Reinforcing Choices – Amherst Show Aftermath (Part II)
I recently got a chance to return to the Amherst Railway Society’s Hobby Show as a spectator rather than a vendor. I talked last time about the inspiration a really good train show can provide, especially the modules. But I also find that viewing the layouts does a good job of:
• Reinforcing the choices that I’ve already made
• Informing choices I might make in the future
• Ratcheting up motivation
I have a lot to say about each these (I’m sure you’re shocked). Enough to say, in fact, that I decided to tackle the topics as continuing parts of the “Show Aftermath” series. That much more to subject you to, oh loyal reader.
In this episode, we’ll talk about reinforcing choices. So, with props to Jackie Gleason: “Awaaay we go.”
If you’ve been paying attention at all, you know I model in HO scale. That’s roughly 1:87 scale, or one scale foot equals (about) 87 real-world feet. I believe it’s a good compromise between use-of-space and realistic detail. And I’ve always been happy with that decision. But I think we all, at some time or another, question our choices. (Honestly, I think that’s a good thing, because as soon as we become unhappy with something about our modeling—even if we don’t consciously know we’re unhappy with it— I think motivation drops off, and progress can quickly grind to a halt.) So it’s good to take time to reassess once in a while, and the modular layouts in various scales let you do that.
Before we go on, let me assure you, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind or say that my opinions are right for anyone but me. Everyone has their reasons for modeling in the scale(s) they have chosen, and if it works for you, great! But it never hurts to reassess once in a while to see if you’re on the path you really want to take. (Though I have been known to engage in a spirited debate to try and convince others of the merits of HO Scale!)
I’m always impressed by the level of realism and detail you can get from O Gauge (which is usually, but not always, 1:48, and thus why it’s “Gauge” instead of “scale”). Some guys can do amazing things at that size, and sometimes when you look at photos you can’t tell that it’s not a picture of a full-size 1:1 scene. (To be fair (and brag a bit), I recently showed a picture of some of my HO work to someone and they thought it was full size, too, so I guess it all depends. But I think you can be that much more convincing in O. However, I want more in terms of layout scope and operation than I think O would allow me.
S scale (1/64) Might be a nice compromise between HO and O, but there is far less available in terms of locomotives, rolling stock and other kits. While I like scratchbuilding, I don’t like it that much.
Oddly, while F and G are larger than O, they generally feel more cartoonish and less convincing to me. Maybe if the manufacturers paid closer attention to fidelity of prototype it would be different, but that doesn’t seem to be their focus. Plus it’s just so… big.
Conversely, N Scale (1:160) shows how much more you can fit in a given space. And that’s great if you want to go big with scenery, but to me, it never quite looks right. There’s almost always some proportion that’s a little bit off and screams “MODEL!” We had a discussion about this at dinner after the first day of the show, and someone stated that if you stand 8-10 feet back, then it starts to look more realistic. And maybe so, but that’s the equivalent of viewing something full size at 1300-1600 feet away—roughly a quarter of a mile or more! We don’t typically view real railroads from that distance, so to me it’s not an accurate reflection of the “experience” I want from my layout.
Lastly, I simply can’t consider Z Scale (1:220). While I admire guys that can work at the tiny size, it never, ever, looks prototypical to me. I suspect you have to be a little bit crazy or masochistic (or both) to work in Z. And while I might be a little bit of both of those, it’s not enough, apparently.
So my final (2019) verdict? Scale choice reaffirmed.
Is this blog helpful? Informative?
Let me know in the comments. And don’t forget to subscribe!