Scale v. Detail

[NW Modeling List]

Gene:



What follows is a bit long and rambling, for which I apologize in advance.
But, I was intrigued by your question and wanted to weigh in.



 I have, or had in the past, layouts in Z, N, HO, S, and O. I also have
Standard Gauge, G and even 1.5 in to the foot (7 ½” track gauge), trains. I
think the answer to your question revolves around what type of detail you
like in the hobby.  A lot of what I’m going to say is based on how we view
our trains.  Aside from shows, most of us are constrained by space.  We can
get close up to our models but only so close and we can only step so far
back from them before we run into a wall or another part of our layout.
This in turn limits how we view them.  The space question also controls how
much of a world we can create around our trains.  In smaller scales you can
back up and see all of a long train.   For most of us, as you get to the
larger scales, individual pieces of rolling stock have more of an impact
because you normally can’t really get back far enough to see a train as one
item.  When close up, things are different.  In the larger scales, a piece
of rolling stock can take up your entire field of vision.  Without getting
your nose into the scenery, it is hard to do that in the smaller scales.



At my age (60) Z scale is just a little too small to work with, my eyes have
trouble supporting my efforts.  From my experience, Z is good if you just
like to run trains and it can really support a terrific scenery to train
ratio.  I think that ratio is one important factor in the considerations of
scale and to an extent detail.  For operation and in your face train
watching however, Z is a little small.  I can see where you could operate in
Z if you just liked to have meets and passes.  More than that would be
tough.  Details are just plain hard to see and hard to put on rolling stock
or anything else.



If you like the sight of long N&W coal trains, N scale is great.  Over the
years there have been quite a lot of commercial N&W cars available in N with
lots of different road numbers.  Lots of engines too, including brass and
high hood model diesels.  You can “operate” in N as in all the larger
scales.  Magnetic couplers are common and easy to add on and you can even
reach between cars with a pick if you want to uncouple away from a ramp.  I
have added the N&W diesel bells and high hoods and horns, so you can get
some nice rolling stock detail.  A lot of the new cars have great details.
It is possible to put a lot of details on buildings and in scenes.  The
scenery to train ratio is good.  If you look in the hobby magazines these
days it sometimes takes a second look to tell the difference between N and
HO in the pictures.  N is small enough though, that building and working on
stuff can be difficult on the older eyes and you are limited as far as
getting small details on things.  To me it still really isn’t the scale you
want if your thing is operating coupler cut levers and non operating air
valves, though you can do them if you work at it hard enough.  I have more N
scale equipment and have spent more time with my N than any other scale
because I like the look of long trains snaking through curves.  If you look
at detail in the sense of a total scene, N is great.  If you’re talking
about just cars and engines, it can be improved on.  My eye still tends to
see the train as a whole most of the time in N.



When you don’t scratch build everything, HO has a lot going for it.  If you
do, it still is a strong contender.   I would say there is more of
everything available in HO than any other scale.  Engines, cars, buildings
and detail parts.  It also has a good, if not great, ability to address the
scenery to train ratio.  Of course, as with all the larger scales, operation
is easy to do.  HO also has a wonderful list of N&W items available off the
shelf or off the eBay auction.  As I recall from my early days, a lot of
guys shifted over to HO from O because they wanted to go from just modeling
engines and cars to modeling more or the railroad surroundings along with
the trains, and space was the big consideration.  In order to get the
scenery to train ratio that they liked, they had to move down to HO.  HO
scale supports more detail on the rolling stock, but I don’t feel that the
extra detail pops out a whole lot more than it does in N.  I have seen some
really unbelievable detail work in HO, but I think most people in general
still tend to see the train more than they do the individual pieces of
rolling stock.  Not that we all don’t drool over a really nicely detailed
piece, but my eye at least tends to be drawn to the overall scene much as
with N.  But I think a more discerning eye than mine would probably notice
the extra level of detail that is possible, and I think HO is on the verge
of being a scale where a close up view lets the mind easily focus on one
piece of rolling stock.



I started with American Flyer trains, so I like S a lot, and it offers a
solution for someone wanting slightly bigger trains with less space.  Having
said that, and even though I still collect and run my Flyer.  I don’t think
that for the average hobbyist it really offers that much when you have O and
HO available.  I have seen some great S scale layouts.  You can detail your
rolling stock and scenes, but there is much more scratch building involved,
or conversion of stuff intended for the other scales.  To me, S is a
starting place where detail really is a more noticeable quality with respect
to the individual train pieces themselves.  I believe that at some point, at
least in my mind, trains tend to shift from being toys or models to being
shrunken down versions of the real things.  Some of the guys in 7 ½ gauge
will say that they are operating a railroad, since they can ride the train
and it works just like a full size one, it’s just smaller.  S starts to
approach the size where the cars and engines have that impact on my mind,
but it doesn’t quite make it.



O scale for me seems to reach a level where individual rolling stock easily
stands out and the details are an important part of that whole effect.
Since you can build a working live steam engine in O, it is hard to argue
with the idea that you can reach a limit regarding the amount of detail you
can put on a piece.  One might say that once you reach O you have reached a
point where it is possible to include just about any detail that you would
find in real life 1:1 scale.  It also is much closer to transitioning from
that model train impression to the small real train one.  Of course you can
operate in O and there are quite a bit commercially items available in O.
Although I have seen much fewer N&W pieces off the shelf in O as compared to
N or HO.  I have tended to alternate using O and G for my Christmas layouts
the last few years because O allows me to do more with the track layout in
the space available.



For me, going up from a start at Z, G is the scale that really gets to the
shrunken train level and the one where each piece of rolling stock really
looks great with respect to details.  Having a layout in the house is very
problematic of course and I see that many people start to go outside with
them.  The thing with moving outside is that you change the viewing
constraints I mentioned earlier.  Once outside, you are back far enough that
your view of the trains changes so that you are back to viewing an entire
train at once.  You can still get close up for a nice view of course, but
you may be so far away that you don’t appreciate the detail.



I have yet to see anyone do much with Standard  beyond the toy train idea.
I can remember seeing some operating done with Standard, but I have yet to
see anyone doing much real detailing with it.  Standard does work really
nice running around a Christmas tree if you have the space.  Being so large,
it does well at imparting that shrunken train feeling while really getting
into the toy train vibe.



Going to larger sizes it seems to me that everything that applies to G
holds, it just gets harder and harder to find space indoors, and at some
point even outdoors.



I suppose my conclusion, which by the end of this piece is way over due; is
that the larger the scale the better if a detailed piece of rolling stock is
what you prefer and if you are not interested in having the overall layout
model much railroading territory.  I also think that the larger the scale
the more you move towards an effect that impresses the viewer that they are
looking at something that is almost “real” as opposed to a model.   On the
other hand, if you want to model more of the world the smaller scales work
better.  It seems to me that either way you have a lot of details for the
viewer to see.  Either a lot of detail on a few cars, engines, buildings,
trees and so forth or more cars, engines, and trees with slightly less
details.  I don’t know for sure what number you would arrive at if you
counted each detail on each item and added them up and then compared the
numbers between the same number of square inches on an N and O layout.  It
might be an interesting experiment to try.  My feeling is that the N layout
would have a higher total even though any one detail item would not be as
“fine” in N as the one in O.



Reading the comments you referenced in your URL, I would add that you could
put almost everything you see in the photos you mentioned into an N scale
model, It would just be easier in HO, and even easier yet in O or G.  It
also might be harder to completely make out the details in N.  But if you
had a reference photo nearby I think almost everybody would buy into the
illusion once they had looked at the reference.



Bob Huston

















I thought I had the scale question for my future N&W layout determined at



N-scale.. but now after seeing some more photos of O. Winston Link, I'm



rethinking it.







http://www.rrmodel.info/2010/08/scale-vs-detail-thoughts.html







I'd love some thoughts on scale vs. detail in Ho vs. N or even O-scale.







If I'm going to do something different, now is a good time so I avoid any more



buying in the "wrong" scale.











Gene Bowker http://genebowker.com/



The Railroad Examiner - http://railfan.biz



________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/attachments/20100901/f2b50176/attachment-0001.html>