Hi Tim; There have been some tiny short lines of around this length, connecting an industry to the main rail line junction. They usually have only a single engine, a couple of side tracks and pull a car or two a day each way from the junction, so there isn't a real lot of operation or variety of equipment to entertain.
Another option is picking one small area (a small to moderate size town, maybe where you grew up) and modeling that exactly with trains coming from staging tracks at either end. British modelers follow this scheme quite a bit, but it is less common here. Mostly people "scale down" the sizes of towns and especially the distance between towns. Ideally the distance should be large enough that your longest normal train can fully exit one town before entering the next (but even that isn't always possible). This aspect of "scale" often isn't as far from what you did on your AF layout as the detailing of the individual models, although most scale modelers try to be more realistic in their track layouts (aided by the variety of turnout sizes). BTW, American Models, S Helper Service, 'S'cenery Unlimited and Tomalco all make flex track with solid extruded rail as opposed to Gargraves and flyer with folded sheet metal. If you have't been there, check out Craig O'Connell's S Gauge site for detailed listings of what is available in S Scale: http://trainweb.org/crocon/sscale.html And welcome to the group! Pieter Roos --- Tim Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guys, > > It just occurred to me that my scale RR, when built, > will encompass > about 2.42 scale miles of track. Check my math, > please. I'll need > about 200' of running track, not including sidings > and spurs. > 200 X 64 (our scale is 1:64) = 12,800'. 12,800 / > 5,280 (# of feet in a > mile) = 2.42 scale miles (I get the same results > when I use 3/16" to > the foot). Just where can a prototype RR go in 2.42 > miles - one small > 1950's town to another? Around where I live is a > yard that must be > almost 2 miles long. So I guess the idea in scale > work then is to 1) > either pretend the layout is bigger than it actually > is or 2) confine > our efforts to a simple point-to-point operation and > model it well. > Taking #1, it shouldn't be too much more of a > stretch to let the "big > hand in the sky" do uncoupling or manual switch > throws. Also, one > would have to pretend that the train is "seeing" > "new" scenery with > every run of the loop. Again, I'm trying to > establish a standard in my > little head. Do I "get" it, or am I missing a basic > point? Thanks. > > Tim Brown > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
