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!
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
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.
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.
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.
garyaI have trouble getting them on the track.
How about this?
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
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.
Gary
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!
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.
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.
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.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
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
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.
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
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 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."
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ed
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.
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 know somebody that changed and he wished he was back.
Russell
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.
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.
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?
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...
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?
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 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
I suggest the OP consider HOn30...........
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
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.
"...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.
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!
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.
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.
Oh, yes. Those. I lose interest in them and their problems pretty quickly. Which might explain my comment.