Robert Heller <
heller@deepsoft.com> on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:36:45 -0600
typed in rec.models.railroad the following:
Not only the rolling stock adds up but also scenery as in structures,
vehicles, figures. All in all I believe an N-scale layout is more expensive >> per square meter/yard, especially when building a layout with a large city >> or towns. A real city scene can easily have plus 40 structures and still not >> look convincing because theres too much vacant room left.
OTOH, the 'cost' can be spread over a (large) period of time -- >*individualy*, N scale rolling stock, engines, and structures are
fairly cheap, cheaper than the same item in 0 scale. And the OP was
talking about a *small* layout. A small layout will have less 'stuff'
on it.
A smaller layout ... um, depends. A 30 x 24' house on a 75 x 50
foot lot, ten feet of street, 8 feet of alley, is the same regardless
of the scale (1' to 1', 1":12" 1:160, etc). That city block has just
as many buildings, they just require less space in the room to be
displayed.
OTOH, the difference in detail of a 1:12 house vs a 1:160 is incredible.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)