny, right-of-way of a real railroad.
Our trains should also at least appear to be traveling from one place to another, as real trains do, rather than all too obviously, just chasing their own "caboose" round & round.

I agree with your observation about details related to the scale of the model. I strongly disagree with the old chestnut about not being able to do detailed modeling in a smaller scale. I've always maintained that what can be done in one scale can also be done in any other scale. However, the size of the model does increase, or decrease, how easily the fine details can be seen. It's been said that larger scales model cars & locomotives, and smaller scales model scenes. The small size of N-scale helps us to model more of the overall scene. The small details would indeed not be as visible at the longer distance an N-scale locomotive appears to be from the viewer. Conversely, an O-scale locomotive looks like its a lot closer to us, and so, should have lots of detail visible. You're right, detail should be well done, (in any scale) but any errors will show up more readily, in the larger scale.

Enjoy your 13 year old's interest in trains while it lasts. Girls, and cars, are right on his horizon dad.  Trains will soon be forgotten, at least for a while.😄

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

traction fan said:


> Bluwtr;
> Enjoy your 13 year old's interest in trains while it lasts. Girls, and cars, are right on his horizon dad.  Trains will soon be forgotten, at least for a while.😄
> 
> Traction Fan 🙂


Yeah Bluwtr, when the "fumes" hit you' will likely be training on your own. Those are perfumes and gas / exhaust fumes LOL


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Wooky_Choo_Bacca said:


> Yeah Bluwtr, when the "fumes" hit you' will likely be training on your own. Those are perfumes and gas / exhaust fumes LOL


The "fumes" definitely got me. At the age of 15-1/2, I put aside model railroading for about 22 years. First, it was girls, driving, and soccer, then college, then service in the Navy, then starting a career and family... and so on. But eventually, I DID come back.


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> The "fumes" definitely got me. At the age of 15-1/2, I put aside model railroading for about 22 years. First, it was girls, driving, and soccer, then college, then service in the Navy, then starting a career and family... and so on. But eventually, I DID come back.


Yeah, the fumes hit me hard when about 15 or so too, I can't remember just how many gals I "fell in love with" (or was it lust, or both LOL). I still do to some extent but can control it much better now 😍😘🥰


----------



## Bluwtr (Feb 28, 2021)

Wooky_Choo_Bacca said:


> Yeah Bluwtr, when the "fumes" hit you' will likely be training on your own. Those are perfumes and gas / exhaust fumes LOL


Lol! Isn't that the truth. We've all been there though so I just do what I can before I become the old guy who makes him do chores etc.😁


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

If I might offer some of the experienced insight of this 75 yr old avid modeler and artist/designer. i will try to not sway you to build my way, but give you some basics to think about, consider, accept or reject as you see fit. I am currently building what is likely to be my last N scale dream layout myself, so these points are very fresh in my mind.
First is layout design: a large layout in a large space is great, especially in N scale, but 30" is the greatest distance from an accessible edge even a tall individual can reach to work on constructing and maintaining a layout. So I start by drawing 30" circles along abutting walls, corners of the room. Keep all trackwork inside a line drawn tangent to those circles parallel to the walls. To use more of the available room space for track you can add peninsulas, up to 60" wide if accessible from both sides but maintain 36-48" aisles for 2 operators to pass while running the trains. peninsulas do not need to be all the same width like a diving board, centered or at right angles to the wall if you follow the basic parameters of space around it. Leave the end of the peninsula be at least a 36" wide semi-circle to allow a 15" radius return curve. a size negotiable by almost all N scale rolling stock, but 18" -20" (plus a 3" buffer between track and edge) would be even better! you can even run a divider down the middle of a wide peninsula to create two separate scenes, one on each side to create the illusion of even more space. A layout like yours would require large open access areas where you have indicated your town and mountain, eliminating those scenes with the problem of requiring a duck or crawl under to get into the center, not a fun move as you get older and stiffer, plus the vague feeling of watching a nascar race from the center of the track, swiveling around and around to keep the train in view.
Second related suggestion, is the track plan itself. Yours follows a lot of novice plans, tracks in symmetrical loops tracing the edge of the table. First it says toy train, makes the area's shape and size very obvious, and very quickly becomes boring to watch for spectators and operators alike. Like the train around the christmas tree, you start unconsciously "timing" the circuits as it repeatedly passes by, anticipating it's reappearance. I like to plan in alternate sections where you can't anticipate. There is a whispered rule in layout planning that a train should not pass through the same scene twice in each circuit of the mainline, especially on a continuous circuit trackplan.
Following the edges makes creating any interesting and varied scenes difficult as the space allowance is basically the same all around, Just picking that type layout up and set it back down at an angle to the edges can make a 100% improvement in visual interest just by varying the scenic spaces in the corners! Next take the other loops and place them at a different angles to each other. don't have every loop be a symmetrical rounded rectangle, but vary their shapes. Parallel tracks are handsome, but save them for yards and long mainline runs where two trains may run in opposite directions (may be a long passing siding from one station to another that rejoin at both ends). 
Third I HIGHLY recommend NOT using sectional track!!! That is a recipe for a maintenance headache going to happen almost every time you turn on the layout with all those joiners. Each length of flex track eliminates 6 to 10 pairs of joiners, and/or a rats nest of feeders. Same for the feeder joiners, the second worst model RR product on the market, bury them as deep as you can dig! The first worse product: Atlas n scale "snap switch" turnouts. Those puppies should have been re-engineered or retired decades ago, IMHO (and most anyone else who thought they were saving a couple bucks buying them) PURE JUNK plain and simple. Peco turnouts are the gold standard, or Kato if you have really deep pockets and insist on using sectional track. Flex track lets the layout flow around and through scenery the way real railroads were built. Very little real railroad track is straight or parallel for very long, they followed the shortest, easiest, and cheapest route (typically in the opposite order) available, so graceful S curves, easements, diagonals, and cut and fill would be prototypical and make the layout far more interesting to view and scenic.
Fourth, I recommend developing your scenery along with your track plan. Each track should have a purpose more financially lucrative to the railroad than to pass through pretty scenery. Train track should go to places in need of rail service and allow for those services without blocking the main. Try to develop a back story for every track.
Fifth, make allowances for stations for freight and passenger service, a classification and/or industrial supply yard, locomotive servicing, and very important a way to reverse a train (or at least an engine) direction of travel from either direction (don't get trapped in an endless loop) such a a reversing loop, a wye, or a turntable (limited to reversing the engine only and takes up a lot of space). 
Finally for now unless you you find them interesting and useful, and request more thoughts from me, I can't leave without commenting on your idea of tilting up the layout for under access. It is NOT a realistic workable idea for a layout of this size, instead do two complementary solutions: Raise up the upper surface of the layout to 48"-50" from the floor. That will allow your scenes and trains to be viewed from about an "across the street second story window" height where they can be appreciated in a more natural horizontal 3D view while standing (you'll be doing a lot of walking around the layout while operating, or you could sit on a tall barstool or drafting chair and provide a portable step for shorter observers) rather than always looking down on rooftops and figure's heads from a high flying plane or drone view where scenes are difficult to appreciate (unless you are a roofer), and the underside will be high enough to work under from a low rolling stool. Be sure to add plenty of switchable work lights under there. Inexpensive knowck down furniture cabinets on casters can add a lot of under layout storage. or as I'm doing a full second lower level.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

This, right here...

_Raise up the upper surface of the layout to 48"-50" from the floor. That will allow your scenes and trains to be viewed from about an "across the street second story window" height where they can be appreciated in a more natural horizontal 3D view while standing (you'll be doing a lot of walking around the layout while operating, or you could sit on a tall barstool or drafting chair and provide a portable step for shorter observers) rather than always looking down on rooftops and figure's heads from a high flying plane or drone view where scenes are difficult to appreciate (unless you are a roofer), and the underside will be high enough to work under from a low rolling stool._


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

scenicsRme said:


> If I might offer some of the experienced insight of this 75 yr old avid modeler and artist/designer. i will try to not sway you to build my way, but give you some basics to think about, consider, accept or reject as you see fit. I am currently building what is likely to be my last N scale dream layout myself, so these points are very fresh in my mind.
> First is layout design: a large layout in a large space is great, especially in N scale, but 30" is the greatest distance from an accessible edge even a tall individual can reach to work on constructing and maintaining a layout. So I start by drawing 30" circles along abutting walls, corners of the room. Keep all trackwork inside a line drawn tangent to those circles parallel to the walls. To use more of the available room space for track you can add peninsulas, up to 60" wide if accessible from both sides but maintain 36-48" aisles for 2 operators to pass while running the trains. peninsulas do not need to be all the same width like a diving board, centered or at right angles to the wall if you follow the basic parameters of space around it. Leave the end of the peninsula be at least a 36" wide semi-circle to allow a 15" radius return curve. a size negotiable by almost all N scale rolling stock, but 18" -20" (plus a 3" buffer between track and edge) would be even better! you can even run a divider down the middle of a wide peninsula to create two separate scenes, one on each side to create the illusion of even more space. A layout like yours would require large open access areas where you have indicated your town and mountain, eliminating those scenes with the problem of requiring a duck or crawl under to get into the center, not a fun move as you get older and stiffer, plus the vague feeling of watching a nascar race from the center of the track, swiveling around and around to keep the train in view.
> Second related suggestion, is the track plan itself. Yours follows a lot of novice plans, tracks in symmetrical loops tracing the edge of the table. First it says toy train, makes the area's shape and size very obvious, and very quickly becomes boring to watch for spectators and operators alike. Like the train around the christmas tree, you start unconsciously "timing" the circuits as it repeatedly passes by, anticipating it's reappearance. I like to plan in alternate sections where you can't anticipate. There is a whispered rule in layout planning that a train should not pass through the same scene twice in each circuit of the mainline, especially on a continuous circuit trackplan.
> Following the edges makes creating any interesting and varied scenes difficult as the space allowance is basically the same all around, Just picking that type layout up and set it back down at an angle to the edges can make a 100% improvement in visual interest just by varying the scenic spaces in the corners! Next take the other loops and place them at a different angles to each other. don't have every loop be a symmetrical rounded rectangle, but vary their shapes. Parallel tracks are handsome, but save them for yards and long mainline runs where two trains may run in opposite directions (may be a long passing siding from one station to another that rejoin at both ends).
> ...




Bigfoot;

There is a lot of very good information in this reply from scenicsRme. Thank you scenicsRme, for joining this discussion, and passing on some of your knowledge & experience.

Bigfoot, much of what he has said here is similar to the advice you have gotten from several others.
There are a couple of points I don't agree with, but that's only to be expected whenever two, or more, people give you advice. 99% of what he says, I do agree with, and even the differences are minor. For instance the Atlas Snap Switch is no longer the worst turnout turnout available. It is now second worst, having been edged out of "last place", at the very bottom of the junk barrel, by the Bachmann EZ-Track turnout. 😄
Also, with modifications, it is possible to make the Atlas turnout fairly reliable. That doesn't mean I recommend them, nope, I agree with scenicsRme, and most model railroaders, that Peco is the best commercial turnout available. Micro Engineering turnouts, and the new Walthers turnouts, are also excellent.

Making the layout high, in order to get a more realistic viewing angle, and create some more clearance for working underneath it, is a well-established idea, used by many, but it does have disadvantages. I've already mentioned that age, and disability, have encouraged me to go to great lengths to avoid going under the layout as much as possible.
I started my current layout when I was younger, and more agile. I mounted it at semi-eyeball heights (its a two level layout) for my 6'-6" height. Now, I dearly wish I had mounted it lower, so that the lower level would be operable while seated. Building a layout at your seated eyeball height, may be a better option for an older modeler with a bad back. A comfortable office-type chair on casters makes model railroading fun for seniors.

One of the many points where I agree with scenicsRme is that idea you have for a tilt able layout. Yes, it has been done, but I've never really liked the idea.
The only case where a tilting layout makes sense to me is where it has to tilt up out of the way, when the layout space is used for multiple purposes.
I strongly prefer the idea of removeable modules, and setting one upside down to work on the bottom side. Yes, there is some more effort in unbolting a section, but the ease with which you can work on it upside down is so much greater than working over your head, or even on a tilted sideways layout, that I feel its well worth pulling a few bolts.
I've done it all three ways over the course of building several layouts, and sitting at my workbench, working on an inverted module, is by far, the easiest way.

Finally, you have gotten a lot of good advice from multiple members, which is great, but can also be confusing to a newbie, since some of the advice is conflicting, and simply because so many aspects are involved in planning a layout. 
Understand that all the advice given on this forum, is just that, advice, not rules for the "right" way to build your layout. We can give plenty of advice, but only you can, and only you should, be the one to decide what, if any, of our advice you want to accept, and implement.
Sometimes, from our viewpoint as very experienced model railroaders, we tend to unintentionally, expect a new modeler to understand, agree with, and implement, too much information. In the end, its your layout, and only you should be making the decisions.

Good Luck & Have Fun with whatever you choose to build;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

traction fan said:


> Bigfoot;
> 
> There is a lot of very good information in this reply from scenicsRme. Thank you scenicsRme, for joining this discussion, and passing on some of your knowledge & experience.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chops124 (Dec 23, 2015)

Just to throw my hat in, with the preface that I only speak for myself. I participated in a club that had a three track HO mainline that traveled over and around 15 x 50 feet. It was built primarily without thought to the effect of what turnouts might have when placed in inaccessible corners and under terrain. So, over the first decade it organically grew until it became a fifteen by forty foot spaghetti bowl. With no exaggeration, even the people that designed its growth spurts had trouble figuring out how the mains interchanged, and were not terribly skilled at communicating their knowledge. The wiring, miles upon miles of analog and double pole electrical toggles, was installed, as it went along by a power plant electrician. Any corroded soldering connection, or any blown rheostat, would require his, and only his, knowledge of that morass to fix it, and until he did, nothing ran. Cleaning the hundreds of miles of track was also a major task.

Eventually, 99% if the guys ended up simply running long trains in circles. Which, after a few laps, is like running long trains in circles. To use the intricate reverse loops and subterranean interchanges was to invite disaster. On more than a few occasions, cars would get lost down there, to be found months later either on the floor, tangled in a web of wiring, or as an obstacle to someone trying to run a through train.

Then there was my friend, a retired metallurgist, who caught the fever bad and wanted to build his dream layout, which regretably, took the form of four 8 x 4's in a giant square. Most time was spent trying to fix problems than running trains.

Everyone wants a bigger train set. The problem is that with increased complexity comes a higher fail rate, as touched upon by ScenicsRe, referring to the bugs to be found in simple rail joiners. I, too, have fallen prey to the sensibility of more is great, but unless you are really talented in all areas of carpentry, and I mean at the level of making cabinets, and your grasp of all things electrical is simply supreme, then you may find yourself, as I did, up to your arse in alligators.

Some people are wealthy, and have a lot of that stuff done for them. Some people are gifted with wood, wire, and computers. Myself, I am at the far left of that Bell Curve. My own happy medium is to keep it super simple. Others, like MichealE, would probably keel over from boredom. But I like putting my stuff together, and moreover, I like it to work reliably.

You like Kadee couplers? Great, because you can, in HO at least, get the ones with magnetic air hoses and are of prototypical size. And you can spend half your time adjusting them. Just sayin'. I'm more content with good old horn hooks, which send serious modelers up a wall. I can already hear the shouts of protest.

For me, less is more. It is really easy to spend a heap of dough and have nothing to show for it. Might be well to try a published track plan, and work one's way up from there. That method, at the end of the day, worked out better for me than anything else, and there is a LOT of anything else out there in computer aided design.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I agree….except the part about horn hooks vs Kadees in HO…never had to spend any time adjusting Kadees, install them properly, and they are worry free…..horn hooks, on the other hand, need more fiddling with to even work half decently, at least that has been my experience….

However, in N scale, the old rapido couplers seem to work just fine, although they don’t look anywhere near what real couplers look like…..they can be replaced with Micro Trains couplers, which are N scale versions of HO Kadees….they seem to function really well, and look great….


----------

