I am regaining interest in MRRing...I've been reading and am now ready to begin but have some trepidation selecting a scale. My layout space measures approximately 5'6" by 11' 4" in an L shape along two walls. I want to do a layout set in the late 30's/ early 40's (generic) Appalachia--coal, lumber, rural with small towns. In my research, I've found advice on radii that should range from 9 3/4" (N) up to 36” for either N or HO scales. I’m really torn on which scale I should select. I’m leaning N because I want to have authenticity in my curves and don’t think I can get sweeping curves in HO, but I have a tendency to overthink such things… any advice at this point would be helpful. Also, I'm building modular--starting with the short leg of my L and working into the long leg as time and money allow (if that matters at all).
It is an important decision so you probably aren't overthinking it!
I am an N scaler so I have an obvious bias, but if you are thinking of running long coal drags pulled by giant articulateds, you definitely want to go N scale. With the dimensions you describe you can easily use 15"-18" radii curves that will handle the largest steam locomotives and look good doing it!
A couple of things to consider though. One is your age. I am 62 and have been working in N scale for 50 years. I have to use magnifiers and bright lights to do a lot of the necessary work. So far my hands are steady enough, but you might need to take that into consideration.
Another thing is N scale steam locomotives tend to be VERY SENSITIVE to track imperfections and N scale track is delicate, so make sure your track laying skills are up to par.
HO has a lot more equipment and accessories available to choose from because of its popularity.
And, finally, if you want to do a lot of super fine detail work HO definitely has the advantage there. Some N scalers will tell you that you can do anything in N that you can do in HO. I don't think that is true, but even if it is, who could see it?
Hope this helps, Good luck with your decision!
Tim
Tim has some really good points.
As for curves being authentic, even in N scale they're usually far tighter than real life. And there are many ways to disguise curves, the easiest being putting a mountain or something that hides view of the full curve behind it or partially in front of it. I would make them as wide as possible, but compromise is inevitable. My estimation is that you can build a layout in either scale.
Besides general detaiing of rolling stock that Tim mentioned, there are also lineside and other structures, and general scenery that's worth considering your interest in before making a scale decision. All are doable in N, but would likely be more accessible to the average persons skill set in HO. If you have a strong interest in vehicles or craftsman kit structures, you'll find far more of it in HO, for instance.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
If it were me, and it once was not very long ago, I would determine which is more important--long trains (N) or a wealth of structures and such for realism (HO). I went with long trains, still feel it was the right decision, but often lament the dearth of N-Scale accessories.
Richard
If its point to point On30 might fit the bill as there are small engines available and it runs on HO track but the On30 track is of course more realistic. I run HO and with small engines 18" radius looks fine though I shoot for 22" when possible.
Some good points so far. I've been in HO to N and now in HO again. I went to N for the reasons mentioned -- I could run decent trains in a limited amount of space. But as my interested changed, I came back to HO because I was more interested in the, as I think James McNab described it in his Grimes Industrail article in the latest GMR, micro level of operations. That is the movement of individual cars and the train crew as opposed to macro operations which is the movement of multiple trains under some form of dispatcher control. And as my interested have grown even more on the individual movements, as well as the details of the world around them, I'd like to move up to O, though I'm space limited.
So that's probably the first couple of decisions:
a. Micro or Macro level of ops.
b. Deep detail or general impression on structures, rolling stock, etc.
Since you say your space is L shape, I'm assuming you're limited to about 24-30 inches of depth along the 2 walls.
So for HO it's not enough depth for a continuous route in HO, you'll be limited to a switching layout. Realistically for your space you'll have one town.
With N scale you can have a loop. The smaller scale will allow for 2 towns and possibly some hidden staging track.
From your description of what you want to do, I'd say N is your better choice.
I also suggest you get a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong. After reading his book, draw up a couple of plans (the book has tips for doing this) in each scale for your space.
Good luck
Paul
Welcome aboard!
I would suggest looking for a train show. In the top right corner of this page, in little tiny Z-scale print, there is a hot-spot called "Resources." Click on that and you'll find "Coming Events," which you can use to locate train shows by date or by Zip code and distance. These shows usually have operating layouts in many scales, and give you a chance to see your various options in action.
If you let us know where you live and how far you're willing to travel, someone here can direct you to shows they know about.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
jmbjmbmicro level of operations. That is the movement of individual cars and the train crew
Quite achievable in N scale, as well.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
To the original poster: this forum happens to skew mainly to HO scalers, which is fine. But it does mean you will mainly get replies from folks who decided HO was best for themsleves.
If you posted the same query on other forums more heavily populated by active N scalers (e.g., Trainboard or Railwire), you would receive a different set of replies.
Both scales are fine, it's really which will allow you to accomplish what you want in the space you have available. Visiting a train show so that you can compare the equipment in action is always good advice.
Operation happens in both scales. Scratchbuilding happens in both scales. Command control (DCC) works in both scales.
Best of luck.
cuyama jmbjmb micro level of operations. That is the movement of individual cars and the train crew
jmbjmb micro level of operations. That is the movement of individual cars and the train crew
cuyama To the original poster: this forum happens to skew mainly to HO scalers, which is fine.
To the original poster: this forum happens to skew mainly to HO scalers, which is fine.
Deciding on what scale to work in, is a decision only you (the O.P.) can make; so, read over what people have to say and if their opinion seems to lean one way or the other, omit that opinion.
A good way of making this determination would be to draw plans in both scales and see which plan best suits your interest.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
I have had layouts in N scale, HO scale, and S scale.
In my opinion and experience, the larger the scale, the easier it is to operate without problems (mainly derailments). Plus, larger scales are more enjoyable because they are easier to see the detail, even for those with excellent eyesight.
The downside to both N scale and S scale is the lack of availability of roadnames for locos and rolling stock as well as a lack of a sufficient variety of structures.
All things being equal, I would opt for S scale, but not all things are equal, so I settle for HO scale, an excellent compromise.
Rich
Alton Junction
UPDATE: First of all, thanks for all the input. It put some things in perspective and helped me think further. I've decided on HO. I put my hands on some N scale at the local hobby shop and admitted that I simply don't have the patience to work with such small trains. I also changed from an L to a rectangle to provide more working space. I found a layout that appeals to me that has a few areas where I could add an element or two that I really want to include. Finally, I am going to take a cue from the MR workshop and put the table on casters so I can create suitable aisles. This will, of course, require a bit stiffer benchwork than I had previously envisioned but will compromise nicely with what I hope to achieve. I did find a local Railroading club and their next show is coming up in a few days so I'll be heading down there to check out some layouts and maybe pick up a few new ideas. Again, Thanks for all the help, and happy New Year!!!
Welcome! The only thing I will say to this is, sometimes when modeling, compromises sometimes need to be made. If you wish to run long trains, in the space you have, N scale would be best. If you want a short line running Geeps & smaller locomotives with shorter trains, HO is the way to go. I myself am stubborn & plan on rebuilding my HO layout in a space where I can run a 3-4 car passenger ( Rapido & Walthers ) train and make it look feasible.
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
If you're at all interested in scratchbuilding or detailing, I'd suggest a point-to-point operation in HO scale, with at least one track at one end to represent interchange with another road (or a continuation of yours). Since you require only one major curve to get around the corner of the room, it could easily be 34" or 36" radius, and you could add in a few gentle changes of direction in the balance of the layout.
If the locos and cars which you want are available in N scale, along with structures, I suppose, and you're not much interested in scratchbuilding or detailing, I'd go with N scale. Leave the necessary curve wide (36" will look great in N) and otherwise keep pretty-much to what I've suggested for HO. Don't try to fill all your available space with track structures: in N scale, you should have plenty of room to model a representation of the small towns and the industries which you want and still have space for scenery. Again, point-to-point with enough local switching to maintain your interest, room to represent an interchange, and then let the Appalachian scenery otherwise overwhelm the railroad.
Wayne