How much IS the right amount?

[w neal]

While one of the huge strengths of N scale is the ability to effectively model open spaces -- certainly those that are more indicative of much of railroading -- one of the benefits in my opinion is those "huge industries". 

An excellent point and one well illustrated here. Pomperaugrr's plant is just one example.  Indeed, his grouping of several factories together is just as impressive a scene, to me, as a large open area of scenery. In either case, the trains are just a small part of the view. This also reflects the idea of "spaciouness" to my way of thinking. I have a few larger industries myself and I enjoy how much room N scale offers to put them in - as well as room to put scenery between them.

Every time I gaze upon a layout of larger scale I find myself thinking "Imagine what this (area's space) could be in N!" Depending on the circumstances, there are great ways to represent larger industries by blending them into the backdrop. The great thing about N is that we do not always have to!

[rochsub]

   Having started in N scale just a few years before Roger, I agree that less is more.  With the Geneva Subdivision that I am building right now I have room for two peninsulas that would have greatly increased the length of the mainline.  I am so glad I didn't though as the lack of peninsulas really opens up the room and makes operating the layout so much more relaxing and fun.  In fact, getting rid of peninsulas was one of the main reasons I tore down the Rochelle Sub and started over.   In addition to opening up the room for operators, the lack of peninsula turnbacks has also increased the sense that the trains are going from point A to point B instead of just back and forth.  Having 36" minimum curve radius helps the realism a ton also.  (see track plan below)

   One other thing that I think beginners do not realize is how important it is to model the prototype instead of just building a train layout.  Almost all the great layouts are modeled following the prototype, IE Mark Dance's Columbia & Western, Jim's Oakville Sub, Lance's Monon and others.   Even the great freelanced layouts still look to the prototype for inspiration.  When great modelling skill is applied to layout that does not closely follow a prototype the results turn out to be cartoonish,  IE George Selios Manchester & ????, John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid, and mulitple layouts built by Malcom Furlow and John Olsen. 

[Pomperaugrr]

Daryl, are correct on the importance of modeling a prototype, especially for beginners.  Even a freelanced layout that is based on elements and track arrangements from  prototype railroads will look more believable than something dreamed up without reference to the real world. 

When w neal mentioned the grouping of the three industries being effective, I can't take credit for that, since that is the way they appear in real life, although size and space had to be compressed somewhat on my layout.






Bigger layouts do give us a space advantage, but a well planned and executed HCD layout or module can't be beat for realism as well.  It took me years of frustration in planning freelanced layouts before I came to this realization.  I was intimidated by trying to model a prototype, yet when I tried it, it made the planning process and execution easier.

Eric

[Brakie]

I think the problem with most  N Scalers is they don't think outside of the box they have packed their selves into thinking of loop de loop layouts with great mountains and tons of scenery cramed on a small layout..

To my mind N Scale biggest problem is its size since most modelers ends up planning way to much on a small layout just because they can and they never ask if they should.

I would rather use 2 large industries that requires lots of switching then 2 or 3 small industries on a small scenery filled layout.

[rochsub]

I think the problem with most  N Scalers is they don't think outside of the box they have packed their selves into thinking of loop de loop layouts with great mountains and tons of scenery cramed on a small layout..

To my mind N Scale biggest problem is its size since most modelers ends up planning way to much on a small layout just because they can and they never ask if they should.

I would rather use 2 large industries that requires lots of switching then 2 or 3 small industries on a small scenery filled layout.

Lots of mountain scenery is often a given for model railroads, but it doesn't have to be.  Industries, classification yards and train meets on the mainline are what gives a layout lasting interest, especially for the builder.  Mountains and scenery are great, but if the trains just go round de round through the scenery, eventually things will get dull, no matter how wonderful the scenery is.  As well executed Jim's Oakville Sub is, and its definitely a top tier layout in any scale, one flaw is a lack of industries and classification yards to add operational interest.  (I think I recall Jim mentioned adding a town at some point). 

Mountain scenery is over done.  Everyone and their brother is doing mountains.  When I submitted an article on the Geneva Sub for Kalmbach's Model Railroad Planning Annual, I was told the article would very likely be included in the next issue because one, it was in N scale and two, it was a Midwest layout instead of mountain. 

Daryl

[rogergperkins]

I remember from university days creative writing class, to write about what you know.  I have applied this concept to my model rring.  I was born in Illinois and now returned here about 7 years ago. 
I attempt to model B&O in Illinois; primarily central Illinois.  This means Springfield, IL is the main city.

I have no reason or rationale for mountains.  Nor do I have a desire to create what I do not know well enough to do.