Hello again; Clearly compromise is present in all models; and especially in the scenery, structures and length of track. My own position is that they should be known, considered compromises rather than using oversize rail and wheels because we don't know they are too big. Unfortuantely, a lot of people accept compromises without a lot of thought simply because they are accustomed to the particular compromise. Yes, many people accept shorty passengers cars, and they have been a staple in almost all scales for many years. The interesting thing is that logically I could decide to keep everything in proportion and shorten my PAs and E-8s by 8 ft, and all my freight cars, F units and GPs by 5 ft. Even if I did this neatly so the splice didn't show, I don't think many people would find it acceptable. OTOH, there are certainly people who know how many windows an 80 ft car should have, or how long it appears in proportion to it's height and can see the difference, even without a comparison to full length cars on the layout. I might also notice that it is shorter than two 40 ft freight cars (so I'd better shorten them as described above). Or someone could take the O-27 approach, and build all their models to 1/72 scale but wider to fit S gauge trucks and with 1/64 scale details. The result would still be better than O-27, at least the track gauge wouldn't be 5 ft.
Clearly people make compromises for a variety of reasons. "I already have all this code 148 track and don't want to buy more track to get smaller rail" is a perfectly reasonable decision. So is "I like the look of code 148 track". I certainly would NOT suggest someone rip up their code 148 track and settle back into the armchair until someone makes "correct" code 115 available. My Dad's layout has code 125 on the main. Guess what, I'm not going to tear it all out and replace it unless I replace the whole layout. If I were starting over, I'd use code 100 on the main, 83 on the sidings and 70 on the spurs. I would like to try that on a module set. Pieter Roos --- In [email protected], Rollain Mercier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and he notes - > > Maybe it's a factor of forced perspective, so t' speak, but if a layout is > laid with Code 125 rail and the owner runs only 70 or 72' length passenger > cars what comparison could be made? > > Such perspective can also be drawn with structures and scenery. How many 60 > and 70 foot trees have you seen on a layout? Most have trees not much > bigger than shrubs. Isn't it common to foreshorten buildings? An average > ranch house is 40' feet long. How many of these have you seen the length of > a boxcar? Railroad yards can be miles long, terminals are huge structures > and engine facilities cover acres yet we see little of this done. > > I remember seeing an N Gauge model of Hell Gate Bridge in the contest room > at the joint NASG/NMRA convention at Valley Forge back in the 90s. It was > HUGE - must have been 10' long and that was in N Gauge! And that didn't > include the approaches. I can't imagine such a structure in S unless one > lives in an auditorium. > > If a layout has 20' trees and scaled down structures, facilities and > terminals, is laid with .125 rail and runs only 72' passenger cars, and a > visitor shows up with a scale tree or an 85' passenger car, of course you > can see the difference. But , IMHO, without any other frame of reference > the layout would otherwise seem normal. > > RMC had an article several years ago on forced perspective which looked > realistic unless you stood on top and looked down and Philip Houghton did > some of this back in the 50s on his "Pillar To Post" series in MR. He > mentioned that as long as the components fit together, the layout looked > realistic. > > We all do it and wear blinders except for those who feel like full length > passenger cars and proper height track is more important than full scale > scenery and structures. If one is a stickler for scale, why don't we see > wires strung between scale telephone poles on his layout (oops maybe there > are and I just haven't seen any). > > I'll agree with Dick - add a maverick 85' car or a full sized tree and the > difference stands out like a sore thumb. I guess it's all a matter what's > in the eye of the beholder - yours or the modeler's - to paraphrase a > comedy actor "It's all in fun until somebody loses.. their perspective"... > > Raleigh in Maine where the sun is about to come out To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list (remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
