I have been absent for 35 years ... And thinking its time to return to N Scale

[derf]

Stix,

Do you have a link to the computer glasses? Are the prescription?

Thanks, Fred 

[Metro Red Line]

thhynes

I am thinking about getting back into the hobby.  I had thought about HO scale however, as we all know taking over any space in the household is going to be a bit of a negotiation process.  I am a bit out for that part of the negotiation, but I have a few places in mind.  My max size most likely would not be greater than 4'x8'.  Due to the space limitation, I am going to go back into the N Scale.

Welcome back! I was an HO scaler for 26 years before converting to N scale in 2006. My layout is a 4x8, also with Code 55 track (Micro Engineering flex track and Atlas turnouts and sectional pieces). So we have similar ideas (though I have a few #5 turnouts in my yard and sidings, but #7 and #10 on my mainline). 

When I was in HO scale, every time I visited a hobby shop, I always had a wandering eye to N scale. I loved the size and the "more in a smaller space" factor, but they toylike detail, pizza cutter wheels and truck-mounted rapido square-hook couplers were always huge turn-offs for me. But in 2006, I was seeing a lot less of that, and the scale had changed enough to make me make the switch.

You'll find that N scale today, has advanced in leaps and bounds since you last modeled it, thanks to technological advances in model design and manufacturing. Body-mounted Micro Trains/compatible knuckle couplers, low-profile metal wheels and more prototypical detail are the norm these days for new N scale products rather than the exception, and the list of HO scale models that aren't available in N scale is shrinking. You can even have N scale steam locomotives with DCC sound AND smoke (i.e. the BLI Big Boy)!

Basically, N scale today is just a smaller version of HO.

As for curve radius, that's the main reason why I became an N scaler. In my last decade of being an HO scaler, I was a very unhappy modeler with 18" radius curves and not being able to run long rolling stock like 89' flatcars and auto racks. 

But in N scale, 18" radius is pretty good, and you can run pretty much anything. I guess that's one of the reasons why my N scale inventory is several times larger than when I was in HO (and more storage space is the other reason).

I tell everyone planning an N scale layout to NEVER settle for anything smaller than 15" radius curves, so you won't have to worry about what you can or can't run. Basically everything in N scale can run on 15" radius curves, albeit with noticeable overhang - but it still runs. I think the biggest curve radius you can get on a 4x8' is 22" or so (I strongly recommend at least a 1" buffer from the edge of the layout so your trains will be less likely to take an unfortunate, expensive tumble to the floor in case of a catastrophic derailment. 

Yes, handling small detail parts and doing things like wiring N scale DCC sound decoders and assembling Micro-Trains couplers will cause me to cuss up a storm, but as a whole, I'm actually much more happier as a model railroader in N scale than I was in HO.

[wjstix]

hon30critter

wjstix

Then I discoverd computer glasses. Computer glasses have a bit of distance vision on the top, and a bit of reading on the bottom, but the main part is in between the two, focused at about arm's length - about the distance from your eyes to a computer screen.

 

 

Hi Stix,

Are these glasses made for specific prescriptions or are they 'over the counter' like regular reading glasses?

I recently bought a pair of 'over the counter' reading glasses and I find them to be useless. In the past I have had great success with my optivisor but now I have to get really close the the object before I can see it properly. Maybe I need to upgrade my optivisor lense.

Cheers!!

Dave

 

They're prescription only. The issue with bifocals is they're designed to give you a lot of distance vision with a little bit of up-close/reading vision on the bottom. My problem was that to read a page of a book, I had to move my head up and down as only part of the page was in focus. Plus, trying to watch a train run by me on the layout was tough, I had to either back away or be right on top of it. With computer glasses, there's like a big middle section set for roughly arms length.

I have two pair, the "six foot" pair has more up-close area, the "20 foot" has more mid-range. I often use the 6 ft for up close work, and the 20 ft. for say running the layout. They might not be the right replacement just for doing up-close work, like say building a kit, if your up-close vision is really bad. You might still need full reading glasses or magnifying glasses for something like that. 

[NorthBrit]

Hello thhynes.    All good advice already posted.    Just a little from me, a modeller from over the pond.

Have curves as wide as possible.  Some rolling stock have a tendency to disagree with what the manufacturer says.   I have 2.8.0, 4.6.2and 4.6.0 locomotives negotiating all the track I laid.   My 0.6.0 'Thomas the Tank'   has other ideas.  I had to put wider curves in on the layout, so he could run.

I had similar challenges with some carriages.  Some do not pivot as much as others yet they are the same length.

 

Just my 

 

David

[hon30critter]

wjstix

Then I discoverd computer glasses. Computer glasses have a bit of distance vision on the top, and a bit of reading on the bottom, but the main part is in between the two, focused at about arm's length - about the distance from your eyes to a computer screen.

Hi Stix,

Are these glasses made for specific prescriptions or are they 'over the counter' like regular reading glasses?

I recently bought a pair of 'over the counter' reading glasses and I find them to be useless. In the past I have had great success with my optivisor but now I have to get really close the the object before I can see it properly. Maybe I need to upgrade my optivisor lense.

Cheers!!

Dave

[wjstix]

Yes! The length doesn't always matter. In my experience in HO, there are 80' passenger cars with truck-mounted couplers that will go around an 18" radius curve without complaining, but 60' passenger cars with body-mounted couplers that derail on less than 24"R. 

[Steven Otte]

thhynes

"In summary, using a radius 3X the length of the longest car was enough to get good operation, although appearance might leave something to be desired.  So a 4" long freight car would do just fine on a 12" radius curve"

--- This is great advice and a rule of thumb, and I appreciate this piece of information.  Thank you very much!

This is not necessarily good advice. The minimum radius a car can handle depends not only on its length, but also on how much the trucks can pivot. A car with a center sill, draft gear box, stirrup step, or other such under-sill protruberance can limit how far a truck can rotate. Since prototype cars are built to handle curves much broader (when measured in degrees, not inches) than our models, they often have obstructions that, if modeled faithfully, would result in a 4" long car that definitely couldn't handle 12" curves, much less smaller. Model designers usually modify underbody details (notching sills, relocating brake gear, etc.) to improve their cars' performance on tight curves, but assuming that this is a function of car length only is a good way to end up with a shelf queen.

[thhynes]

"In summary, using a radius 3X the length of the longest car was enough to get good operation, although appearance might leave something to be desired.  So a 4" long freight car would do just fine on a 12" radius curve"

--- This is great advice and a rule of thumb, and I appreciate this piece of information.  Thank you very much!

[kasskaboose]

It makes sense to change scale for space considerations, etc.

Perhaps a LHS or NMRA club can help?  You might also ask around at the train show for folks who can help.  Finding a mentor is invaluable!

[wjstix]

OldEngineman

OP: Just a thought, may not mean anything, but if you're considering N scale... how's your eyesight...?

 

 

To be honest, I think the "old eyes need big trains" idea is kinda silly. If you're looking at something from 24" away, it's in focus or it's not, regardless how big it is. If it's not in focus, get better glasses!

 

When I started wearing bifocals I found it hard to work on the layout. Regular bifocals are primarily your distance prescription (like for driving a car) with the lower say 1/4 your 'up close' reading prescription. So I could see something if I was right on top of it, or it was like 10 feet away. It started to really be a problem / frustration.

 

Then I discoverd computer glasses. Computer glasses have a bit of distance vision on the top, and a bit of reading on the bottom, but the main part is in between the two, focused at about arm's length - about the distance from your eyes to a computer screen. This turned out to be the distance I normally am from the track when running a train on the layout. With them, I can watch a train on the track, look down at my handheld throttle, and look down the line to check a signal in the distance, all in perfect focus.

 

[richhotrain]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

N scale, I would not build a layout with less than 15" radius, 18" radius would be better.

My sharpest mainline radius on my HO layout is 36".

To me that is kind of the whole point of N scale, to get closer to proto type proportions with track and scenery.

Sheldon 

Rich

[OldEngineman]

OP: Just a thought, may not mean anything, but if you're considering N scale... how's your eyesight...?

[CNCharlie]

Welcome,

I am an HO modeller who decided to build a N scale layout on a door back in 2012. As my small HO layout is DCC I decided to go that route with N scale. If you do just be confident you can do a decoder install in the very small N locos. I did several including hard wire in steam. I am lucky as I have small hands that are very steady. I found that N scale locos with DCC are very fussy about clean and perfect trackwork due to their light weight. If I were to do it again I would go with DC and power routing turnouts. Yes some come with decoders but often with sound too that just doesn't work for me in N. My HO fleet is mostly sound.

I used ME flex and turnouts on the main and Atlas in the yard. If I were to do it again I would use Kato track as the built in roadbed makes for very even trackwork and the turnouts are power routing. I did get my layot to run smoothly on cork roadbed but it took a lot of careful work.

Most of my rolling stock had truck mounted MT couplers. Truck mounted worked and looked fine in N scale but it isn't very good in HO. Besides that is how much available rolling stock comes especially 40' stuff. 

I finished the layout with full scenery and a town. Think if you can paint window frames with a 3 hair brush. I did but it was a slow process.

Over the past 2 years I sold off all the locos, rolling stock, buildings, etc as I prefer the detail of HO and the way it runs. It is just physics due to the weight. My HO layout is 4x9 and I prefer running and building it.

That is my experience and of course yours might be very different.

CN Charlie

 

[hardcoalcase]

thhynes

  So that leaves the CURVES    

I have found that using easement curves at all transitions between straight and curved track makes a BIG difference in eliminating the "toy-train look" of a train jerking from straight-to-curve or curve-to-straight tracks.  Further, the additional space needed for the easement is negligible - in HO, for a 24" radius, moving the straight tangent track about 1/4" to 1/2" further out from the curve center point is all that is needed.  For N scale, that would be about 1/8".

Additionally, the easement would benefit the workings of couplers, steam loco pilot trucks and passenger car diaphrams.

Jim

[hon30critter]

Hi thhynes,

Welome back to model railroading and to the Model Railroader forums!  

One of the things you mentioned in your post was the visual problem created when a locomotive goes from a straight track section into a curve. The sudden change in direction does not look natural at all.

There is a simple cure for that. What you need to do is create 'easements' in your curves. An easement allows the locomotive to transition gradually from the tangent (straight) track into the curve. Here is an explanation:

https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/build-model-railroad/easy-easements-for-model-train-track/

Note that when using easements you have to have enough space to make them work properly. Easements are easy to set up when your curves are already fairly wide, but when you get into very tight curves they may not be practical or necessary. You have to recognise that a curve with easements will have a tighter radius in the center of the curve than a similar curve without easements. In larger curves that isn't a problem, but if you add easements into a 12" curve the radius in the center curve will be rather tight. In reality, your locomotive speeds in a tight curve will likely be very slow so the visual issue of the locomotive lurching into the curve will greatly reduced.

Cheers!!

Dave

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

N scale, I would not build a layout with less than 15" radius, 18" radius would be better.

My sharpest mainline radius on my HO layout is 36".

To me that is kind of the whole point of N scale, to get closer to proto type proportions with track and scenery.

Sheldon

[jjdamnit]

Hello All,

wjstix

For many years N-scale cars had truck-mounted couplers, but in recent years the trend has been to them coming with body-mounted couplers. I'd try to avoid the ones with truck-mounted couplers.

Another great point when considering buying rolling stock- -new or used!

Hope this helps.

[wjstix]

When I switched from O scale in the late eighties, I thought about going to N but went to HO mainly because N wasn't that reliable back then. Now, if I had to start all over again, I would go with N.

Don't overthink the curves. Just cut HO in half...9"R and 11"R are roughly like HO's 18"r and 22"R curves. For a 4'x8' layout, consider taking an HO trackplan made for that size, but build it in N scale. Anything over 15"R is considered "broad" in N, and everything including Big Boys and fullsize passenger cars will work fine. Those sharp HO 18"R curves are now super-broad N scale 18"R curves!

BTW regarding track, before you go too far in, consider Kato Unitrack....

https://katousa.com/n-unitrack/

 

For many years N-scale cars had truck-mounted couplers, but in recent years the trend has been to them coming with body-mounted couplers. I'd try to avoid the ones with truck-mounted couplers.

Have you decided about DCC? Keep in mind, you can buy engines equipped with a non-sound decoder that will run on DC just fine if you start that way, but are ready to go if you go to DCC later.

[jjdamnit]

Hello All,

to the forums and back to this great hobby!

You have asked yourself all great questions and set some great parameters.

Some of the questions you are considering are not in my "wheelhouse" as I model in HO.

I didn't use any track planning software until I documented my finished pike.

A pad of graph paper, a mechanical pencil, and a LARGE eraser was how I began. (Actually- -my first iteration was done in the classic way on a bar napkin.)

thhynes

...I am going to attend the 2024 Amherst Railroad Show...

This is a great idea!

It will give you an idea of how the hobby has progressed over the years.

Don't be afraid to talk to club members running display pikes- -especially in your scale- -and let them know what your plans are.

If you think we love to write about our hobby you'll be surprised at how much we would rather talk about them.

Take a small pad of paper and a pencil to take notes and write sketches of what you see and like.

Before attending read this thread...

Model Train show bargains

Enjoy!!!

Regarding track brands, I can only comment on HO.

I use Atlas code 100 along with a mix of Atlas and PECO turnouts with success.

Some are power routing while others are not. None of the frogs are powered.

For the curves consider making trammel(s) to get your track centerlines.

I used wooden yardsticks; available at local and big box hardware stores.

A 10d finishing nail was driven through at the 1-inch mark.

Then I drilled holes at the 16-, 19-, and 23-inch marks to match the 15-, 18-, and 22-inch radius of the sectional track.

Remember the "zero" (0) mark for the arc is at the 1-inch mark of the yardstick so for a 15-inch radius you need to factor in the first inch hence drilling the hole for the scribe at the 16-inch mark.

I suggest making several trammels so you aren't using a 24-inch section of yardstick to make a 10-inch radius curve.

You didn't mention roadbed?

Some folks use cork, some use Homosote® while others- -along with myself- -use foam.

This is a contentious point with no clear answer- -except to those in the relative camps.

Another option is to use track with built-in plastic roadbed.

The plastic roadbed is textured to simulate ballast; not very effectivly in my opinion.

It can be ballasted like other types of roadbed material for a more realistic look.

The major drawback of this type of track is it is only available in set radii (AKA "Sectional" track), unlike Flextrack and separate roadbed where you can make curves in any radius you want/need.

I chose to go the sectional track with fixed radii and foam roadbed route (pun intended).

As far as the debate between DC vs. DCC- -I say, go DCC from the beginning.

Other members of these forums will disagree as they are satisfied with DC control.

As I have said before; in DC my 4'x8' pike had 16 control blocks.

Trying to run two (2) trains simultaneously was like, "playing the piano with boxing gloves on."

When I switched to DCC the amount of wire and controllers I invested in for the DC system could have paid for an introductory DCC system- -money wasted!

The common saying is, "With DC you control the track, with DCC you control the trains."

Welcome back, keep the questions coming, and as always...

Hope this helps.

[NVSRR]

A lot has changed in that  time. 

[fwright]

thhynes

So that leaves the CURVES

So taking into consideration that most of the locomotives and box cars range in length from 4", and I would run trains with a total length of  24", I just wondering what radius curve would make the train look good, and to avoid that awkward shift in the general centerline of the train has it enters and goes through the curve.

Some folks at the NMRA Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) did some research into relating car length to appearance and operation on model radius curves, regardless of scale.

In summary, using a radius 3X the length of the longest car was enough to get good operation, although appearance might leave something to be desired.  So a 4" long freight car would do just fine on a 12" radius curve.

Going sharper to 2.5X is possible, but now are starting to hit the limits of trucks swiveling and striking underbody details, coupler swing, and similar issues.  Trackwork has to be good, and modifications to some cars MIGHT be necessary.  For 4" cars, this means 10" radius.

Going sharper than 2.5X usually means truck mounted couplers, and modification or elimination of underbody detail.  It should be noted that Lionel typically used a 1.5X radius for their tinplate trains, which featured truck mounted couplers and NO underbody detail.  Lionel trucks can swivel 180 degrees underneath the car.

At the other end, a 4X radius allows much improved appearance and longer trains without stringlining.

At 5X, passenger car diaphrams can actually work, and appearance is excellent.

FWIW, narrow gauge needs slightly larger radius than the recommendations would indicate, although car length is usually substantially shorter than standard gauge.

Hope this helps

Fred W

[Mister Mikado]

thank you for sharing, your thoughtful planning is a good example for us.

[thhynes]

I am thinking about getting back into the hobby.  I had thought about HO scale however, as we all know taking over any space in the household is going to be a bit of a negotiation process.  I am a bit out for that part of the negotiation, but I have a few places in mind.  My max size most likely would not be greater than 4'x8'.  Due to the space limitation, I am going to go back into the N Scale.

So where am I in this process?

After 30 years opted for a 1 year subscription to Model Railroader Magazine, and I am going to attend the 2024 Amherst Railroad Show, as I have been in 20 years.

I also purchased myself a model railroad planning program- however, I am so stuck on Curves, Radius.  The reason goes back to my first layout, tight curves into switches caused many issues.  In some early research over the last few days I have read that ATLAS switches have or have had issues, but I will say this I was using small switches, #4's with code 80.  Mostly had issues with Bachman trains and rolling stock.

So I have set some parameters for this new project

Track Code 55 
Switches no less than a #6

So that leaves the CURVES

So taking into consideration that most of the locomotives and box cars range in length from 4", and I would run trains with a total length of  24", I just wondering what radius curve would make the train look good, and to avoid that awkward shift in the general centerline of the train has it enters and goes through the curve.

As far as locomotives I like the F7 and F8, and small steamers.  like a 2-8-4
As far as rolling stock I am very fond of 40' length, with a few 50' box cars

 I have yet to decide on DC or DCC - but there is time to decide on this

any thoughts, ideas are welcome