Yup. They have no clue what might be appealing N specific content, so we get the magazine equivalent of a rerun in new road numbers. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say "elite few", but topics do sometimes relate only to a specific few. The N specific content is laughable (or the content they try to pass off as N specific in attempt to appear diverse), the HO and DCC specific content is not applicable (to me anyway). A majority of the content is applicable to just about anybody in some way though. Layout tours, small projects, new techniques or materials used, etc. are good reads. That's why I still thumb through it every month. I still maintain that if I get some level of amusement out of my trains, what difference does it make what techniques and "standards" I follow to achieve it? T-trak modules with alien space ships and neon green cows aren't my bag, but if that's what you like have at it. I'll be glad to discuss with you possible techniques for creating a great looking pasture and barb wire fence.
Actually we've had fair sized power and rolling stock going way back. Recalling the old 2-8-8-2 versions from such as Lima and MRC, etc, the auto racks of Revell and so on. Radius issues are not recent, it's just that time marched ahead a few decades to where are these lengthy items became modeled even much more frequently. Yet it seems an increasing number of people are in smaller quarters today and have reduced space for their empires. The sharper radius is still very much with us and will remain in demand for a long time to come.
I'm surprised to hear you say that. Because it seemed to me that the trend was in the opposite direction. For instance, I live in a typical nuclear-family house that was built in 1964. Compared to 95% of the other houses in this city, it's pitifully dinky. 1260 sq. ft. now seems to be barely sufficient for a single person. Most people I know live in houses so big they need help to keep them clean.
I think the author was making the point that modern equipment is longer than the equipment of 50 years ago when 40 foot cars were the norm. Yes I know there were 85 foot passenger cars even earlier than that. And while I model the transition era I still want the largest curves I can get. Things just look better to me. Now I can sympathize with those who do not have the room for larger curves and no one, to my knowledge, is clamoring for a change in the minimum standard. In fact, I am not sure there is such a thing as a minimum standard. I have operated with 9 3/4 inch curves and #4 crossovers and if that is what you can fit in the room you have then all well and good. But, as the article said, take the HO standard 4 X 8 sheet of plywood layout and use the HO 18 inch radius curve instead of the 9 3/4" and use #8 switches instead of #4's and the improvement, both esthetically as well as functionally, is self evident.
The trend might have been getting bigger. From what we have seen, that has slowed a lot. In this multi-state region, we know of many who have downsized due to all of the costs associated. We were just ready to put our house on the market a few years ago, when the market went into the dumper. We were going to drop from 1700+ down to just under 1100.
Ummm, I've been known to pull on a leg or tug a beard over here for about ten years now. I guess I sometimes make my points a little too obliquely.
I think maybe we are missing the point that Jim Kelly was trying to share, We can use HO scale plans on a 4x8 sheet of plywood and enjoy the beneifits of large curves and lots of passing sidings with out having to re-design the whole plan. Use HO plans and add more to the yards or switching areas. These are track plans that are tried and proven by some of the master HO designers. Even if we need to scale them down some, we can make them work for the space we have available. I didn't understand that Jim was trying to set "NEW" standards for N scalers.Just a new source of inspirition for track plans and designs. I have used HO designs in some of the areas of my track planning. I found something I liked, adopted it and made it mine. 18" curves are nice, but not for everyone. Just my thoughts.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy!! A real doozy Atlas-forum style thread, complete with indignant replies!!! Glad to see you guys could all make it!!! Jest lakh ol' times... Lots to comment on here. First, N scale was, unfortunately, given hand-me-down HO ideas from the beginning, starting with the inane over-used definition that "N is half HO". N scale is N scale -- do we describe the middle class as "rich people without as much money"? Makes them sound kinda inferior. Funny how we never see HO articles that reference themselves by saying "HO is half O scale". The 9" radius thing started because it's HALF the size of what was considered the smallest HO curve, which itself was predicated on the basic 4x8 plywood sheet size which came into being in the late '40s. (thank god N scale wasn't cursed with a "half-size" version of the ludicrous HO horn-hook coupler). There is a prejudice against N scale, make no mistake. Second, this "hand-me-down" idea is still de facto policy for the traditional (and some new) model rail manufacturers -- first the HO versions are made and sold, THEN (if we're lucky) an N version is handed-down for production. The only time this didn't happen was when Kato started out doing only N scale American models, which, because the quality was superior to a lot of then-current HO stuff, got the HO scalers' panties in a bunch and they agitated for Kato to make HO stuff, too. (Kato could care less about making American HO equipment). Third, curves pretty much have a way of determining what runs on them, no matter the modeler's intent. The laws of physics trump unrealistic expectations. Build a layout with only 9" R curves (put some on slopes, too) and run a train of twenty 86' cars -use body-mounted couplers -- on it. Hope you have loads of fun. (if you can ever get around the layout once w/o a disaster). What you wind up with is what you can stand enduring over and over. The whole idea that "oh there's all these big N cars now" is garbage. There have been 86' foot cars in N scale from the get-go. Arnold Rapido had 86' flats, hi-cubes, and autoracks, Atlas/Rivarossi had the "whalebelly" tanker and 80' heavyweights, ConCor had U-50's and modern passenger cars of 80+ feet. MRC Y6b, anyone? I think the only real and enduring lesson we can take from this MR article is the one they've always taught: the only scale that matters to them is HO, and their whole model rail universe is viewed through that prism.
