When I was a kid, I had a (really) small HO layout. One engine, a few cars, and enough track to do a little switching. Out of the hobby for years, I still remember being absolutely enthralled by photos of Bob Hegge's Crooked Mountain Lines. It was his modelling that got me interested in traction.
Years later, I am working on a traction layout. So far, it's all in my head, but hey, you've got to start someplace.
The layout I have in mind is a freelanced freight hauling interurban which will interchange with one or more mainline railroads, something along the lines of the Sacremento Northern. There won't be any city trolleys.
As of yet, I've not decided in which scale to model. I'll lay out my thoughts and observations for anyone who would like to comment. You should know that I am old enough that vision for close up work is starting to be an issue, and it isn't going to get any better. I already have to use a magnifier to do tiny work that I used to be able to do without any vision aids.
I see three issues with HO.
1. It is small enough, and the detailing is tiny enough that my aging eyes will be a bit of a limitation.
2. Most of the photos of HO traction layouts that I have seen show pretty horrible looking overhead. That indicates to me that HO overhead is particularly difficult to erect and maintain, particularly anything that looks scale like. BTW, Interurban's overhead is some of the nicest looking HO work I have come across.
3. With multiple tracks under wire, as in a yard, it seems like getting a finger or two through for maintenance work would be difficult, let alone a whole hand.
I think S would be the ideal scale. Big enough for the detail work to not be too tiny, yet small enough that a layout won't consume vast areas of 'real estate.' But there are precious little, if any traction items available in S.
Most traction modelling seems to be done in O. It is big enough that aging eyes won't have such a problem seeing detail, and the access through the overhead issue should be less of a problem. Unfortunately, it eats up a lot more real estate, and it seems to be quite a bit more expensive.
My first choice would be S, if it weren't for the dearth of traction supplies in that scale, so I am left with choosing between HO and O. I am leaning toward O, but haven't ruled out HO yet.
So, am I missing anything here? Are there other factors that I have overlooked or should be aware of? Your comments will be appreciated.
And if anyone knows of any web sites with photos of the Crooked Mountain Lines, I would love to get the URL(s). So far I have had no luck with Google. I realize that Bob passed on some years ago, but I was hoping someone had posted a photo record.
Years later, I am working on a traction layout. So far, it's all in my head, but hey, you've got to start someplace.
The layout I have in mind is a freelanced freight hauling interurban which will interchange with one or more mainline railroads, something along the lines of the Sacremento Northern. There won't be any city trolleys.
As of yet, I've not decided in which scale to model. I'll lay out my thoughts and observations for anyone who would like to comment. You should know that I am old enough that vision for close up work is starting to be an issue, and it isn't going to get any better. I already have to use a magnifier to do tiny work that I used to be able to do without any vision aids.
I see three issues with HO.
1. It is small enough, and the detailing is tiny enough that my aging eyes will be a bit of a limitation.
2. Most of the photos of HO traction layouts that I have seen show pretty horrible looking overhead. That indicates to me that HO overhead is particularly difficult to erect and maintain, particularly anything that looks scale like. BTW, Interurban's overhead is some of the nicest looking HO work I have come across.
3. With multiple tracks under wire, as in a yard, it seems like getting a finger or two through for maintenance work would be difficult, let alone a whole hand.
I think S would be the ideal scale. Big enough for the detail work to not be too tiny, yet small enough that a layout won't consume vast areas of 'real estate.' But there are precious little, if any traction items available in S.
Most traction modelling seems to be done in O. It is big enough that aging eyes won't have such a problem seeing detail, and the access through the overhead issue should be less of a problem. Unfortunately, it eats up a lot more real estate, and it seems to be quite a bit more expensive.
My first choice would be S, if it weren't for the dearth of traction supplies in that scale, so I am left with choosing between HO and O. I am leaning toward O, but haven't ruled out HO yet.
So, am I missing anything here? Are there other factors that I have overlooked or should be aware of? Your comments will be appreciated.
And if anyone knows of any web sites with photos of the Crooked Mountain Lines, I would love to get the URL(s). So far I have had no luck with Google. I realize that Bob passed on some years ago, but I was hoping someone had posted a photo record.
