HO or N? ..... I'm torn!

[88gta350]

I'm in the planningstages for my new MRR... construction will begin once we finalize our new house purchase towards the end of the summer. The layout is going in one half of a two-car garage, approx. 11x22 feet. I've always had my mind on HO scale because I've got enough room, I've aquired a few locomotives and stuctures in that scale, I like the way it is easier to handle and detail, and it's what I've always modeled in.

My MRR is going to be a short line that runs approx. 10 miles through a farming valley. Me being the way I am, I want to try t model as much of that 10 miles as I can, without compression. This got me thinking about a switch to N scale. I don't have so many locos that it couldn't switch (I wouldn't be losing a lot of money), I could get a LOT longer main line run in, I could model more of the towns I plan on passing through, and all the other benefits of N. What my reservations are: It's a ficticious line, so I'm doing all my own painting/decaling. I'm an amateur at this so trying it on HO scale is hard enough, I don't even want to think about trying to mess with N scale stuff. I think HO looks a little more realistic. In photos, where scale can't be judged, N can look just as good as HO, but in real life, at least to me, HO looks more realistic with it's bigger size, and there's more available in HO.

So my dilemma is: Stay with my current HO plan, compress the towns/industries and the distance between them, or eliminate some altogether (it's a farming valley, so realistically I should have long distances between towns) but have more detail to said towns/industries/locos and a more realistic looking scale.... or......

Go with N scale where I could have longer distances between towns while still keeping them a more prototypical size, have a more prototypical main line run, but sacrfice detail to the engines/structures, and have to deal with things so small my fingers might as well be thumbs?

I'm torn, so I'm asking for some opinions. I realize most here model in HO, so you might be biased, and the ultimate answer is do what makes me happy, but if you guys had the space I have (and were planning an around the wall layout for continous run ability), what would you go with? As I said, selective compression always bothers me (I lie to model as much as I can), but so does not being able to see what I'm working on.

[Anonymous]

If it were my first layout, and I didn't have an accumulated 17 years of Ho Scale Model train stuff. In your space I would go with N becasue you can do twice as much in the same space. Or if you were even more daring, go Z.. Even though I find N hard to work in, and expect Z to be a royal pain for me. If you want help with painting locomotives and stuff. I am a custom painter and I can help you out in that regard.

[BentnoseWillie]

If compression bothers you that much and you're more into running road trains than doing a lot of shunting, then N probably makes more sense.

What you could do is build a small diorama before you commit either way. If you start with a rough trackplan for the layout, the diorama could be made to fit into the large layout. It can be as small as a foot or two in length. If you really want to go all-out, build two identically-sized dioramas of the same scene - one in HO and one in N. Then you can compare them and decide what best floats your boat. That way you haven't invested in much and have something to inspire you while you build the layout. [:)]

[orsonroy]

You're modeling a shortline. That means a bit of mainline running, with more switching than on a purely mainline layout. I'd suggest HO. While it's true that you CAN successfully switch in N scale, it's also true that it's harder to do, and that HO is great for switching (O is better, but I'll leave them out of this).

What era are you modeling? If you're modeling steam, the only GOOD shortline steamer in N is the Bachmann 2-8-0. You've got many more options in HO. Same with diesels. Atlas and Life Like make nice N scale switchers, but your choices are much larger in HO. You also have more choices in freight cars in HO.

If you want as little compression as possible, and you're modeling a shortline, consider a double deck point to point. I've got almost four scale miles of track on my 12x25 triple decker layout, most of which is really only 6x25. With 11x22, twice around is roughly 2.2 scale miles, or a 5:1 compression in HO (not bad!) Of course, in N you'll have almost 5 scale miles of track...

[Roadtrp]

I model 'N' and really enjoy it. But if I had the space I would go with HO, for two primary reasons:

1) There is a much greater variety of equipment available for HO. Every time I go to the LHS or page through Walthers I'm reminded that HO is about 75% of the modeling market.

2) People and all of the other small details that can make a layout really come to life are so small in 'N' that you can hardly see them. You have no problem seeing trains or structures, but the details just don't have the impact that they do in HO.

Actually, if I REALLY had the space I'd go with 'O'. In many ways, bigger IS better. [:)]

[FJ and G]

Like Ray, I too am biased for O. To me, HO and N are equally hard to see. If I had my druthers, I'd go for N to get more scenery, track and structures in and run longer trains. It's basically a no-brainer IMO. And, you mentioned HO looking more realistic, except in pictures; well, friend, O scale can look tiny if the train is 4 feet away and an HO train is 1 foot away. Solution? Bring the layout up to or near eye level and N can be made to look just as big as HO and even O scale.

Just don't sneeze too hard!

Dave Vergun

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 88gta350


I'm torn, so I'm asking for some opinions. I realize most here model in HO, so you might be biased, and the ultimate answer is do what makes me happy, but if you guys had the space I have (and were planning an around the wall layout for continous run ability), what would you go with? As I said, selective compression always bothers me (I lie to model as much as I can), but so does not being able to see what I'm working on.

I currently model in N-scale and I'd stay with N-scale if I had that much more room. One of the strongest advantages to N-scale is the higher scenery to track ratio you can achieve. If one could resist staying away from N-scale track plans that try to shove as much track into an area as possible, you can get some long straight runs, broad curves, and plenty of scenery (like in 1:1).

Like you, I don't like to compress. I also like to run longer trains. A single loco and a few cars just doesn’t do it for me. It’s not what I usually see in 1:1. A trio (or quartet) of loco’s with cars in the dozens is more like it!

That said, there are certainly other important things to consider. The first of which is your level of comfort dealing with a smaller scale. No sense in modeling in N-scale if the small size is just going to drive you crazy. It’s a hobby, and you’re supposed to enjoy it!

The second is cost. Keep in mind that N-scale can get more expensive because you have to buy more to fill the same space as HO.

I would not sweat the availability issue between scales. N-scale has been on quite a new product tear lately, and each month brings out even more that was not previously available. I’d say the “availability gap” between N and HO is closing rapidly.

The choice is yours. Good luck!

[cwclark]

if you have bad eyesight and big hands like me then stick with the HO stuff...I know you can get a lot more railroad in with N scale but at what physical cost to your body (especially your eyes from the strain and your frustration level from losing all of those tiny tiny parts into the carpet?)...it would make me go blind if I messed with N scale for too long...another reason is that HO scale stuff is more available than N scale stuff and the price of it is cheaper...it's your railroad so do what you want with it.... but you better decide quick..the move is just around the corner...P.S...A word from experience...get all the honey do's out of the way first after you move...it keeps your better half in a better frame of mind when you do decide to start building....
Chuck [:D]

[Anonymous]

You don't say what era you are in, I used to prefer HO and after about 5 years in N I am just beginning to prefer it, especially if you are modelling todays equipment. SD90's and AutoMaxs, Center beams, and articulated intermodals would eat up a ton of space in HO. In N the modern equipment looks for like TT or even HO. I have an Atlas tri-level auto rack car and it is as long and almost as high as an HO 40 foot box car.

Don't listen to the "switching" in HO is better line. One of the famous operating layouts in N is here in Vancouver - Brian Morgan's. Up to 300 hundred cars are switched and transferred in one hour in his operating sessions.

[88gta350]

Let me put some more details out there about what I'm modeling. As I said, it's a short line based in a central PA farming valley, with some heavy industry. (Farm machinery construction, lumber mill, steel foundry are the biggies).... but I'm a very scenery oriented guy. I'll have the industries to swicth, but more often than not they'll be for looks more than function. I like continous run, I'm not into switching much, but to keep it interesting I'm building that option into the layout... after all, I don't have to use it. My trains will naturally be short because of the nature of my line, but I long main line runs. I'm modeling early-mid '90s, but becuase my line is a short line, it uses older equipment (no dash 9 here, except just for fun.

I'm not bent on prototype running, but I do like prototype scenery, which is where my aversion to compression comes in. Basically it comes down to this: I want to recreate the valley I grew up in, and oh yeah, it happens to have trains running through it. That's what make sme lean towards N, but I'm hesitant to start all over in a new scale.

Greyhound, what is usally the total cost to do a locomotive, asuming you are provided with accurate paint schemes and don't have to do much in the way of research? I saw your website (I think it was yours that was posted a few days ago) and saw the hourly rates, but how long does it usually take? If I do go to N, I might try to do a loco on my own, but would probably end up going to a professional seeing's how it likely wouldn't turn out too well.

Thanks for the opinions guys! Keep 'em coming!

[Anonymous]

Go HO. Not nearly as hard to paint and see, plus there's more available. Perhaps you could make a smaller N scale layout in another room? N is great for having a big layout, BUT, there's not as much equiptment available versus HO. If you're really daring, go with 2 rail O. Atlas makes some fine looking O scale prodeucts. So my opinion is, go with HO.

HO is the way to GO! (tee hee)

[Anonymous]

When I switched to N, I had thousands of dollars in HO. It wasn't an easy decision for me. I can still remember the first N scale Atlas "set" I bought. I returned home and put it on the plywood and I thought - "how pathetic." So you can see my experiences with N had only one way to go and that was up.

Fortunately for me, my son is avidly into trains and MRR'ing. We did a lot of rail fanning in the Fraser/Thompson Canyon - the spectacular scenery that American tourists pay big buck so they can see - this great area - on the Rocky Mountaineer. In theory, if I followed the stats that MR has provided over the years, I should be modelling Jasper Alberta in 1956 or 57. I lived there while my father was in the first peace keeping unit in the Suez Canal. My grandfather was the engineer on the CN Super Continental (now Via) driving the train from Jasper to Edson and back. But you know, if you rail fan a lot today, its easy to like the modern equipment, and the modern equipment "fits" better in N scale layouts rather than HO. This is something that not many seemed to have twigged to yet, including MR staff. I guess so many only have eyes for the "transition" era, they haven't walked the "modern" walk yet.

I have a space in a small bedroom/study that is roughly 9 by 13 and I suspect I, like you, wanted an "empire" to run on. After fooling with a couple of graph paper layout plans, I realized that I had to go to N to get what I was after.

For a couple of years, I looked longingly at HO. But I might have one advantage over you, all my friends have HO layouts so I get my "HO" fix taken care of in their basements. It was a long time before I could actually look at some one and say "I prefer N scale." My story is not one of those who on the road to Damascus had a "conversion" experience. For me, it was a slow acceptance, then liking, then sincerely enjoying the scale.

Secondly, like you I wanted continuous running. I have reversing loops which now with DCC, auto-reverser's and decoder detection, you can have continuous running with it even though the track doubles back on itself. But over time, for me continuous running has lost its luster. All my friends, with the exception of one, have "point to point" running. After years of running on their layouts, I don't even notice that there's isn't continuous running. What makes the layout stay interesting for me is the switching. In fact, if I had limited space, I'd probably build an N scale "L" shaped switching layout.

Continuous running is great when you want to sit back and sip a cold one, enjoying the work you have accomplished on the layout. But I find I want to do this only occasionally now. Include the switching on your layout, its what may save your interest in the layout once the scenery is done.

Which ever scale you decide, I'm sure you will be happy. But if you want scenery oriented layout in a small area, you'll get more in with N.

Good luck on your choice.

[IRONROOSTER]

Since you have the room for it, do two layouts, one in each scale. Say a 4x8 in N and a 5x10 in HO. Limit your buying to a couple of locos and 20 or so cars in each scale, do a few buildings and some scenery. Put in a basic loop with two passing sidings and a couple of spurs for switching and see which one you like the best. An 11 x 22 space is fairly large for one person - so you'll be doing this for a long time. Trying out both now will let you make an informed choice. Personally, I went the other way. Started in HO, moved to O and then went to S for my current 11x18 foot layout. I now have enough stuff for layouts in 3 scales, but I have been happy in S for the last ten years.
Enjoy
Paul

[88gta350]

ttt

[brothaslide]

Try somthing in the middle - HOn3 It's still HO but the rail width is midway between the two scales.

[on30francisco]

I tried N scale in the past but it was too difficult for me to work with. I now model in HO and On30. There are many more supplies available in HO (especially steam and old timer cars) and it is easier than N scale to work with. On30 is O scale narrow gauge that runs on HO track. O scale is very easy to work with and the detail is great. The best part of On30 is that you can have the heft and detail of O and the convenience of HO.

[Anonymous]

HO to me is the best way to go. there is more out there for you to buy.

[bcammack]

Just a thought about details. One thing I like about N scale is something that another poster didn't like is that the "fine details" tend to vanish in such a small scale.

For me, being somewhat lazy, I like the fact that I can have a more "realistic" appearing layout without having to sweat every blade of grass. [:)]

I've seen more than one HO layout at train shows that seemed terribly bare because of little more than ballasting, and a dusting of ground foam. Because the really small stuff recedes to invisibility in N scale, ballast and a dusting of ground foam looks a lot more complete.

Just another perspective.

BTW - I'm terribly myopic, with bad astigmatism, macular degeneration in one eye, and I'm picking up my first pair of bifocals this coming Saturday, and I model N scale. [:)]

[BRAKIE]

I have industrial switching layouts in HO and N scale.Both scales is equal as far as switching operations IMHO.As far as details,I hardly pay any attention to the details on my HO locomotives or cars under normal operation viewing even though both layouts is 50" from the floor and just above mid chest level when I am setting on my homemade engineer's seat.

[Anonymous]

I model in both scales, I'd say it really matters, if I had more space I'd be 100% HO, after having to chop down the layouts size a bit I didn't have that space so thats why I'm modeling in N, I'd say there is more 1820's-1970's stuff in HO and more modern stuff in N (I'm still waiting for a Reading & Northerm SD50 in HO).

[Anonymous]

Do both, intermix them, run HO in the forground and a N scale in the background, really gives the impression of distance.