This is a philosophical/psychological musing... I have a tiny layout in HO, 1'x8', and although I am very happy in that space, I do occasionally think about how much more space I would have in N. I've never felt really strongly about it myself, but I've noticed on this forum (especially among modelers who express interest in long intermodal trains, big yards, continuous running-- sometimes all three!) many state in their 'givens' a modest-sized space and HO as their scale of choice. There seem to be few people who have made the leap and switched to a smaller scale, and among less experienced modelers there seems to be a reluctance to move away from their scale of choice (in either direction, but for many of us space is a contraint, so I'm talking about moving to smaller scales.) I have sentimental reasons for staying in HO, and my space needs aren't great, but I'm wondering what might be behind the 'stick-to-your-guns' approach, in the face of the more experienced modelers here suggesting N over HO to get all the things they want?
Does it come from a feeling of losing invested time and money? If that were true, would we not continue building the same layout forever? Is there something special about the rolling stock that puts it on a pedestal?
Does it involve one's health-- worries over eyesight/hand control? As a younger modeler, I've seen people seemingly of all ages show this reluctance...
Is it because the scale you chose is what you started with when you first got into trains, and carries enough sentimental weight to justify any other conflicts that arise while trying to fit everything you want into a space that's too small to realistically hold it?
N.B. I put myself firmly in the 'less experienced' category, I try not to give advice on these things as I'm still learning so much myself, but it does come up often here and makes me curious what fuels that side of the conversation. I've searched the forum for discussions about this, and haven't found much.
Thanks for reading,
Phil
pt714 ...the more experienced modelers here suggesting N over HO to get all the things they want?
...the more experienced modelers here suggesting N over HO to get all the things they want?
I think I'm one of the "more experienced" modelers here, and that ain't necessarily me.
It really does depend on what the things ARE that "they" want.
If all it is is to run long trains through scenery, N is good. Z is better. And I think there's even a smaller scale.
But.
For most of us, there are also other things that might slow that march to a smaller scale:
You lose the incredible wide choice that is available in HO.
The models that are available in HO are (mostly) of a much greater "fineness" than N. If you like that sort of thing.
You are working in a size that is, well, hard to work in. 'Cause it's small.
You'll likely have more track pickup problems because of the decreased weight.
Harder to get DCC/sound in.
Harder (I think) to do operation. If that's what you want. As opposed to continuous running.
If none of the 5 things is a problem, then N might be great.
But what about O?
Sure, it takes up an enormous amount of space. But:
It's MUCH easier to work on. And you can do MUCH better detailing on it.
It is truly the model builder's scale. You can use teeny little screws to recreate real bolts. NOT in N scale.
It moves with a grace and heft that is much closer to the real thing.
And operation? Talk to my man, Frank Ellison. The INVENTOR of operation. Ka-chunk (sound of O scale couplers mating).
Every scale has its good and bad points. I believe the only perfect solution is to go with O scale and inherit a LOT of money. I know that's my favorite.
I think that can explain a certain amount of ambivalence in scale choice--for most of us, it's a matter of negotiation with ourselves.
Ed
7j43kHarder (I think) to do operation.
Not correct. Many folks operate with N scale quite successfully.
7j43kYou'll likely have more track pickup problems because of the decreased weight.
Modern N scale models run great.
7j43kHarder to get DCC/sound in.
Sure -- but even N scale switchers are now available off-the-shelf with DCC and sound.
N scale is fine. HO scale is fine. Note that many, if not most, current N scalers did HO first (as I did), so they made an informed choice and accepted the trade-offs.
To the Original Poster: Choosing a scale is a matter of personal preference that involves many trade-offs. Modelers in any scale must face the limitations of their space, budget, availability of models for their preferred era, etc. What we often see on these forums are folks unwilling to make any compromises anywhere, so they sit in the armchair year after year with big dreams and nothing to show for them.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama ...they made an informed choice and accepted the trade-offs.
...they made an informed choice and accepted the trade-offs.
Yes. Trade-offs. My main point.
That, and that the trade-offs are weighted differently for different people.
I considered N scale a long while ago, why? Because the locomotives and rolling stock I was looking for did not exist in HO. I changed my mind because I really didn't like the "smallness" of that scale, HO was more for me, I find N a bit less realistic in appearance, HO is small but big enough to be realistic in appearance.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
Never mind
7j43k But what about O? Sure, it takes up an enormous amount of space. But: It's MUCH easier to work on. And you can do MUCH better detailing on it.
Of course, if that's your thing! What I see here are many new modelers interested in detail/realism but also 'trains in constant motion', snaking through scenery, especially big, modern trains with big, modern cars-- seems to me, if space is the issue, you can choose to continue to detail down into the small scales while also freeing up room to pursue that spacious element. It must get challenging, but not as much as the physical constraints placed on trying to fit too much into too little space.
cuyama Modelers in any scale must face the limitations of their space, budget, availability of models for their preferred era, etc. What we often see on these forums are folks not willing to make any compromises anywhere, so they sit in the armchair year after year with big dreams and nothing to show for them.
Modelers in any scale must face the limitations of their space, budget, availability of models for their preferred era, etc. What we often see on these forums are folks not willing to make any compromises anywhere, so they sit in the armchair year after year with big dreams and nothing to show for them.
I guess what I'm after in asking these questions is what's behind that unwillingness to make compromises in scale? There are so many other compromises involved when it comes to space, anyway (e.g. the curve radius conversation that comes up again and again...)
I'm also really not looking to knock any scale, or to tote its benefits, either-- I wonder if some of this comes down to misunderstandings about what's available/not available in a given scale?
(P.S. Byron, I get email notifications and that shot of the Monon is gorgeous-- I'm sorry you removed it. I have immense respect for modelers that work in N and Z, and to me, realism is only contained by the imagination, experience and focus of the modeler, regardless of model size.)
pt714 cuyama Modelers in any scale must face the limitations of their space, budget, availability of models for their preferred era, etc. What we often see on these forums are folks not willing to make any compromises anywhere, so they sit in the armchair year after year with big dreams and nothing to show for them. I guess what I'm after in asking these questions is what's behind that unwillingness to make compromises in scale? There are so many other compromises involved when it comes to space, anyway (e.g. the curve radius conversation that comes up again and again...)
Cuyama's quote does make a point. Though I'm not coming up with any examples of someone "not willing to make any compromises anywhere". I do wonder why he made such an absolute statement.
Anyway. Yeah. There's people who dream way bigger than they can do. Takes all kinds. Some dream. Some do. Dreamin's less work.
We like what we know, which is why some of us live in the city or state we do, drive the make of car that we do, and eat what we do. I am treading on dangerous ground here, but I have noticed that many guys on their second marriage essentially made the same choice in spouse again. With similar results by the way.
I realized it initially and realize it even better now, that to really accomplish everything I want and wanted for signature scenes on my layout I'd need a bigger basement, or switch to N. I've done a bit of work with N and have operated on N layouts, and like it just fine. 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.
Dave Nelson
I made the opposite switch over 20 years ago. I was an avid N scale modeller with a massive collection of Kato locomotives and Micro-Trains freight cars.
.
The change was motivated by several factors:
1) I sold the "dream house" with the dedicated space for the N scale empire.
2) I realized I was never going to have a steady group of 10 enthusiastic modelers to run such an empire.
3) My interest in era switched from 1968 to 1954. HO scale steam was much better than what could be had in N scale.
4) Micro-Trains undecorated freight cars were getting very hard to find. Back then HO scale undecorated cars were everywhere.
5) I had a growing interest in details.
6) Life-Like released the Proto 2000 50 foot boxcar, and all my dreams came true. This was followed by Intermountain and Red Caboose manufacturing beautiful freight car kits. It was sealed.
I have been very happy with my switch to HO... HOWEVER... Large scale Narrow Gauge is REALLY starting to look appealing to me.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
In the end, only YOU can make the decision. Lots of good points here but it all boils down to what makes you happy. I modeled HO all my life but after a recent move, my space became much more limited compared to what I had in the past. In the end, limited space trumped everything and I moved to N. I was concerned about the smaller scale due to my age (sight, etc) but now that it has been built and is running, I enjoy it as much as I did my HO. I like long trains and moving to N made that much more viable in my limited space.
Paul D
N scale Washita and Santa Fe RailroadSouthern Oklahoma circa late 70's
pt714I guess what I'm after in asking these questions is what's behind that unwillingness to make compromises in scale?
Some folks have sunk costs in terms of what they already own, which is understandable.
But on any topic, many people stick to what's most comfortable -- what they already know. Or what they perceive to be most popular.
pt714Byron, I get email notifications and that shot of the Monon is gorgeous-- I'm sorry you removed it.
That was Lance Mindheim's N scale Monon (below). I didn't want to turn this thread into another N vs. HO debate -- which always seems to happen anyway.
Lance does amazing work in any scale. He is working on a custom N scale layout I designed for a client now that will have a spectacular reproduction of a scene that would be hard to do as well in a larger scale just because of its scope.
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."
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
7j43kThough I'm not coming up with any examples of someone "not willing to make any compromises anywhere". I do wonder why he made such an absolute statement.
There have been quite a few of these over the years on this and other forums. After going round-and-round for weeks or months on the impossibility of their desired scope within the constraints of their available space, time, and money, they vanish, with no layout of any scale, size, or type to show for it.
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.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
cuyama 7j43k Though I'm not coming up with any examples of someone "not willing to make any compromises anywhere". I do wonder why he made such an absolute statement. There have been quite a few of these over the years on this and other forums. After going round-and-round for weeks or months on the impossibility of their desired scope within the constraints of their available space, time, and money, they vanish, with no layout of any scale, size, or type to show for it.
7j43k Though I'm not coming up with any examples of someone "not willing to make any compromises anywhere". I do wonder why he made such an absolute statement.
Oh, yes. Those. I lose interest in them and their problems pretty quickly. Which might explain my comment.
cuyama I didn't want to turn this thread into another N vs. HO debate -- which always seems to happen anyway.
I didn't want to turn this thread into another N vs. HO debate -- which always seems to happen anyway.
Another topic that I seem to ignore. It seems obvious that each scale has its pluses and minuses. I suppose it could be argued just how large the pluses and minuses ARE.
It could be said, I suppose, that HO is the best because it's the scale most people choose. OK. But, even then, that doesn't make it the best for YOU.
At a show, I saw an exquisite Z scale layout. Pretty big, too. Maybe 30 feet at the longest. And a very simple open track plan. Talk about wide open vistas. Stunning, it was. That may be the perfect scale, and layout, for someone. I hope it was, for the people who built it. I didn't see any operation. Trains were either parked, or running. Cars in the yard looked more like decoration than operation. But beautiful!
"...I guess what I'm after in asking these questions is what's behind that unwillingness to make compromises in scale?..."
Most of us learn to pioritize our druthers and our compromises. Do we want the space and just live with what rolling stock I will have to purchase that I can't make? Can I accept a switching puzzle in my 8 square feet in S scale, or should I work harder to squeeze a nice folded loop in N scale in the same space? Switch or run?
It isn't necessarily an unwillingness to change scales as it is to CHANGE. Change has to have a compelling impetus or it's just a lot of bother. Also, change in and of itself is not always good...it might be retrograde. Most of us are willing to change if the 'net' is better in some defined, and highly valued, way.
In our hobby, changing scale means starting over. Yes, of course we can store all our old scale stuff in totes and maybe run them in 20 years or will them to the grand kids. But you can't use the same layout, in almost all instances, without at least ripping out a lot of the scenery and all of the tracks. The bench can remain in place since it probably optimizes the space already....??
To get to the nub of your question, it isn't going to be due to one factor in many cases. Our hobby has many parts, and few of them generalize well from one scale to another (some of us use a smaller scale item in the background for that forced perspective thing). So, changing scales means a 'whole new ball of wax.' It's going to be costly, and it isn't necessarily going to be salutary; it may turn out to be a big mistake. There are risks to leaving the familiar.
Are you going to keep the 1x8 footprint for the switch? Or create a somewhat bigger one?
The footprint of the existing one can fit a small city section. That will measure out to 4 feet and add 2 more feet for scenery. Will mine is length of 6. But extra feet will increase the town or scenery.
I have a lot of N Scale investments with a few HO. I prefer N by the size and easy to store and handle than the other.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
I suggest the OP consider HOn30...........
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I try and stay away from these philosophical threads,
To me it reads "why aren't we all setting aside what we have, and jump to a different scale", which I don't get.
These always turn into one scale vs another, usually HO vs N, which I stay away from.
All of these discussion the OP talks about where we are making compromises? Maybe he could link to a few of them, so I can understand just what he's asking.
Maybe he read these in some of the other forums that are heavy in philosophical threads.
We all model what we like, in the space we have.
I'm out, I don't feel like being "deep in thought".
Mike.
My You Tube
pt714 This is a philosophical/psychological musing... I have a tiny layout in HO, 1'x8', and although I am very happy in that space, I do occasionally think about how much more space I would have in N. I've never felt really strongly about it myself, but I've noticed on this forum (especially among modelers who express interest in long intermodal trains, big yards, continuous running-- sometimes all three!) many state in their 'givens' a modest-sized space and HO as their scale of choice. There seem to be few people who have made the leap and switched to a smaller scale, and among less experienced modelers there seems to be a reluctance to move away from their scale of choice (in either direction, but for many of us space is a contraint, so I'm talking about moving to smaller scales.) I have sentimental reasons for staying in HO, and my space needs aren't great, but I'm wondering what might be behind the 'stick-to-your-guns' approach, in the face of the more experienced modelers here suggesting N over HO to get all the things they want? Does it come from a feeling of losing invested time and money? If that were true, would we not continue building the same layout forever? Is there something special about the rolling stock that puts it on a pedestal?
Well, changing scale does mean dumping all your rolling stock, structures, and track and buying or building new in your new scale. That's significant for many of us.
pt714 Does it involve one's health-- worries over eyesight/hand control? As a younger modeler, I've seen people seemingly of all ages show this reluctance...
Certainly a consideration. My eyesight ain't what it used to be. N scale would be a struggle for me now. Plus I like model building, and doing it in N scale is harder than in HO scale.
pt714 Is it because the scale you chose is what you started with when you first got into trains, and carries enough sentimental weight to justify any other conflicts that arise while trying to fit everything you want into a space that's too small to realistically hold it?
Probably not. I started out in O scale, Lionel. Changed to HO in high school, still in HO. It's been a long long time since high school.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I think I have a slightly different angle on the OP's question.
If we consider the process of taking a list of givens and druthers as we've all been taught over the years, and use that list to plan and build a layout, why would scale be an input to the process when in virtually every other type of model building scale is one of the outputs of the planning process?
When I was young I built model airplanes. If I was building something small like a P-51, I would build it in 1:32 scale. A B-17 would be 1:48. A B-52 would be 1:72.
When 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?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I know somebody that changed and he wished he was back.
Russell
Well I have changed scales twice. I started in HO scale, built a couple of layouts, some kits, and some scratchbuilding. It was fun, but I decided that HO was a little small for building.
So I bought an S scale stockcar kit. And really like the size. But looking over the S scale market in the mid 70's, it looked like the scale was dying.
So I moved up to O scale for several years. It was a little bigger than I wanted, but better than HO.
In the early 90's I looked at S scale again and found that it had revived. So I switched to S.
Along the way I built an N scale layout for my middle son in his bedroom. I chose N scale because it fit nicely along one wall without taking up too much of his bedroom. And it worked very nicely.
So having tried 4 scales, I have found that S scale works best for me. A nice compromise between big enough to work with and small enough for a nice layout in my basement.
A couple of thoughts on scales.
This is a hobby not an investment - investments are in stocks, bonds, etc.
Nothing says you can't be in 2 (or more scales). Someone mentioned a 1x8 in HO - well the next shelf up the wall could be N scale in 1x8.
Personally, I have saved all my HO, all my O, and all my son's N - he is now into 3 rail O in a big way. Eventually, after getting my S scale layout built, I may build small layouts in all those scales.
Or not. This is a hobby. Do what's fun today in whatever scale.
Paul
I'm afraid that switching scales would just make me heavier. No thanks.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
carl425 I think I have a slightly different angle on the OP's question. If we consider the process of taking a list of givens and druthers as we've all been taught over the years, and use that list to plan and build a layout, why would scale be an input to the process when in virtually every other type of model building scale is one of the outputs of the planning process? When I was young I built model airplanes. If I was building something small like a P-51, I would build it in 1:32 scale. A B-17 would be 1:48. A B-52 would be 1:72.
Well, that was my approach to plastic models "back in the day".
I have commenced to SLIGHTLY dabble in the field, again. I decided that all my planes would be 1/48, all armor 1/35 and all ships 1/350.
Why?
Because I want to be able to set them together, if I choose, and compare their sizes. I can put a B-58 next to an A-10, and see the size relationship. I can put an M-50 Ontos next to an M-103, and do the same.
I chose those differing scales because they seemed like the best compromise in size and also offered the selections I wanted. Which is pretty much what we're talking about here. Since I DON'T mix the three groups, I don't have to have the same scale.
For me its an issue of cash. If I spent $200 on that DCC Sound equipped locomotive in HO scale you bet I will want to be using it as much as I can! To switch scales or even gauges (HOn3 or HOm for example) would mean a new investment in equipment, track, etc. that hurts the wallet more than I want to think about.Now someday, I would actually love to dive into other scales and gauges. I have some ideas of stuff I would like to dabble in with larger and smaller sizes. But for now I don't want to touch it since financially speaking I am far to invested in HO to even consider making the leap at this moment.
Phil,I will speak from recent experience. Back in 2012 I sold my N Scale and have regretted doing so..I should have sold my HO instead.
Now,six years later would I sell my current HO collection of higher end cars and locomotives? If the Price was right I might. Would I return to N? Probably even though I'm 70..
Now,most HO scalers knows very little about N Scale simply because they have no hands on experience or rely on outdated information from the dark ages of N Scale nor do they have any idea how much detailing is being done in N.
They mean well.
They should let experience N Scalers reply.
A 1'X8' will give you a very good N Scale switching layout.
Here's a 1' x10' N Scale ISL that I built in 2010.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"