"Best" Scale for small layout?

Had a reality check and decided to pass on one of those layouts that eats your garage.
So the space I can use is the size of a door I have, 30"x70".
Thinking that either N or O would be the best to get a layout that is not too crowded.
Sound about right?
And in terms of rolling stock, I want to work in an era from the 1940's and earlier. Hopefuly there is stuff out there in that era.
Thx much for any advice you can offer.
Craig
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, no. O gauge rolling stock would be far too large for a 30"x70" space unless you were thinking of a John Allen "Timesaver"-style switching puzzle layout.
HOn2 1/2, N, or Z would probably be your best options for door-sized limitations.
You could even have curves! :-P
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twibil wrote:

Your reference to John's Timesaver layout brought back many memories, tks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/16/2011 10:37 PM, Musicman59 wrote:

N Scale for sure - decent number of steamers out there, your choices in 1940s switchers may be a bit limited, but still you should be able to assemble a decent roster of rolling stock. O scale on a door on those dimensions would be more a diorama or small switching layout.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

N scale. I had N until my hands got too twitchy. You can create realistic layouts in a small space. My O layout is pretty realistic, but it's 18' x 30'. Also the cost of motive power and rolling stock is substantially less using N.
--
Carl Heinz
snipped-for-privacy@charter.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/11/2011 12:24 AM, Carl Heinz wrote:

True, when you thin of them one at a time. Since people usually end up with a lot more rolling stock etc in N scale, an N scale layout can end up costing much more than an O scale one in the same space.
HTH Wolf K.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Wolf K" schreef in bericht

True, when you thin of them one at a time. Since people usually end up with a lot more rolling stock etc in N scale, an N scale layout can end up costing much more than an O scale one in the same space.
HTH Wolf K.
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.
Greetz Jan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:29:54 +0100 "Jan Van Gerwen"

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.

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/17/2011 10:01 PM, Sir Ray wrote:

Well, if it was a choice between O and N I'd pick S ;-) (Sorry but I'm quite partial to A.C. Gilbert's easy-to-work-on 1:64 size. Still a bit big for a door-size layout, though. And 3-rail model RR track is just too unrealistic IMHO) <Sigh> Probably N or Z is the best bet here. Sincerely,
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Note that not all O scale is three rail. There are a bunch of us in two rail. Unfortunately the track gauge is off, but that's another story ...
--
" Well you can't trust a special like the old time coppers
When you can't find your way 'ome"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FINALLY someone mentions S Scale:) As you note, S Scale is a little large for a door sized layout, but only if it's standard gauge. Sn3 cars and locos are bout the same size as HO scale standard gauge equipment and if cost is more important than absolute scale fidelity you could use HO scale track, trucks, and mechanisms and have a 42" narrow gauge. The Model Power DDT switcher scales nicely to S Scale (it's way to large for an HO locomotive) and they are cheap on eBay. Titchy makes HO scale ore cars that also "scale" well to S narrow gauge. I case you can't tell by now I really like S Scale - the Ideal Scale:) here's why http://www.squidoo.com/S-Scale-Trains
Cheers, Ken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Musicman59" schreef in bericht
Had a reality check and decided to pass on one of those layouts that eats your garage.
So the space I can use is the size of a door I have, 30"x70".
Thinking that either N or O would be the best to get a layout that is not too crowded.
Sound about right?
And in terms of rolling stock, I want to work in an era from the 1940's and earlier. Hopefuly there is stuff out there in that era.
Thx much for any advice you can offer.
Craig, what do you want to do, operate the layout and run trains on such a small base , yes then N or Z ( not much choice in that era ) is your scale. I f you want to build a beautiful layout with details everywhere, craftsmen structures and the building of the layout is more important then the operating possibilities , I would suggest H0 , 0 or one of the narrow gauge layouts.
Greetz Jan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.