Sat 28 Jan 2006
I wanted a top banner that was consistent with the look and theme of the model railroad I’m building. I scanned an image of Tiburon, California taken in 1922 found in the book The Northwestern Pacific.
I rotated the scan a bit to straighten the portion I wanted to clip out.
Then simply clipped and pasted it into the top banner that was supplied with the WordPress theme I’m using.
Thu 26 Jan 2006
Of all the different gauges and scales to choose from, why HO? It was a really tough choice. Permanent page: Why HO Gauge?
There are lots of scales people use to build their layouts. When I actually started the project and said to myself “I’m pulling the trigger on building a layout today” I limited my choices to
HOn3
HO
Sn3
On30
The larger scales (1:48 or larger) allow better detail and generally your model trains will have better operating characteristics. The smaller scales (1:87) allow more terrain, allow more scale miles of track for a given space, take more work to detail and more work to operate well. Sn3 is truly in the middle.
As I discuss elsewhere I want to build a layout that borrows heavily from Furlow’s HOn3 San Juan Central. This layout was 8 ‘ x 10′. I could fit a layout only slightly bigger than that into my available space. This tipped me towards HO or HOn3 (call it one unit of tip “towards”).
I built a small (30″ x 8′) HOn3 layout and have several pieces of HOn3 rolling stock. The trains are cute, sometimes only a bit larger than N scale. However, good operation was tough. Call it a wash.
I’m a long time reader of Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette. Really the majority of the fine work seen in a typical issue is in larger scales. There is currently a pretty good variety of structures, a great variety of On3 rolling stock and scratchbuilding materials. On30 has a lot of energy in it these days and I love the slightly less formal atmosphere of the On30 comminuty. This tipped me towards On30 (call it one unit of tip “towards”).
I love model period vehicles and I want to have a full model population of figures. There is an “ok” variety of figures but a deplorable shortage of vehicles in 1:48. Yes, yes: you can use 1:43 vehicles modified but if I’m in O scale I’m going to be wanting a bit more fidelity and there’s 10% difference in size between 43:48 (call it one-half unit of tip “away”).
In HO: Lots of vehicles in the late-20′s to mid-30′s timeframe I’m looking at. Lots of figures (call it one-half unit of tip “towards”).
I have many classic HO structures, a couple O scale structures, many HO standard gauge kits, several HO locomotives, one HOn3 boxcab engine. This says: HO and HO standard will be cheaper to get going. Additionally, some of these HO kits are what I’ve always wanted to have on a layout and I have them *now* (call it one unit of tip “towards”).
I love narrow gauge but I the models are small. Bachmann (with a bit of help from Life Like) now provides excellent low cost small and medium size steam engines that look and run great — and I already own several.
One of the key goals is to actually get this layout BUILT and RUNNING. So I’m going with HO standard gauge.
I believe projects turn out best when you acknowledge your compromises and confirm to yourself that you are really okay with them. Then, embrace them as guides. Boone Morrison wrote something I really agree with when he explained why he was moving from HOn3 to On3:
“HO is a great scale to build a model of a railroad, O scale is a great scale to build railroad models”
DS 1/25/2006
Tue 17 Jan 2006
I’m building an HO version of Malcolm Furlow’s San Juan Central as descibed in his HO Narrow Gauge Railroad You Can Build (1984).
Why that plan?
While I love narrow gauge, why HO standard guage and not HOn3 or anything n3?
The answers are driven by one main goal and an associated attitude. I decided that my goal for 2006 is to work continiously — at least 12 hours a week — on a model railroad and that in this year I must make significant overall progress on the layout. To meet this goal I have taken the following attiude: it does not have to be a perfect layout. It just has to be good enough. Significantly, I have also made a pledge to devote all my modelling energy this year (i.e., time and money) to the layout. This means forsaking my strong interests in all other types of models and model building.
For YEARS I have been saying to anyone who would listen that I wanted to build a layout. I’m finding it stunning that simply saying “good enough” suddenly gives me license to proceed. I started planning in October and November, building benchwork in December, and started roadbed in January 2006.
Coming posts will describe planning choices I made as well as progress reports on what I’m doing currently.
I am not paid for anything I write in this blog. I accept no advertising. The product reviews are based on my personal experience with items I purchased unless I say otherwise.
Copied at The Layout Project