N scale was more expensive for me only because I actually did cram alot into a small space! 15 switches, 2 crossovers, and a turntable in only 18" x 96" will do that! Had I have built an HO layout in this space, I'd have only had room for a simple Inglenook or Timesaver and that would have been it. With all of this I still have enough room for operations for 2 people independently along with some decent scenery including a waterfront.
If I had the available space, my dream layout would actually be a large 3 rail O! Go figure!
Sandeky1989 wrote:Thanks for all the info wm3798. I have desided to go with N scale for now, I just dont think that i can model large HO steam engines in a 6.5 ft wide space wile i can do that quite easly in N scale. The onely problem is is from what i've seen alot of N scale steam arnt DCC ready so il need to learn how to install decoders in the locos.Other than that if i learn how to hardwire there are the same amount of locos avaliable to me at about the same price.
Thanks for all the info wm3798. I have desided to go with N scale for now, I just dont think that i can model large HO steam engines in a 6.5 ft wide space wile i can do that quite easly in N scale. The onely problem is is from what i've seen alot of N scale steam arnt DCC ready so il need to learn how to install decoders in the locos.
Other than that if i learn how to hardwire there are the same amount of locos avaliable to me at about the same price.
If big steam is what you're after, Athearn has produced a Union Pacific Big Boy and a Challenger in several road names, both are offered with DCC and sound decoders, and by most reports, are very solid runners.
If you're looking for smaller steam, Bachmann's Spectrum line has several steamers now, and all are fairly easy to convert to DCC. I've done a 2-8-0 myself, and it was no big deal.
If you stick to the latest releases from Life Like/Walthers, Kato, Athearn and Spectrum, you can build a very reliable fleet... it'll take some bones, but you can do it.
Keep us posted on your progress.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
jecorbett wrote:If more S scale was available, I would have given it serious consideration.
If more S scale was available, I would have given it serious consideration.
I will be sticking with N, but I am with you on S.. its the "perfect" size. Someday..
My wife actually encouraged me to try S since I liked it so much, so I showed her the prices of the locomotives. She said I should stick with N!
Chris
Lee, your response to David was well thought out and spot on.
RT, if you're trying to do a city scene, then maybe you're right about the cost per square foot thing. You can indeed fit more buildings and such in a single square foot in N then you can in HO. If you're really playing to N scale's strength however, big scenery for long trains, then I don't see how the cost is that big of a difference. Wide open scenery is not expensive to create. Trains running through rolling countryside or dominating mountains are what N scale does best, and the only thing that costs more about that is the number of cars that fit in the space. I've done both HO scale and N scale, and I've found the costs of both to be very similar, item per item. It's the overall effect that is different. HO scale offers a wider selection of off the shelf stuff with a good level of detail. N scale has a lower detail threshold generally (though there are some extremely detailed models available built in this scale), but rather then the main focus being on a close up scene which is HO's strength, the viewpoint is generally larger and the scene bigger, which goes well with the longer train lengths.
Just my
If you try to fill the space, yes, you can easiliy spend more in N scale. But the beauty of N scale shows when you DON'T try to fill the space! The idea of taking an HO layout, and adapting it to N scale, but NOT changing the size is a really good one. All of a sudden a 10 car siding holds almost 20 cars, and things are not right on top of each other. Just adjust things like track centers, and you can have a great layout, and the cost will be very comparable.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
True, thats one of the reasons i desied to swich to N scale. i want to be able to make senery and be able to fit the structures i want into the layout. the onely problem is is that its going to cost me a little bit more to get started in N scale than HO. Im not evan going to touch the old block and toggle style of layout when i know a DCC system is alot easer to use and set up. The onely wireing i want to do is for building lights, turnouts moters and moterized things.
In N sale there are no DCC ready starter sets(that i know of) or sets that come with DCC systems so i will need to spend the extra money off that bat to get the same equipment that i woulda gotten in one box with HO scale, But knowing i will be able to fit the stuff i wana get like a 130' ft turntable, roundhouse and other engine servacing buildings is worth it. all i need to do is get the Hardwireing thing learned so i can get alot of the cheeper N scale locos to start with.
One of the problems with availability in N scale is the geniuses who run some of the manufacturers and distributors. For instance, Walthers produced the Automobile Plant series in HO, which to be done properly, requires huge buildings for the assembly plant. The assembly plant they did in HO is stupid small, it didn't sell well, so they decided that they wouldn't do it in N. N scale is really more appropriate for that kind of facility, because even on a modestly sized layout, you have room to really represent it well. Just because a product flops in HO doesn't mean it will fail in N scale... in fact, it would probably do better!
Consider the Walthers Paper mill kit... it goes for over $100, and I know of several N scalers who have purchased two or more of them so they can kitbash it into a larger industry. (One guy used it to bash an auto plant... go figure)
The City Classics line is another one... They make big downtown office buildings in HO, but the only thing they've done in N is a gas station. There are a million different gas station kits in N scale, so one that tips the scales at around $40 isn't going to do well. But large downtown buildings are desparately needed, because in N scale, you have the room to provide space for a big city. (Not everyone has Rod Stewart's attic... or budget!)
wm3798 wrote: One of the problems with availability in N scale is the geniuses who run some of the manufacturers and distributors. For instance, Walthers produced the Automobile Plant series in HO, which to be done properly, requires huge buildings for the assembly plant. The assembly plant they did in HO is stupid small, it didn't sell well, so they decided that they wouldn't do it in N. N scale is really more appropriate for that kind of facility, because even on a modestly sized layout, you have room to really represent it well. Just because a product flops in HO doesn't mean it will fail in N scale... in fact, it would probably do better!Consider the Walthers Paper mill kit... it goes for over $100, and I know of several N scalers who have purchased two or more of them so they can kitbash it into a larger industry. (One guy used it to bash an auto plant... go figure)The City Classics line is another one... They make big downtown office buildings in HO, but the only thing they've done in N is a gas station. There are a million different gas station kits in N scale, so one that tips the scales at around $40 isn't going to do well. But large downtown buildings are desparately needed, because in N scale, you have the room to provide space for a big city. (Not everyone has Rod Stewart's attic... or budget!)Lee
Just about any large industry would be difficult to do justice to in either N or HO unless one wants to devote a considerable amount of real estate to it which would mean making it the main or only feature of the layout. I think for most folks, whether they model in HO or N, the best way to represent most of a large industrial plant is on their back drop and use low relief and a few foreground structures to represent those parts of the plant that interface directly with the railroad.
While your points are well taken regarding the feasibility of large structures in N scale, I wonder if the manufacturers believe the demand for these in N scale would not justify the cost of tooling for them. I don't know what their research tells them about what N scalers want. Perhaps they think that most N scalers are modeling in small spaces and the larger structures would have limited appeal. I would think that if there was enough demand for larger structures, the manufacturers would eventually address that.
Yes, N scale can save space, however, the original poster defined what space he has available, so that isn't part of the equation here. If he draws up an HO track plan for that space, it will be decidedly more cramped than the exact same geometry installed in N.
Better scenery is very much in the eye of the beholder, but I would argue that whether your looking at a large layout or a small diorama, the scenery:railroad ratio in N scale will always present a more plausible scene. Industrial buildings can be larger, trees can be taller etc. in proportion to the trains. Can you tell if the conductor figure has blue eyes or brown? No. Is the warehouse you spot your boxcar at bigger than the boxcar? Not so easy in a larger scale.
Yes, the factory installed decoders are not top of the line... that's why I said that for a few dollars more, you can purchase a better decoder and install it yourself...
You're right, an HO engine can support more details than an N scale model. But FYI, Intermountain is putting factory applied grabs on their F units (and have for a few years) and the new Atlas Master series includes separately applied uncoupling levers and other details. Handrails are also improving as injection molding materials and techniques develop.
What you don't get in HO on an average size layout is adequate turning radius, reasonable train lengths, and a realistic proportion to scenery.
Among the top brands of locomotives, I don't think you can identify any major differences in performance. Ntrak displays often feature long runs where N scale locomotives operate for hours on end pulling trains that can number in the hundreds of cars. I would argue that before split frames and wireless pickups this simply was not possible. Perhaps this is a case where the design works better in N than it does in HO... The bottom line is, the evidence supports the idea that it works.
So yes, we have our choices to make, and those of us who choose a larger scale are likely looking for satisfaction in good performance as well as more realistic equipment models. Those of us who prefer a more realistic railroad environment and are less concerned about minute details, will gravitate to a smaller scale.
I'm not suggesting that either scale is superior to the other. I just wanted to clarify some of the points that you made about N scale that were unnecessarily negative, and in some cases inaccurate.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
pcarrell wrote:But I digress.......
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
You don't have to fill the space. One of the beauties of N is you can spread out your railroad. Example... Take any published HO track plan and simply replace the HO track with N. Same number of turnouts, same number of structures. Probably less expensive overall. Although you can now run longer trains through better scenery.
I disagree. The big reason that I see for going into N scale is that you can have longer sidings and trains, more town than just the trackside buildings, more industries in the towns, more towns, etc. If you're just going to have the same track, buildings, etc you might as well stay in a larger size.
Every scale has its own advantages (and disadvantages) but for me if I were to go into a small scale, it would be to have longer trains, more sidings, more towns, etc. in my available space.
As usual just my
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: You don't have to fill the space. One of the beauties of N is you can spread out your railroad. Example... Take any published HO track plan and simply replace the HO track with N. Same number of turnouts, same number of structures. Probably less expensive overall. Although you can now run longer trains through better scenery. I disagree. The big reason that I see for going into N scale is that you can have longer sidings and trains, more town than just the trackside buildings, more industries in the towns, more towns, etc. If you're just going to have the same track, buildings, etc you might as well stay in a larger size. Every scale has its own advantages (and disadvantages) but for me if I were to go into a small scale, it would be to have longer trains, more sidings, more towns, etc. in my available space.As usual just my Paul
I think in this scenario, you would add structures, to get more complete scenes. And you could add additional industry trackage. By using the some basic plan for the mainline you get to use trains twice as long, that's the pont! I don't think more towns is a great idea, I think more space between towns is a better choice.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: You don't have to fill the space. One of the beauties of N is you can spread out your railroad. Example... Take any published HO track plan and simply replace the HO track with N. Same number of turnouts, same number of structures. Probably less expensive overall. Although you can now run longer trains through better scenery. I disagree. The big reason that I see for going into N scale is that you can have longer sidings and trains, more town than just the trackside buildings, more industries in the towns, more towns, etc. If you're just going to have the same track, buildings, etc you might as well stay in a larger size. Every scale has its own advantages (and disadvantages) but for me if I were to go into a small scale, it would be to have longer trains, more sidings, more towns, etc. in my available space.As usual just my Paul I think in this scenario, you would add structures, to get more complete scenes. And you could add additional industry trackage. By using the some basic plan for the mainline you get to use trains twice as long, that's the pont! I don't think more towns is a great idea, I think more space between towns is a better choice.
Depends of course on what you want to do. For me, more towns makes your operations, especially passenger, more interesting.
Enjoy
R. T. POTEET wrote: pcarrell wrote:But I digress.......Another digression there, Phil? Pray tell, what, in the precious name of Hillary Rodham, are you digressing about now?
I misunderstood what your first post was trying to convey, so my response was faulted. Your second post cleared it up. My appologies.
I heartily agree with the bold print. I don't have a hard-core preference for HO or N, but as a visitor to many N scale layouts, I'm usually disappointed by the sheer lack of scenery. Yeah, 100-car trains are impressive, but most of the time I'm watching them snake through the great plains. (big yawwwwn)
Even though they are often technically "compressed", I often find that a well done HO layout is more enjoyable to view and apt to contain scenes that are densely decorated with many interesting details to view. Though there are definitely barren layouts in HO, in my random layout viewing experience, this sparse scenery dilemma seems to be more prevalent in N scale rather than HO.
As far as large spaces are concerned, perhaps the there's a misconception that N scale gives you more space for long trains, when in all actuality, it's giving the modeler too MUCH space for trains that may never adequately be accompanied by scenery and structures without costing you an arm and a leg to complete. Maybe HO would be better after all...
Signed,
A barren-layout HO modeler (but working on it!)
Courage8 wrote:Like all others, just my opinion, but I think you won't be sorry you chose HO. I modelled N in the mid 90s and HO several times before and after that, and prefer HO for a compromise between price, detail, railroading in a given space and availability of good products. And as others have noted, my eyes aren't as young as they used to be! As for your preference for big steam, there are several "big steam" locomotives available in HO that are truly stunning. Good luck!
Ya i know there are alot of big steamers in HO scale, alot more than N scale to be shure. I made a small graph from a few of the larger manufacturers web sites and a few online hobby shops and found about 10 N scale steamers to about 21 HO steamers ( i was onely counting the ones that i know are DCC compatable or better). After playing with some Graph paper and looking at alot of layout pictures and stuff i figured that i would need at a minimum of a 30 inch radius in HO scale and with my layout space being about 7' x 13' give or take a few inches i found that i wouldent be able to model what i wanted in HO scale ( im not good with graph paper tho so i mite be wrong.
I decided to swich to N scale for now but i still havent bought anything as if i could do HO scale i would. If anyone knows of any track planes for HO scale that have continus running and being able to fit some industries, at least 1 small town, a small yard, the walthers 130' turn table and a 3/4 stall roundhouse that i mite be able to get ideas from and or adapt for my own use i would like to see it.
What i want out of my layout is mostly the fun of building it. makeing the structures, weathering them, painting the senery, buying, detailing and weathering locomotives and cars over prototypical operations. i would just like a layout that i could have fun running and watching the engines and buildings i will spend most of my time makeing and takeing care of.
One of the things i have alwase wanted in a layout is a steam servacing facility with a turntable so that is why its so importent that i make room for one.
ccaranna wrote: I disagree. The big reason that I see for going into N scale is that you can have longer sidings and trains, more town than just the trackside buildings, more industries in the towns, more towns, etc. If you're just going to have the same track, buildings, etc you might as well stay in a larger size. I heartily agree with the bold print. I don't have a hard-core preference for HO or N, but as a visitor to many N scale layouts, I'm usually disappointed by the sheer lack of scenery. Yeah, 100-car trains are impressive, but most of the time I'm watching them snake through the great plains. (big yawwwwn)
Well it depends on what you're modeling, doesn't it? I'm not a big fan of southwestern themed layouts, because broad expanses of desert don't do much for me. However, if that was my bag, I would choose N scale to more completely convey the broad expanses of "nothing" that one sees in photos and video of that region. And as Pelle Soeberg has demonstrated, even a desert holds a lot of detail (His HO layout, btw, is outstanding in it's scenery:trains ratio, but alas, it is not an operations oriented design)
I live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which to the untrained eye looks a lot like Kansas. I've often thought about building a layout featuring the branch line near my home. To me the beauty and interest would come from the expanses of corn fields, the remote small towns, and the diverse industries served by rail. The detailed areas would be farther apart, but could be more intensely done.
Likewise, as a modeler of an Appalachian coal hauler, I have room on my layout for as many as 6 different coal loaders, which will generate enough traffic to keep those 100 cars busy. I'm planning on several truck dumps, at least one large tipple, and several intermediate loaders. My mountains will proportionally tower over my trains, I've got room for swift running mountain streams and long main line runs in between. I promise you, my scenery will not be boring.
As an operations-oriented layout, I want those long distances between switching areas. Railroading is about distance. You can pretend to have distance on a small HO layout by running laps between switching operations, but wouldn't it be more satisfying if your train actually left one town before it started working in the next?
Personally, I find a layout like George Sellios' F&SM to be exhausting... It may be fun to look at, but to me, railroading just doesn't look like that.
SpaceMouse wrote: If you want more RR for the space go N. If you like big scenery and long trains go N.If you like building models and creating scenes go HO. If you have fat, shakey fingers and failing eyesight go G.
If you want more RR for the space go N.
If you like big scenery and long trains go N.
If you like building models and creating scenes go HO.
If you have fat, shakey fingers and failing eyesight go G.
wm3798 wrote: ccaranna wrote: I disagree. The big reason that I see for going into N scale is that you can have longer sidings and trains, more town than just the trackside buildings, more industries in the towns, more towns, etc. If you're just going to have the same track, buildings, etc you might as well stay in a larger size. I heartily agree with the bold print. I don't have a hard-core preference for HO or N, but as a visitor to many N scale layouts, I'm usually disappointed by the sheer lack of scenery. Yeah, 100-car trains are impressive, but most of the time I'm watching them snake through the great plains. (big yawwwwn) Well it depends on what you're modeling, doesn't it? I'm not a big fan of southwestern themed layouts, because broad expanses of desert don't do much for me. However, if that was my bag, I would choose N scale to more completely convey the broad expanses of "nothing" that one sees in photos and video of that region.
Well it depends on what you're modeling, doesn't it? I'm not a big fan of southwestern themed layouts, because broad expanses of desert don't do much for me. However, if that was my bag, I would choose N scale to more completely convey the broad expanses of "nothing" that one sees in photos and video of that region.
Exactly! Out here in the desert southwest, space is the thing. Nothing is close to anything. But the railroads were the lifeline of the region. So they are, or were, the focal point of pretty much every large town, for a long time. I think N scale gives the best chance to get the feeling that locations on the layout are miles and miles apart. And despite looking like a lot of nothing, there is a lot of scenery, it's just different than Eastern scenery. Rock cuts, mountains, dry washes, little oasises, can all be interesting.
So like you said, it all depends. If there was only one answer, we'd only need one scale!