"Smile"

[btaylor]

Found an interesting article on a model train sight. They were discussing actual versus Illusional layouts,Most of us don't have the kind of room it takes to build an "actual" scale road course,So we build what we think looks right and live with it. I found this quote from a long time railroader to be a unique way of looking at our layouts as well. With this "formula" our less than 1/4 scale mile track, now looks like a full size track.

'Way back around 1947, model railroader Frank Ellison invented what he called a "smile". This was a somewhat arbitrary, and irregular, distance at which he placed "smileposts". Ellisons' Delta Lines was an 'O' scale layout, but, making adjustment for HO, smileposts in a very large terminal may be 6 to 10 feet apart, but may be only two or three feet (or even less depending upon your layout) apart between towns on a main track.

So,with Road Atlanta being just over 2.5 miles,and Elkart Lake ,Road America being about 4. miles, How" long" is your layout?
Do you have a challenging 3 mile course?, is your Oval true scale 1/16 mile track, or is it the 1/2 or 1 mile super speedway you envisioned?
measured in smiles of course! :D

Seems to me the "smile' was derived from "Slot- Mile" :lol:

Try it. You'll like it!

[Ember]

One of the reasons I always get a bit of a chuckle when people start getting a little caught up with the concept of scale. It is what looks right that matters most.

My 14 metre track works out about 500m, but it feels like it should be bigger. I've tried to be careful about putting size references with the back layer of track.

[btaylor]

[Ember]

I'm happy enough to have detail in the foreground. And well, the detailed cars deserve a proper environment to run in. But it is easy to try to pack too much into the small space of a track table. I suppose that's one reason why I made a conscious decision not to have any structures in place that would give visual references for size.

[RichD]

The use of forced perspective can make your track look a lot bigger. Only the buildings, etc. that will be right next to the cars should be to the same scale. For a 1/32nd track you can use some "O" gauge buildings and figures. You also would not want to use trees that are to scale, they will look much too big.

[BRP32]

Hey Guys!

I look at it this way, as long as I'm happy with it that is all that matters!

I like the less is more concept which I used on my small 4 lane Ho track I have posted pictures off most of you have seen.

Most of us only race with ourselves or host club races sparingly so most people don't see our layouts anyhow unless we post pictures of them.

In the end if it seems right to you and you are happy with it then that is all that should matter!

Make it fun not stressful.....

Wayne :D :D :D

[TsgtRet]

This is the very thing I've been pondering for my still-in-the-planning stages track. I'm shooting for an early/mid 50s Sebring-esque track laid out on an old airfield. To that end I've been collecting photos of WWII barracks and hangars and have several shots looking down closed runways for either end of my main straight. The point is, as an old model railroader, I know my course will never be "to scale" but if it gives the impression and it's fun to run then it fulfills it's primary requirement.

Minor thread jack...for some reason this reminded me of an old model RR comment aimed at the newlywed bride of a model railroader (and it could equally apply to all of us!). "Honey, when he tells you he wants to buy you your first house, don't believe him.......he wants to buy himself a basement, he doesn't care what's above the ground!"

[btaylor]

I remembered railroading 101 when I built the road course, I put much smaller trees in the back,and it really helps to add "size" to the track. I have scale trees were I need them and it all works out great to me. Running classic cars on a 55 ft track takes what seems like an eternity to make a lap! I love it.
Bob