Fluff, I'm doing almost exactly that. My space is 12x12, almost identical to the theoretical bedroom space used in MRP over the years for their room size designs. Three walls are 12 inch shelves, with the final wall being a 2x8 town. In my case I'm modeling branch line ops along the three narrow benches with only the small town at the end, so the lack of side by side tracks isn't a problem for me. In the region I model, from an eye level view, you seldom get great panoramic visits beyond the tracks. Rather there's a wall of trees on either side anyway, so the shelf is realistic.
As for the origianl question, I've been in both N and HO. Both are good, depending on the your desires. Overtime, I've grown more interested in the work of the crew on the ground so larger scales fit my goals. In fact, I keep trying to figure out how to fit 1/4 scale into the room to get even more massive effect.
thanks guys....Fred....thank you for the link to that track plan. that is what i have been looking for! i have n scale set up now in the room, but i really like this plan. i like a fair amount of track and sidings and enjoy a long run with as many cars as possible within reason. i guess i could do it in N or HO? i have several layout books, but haven't found exactly what i wanted, until now. thanks again for the Christmas present!
fluffthoughts on an around the walls layout? 12x10 feet on an 18 inch shelf. one of the 10 ft. sides is 12 inches wide. enough for HO? 24 inch minimum radius if HO...thanks
thoughts on an around the walls layout? 12x10 feet on an 18 inch shelf. one of the 10 ft. sides is 12 inches wide. enough for HO? 24 inch minimum radius if HO...thanks
Oddly enough, I have a 16x10-foot shelf layout in my basement. However, it's built sectional-style. That is, if I have to move, I can easily take it apart. Each section measures 2x6 feet, with a 4x4-foot square corner. There's plenty of room for track and scenery. Because the layout is in the corner, it leaves the rest of the room free for other things...such as my model cabinet, work bench, TV, etc.
Even though my main interest is HO, I have a small selection of N scale equipment. So far, that 'layout' consists of a loop of Kato's Unitrack. I'd been curious about N, but until one of the local shops (Esthers) had their "flood salvage" sale awhile back, I'd never taken the plunge. Ended up with a Kato E8, RDC, an Atlas U25B, and a couple dozen freight cars. While I was at it, I put some buildings together.Let me tell you, after several hours of working on an N scale building...the HO scale parts look huge!
fluff thoughts on an around the walls layout? 12x10 feet on an 18 inch shelf. one of the 10 ft. sides is 12 inches wide. enough for HO? 24 inch minimum radius if HO...thanks
Something to consider: a 12" deep shelf accommodates 5 parallel tracks in HO - and nothing else. Structures (even partials or semi-flats), trees, shrubs, roads, autos, platforms, and all other scenic elements will decrease the number of tracks that can be fitted on that shelf.
Where my HO shelf layout decreases to 12" deep, I try to maintain 3 or less tracks in any given cross-section. Even then, I have to be very careful what scenic and structure elements I plan for a given spot. Where my shelves can be deeper (16"), I have a 4 track maximum. And this is with HOn3 and HO 1900-era rolling stock, which is less overwhelming to a given scene than modern prototype models would be. The narrow gauge really requires the same space as the standard gauge to better simulate the "spread out" effect of many narrow gauge prototypes where flat land was available.
Worth studying is Scott Perry's Heart of Georgia track plan, which is essentially an HO shelf layout on 12" shelves (see http://hogrr.blogspot.com/2009/12/heart-of-georgia-track-plan.html). Note how partial structures are used extensively. Iain Rice is a proponent of eye-level, narrow shelf layouts, and he believes very strongly in framing and presenting the layout with a backdrop, "ceiling" over the shelf with lighting in the ceiling, and sectioning off scenes with framed edges.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
dale8chevyssIRONROOSTER Use what you have to get started. But be open to change. Over the years I have worked in all the scales except Z. They all have advantages and disadvantages. But it really is what you like to do. Personally I find S to be the right size - big enough to be easy to work on, trains have a nice presence on the layout, yet small enough to have a nice layout in an average basement.EnjoyPaul I think what I'd like about S is that if I decided to do a huge farm layout (I like tractors and such) then S would be easier because tractors tend to come 1/64 a whole lot easier than they do 1/87th.
IRONROOSTER Use what you have to get started. But be open to change. Over the years I have worked in all the scales except Z. They all have advantages and disadvantages. But it really is what you like to do. Personally I find S to be the right size - big enough to be easy to work on, trains have a nice presence on the layout, yet small enough to have a nice layout in an average basement.EnjoyPaul
Use what you have to get started. But be open to change. Over the years I have worked in all the scales except Z. They all have advantages and disadvantages. But it really is what you like to do. Personally I find S to be the right size - big enough to be easy to work on, trains have a nice presence on the layout, yet small enough to have a nice layout in an average basement.
Enjoy
Paul
I think what I'd like about S is that if I decided to do a huge farm layout (I like tractors and such) then S would be easier because tractors tend to come 1/64 a whole lot easier than they do 1/87th.
Not to mention the Ertl farm set.
rjake4454True, you can fit a lot more track in with the smaller scales, I may be in the minority here, but I think the smaller the scale, the more detailed scenery you need to make the trains look realistic. Personally, I like to run trains on a bare plywood table surface, sure I add ballasting, lighting, things of that nature, but I'm more into running trains than building an exactly scale environment
No more then HO..
In fact due to the size you can get by with a "oops!" and it may go unnoticed by your visitors. Not so in HO where every "oops!" sticks out like a sore thumb..
Some of my better ISLs was built in N Scale using a minimalist approach.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
The smaller scales like N can be nice, but the smallest I go is HO. Even when I pick up an HO caboose, I still feel like I am handling an extremely small train model. I'm starting to wonder if HO is "half 027" if even that, rather than half the size of regular O gauge.
True, you can fit a lot more track in with the smaller scales, I may be in the minority here, but I think the smaller the scale, the more detailed scenery you need to make the trains look realistic. Personally, I like to run trains on a bare plywood table surface, sure I add ballasting, lighting, things of that nature, but I'm more into running trains than building an exactly scale environment.
Plus, most of the smaller scales are plastic models. I model steam, so I prefer the hefty feel of die cast metal engines.
I agree that HO has more products available, but N scale has enough for anyone and more coming out all the time. My new N scale layout which I am in the process of building will have an operating hump yard, intermodal yard, docks and a fully integrated steel mill. You can not fit all that in a space 36 X 12 1/2 feet in HO. The mountain division will rise from 43 inches to 62 inches with a maximum grade of 2.42 percent. For me the layout potential of N scale out weigh any advantages HO might have.
Modeling the N&W freelanced at the height of their steam era in HO.
Daniel G.
davidmbedard BRAKIE Mr.B wrote:Sound is still rare, because of the difficulty of fitting decoders and speakers into the engines. ------------------------------------ Actually that is dated information.A lot of the quality DCC ready N Scale locomotives is "plug and play" and there is a lot more N Scale sound these days..Even the decoders are smaller. As far as working on N..I am 61 and still don't need to use my glasses or a opti visor.. Actually, I have to agree with MrB. The issue is that there is only 1 player in the N scale plug and play sound market.....MRC. The problem with the sound in N scale locos is 3 fold..... 1. MRC decoders have a horrible reliability or life rating. They tend to do what they want or die at a moment's notice. 2. MRC sound decoders have horrible sound quality. They also lack in the world of adjustment, having three sound levels of loud, louder and white-noise. 3. Putting a quality sound decoder into an N scale loco (Soundtraxx Tsunami 750 or LokSound Micro) involves removing a lot of the weight from the loco, hence making them poor electrical pickup performers....which is essential in sound-equipped locos. If you are looking to have sound in your locos, absolutely go with HO or larger scales. David B
BRAKIE Mr.B wrote:Sound is still rare, because of the difficulty of fitting decoders and speakers into the engines. ------------------------------------ Actually that is dated information.A lot of the quality DCC ready N Scale locomotives is "plug and play" and there is a lot more N Scale sound these days..Even the decoders are smaller. As far as working on N..I am 61 and still don't need to use my glasses or a opti visor..
Mr.B wrote:Sound is still rare, because of the difficulty of fitting decoders and speakers into the engines.
------------------------------------
Actually that is dated information.A lot of the quality DCC ready N Scale locomotives is "plug and play" and there is a lot more N Scale sound these days..Even the decoders are smaller.
As far as working on N..I am 61 and still don't need to use my glasses or a opti visor..
Actually, I have to agree with MrB. The issue is that there is only 1 player in the N scale plug and play sound market.....MRC.
The problem with the sound in N scale locos is 3 fold.....
1. MRC decoders have a horrible reliability or life rating. They tend to do what they want or die at a moment's notice.
2. MRC sound decoders have horrible sound quality. They also lack in the world of adjustment, having three sound levels of loud, louder and white-noise.
3. Putting a quality sound decoder into an N scale loco (Soundtraxx Tsunami 750 or LokSound Micro) involves removing a lot of the weight from the loco, hence making them poor electrical pickup performers....which is essential in sound-equipped locos.
If you are looking to have sound in your locos, absolutely go with HO or larger scales.
David B
David,There are other ways to enjoy sound in N Scale.Try adding sound to a dummy locomotive,tender or a trailing boxcar/baggage car..In the wee scale one needs to think outside the box.
About the MRC sound..I have notice the HO sound decoders works quite well in the analog mode but,isn't worth a hoot in the DCC mode..
I think that a lot of folks are missing the really critical point with their advice. The governing factor in the choice is really the hobbyist himself, rather than the space and available equipment.
Aspects I see as critical here are those like is the hobbyist young or old; does he still have good eye-hand coordination; is his eyesight really good, or has he already reached the stage where glasses are a constant necessity to accomplish everyday tasks? Likewise, just what are the aspects of the hobby he thinks he might wish to persue? Is it just watching trains run, or does he want them to "do" something instead. Does he like the challenge of building things, or is he a store-bought-only kind of guy; has he perhaps an interest in electronics/computers? And in particular, what sort of cash does he have readily available to spend on a hobby?
All these questions weigh heavily on any decision and should be addressed ahead of scale and equipment considerations. Most definitely, in our hobby the individual is the deciding factor, not the choice of scales.
CNJ831
Thank's to all . I've decided to go with the " n " . There's plenty of track, switces, turnouts , engines , rolling stock etc. thanks again for the suggestions. and oh yea MERRY CHRISTMAS
Mac
Owner and superintendant of the N scale Texas Colorado & Western Railway, a protolanced representaion of the BNSF from Fort Worth, TX through Wichita Falls TX and into Colorado.
Check out the TC&WRy on at https://www.facebook.com/TCWRy
Check out my MRR How-To YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/RonsTrainsNThings
m244 Recently inherited n gauge trains some track turn outs 4 power packs built a 4x8 table 1/2 " ply . trying to decide to keep it n or go ho any thoughts would be helpfull.
Having modeled in both - at the same time, I can highly recommend NOT doing that. Definitely choose one or the other and stick to it. Other than that all I can do is repeat what the others have said.
N-scale1. Women find them cute and you will get a lot more support.2. much more layout/trains in same space.3. much less detail on individual pieces of equipment / structures. <-this is why I switched4. electronics and sound - as has been pointed out it is getting better but still not anywhere close to the options in larger scales. Plus on-board sound has to have that much smaller speakers - HO is bad enough - as size goes down eventually sound quality goes to that of a greeting card. The physics of sound and the biology of the human ear does not "scale down".
HO scale1. Most wide range of equipment / structures / track avaliable both old and new. If we actually stopped and did a scientific survey. Since the 1970s there is probably more stuff avaliable in HO than all the other scales combined.2. 4 x 8' is almost the minimum for a continuous run loop of track - needs much more space than N.3. Big enough one can get some fine detail (like scale 3/4" hand rails) on cars and locos. Try painting the face on an HO scale man vs an N scale man.
O scale - the king1. I wish I could afford it!
A subject of discussion between modeler since the beginning of time. Objectively, the smaller N scale allows more railroad (track , structures, and scenery) in the same space. The larger HO scale is easier to kit bash, scratch build, or modify rolling stock and structure models. If you are a model builder, HO will be rewarding. If you are an operator, into ready to run equipment, and you want long trains, N is rewarding. So much for objective.
Then there are subjective factors, namely which scale do you LIKE better. You will probably be happiest going with the subjective factors. It is a hobby after all.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
4x8 may be the minimum size HO layout but it is terribly restrictive with those utra sharp curves. If you want more flexibility on what you can run, I suggest going with a 5x9' layout which would get you 24-inch minimum curves.
If you are into Steam you will find alot more available in HO.
Bob
MisterBeasley HO: Larger items are easier to work on, and to see. There is generally more equipment available. Sound is becoming very common.
HO: Larger items are easier to work on, and to see. There is generally more equipment available. Sound is becoming very common.
There are also more parts and raw materials available if you get into the model-building side of the hobby, and they can be handled with normal-size fingers and seen without a jeweler's loupe.
N: You can put more trains in the same amount of space. Sound is still rare, because of the difficulty of fitting decoders and speakers into the engines.
You can also 'loosen up' the same layout as a very compact HO track plan in the same space, and the result will look a lot more like the real world.
There is a lot of very good modelling being done in both of these scales. If you can get to a train show and see some operating layouts, or visit some layouts (either home or club) in your area, you can get a feel for what each of the scales looks like. That 4x8 table is pretty minimal in HO, while it's a decent sized layout in N.
There is a lot of very good modelling being done in both of these scales. If you can get to a train show and see some operating layouts, or visit some layouts (either home or club) in your area, you can get a feel for what each of the scales looks like.
That 4x8 table is pretty minimal in HO, while it's a decent sized layout in N.
The cost of filling x square (feet, meters, whatever) with N scale layout is higher, but N scale can be done convincingly in about 1/4 the number of square (units.) Basic layout design principles are the same for both; HO just needs more space to achieve the same result.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N, 1:80 scale, aka HOj)
I havve to agree with everything MisterBeasley said. I cound have really run some long trains if I'd used N scale in the space I have now, but I have a hard enough time putting HO stuff on the track.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
If it was my decision, a lot would have to do with the quality of the N scale models you inherited, also if it would be a road name and timeframe that you would be interested in modeling. By timeframe, I mean what era the equipment would have run. If you are interested in modern railroading, it probably would not make nuch sense to keep steam locomotives.
It would help to know the manufacturer of the locomotive and rolling stock; often visible on the bottom.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
Recently inherited n gauge trains some track turn outs 4 power packs built a 4x8 table 1/2 " ply . trying to decide to keep it n or go ho any thoughts would be helpfull. thanks,m244