First off sorry about your lose. It's hard to say good bye to any good friend. Ask me? I'm a little late and will leave the Jerome discussion to someone else. It's not my job to tell you what to do. That would be control issues out of control. Here's what I've done. Now that's easier to do and a whole lot more fun. I started out with S scale and could never find the room for broad, wide sweeping curves. Next! HO and those 15 inch and 18 inch radius curves. Nice. But proved to be to tight for those nice full length Rivarossi, heavy weight passenger cars. Those six axle diesels Athearn put out, fought those curves and didn't like them. Now what to do? I pushed them out to 20" and 22" radius curves and had trains literally hanging over the outside edge of the layout. Not the answer I was looking for but it proved to work better. Next! I saw a friends N scale layout. Curious as his curves looked familiar but his train equipment looked great running around his layout and those six axle Atlas SD45's and those full length (Arnold made for Atlas) passenger cars seemed to be handling things nicely. Never mind I had to get out a magnifying glass to see his trains. Blind Scale! Downside, everything stalled out on those Atlas, plastic frog switches. Just like they did in HO Scale. Yikes! Oh and I had no love lost for those Rapido couplers. Let's see you need to know this was all taking place during the late 50's through the 60's. Noting, I graduated from high-school with the class of 67. How about that? Made it that far and everything was looking good. Did I hear you ask, What did my friend do? Wish I could take credit for originating this idea. I can't. He took his HO scale layout and converted it to N scale using the same grades, curves and switch locations. Gosh! Was it nice. A quick trip to the hobby shop proved this was going to be difficult. N Scale? What Rick? We stalked our shelves with HO because of you and Harry and you want what? Both of you? Yep, both of us. It wasn't long and the store proprietor had a set of Atlas Union Pacific Passenger cars. I thought I was going to have to break Harry's arm to get them away from him. I relented when a second set of Santa Fe blue goose cars came out of hiding. Now where do I get those beloved F units? Everyone shrugged their shoulders in unison. Not a good sign. Anyway, the point of all of this is I went home and built a layout using HO gauge dimensions and I've never quit said practice. Awesome, when everything comes together. Why, Atlas and other manufacturers at the time even put out 9 3/4 inch curves out there is beyond me. Not when it frustrated most of us in the hobby...at the time and still does! What are we thinking? Unless space constraints are choking you...then I'd understand. So, in conclusion. It's your layout, you make the rules, you set the standard and you build for you and not anyone else. Summary: Build what makes you happy. Have fun!
Do the math, as they say. 18" x (87/160) = 9-3/4" . Same layout in about one quarter the area was an early selling point for N scale versus HO.
Good response. Well played. Thanks for making my point. I didn't include the math. Figured someone would use their common sense and deductive reasoning and figure it out. Good one. Just like you I did the math. Way back when N scale first came out. Back when it first caught my eye. Deductive reasoning at work. Flash ! Twice the layout in the same space as HO is what hit me. But I wasn't impressed with those tight curves. It wasn't working for me in HO why would it work for me in N scale? Why? As in why, would anyone want such tight radius curves? My thoughts then and now. Today... you'll here me refer to those 9 3/4" curves as moronic. At least for me. You'll have to decide for yourself. For those who live in small apartments with no room to move or turn around in the bathroom. The smaller N Scale provided a chance for them to have a model railroad of their dreams. The same with me but with a twist. No short $#!+ trains, long full freights, glorious passenger trains, WIDE RADIUS CURVES and Smooth Operations. I saw it that way back then and still do as I write this epistle, now! I can have that huge layout I wanted with HO, in the same space my earlier 15'X15' layout occupied. Now that can't be all bad. Look as a kid I never cared for tight radius curves. I resented the... #e!!... out of my 15" and 18" radius curves. Pushing them out to 20" 22" and 24" helped but wasn't the answer I was looking for. Now consider those same dimensions in N scale and what do you have? Awesome! As a teenager I was ready to quit the hobby because I couldn't have what I wanted. All this despite the fact I had a bedroom that was 15'X15'. Lucky for me, I was allowed to all but fill it. At 19 and into my 20's I left home as most boys do and got myself an education and job. Model Railroading got put on hold. Nonetheless... Still unhappy with the curves available. There's more to the story and more to tell. But I'm not here to convince you my way is the right way. I don't mean to make it about me. What it is about, is the choices that you and I make. What is right for you? You have to decide for yourself. I did say that already, didn't I? You make the rules, you set the standard... I thought so! Thanks!
Hey....Life is full of compromises..... If you don't like the options that are given to you.... just make your own stuff, which can be a challenge for some of us. I am more aware of my limitations after seeing some of the "stuff" that is modified, kit bashed, and built by many here on Trainboard. Most of us choose the path of least resistance.....seems logical since our brains actually work electrically!!! LOL Jim
Jim, I don't compromise...unless I want to. On my layout there are compromises but not subjective to using tight radius curves. Rather if I can't get the industry I want to fit in to the layout without using the wider curves it gets compromised off the layout. Off subject or not. It seems to me in my collection of sectional track I have 11" radius curves but I can't remember who made them. Thinking Peco. I do remember talk back between Harry and I that a MR Mfgr., would not make 9 3/4" radius curves and only made 11". I'll need to do some research on that.
Perhaps you recall - or even have a copy of - the old Atlas Nine N Scale Model Railroads trackplan book? While most of the plans had 9-3/4" radius curves, one in particular used only the 19" radius curve sections typically used with switches to bring the diverging route back to parallel with the main. It was noted how much more realistic the Atlas E8 locos and long passenger cars would appear on those broader radius curves.
Good one! They did what? Oh, my gosh. While I was stew-wing and harrumphing around they did what? No, I don't recall that as I pretty much gave up on Atlas befriending me (because they didn't) and I had lost respect for them over a incident with their Common .........stuff. After that incident I pretty much threw away anything in the way of Atlas Periodicals/How-To's, out the window, ""The window, the seventh story window. With a mighty heave and a might ho, I threw them out the window."" Uhh...err!! Regarding my first or was it my second to the last HO scale train layout? But that's another story for another time and place. One thing is for sure! N Scale! You won't find me arguing about how good trains look operating on the 19" radius curves. The Atlas E8's, their Arnold and Rivarossi made for Atlas passenger cars did look great. No string-ling of your long freight trains and or those passenger trains. Amazing, how sharp they looked. About as close to prototye as any layout would hope for. Okay, not quite but what an improvement over those tight radius...well... I can't say that here. Good? Yes!! Wow! Now are we going to keep this up? I mean I'm having way to much fun with this. Just seems wrong...you know. I just checked and it was Trix that made the 11" radius curves.
