Any space advantage with HO over O gauge?

[Anonymous]

Some guy I know is switching to HO because he says he'll have more space to run trains. I don't think there's an advantage to HO over O gauge and told him so. I think I'm right about it, at least O27. Right or wrong?

[tcripe]

HO will appear to offer an advantage because he can run longer trains and can fit more cars into sidings in, say, the same 4' x 8' space. But longer passenger and freight cars in HO look just as bad negotiating an 18" radius as long O gauge cars going around an 027 diameter.
- Terry

[Anonymous]

He may not have much more space to run trains (if any at all), but he'll be able to add a lot more scenery and accessories to his layout in that same relatively limited area. And if he sticks with smaller locomotives and rolling stock, he'll have a more visually convincing layout in that space.

EVERY scale has its own set of advantages and limitations, and I've never been one to try to talk somebody out of going with whatever they prefer. Different strokes for different folks is the operative concept in any hobby, or certainly should be.

[overall]

I worked in HO for a while and came back to O. The larger trains have more visual impact in my judgement. If space was an issue for me, I would probably try On3 or On30.

[Anonymous]

I would agree. It usually depends on what kind of cars and engines you would run on your layout. I think HO would have somewhat the same disadvantage if you were running long engines and freight (passenger) cars. Of course with shorter freightcars, you would have the vision of the layout as having more space. Same could be said for O.

Chris

[brianel027]

Well there is one advantage to HO and it isn't necessarily space. It's numbers...

There are far more HO scale modelers than there are 3-railers. Therefore is far easier for the HO manufacturers to make the variety of locomotives and rolling stock and have the sales to justify doing it.

I find the wish list threads on the other forum so entertaining how all these guys want to see this unusual locomotive made that ran only on one railroad and they want the most unusual variation of this locomotive made, and then they won't buy it until it becomes a blowout. LIttle does anyone realize that this kind of buying sends the message to the companies that it isn't financially viable to make this kind of product: one of the major contributing reasons why K-Line went under.

So in HO, there's no need to harange the 3-rail companies to invest in tooling for this or that kind of product. load it with electronics and price it at a loss. Just go to the hobby shop... in HO it's probably already been made.

[phillyreading]

No real advantage far as space is concerned, HO still needs close to three feet for a small circle, 027 can make a small circle in under 30 inches, HO would take 35 inches or better. In HO there are three main curve sizes and most stuff won't make it around the small curves, 15 inch, 18 inch & 21 inch curves, to get the diameter of a circle just double the number size of the curve. Far as N gauge is concerned it is twice as expensive than O gauge for the rolling stock, engines are almost double what HO costs, this is just from looking around at a hobby shop in West Palm Beach FL area.
Lee Fritz

[HopperSJ]

Another advantage to HO is cost. I priced out the same layout with HO and O and found O to be twice as expensive. The same applies to scenery, locos, and rolling stock. HO is just plain cheeper.

However, O IS cooler.[8D] If you want trainsounds, opperating accessories, and more detail, you will probably find it on O rather than HO.

I made the decision to switch to HO a while back, but at the last minute reversed course. My kids wanted O and I wanted to play with them. O is a better scale for young little hands and has a greater cool factor for little minds with all the operating accessories, etc. No contest.[:o)]

I also agree with Allen above. I had a beautiful HO layout planned. when I switched back I tried to translate the layout into O. While it technically was possible, it left me no room for accessories or scenery. it was all track or grass!![:0]

[thor]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HopperSJ

Another advantage to HO is cost. I priced out the same layout with HO and O and found O to be twice as expensive. The same applies to scenery, locos, and rolling stock. HO is just plain cheeper.

However, O IS cooler.[8D] If you want trainsounds, opperating accessories, and more detail, you will probably find it on O rather than HO.

I made the decision to switch to HO a while back, but at the last minute reversed course. My kids wanted O and I wanted to play with them. O is a better scale for young little hands and has a greater cool factor for little minds with all the operating accessories, etc. No contest.[:o)]

I entirely agree! You wrote my answer to that question.

The PLAY value is the O gauge advantage and the HO has it all in terms of choice and relatively low cost.

I also agree with Allen above. I had a beautiful HO layout planned. when I switched back I tried to translate the layout into O. While it technically was possible, it left me no room for accessories or scenery. it was all track or grass!![:0]

[Anonymous]

If you want operational complexity, then you HO wins the vote. If you just want to run trains, the O is the way to go.

[FJ and G]

IMO HO is the worst scale to model in simply b/c it's a compromise between size and amount of train/scenery. IMO (just personal opinion), it inadequately addresses both.

For amount of train and scenery, N is much better and heft starts at S scale.

As for space, 027 can fit in a lot more than 18 radius (036) HO. Having said that, HO flex can be flexed out to much shorter diameter for trolleys or light industrial.

If you really want to know where HO "gauge" comes in most useful, it is for On3 (or On2.5) operations, where heft is much more, and HO gauge track is (normally) used.

Just personal opinion.

[Dr. John]

I think that S is often overlooked in the scale v/ space arena. I enjoy O-27 running and I'm not worried about realism to any degree. If I were to return to "scale" railroading, I'd probably go with S for several reasons: More visual impact, heft, etc. than HO, takes less space than O scale, reasonably priced rolling stock and engines available from several vendors as is track. Certainly harder to find than either HO or O, but with the internet, easy to order. A scale S gauge layout can be built on a 5x9 table or in a space not much larger than HO.

[Dave Farquhar]

There've been several times someone has told me they were going with HO solely because they didn't have a big enough table for O. Then we did the math. Sometimes the result is in the person going to N, other times to O.

HO has plenty of things going for it, but space isn't really one of them, unless you're comparing HO with full-size 1:48 scale O.

[fwright]

Given a limited space, here are the trade-offs I see working in both (I am assuming 3 rail O27, not scale O):

- HO actually requires slightly bigger radius, but half or less the space between tracks using mainstream track systems. You can build similar layout in a 4x8 space in both HO and O27, but you can have passing tracks and spurs in HO that won't fit in O27.

- Both will have ridiculously short trains in a layout 10ft or less long. HO will be somewhat less ridiculous. On a table top layout my rule of thumb for longest train length that looks reasonable (and will fit passing sidings and spurs) is the length of straight between the 2 end curves. In HO, that is about 4.5 ft which is an engine and 7 40ft cars. In O27, the same passing siding will hold an engine and 3-4 cars. But because you don't do the switching and passing siding thing very much on a small O27 layout, you would probably end up running about 5-6 car trains.

- structures are HUGE in O27 compared to HO. Leaving space for them really reduces the amount of track in a small O27 layout.

- In O27, sound and animation are easily achieved and a lot of fun. Operating accessories are taken for granted and are quite reliable. In HO, sound is just really coming into being, but is not generally present in the smaller locos that look reasonable running on a 4x8. Animation and operating accessories are virtually non-existent unless you build your own from scratch.

- HO is much better suited to slow speed running and switching operations. O27 is much more of a watch them run, especially in the dark.

- O27 is much more durable and reliable, especially in the hands of kids. It doesn't take the close attention to track and wheel gauge, coupler height, and so forth that HO does to run reasonably well.

my thoughts, your choices
Fred W

[HopperSJ]

Hey Fred - I think you said what I said. . . . . . only better!![:D]

[brianel027]

Funny thing I notice here is the several times that the comparison comes between HO and "027" 3-rail operating. I tell folks many of the same things as mentioned above when this question pops up. Really, you can have as much of a layout (as far as running and operating) with 027 track as with HO.

May just be the mindset of more members on this forum. And yet funny how the general trend of the importing train companies offerings are still leaning heavily towards the scale side. They seem quite happy to risk the tooling costs and the potential of having to blow out these products in order to be the "industry leader." Makes me laugh when I think the now out of business K-Line's slogan could be "follow the leader." Or the slogan of the various big train importers could be "three blind mice." The "027" phrase still seems to have connotations of the Frankenstein monster or some dreaded fatal disease.

The 027 operator and buyer is probably the most forgiving and easiest to please of all the various 3-rail operating factions. So maybe the subject title of this post should read "Any space advantage with HO over 027?"

In my opinion, many of the scale operators have gotten as much if not more unreasonable and demanding of precise, accurate scale models as any HO modeler I know or have ever met (and some of those guys are pretty picky). At least the HO guys have the sheer numbers to justify all the various product types in HO scale. When I read the gripes about rivet counts and chuff rates, it makes me all the happier I'm a 027 hi-railer. I only wi***he train importers would pay a little more attention to this group of modelers who are far far easier to please.

Ironically, at the last train show I did, I got more nice comments from the HO guys saying they liked my 027 layout over the full scale command control hi-rail layout. Not because of the scale, but because I was doing so much modifying, repainting, rebuilding and scratch building... something the HO guys have done without reserve for decades. Several told me it was so refreshing and unusual to see a 3-rail guy who wasn't obsessed with the "financial collectible value" of his trains.

[jimhaleyscomet]

"...They seem quite happy to risk the tooling costs and the potential of having to blow out these products in order to be the "industry leader." Makes me laugh when I think the now out of business K-Line's slogan could be "follow the leader." Or the slogan of the various big train importers could be "three blind mice." The "027" phrase still seems to have connotations of the Frankenstein monster or some dreaded fatal disease...."

I think the problem is you have to sell and service 20 - O27 sets verses one $2000 loco.

Jim H

[traindaddy1]

My two cents: Space is not the question. It is what you do with the space. HO offers a chance to load the layout with all sorts of goodies. It also lets you use more switch combinations and, properly wired, lets you operate more than one train on the same track with individual cab control. I really loved working with HO but, for me, eye sight and not-too-steady hands caused me to go larger (O-27). If I had a choice, I would probably stay with HO for scale and details. But, for "playing with" , in the same space, I think O-27 is better. Thanks for asking.

[Anonymous]

Ehh.... don't worry about your friend, it's just a phase.... like teenage pimples.

I tried Half-O too. Once the novelty wears off, he'll come right back to Full O-gauge.... once it gets in your blood, you can never really be happy with the itty-bitty scales. That's just not "Real Lionel Railroading"!!

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dr. John

I think that S is often overlooked in the scale v/ space arena. I enjoy O-27 running and I'm not worried about realism to any degree. If I were to return to "scale" railroading, I'd probably go with S for several reasons: More visual impact, heft, etc. than HO, takes less space than O scale, reasonably priced rolling stock and engines available from several vendors as is track. Certainly harder to find than either HO or O, but with the internet, easy to order. A scale S gauge layout can be built on a 5x9 table or in a space not much larger than HO.

You're quite right about the much-ignored and much-maligned S scale. The offerings by S manufacturers have never been better, voluminous or more diverse than they are right now -- especially with the Flyonel Mike, the S-Helper Consolidation and American Models' new Northern. Enough detail there to satisfy rivet-counters and high-railers alike. Plus, I have been a visitor to sessions on HO layouts and at my age (mid-50s) cannot get the tiny wheels on the tracks -- even with reading glasses.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

Plus, I have been a visitor to sessions on HO layouts and at my age (mid-50s) cannot get the tiny wheels on the tracks -- even with reading glasses.

Perhaps you should get a seeing eye dog.

[lionelsoni]

That's not very nice, J. Fred.

[brianel027]

"I think the problem is you have to sell and service 20 - O27 sets verses one $2000 loco."

Actually Jim your point is a very common misconception. Now on train sets, this would be true to some degree. BUT more profit is made from the long tooled up 027 and traditional 0 items than on other newer items, at least so I have been told by the owner of one train company and an engineering tech from another.

Folks don't stop to think that every single new item has tooling costs behind it. A new steam locomotive can cost around $200,000 to get off the ground and into production. So obviously you need to sell a whole load of them at a discount price with an extended duration run period, or on a more limited run the list price needs to be high. This is why the blowouts are so harmful, especially on newly tooled products and has a great deal to do with why K-LIne folded (their dishonesty and foolish press release after the first Lionel agreement not withstanding).

Or take MTH who has admitted to having millions involved in the creation of DCS. Even with the popularity of MTH locomotives, I really wonder if MTH has made a return on the millions spent? MTH has long had a reputation on wanting fast payment from dealers and wholesalers for their products. Also remember, MTH let quite a few workers go and I've read that Mike himself took a paycut. You don't spend millions of dollars on products without either seeing a fast return or making budget cuts.

The simple truth is that more money is made on a traditionally sized 6464 box car than on a newer tooled version. So why don't the conpanies make more of this kind of product?? Good question. The past 2 former CEO's at Lionel both said the strongest area of improved sales was in starter sets and starter related items.

But again, 027 is the boogyman that gets no respect. The past few years have seen vicious competition between the various train companies, and in many respects probably ego played more into it than actual consumer demand. Consider that Lionel and MTH both claim to be the premiere 3-rail train makers, and that K-Line had plans to be the number one company within 5 years.

For example, did K-Line really think the market needed another Hudson steamer? Their idea I'm sure was to make the very best affordable one that had ever been made in order to capture a larger market share, drawing more people into buying K-Line products. This was certainly the intent of the K-Line Collector Club offerings too. And the over ambitious multitude of new scale product offerings... too many for the market to successfully support.

In another train of thought, I don't think Lionel anticipated a long and extened production run of the Acela train. The list price alone along with the large required minimum radius puts it out of reach of many. I'm sure the idea here was prestige and publicity. I've read some non-train magazine comments on the two-grand list price, but that also mention what a fine looking model it is. Making a product like that is as much a publicity vehicle as it is rubbing dirt in the face of the other train companies with an unsaid "ha ha ha ha, look at this fine outstanding product we made." And I suppose the two grand list and limited run will spark some buyers thoughts of near future collectibility: a factor the hobby has suffered from recently. Even John Brady commented that is was important to Lionel to bring back the collectible price values back to Lionel products.

So maybe that single $2,000.00 locomotive sale is in the short-term, more important today. But the sale of those 20 train sets is far far more important on a long-term level and to future continued sales of train products.

[underworld]

There can be an advantage if you model HO narrow gauge....like HOn30. It runs on N gauge track....or specially made HOn30 track...also known as HOn2 1/2 and HOe.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

Of course, there is a huge space advantage of modeling in Z!

But personally, I like to be able to see the trains.

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fwright

- structures are HUGE in O27 compared to HO. Leaving space for them really reduces the amount of track in a small O27 layout.

This point is one all too often overlooked, especially by HO guys switching to On30. Yeah, the gauge is the same, and, yeah, the curves are nearly the same, but building take up 4 times the space and 8 times the volume of HO. That difference alone is insignificant if the layout is all scenery, but any buildings, and especially any town settings, multiply the necessary size exponentially. And cities eat up space like my younger son eats pasta.

[lionelsoni]

The structures are indeed larger, but not quite as much as that. Remember that the O scale we use (to the extent that we do use it) is undersized for the track gauge (1.25 inches), and that the O that HO is half of is based on an even wider gauge (33 millimeters). So the area increase is a factor of 3.3 and the volume a factor of 6, not that the volume really matters, since height is rarely a problem. Every little bit helps.

[palallin]

Any trackside structures actually eat up more than 4 times tha area because clearance requires extra room thanks to wide swing and overhang on rolling stock.