Bayfield Transfer Railway Because HO seems the best compromise between "I like to operate," "I like to have 15 to 20 car trains," and "I like to detail locomotives and decal cars."
Because HO seems the best compromise between "I like to operate," "I like to have 15 to 20 car trains," and "I like to detail locomotives and decal cars."
All of that is being done in N Scale.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE Bayfield Transfer Railway Because HO seems the best compromise between "I like to operate," "I like to have 15 to 20 car trains," and "I like to detail locomotives and decal cars." All of that is being done in N Scale.
Bayfield Transfer Railway
I'm an N scaler and am quite happy with it. It's come a long way since back in the day. my layout is only 3' x 6' but I have a lot of fun with it.
Thank you, everyone, for the incredibly thoughtful responses so far-- really a wealth of knowledge and opinion here. I like to muse on why I do things a particular way, and that causes me to think more deeply about the worlds to which I connect, model railroading included, and to ask questions. I ask not because of my own situation per se (I'm quite happy with my choices for my own modest layout, and continue to learn on it, but remain open to exploring other scales in the future)-- but rather as a result of watching a pattern of conversations pop up on this forum about scale being a given when layouts are being planned, the occasional conflict between that scale and limitations of space or other important considerations, and wondering what lies behind those choices. I realize philosophical threads are not everyone's taste, but I'm glad to see some folks are interested (and civil, to boot.)
dknelson But to walk away from decades of HO stuff, and from decades upon decades of -- for want of a better term -- "HO skills," is just too much.
But to walk away from decades of HO stuff, and from decades upon decades of -- for want of a better term -- "HO skills," is just too much.
I hadn't thought about this aspect, that one hones some skills in specific ways depending on the scale in which one works-- and has less exposure to others. Interesting, and might add to the argument to further develop what you know and like, especially as it accumulates over a lifetime.
carl425 An architect builds a model of the building he is proposing to his customer, the scale of the model is decided based on the space he has available to display it. He would hardly use the same scale to model a shopping mall as he would for a single family house. When a publisher of say a model railroad magazine is publishing a plan (2D model) for a layout, the scale of the plan is chosen based on the size of the page. So why would one choose the scale for a model railroad up front instead of letting the planning process what scale is best to fit the desired features into the available space?
An architect builds a model of the building he is proposing to his customer, the scale of the model is decided based on the space he has available to display it. He would hardly use the same scale to model a shopping mall as he would for a single family house.
When a publisher of say a model railroad magazine is publishing a plan (2D model) for a layout, the scale of the plan is chosen based on the size of the page.
So why would one choose the scale for a model railroad up front instead of letting the planning process what scale is best to fit the desired features into the available space?
Tinplate Toddler In my 55 years of being a model railroader, I have built layouts in a number of different scales and gauges, the smallest being Z scale and the largest being a G scale garden layout. In all those years I selected the most appropriate scale for the project, based on the scope of it, but also its limitations in terms of size and budget.
In my 55 years of being a model railroader, I have built layouts in a number of different scales and gauges, the smallest being Z scale and the largest being a G scale garden layout. In all those years I selected the most appropriate scale for the project, based on the scope of it, but also its limitations in terms of size and budget.
Carl and Ulrich, I think this is a fantastic point, and one I'd like to keep in mind in the future in my own model building-- the scope, budget, and what I'd like the model to accomplish having more say in the choice of size. That said, I can also see the advantage of having a common thread through each project, a way to link one to the next if materials and skills are to be recycled and/or developed further.
Phil
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
My goal is to model the New Haven Railroad as much as possible from 1872 to 1969. I can't do that in N-scale like I can in HO scale. In HO scale, just about every major NH steam, electric, and diesel has been made in brass or plastic. In N-scale, I think there's two steamers (USRA Light Mountain and USRA 0-8-0), no electrics, and most of the NH's generic diesels (plus the Rapido FL9). Atlas made NH NE-6 cabooses in N but no one has made the NE-5 cabooses. Rapido made NH coaches in N, but no one has made anything else in N-scale.
IOW, it's far easier to model the NH in HO vs. N. I can't see me ever changing scales to N, especially since I have so much in HO already.
From my point of view those same reasons preclude me from switching to a larger scale, as I believe the larger scales require, in fact demand, even more, and indeed, smaller details.
My words! In G scale, you have to model the moss growing on roofs and individually paint the pidgeon droppings. Mind you, even an inch worm is already > 1mm.
Actually, modelling in N scale does not require eagle eyes and a watchmaker´s hands. Tiny detail you have to include in HO scale can simply be omitted in N scale and no one will be able to tell!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Tinplate Toddler Actually, modelling in N scale does not require eagle eyes and a watchmaker´s hands. Tiny detail you have to include in HO scale can simply be omitted in N scale and no one will be able to tell!
I have trouble getting them on the track.
My friend models N scale, and the newer N scale is indeed very nice. I have some interests that, if pursued more diligently, would be better modeled in N scale (streamliner passenger trains, double track main). But other interests (steam locomotive kits, sound) are easier in HO.
Gary
doctorwayne Likewise, I was strongly attracted by S scale, and especially Proto 64, but the thought of having to limit structure size and to even fit something believeable into my available space tempered my enthusiasm.
garyaI have trouble getting them on the track.
How about this?
I'm in HO and there are two primary reasons for staying with it for me: Detail and availability. While N-scale has the advantage of getting more trackage in the same-sized footprint, it just looks too toyish to me - particularly the couplers. And if I went up to S-scale or down to N-scale I would lose at least 90% of my NYC steam and early diesel roster.
With the plethora of available products in HO and my handskills still good, any other scale isn't even a consideration...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I also thought of changing scales from N to HO. A few years ago I saw Athearn made a new SP detailed locomotives like it was a GP30 something and maybe a GP40? I wanted the detail nose headlights that I couldn't get in N Scale without cutting.
I would wait for a detail SP locomotives.
I just can't seem to buy the same freight cars but I do switch I can also have Amtrak Superliner II in Phase IV with a set of phase III P40s.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
One factor about costs is measuring future expenses. 30 years ago I switched from O to HO. Yes it meant my O scale expenses were in a sense "wasted" as I wouldn't get much money back if I sold off my stuff (although the experiece gained in building kits, decorating models, doing scenery etc., stays with me.) However, at that time, it wasn't unusual for an O scale item to cost 5-10 times more than a similar HO item. Spending $5.49 for a TM/Walthers plastic X-29 kit was a better deal than spending $29.95 for an O-scale craftsman's kit. I realized in the long run, even with the "loss" of my O-scale "investment", I'd still come out ahead in a while by paying so much less for each item.
BTW, I looked at N also, but it didn't run that well back then. N now runs at least as well - probably better - than HO did then. I'm happy with my HO trains, but modelling in N now would be good too.
Phil,
With me, it's just the fact that HO is the smallest scale I can achieve acceptable (to me) results in when building things. Compound this with the factor that I like HO narrowgauge, where everything is proportionately smaller. This includes scratch-building, kit-built, and detailing RTR. I'm sure I could come up with something that would work in N, but I wouldn't be as happy doing it or with the results I could achieve. I really doubt I'd do more than dabble in Nn3, a stark comparison to what I can achive in HOn3.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I've been mulling this concept myself and having rather lengthy (and inquiring-glance attracting) debates with myself.
To the OP's point, my conflict is a combination of practical and emotional. I'm looking to stay in HO because of what I already have that can be reused, as well as my familiarity with it, and the fact that some of the structure kits have been used by other family members in the past, so they have history. But at the same time, I can't deny that I can get a great layout from using N scale as well.
My debate stems from what I want to do and can do with my space, and HO and N would both work well, albeit for different reasons. N gives me more trackage and scenery, but HO gives me finer detail and somewhat lower start-up cost due to having a number of structures and accessories I can put to use in the new layout. HO has more variety of the rolling stock I want, but there's enough in N to suit my needs. HO is the old familiar, while N is the new and interesting. In short, each has its own highly desirable qualities. The biggest factor really is my own lack of experience with N, and I don't really have the budget for a train set I may never use again right now. But I also don't want to just dismiss it out of hand either.
Too bad there isn't much US equipment in TT right now... Seems like that would be the way to go in my case.
- Adam
When all else fails, wing it!