So Paul....After 87/160 cubed the total volume of 6 N-Scale boxcars would fit into one HO boxcar, proven by the math. But we also have N scale is .54375 which is a little over half the size of HO, also fact. This is where math gets a little freaky. It's been a lot of years but I do seem to recall some kind of clause in mathematics with mixing volume and percentages. It doesn't all completely make sense.
TF
Part of the point of the discussion of mass, (volume) of models compared to just the linear scale differences, is that mass adds heft.
If an HO scale model of an F 7 weighed one pound even, a different scale scale loco built to the same exact construction methods and materials filling it's volume the same percentage would weigh:
N scale : 2.6 oz
HO scale 16 oz...1 LB
S scale 40.32 oz... 2.52 lb
O scale 96 oz...6 lb
That's not to say that this heft is the main or most important determining factor in the decision regarding scale trade offs, but it does come into play.
I model HO. I can get the low speed performance I want from even relatively small critter locomotives with a lot of work. (Yes, that's a trade off in itself)
In S scale, the weight ratio is just over 2.5/1 over HO. That would be GREAT when building small critters.
O Scale? 6/1!!! Yeah, I can see why it's been called the King of Scales. I've seen O scale 2 rail locomotives in action and I hafta say, my HO doesn't capture the sense of weight in motion as does O scale.
In N scale? 1/6 of HO's mass. If I were to be an N scaler, I'd have to change my approach from slow little industrial switcher action to larger longer trains, with 3 or 4 locos. And I'll admit, there could be more appeal in that than I gave it credit for earlier when I think about it a little.
Dan
Southgate If I were to be an N scaler, I'd have to change my approach from slow little industrial switcher action to larger longer trains, with 3 or 4 locos. And I'll admit, there could be more appeal in that than I gave it credit for earlier when I think about it a little.
Dan,Once again you're talking over your head.Do you have any N Scale experience at all or are you going by the old HO bias myths that died out in the Cretaceous age?
One can have slow speed switching in N Scale,I've done it for years starting with the Mini Trix FM12-44.A engine well ahead of its time as far as slow switching speeds.
Today's quailty N Scale engines is far superior then that old FM switcher and performs just like their bigger HO brethren in the DC mode and using DCC even makes industrial switching sweeter.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
rrebell Don't forget it also boils down to what you like to run. Modern engines and freight cars can be huge. So if you like to run that stuff you need more room, regardless of scale. I run HO with most cars being 40' or less and smaller engines. They work great on 18" radius and $4 switches but you change that to modern deisels and 86' cars, they need like a 24" min radius or 1/3 more and they look funny on that where as 40' look fine on 18" radius.
Don't forget it also boils down to what you like to run. Modern engines and freight cars can be huge. So if you like to run that stuff you need more room, regardless of scale. I run HO with most cars being 40' or less and smaller engines. They work great on 18" radius and $4 switches but you change that to modern deisels and 86' cars, they need like a 24" min radius or 1/3 more and they look funny on that where as 40' look fine on 18" radius.
What you want to run and the space you have is a very important consideration. I'm modeling the 80's-00's, but due to space constraints and a maxium of 26" curves on my layout, I'm keeping nearly all my HO rolling stock close to 50' which is good for the running appearance and my wallet.
Not that I couldn't run larger stuff in the space I have, but if I was bent on long trains of long cars, I'd probably be better served by N scale.
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
Lone Wolf and Santa FeAh, the mythical TT scale. I’ve heard rumors about it but I’ve never seen it.
.
That is because all the wargamers bought it up to use as terrain for 15mm scale battle scenes. It is perfect.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
This thread has become quite the mishmash of bad takes, bad math, opinion-presented-as-fact, and general misinformation.
If only the Original Poster had stopped after his first sentence:
Track fiddlerEach scale in this hobby has positives and negatives.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Comparing O scale / gauge to other scales becomes difficult because O scale is off in several ways. If you divide out 56.5" standard gauge real track by 1.25 O gauge track, you get 1:45 scale, or 17/64ths = 1 foot. A few folks did model in that scale, but generally Europeans went to 7mm = 1 foot, or 1:43.55 scale (which is why all those European "O scale" automobiles are 1:43 scale) while in North America we went with 1/4" = 1 foot, or 1:48 scale. So US O scale trains are slightly undersized...unless you're in On3 or On30.
HO scale is "Half O" scale, but it was developed in Europe (Germany IIRC) first, so is half of European O scale - half of 7 mm/ft, or 3.5mm/ft. Half of 1:43.55 scale is 1:87.1 scale.
It is interesting how model railroading pretty much forces you to pick a scale.
Other hobbies do not do that.
I wargame in 6mm (1/285), 15mm (1/100), 28mm (1/56) and 54mm (1/32) scales. There is even one game I play that is 18mm scale (1/87 HO).
I build plastic models in all kinds of scales.
I build plastic historical scale military models only in 1/48, but that is for personal reasons.
However, in Model Railroading, I "SWITCHED" from N (1/160) to HO (1/87). It is pretty much assumed you cannot do two scales at the same time. I know a fraction of people do, but the vast majority do not.
Only in Model Railroading does a choice in scale dictate so much. It is an important decision.
I wouldn't take it too personally cuyama. I don't think anyone was trying to step on anyone's toes here, including me. If I offended you somehow, I do apologize, that would not be my intent.
Mathematics is a really interesting subject. Sometimes comparisons don't always make a lot of sense.
I think fractionally math is two-dimensional and that's why HO is 1.8391 the size of N-Scale by percentage.
I think cubic math is three-dimensional and that's why HO is 6.22 times the size of N scale by volume.
They are both correct. (somewhat mind-boggling) but that's why it's so interesting
I think that's what this forum is all about. Opinions, discussion and debate. We are all right sometimes and wrong sometimes. I think that's okay. That makes things interesting as well.
Have a great day
wjstixbut generally Europeans went to 7mm = 1 foot, or 1:43.55 scale (which is why all those European "O scale" automobiles are 1:43 scale)
That´s not quite correct. In Germany, where O scale was "invented", the scale is still the correct 1/45. While mixing it with 1/43.5 scale buildings, vehicles and figures is hardly noticable, the US 1/48 scale is looking very much undersized.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Track fiddlerif I offended you somehow
It takes a lot more than a forum thread to offend me.
My issue with bad information casually posted as fact to a popular forum like this one is that it turns up later in searches that will be misleading to newcomers.
And with that, I'll bow out of this discussion.
BRAKIE Dan,Once again you're talking over your head.Do you have any N Scale experience at all or are you going by the old HO bias myths that died out in the Cretaceous age?
You're right.
I'm basing my assumptions on how my lighter HO locomotives operate in my current operating conditions. Some have excellent drives, 8 wheel pick up, etc, but lack of weight tends to make them finnicky at current pickup. Maybe that's fair, maybe it' not. I haven't actually ran N units themselves.
If I was to start over in Model RRing I would take a more open minded look at the various scales including N.
But I'm already well established in HO, and am finally to the point that I have never reached on any previous layouts: Very happy with the way the traffic flows now, I'm covering the plywood and plaster cloth with scenery materials, ballasting track, making it look more like the real world. Getting an education in new territory, that's for sure. Dan
To be back on topic, there were no trade offs for me. It was HO all the way.
Only now, after aquiring a few "other" pieces of another scale, am I thinking of trying something else, "on the side"
But that's still not a trade off.
Now my neighbor up north, he started with HO, because of size restraints, he switched to N, which is great, because he sold me his Spectrum 2-8-0, DCC with sound, for a REALLY good price.
Mike.
My You Tube
Just last week I encountered another trade off. I was modeling a railing on a ramp. A standard residential railing is 2 1/4 inch, commercial 2 1/2, that scales out closely to .015 styrene, N scale. I might as well pluck a couple strands of hair out of my head. It would probably be slightly thicker.
Years ago I could deal with something that small and tedious. These days not so much. I made them out of .03 styrene, at least I can see that.
I also would like to add.... I as well have N scale locomotives that run smooth and slow as a snail in a drought. Not all of them but the quality new ones do.
Ulrich.... Welcome back. Good to hear from you again. Hope all is well with you
Track fiddler015 styrene, N scale. I might as well pluck a couple strands of hair out of my head. It would probably be slightly thicker.
My hair is 0.004" in diameter.
You must have very thick hair.
SeeYou190My hair is 0.004" in diameter. . You must have very thick hair.
There is an engineering spec based on hair.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
BigDaddy
My ex-wife was a beautician. I think I remember her telling me something like that from Beauty School, not really.... I don't think I remember anything my ex-wife ever said
I have to ask as it relates between scales but definitely not a trade-off for N scale with the availability of MTL truck couplers.
They are the Cadillac of trucks. The most well performing lack of friction wheels and magnetic knuckle couplers leading the industry.
I have already mentioned quite a few trade-offs in N scale. Just curious, does HO scale have trucks that compare to the engineering of these proven MTL trucks? Or is that that a trade-off for HO?
SouthgateI'm basing my assumptions on how my lighter HO locomotives operate in my current operating conditions. Some have excellent drives, 8 wheel pick up, etc, but lack of weight tends to make them finnicky at current pickup. Maybe that's fair, maybe it' not. I haven't actually ran N units themselves.
Dan,Quailty N Scale engines uses a split frame drive in short for their size they are heavier on the rail then in our hands--that's the best way I can explain that.
The cheap train set junk engine fits your primeter on slow speed since most had two speeds dead stop and wide open with a jack rabbit start.Horrible at best.
IIRC it was Atlas/Kato that introduce the split frame drive with their RS-3 in 1983..
N Scale has small smooth slow speed switchers Arnold Hornby SW1 and Bachmann's GE 44 and 70 tonners.I never thought I would see these small engines in N.
As a fun fact Katos N Scale NW2 has cab interior.
As I stated I started modeling in N in '68 and spent more years in N then HO.
Even at 71 I regret selling my N around 6 years ago.My heart will always be in N and never fully in HO.
You guys make your points well regarding N scale. I guess the trade-offs aren't as I perceived.
Southgate You guys make your points well regarding N scale. I guess the trade-offs aren't as I perceived.
N and HO does have one thing in common.. There's never enough room for one's "dream" layout.
Track fiddlerI have already mentioned quite a few trade-offs in N scale. Just curious, does HO scale have trucks that compare to the engineering of these proven MTL trucks? Or is that that a trade-off for HO?
This is a topic that always starts heated debate.
I use 100% Kadee trucks and wheel on all freight cars. They are not as free rolling as Micro-Trains N scale trucks. I use them because I judge truck performance by how reliably they stay on the track, not free-rolling.
The only HO scale truck I have seen that come close to being as free rolling as a Micro-Trains N scale truck are Kato's trucks.
I hope this does not spark an angry debate that has be re-hashed so many times.
SeeYou190 Only in Model Railroading does a choice in scale dictate so much. It is an important decision.
Careful, some contrarian might come along with some theories. For instance, me, who sees it as the other way 'round. Scale, in a sense, dictates what we model with the trains, but in the other things what you want to model has a way of dictating scale. Like my brother, who all WWII armor....in 1:35 because that's the most common scale for WWII armor?
NittanyLion Like my brother, who all WWII armor....in 1:35 because that's the most common scale for WWII armor?
Uh-Oh... that might be opening another can of worms. In the military modeling community there is a very hot debate about 1:32 vs. 1:35!
It is hotter than the OO vs. HO stuff we talk about sometimes.
For me, the case was based on availability of models. For the Santa Fe, HO provides you with a lot more options than any other scale, especially if you take brass into account. For the Santa Fe, N might be fine for modeling major passenger lines (among others, thanks to Pecos River Brass); however, if you are more into branch lines, doodlebugs and Prairies or small Mikados are only offered in HO brass.
NittanyLion SeeYou190 Only in Model Railroading does a choice in scale dictate so much. It is an important decision. Careful, some contrarian might come along with some theories. For instance, me, who sees it as the other way 'round. Scale, in a sense, dictates what we model with the trains, but in the other things what you want to model has a way of dictating scale. Like my brother, who all WWII armor....in 1:35 because that's the most common scale for WWII armor?
I have often thought: Why not do a double decker layout with a small scale such as N on top and a large scale such as O scale on the bottom?
Or if you have the space, a large primary layout and smaller layouts in other scale(s).
I know John Armstrong once said to pick 1 scale and stick with it. But that was back in the days before RTR everything and even building a small layout took a lot of time. But now I think that it is entirely feasible to have layouts in multiple scales.
Paul
IRONROOSTEROr if you have the space, a large primary layout and smaller layouts in other scale(s).
John Allen tried to do both HO and HOn3 on the GORRE AND DAPHETID. He realized that as the HO standard gauge layout becamoe operational, enthusiasm and progress on the narrow gauge line came to a stop.
My only experiences where I have seen people be successful modeling in multiple scales are those that have a beautiful garden layout and another layout in the home.
I also know one man that has a magnificent 7 1/2" gauge roster as well as an HO layout, but my 7 1/2" gauge mikado is 10% done and sitting under a tarp.
When I switched to HO I tried to keep active in N scale modular railroading, but that faded quickly.
SeeYou190. John Allen tried to do both HO and HOn3 on the GORRE AND DAPHETID. He realized that as the HO standard gauge layout becamoe operational, enthusiasm and progress on the narrow gauge line came to a stop.
Actually, I had in mind 2 different scales and 2 different layouts. John Allen's HOn3 was a part of his HO layout.
And as I noted back in John Allen's day, getting a layout built was a much longer process than it is today.
While not frequently covered, I have seen this in Model Railroader (don't remember the issues) and others.
SeeYou190My only experiences where I have seen people be successful modeling in multiple scales are those that have a beautiful garden layout and another layout in the home.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by success (probably different for each of us). But I agree it's not for everyone. Personally, before I moved I was doing both S scale and O gauge on 2 different layouts and really enjoying both. I admit neither layout was "finished", but then for me, trains running is success.
IRONROOSTERAnd as I noted back in John Allen's day, getting a layout built was a much longer process than it is today.
Absolutely true. I suppose trying to do something in two different scales is much more likely today than it was 40 years ago.
Tinplate Toddler wjstix but generally Europeans went to 7mm = 1 foot, or 1:43.55 scale (which is why all those European "O scale" automobiles are 1:43 scale) That´s not quite correct. In Germany, where O scale was "invented", the scale is still the correct 1/45. While mixing it with 1/43.5 scale buildings, vehicles and figures is hardly noticable, the US 1/48 scale is looking very much undersized.
wjstix but generally Europeans went to 7mm = 1 foot, or 1:43.55 scale (which is why all those European "O scale" automobiles are 1:43 scale)
Here, why didn't I think of this, I'll just bring it to the top. This was Ulrich's last undisturbed post.
Track fiddlerHere, why didn't I think of this, I'll just bring it to the top. TF
" ? "
But you did think of it. Not sure why, though.
Ed