Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Is N scale finally 'scale'?

10708 views
80 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 27, 2005 1:43 PM
I would have too say that i use code 80 in n scale and i am happy with it. ive heard from modelers that code 55 is tough too work with because the flanges on the engine hit the ties and damage your engine. i cant imagine code 40!

[:)] Keith
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: San Francisco Bay Area
  • 1,090 posts
Posted by on30francisco on Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:56 PM
I believe N scale is and always was a scale. Although I model in On30 and HO, I've tried N scale in the past. The scenic effects and potential for running long trains are fantastic. Although there have been big improvements in the running and detail qualities since I last modeled in N, I believe there are still some improvements that can be made to make N scale much better. I wi***hey would make more good running steam era locos and rolling stock. The flanges on the wheels should be reduced so locos and rolling stock can run on Codes 55 or 40 track and rolling stock should come with body-mounted couplers.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:06 PM
Actually, 'they' have reduced the size of the flanges on the rolling stock and locos, and they run fine on code 55 track. Also, most of my new rolling stock have body mounted Acumate couplers, and they came thay way from the factory. I think there are a lot more steam locos and rolling stock out there for n scalers than there was, say, ten years ago, and more are constantly being added to manufacturers lists.

brian
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:13 PM
I just think the big thing about N-scale is getting a bigger bang for your buck, where you can have a huge layout in half the space as HO. Which I'm sure has already been said and beaten to death. I just think that it gives modelers more of a challenge...period.
  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 595 posts
Posted by gvdobler on Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:54 PM
The other night I was on final approach over Las Vegas on Southwest Airlines and I looked out the window and caught a quick peek into a passing garage door that was open and was I almost blinded by these huge flanges on a model railroad and I thought --- oh, N scale for sure.

I admire anyone that can do N scale and make it look right.. N is harder to detail in direct proportion to how many birthdays you've celebrated. G scale is easier because it's so big.

The real test is always the photos. I never saw a picture of the V & O railroad (HO) that you didn't have to look twice to make sure that it wasn't a picture of a full size train.

Why is it then that if detail makes it look real, that G scale almost always look toy-like in the photos?

I know there are artists in all scales but more people seem to have good luck with HO because of some kind of harmony with HO and the human eye.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Dallas, GA
  • 2,643 posts
Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:34 AM
At the club I am a member of, our N scale layout has code 40 track, and I have to say, it is a pain in the rear. Even if you have locomotives with small flanges, they still could trip up on the frogs of turnouts.

Now, being a club, it really should be a larger code, because not many of us have a whole fleet of anything to run on it. But, the decision was made to use code 40 because it was more true-to-scale. But I refuse to to spend the money to convert all of my stuff to different wheels just so I can run them on the club layout. Atlas stuff works fine on it, and so does some Bachmann Spectrum.

Code 80 looks great if you paint it, then you can run anything.[:D]

Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Mass
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by trainfreek92 on Friday, December 9, 2005 12:07 PM
I love N scale!!!! in my opinion it is the best scale the layout that i am building right now is a 4x8 with a 36x80 extension. if i continued modeling in Ho scale i would only be getting half the layout. also i think the engines are better then Ho. But diffrent strokes for diffrent folks[:D] Tim
Running New England trains on The Maple Lead & Pine Tree Central RR from the late 50's to the early 80's in N scale
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 9, 2005 12:31 PM
Originally posted by archie2

Every time this question or something similar pops up, somebody invariably cites the Reid Brothers. Yes, their layout is beautiful. But, honestly, how many modelers out there can duplicate it in N scale? N scale has made great strides, but as I see it, big drawbacks must be overcome before you can truly call it "scale." Here they are:

Wheel flanges. Way oversized. Sure, you can get smaller sizes but how many modelers have converted?

Rail height. Like flanges, you can use code 55 rail, but most modelers don't.

Handrails. Thick.

Couplers. Even Kadees are oversized. They are in HO, as well (except the #58's), but they still look better in HO.

Talgo trucks. No need for comment.

Detail. Molded on or missing altogether. To my eye, at least, detail does not disappear or become irrelevant just because the scale is smaller.

I am an N-scale guy and have been for years. I fully recognize that the scale has its limitations. For instance, scale sized handrails would be great, but they would also be extremely fragile...and yes, more detail would be great, but again, is it always necessary to have that detail?

For me, the important question to ask is this...do N-scale's limitations distract you from the simple pleasure of running a great layout? Not in my opinion...this hobby is about fun or relaxation or whatever it is that floats your boat...we have enough things to stress about in everyday life...no need to bring that stress to your hobby.

Brad
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:11 PM
As a guy who is getting back into the hobby and who has limited space, I have found this forum to be very helpful. I like the idea of modling a railroad as opposed to a train. I have some nicely detailed HO equipment that I basically have on display, and its good for that, but if I employed HO in my new layout, I would be very limited (given my space constraints) in the scope of what I could and could not do. You guys have sold me on N
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Easley, SC
  • 134 posts
Posted by navygunner on Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:46 PM
I started out on an HO 14'x8' layout that Dad built back in the early 1970s. The middle 10'x4' foot space was filled in with industry and housing. I loved running it, but wanted to make deliveries to the industries.

With N Scale I am able to have that and more on a 11'x3'6" layout.. I can run the California Zephyr and a DRGW PA/BA or CB&Q ABBA consist or a N&W Y3 or 2 with 40 70 ton hoppers without having the train in a turn. Plus I have a yard and industrial spurs with track to service them.

I don't have a basement, so the small spare bedroom that my layout exists in has to get-r-done. The detail, quality and availability of N Scale has taken a huge jump in the past 10 years. HO is nice, but if you have room for an empire in that scale, imagine what can be done in N! I generally run a 4 loco MU of C44-9CW's, SD-70's, SD-80's, Trainmasters, H16-44's; plus N&W Mallets, NKP Berkshires's or the occasional Yellowstone. Oh! and a C of G 2-10-2 or N&W J Class loco's. My average train length is about 5' long, that would be almost 10" in HO. Do the math and assess your abilities, then make your decision. I opted for bigger trains are better.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: SINGAPORE
  • 246 posts
Posted by ATSFCLIFF on Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:20 PM
I model in N scale and agree that in the early years outsized couplers, large flange wheels and poor details had been the bane for most N modellers. These are things of the past, take a look at the knuckle couplers by MT, wheelsets by Atlas & InterMountain, the detailing on engines and rolling stock by Kato, Atlas and IM. The code 55 tracks by MicroEngineering and Peco are well made and look realistic. It all depends on what you buy and, as in all scales, add ons, little detailing makes the models look better.
Cheers,
Cliff


http://cliffordconceicao3310.fotopic.net/c328807.html
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • 535 posts
Body mount couplers for N-scale?
Posted by nucat78 on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:47 PM
I'm just laying track so this is premature, but are a lot of N-scalers switching to body mount couplers? I've been out of the hobby for several years and talgo mounts used to be my beef against N-scale. Now that I'm back in N, I'm wondering if I should put conversions to body mounts on the to-do list.

Also, anybody make a pop-in replacement knuckle coupler for N-scale? I've seen references to Unimate and Accumate but I thought Accumate is HO and above and haven't found much on Unimate.

Thanks!

QUOTE: Originally posted by bikerraypa

QUOTE: Originally posted by hyperion

I think it pretty much boils down to whether you want to model a train or a railroad.

I converted to N [...] MTL body mounts are replacing my old Talgo trucks [...].
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Santa Fe, NM
  • 1,169 posts
Posted by Adelie on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1:01 PM
My guess is that most of us live with the Talgo couplers. I'd love to switch to body mounts, but I have a large enough fleet that the cost and time would be prohibitive. Since almost all of my fleet has Micro Trains, Atlas or Intermountain trucks, I'd be replacing good to very good trucks with similar models simply to body mount the couplers. I'd have to win the lottery so I could give up work to justify that amount of time.

Intermountain cars have the option of mounting either way. I believe the hole for mounting the coupler is already in the frame. The kits can easily have their couplers mounted on the body, while the RTR cars are truck-mounted.

- Mark

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 11:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by gvdobler

The other night I was on final approach over Las Vegas on Southwest Airlines and I looked out the window and caught a quick peek into a passing garage door that was open and was I almost blinded by these huge flanges on a model railroad and I thought --- oh, N scale for sure.


If that was my garage, the scale is HOj and the huge flanges are RP25 on code 108 wheels.

Seriously, I have seen beautiful work done in every scale. Some N scale layouts recently featured in the US and Japanese model mags had me wondering about scale until I read the captions.

On the other hand, some layouts in every scale are seriously ugly - including my under-construction efforts. The Plywood Central is unlikely to win any beauty contests, no matter what scale it's built in.

If the object is to capture the flavor of BNSF in northern Arizona, or UP (ex-SP) in southern Arizona, by all means go N scale unless you have an empty warehouse and a megabuck to build in a larger scale. If the object is to build a perfect scale model of (fill in the blank,) it will be easier in a larger scale, as long as (fill in the blank) is a single building or piece of rolling stock.

The thing that leans me away from N is physiology - arthritis doesn't do a thing for manual dexterity, and reading microscopic reporting marks without using binoculars is a challenge I can live without.

Unfortunately, none of us are getting any younger.

Chuck
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 3,590 posts
Posted by csmith9474 on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:19 AM
After seeing the OUTSTANDING job that Kato did with the Super Chief, it looks like life is gettin' pretty good for you N scalers. I am truly impressed.
Smitty
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 2:27 AM
If I was starting from scratch, I would probably pick N scale. It's the thought of replacing my HO rolling stock, engines, and decoders that keeps me from converting. Plus, HO has more kits whereas N seems to have more RTR, and, well, N scale equipment seems to be priced like women's clothing ("How can a skimpy little thing like <that> cost so much...?)
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:16 PM
I am in N scale, and can be a stickler for things looking real. I have little problem with the size of details, as long as the overall look of things is good I am satisfied. There is no reason to have products that aren't proportioned well these days. Maybe the flanges are a little bigger, but I don't find this too noticeable when actually on the track. as for couplers, I guess we're still waiting, but it took years for scale HO couplers too.
  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Raleigh, NC
  • 254 posts
Posted by jkroft on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 8:54 PM
definitely love N scale...........definitely hate sleeper ties and putting back together a coupler assembly which I accidentally took apart.

"You show me a man with both feet on the ground and I'll show you a man who can't get his pants on." -anonymous

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:55 PM
I have been modeling Nscale for over 30 years. It is excellent equipment and great space value I like. I used Peco code 55 on my last layout and hed virtually no derailments for 3 years. If you are careful and do your roadbed right you will also have good operation with this size rail. I love N scale.
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 2,392 posts
Posted by Tracklayer on Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:45 PM
I'm an old N scaler from way back (20 years), and can testify to what others have said about how much things have advanced in N scale over that time.
However... I still have mostly Rapido couplers on my rolling stock and I'm not into DCC yet, but have a great little three and a half by six foot, two track layout that I very much enjoy - which I hope to double the size of in the not too distant future.

Tracklayer
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 5, 2006 9:11 PM
How many details on a prototype train traveling 70 mph do you really see. If you want "scale" models, buy them. Who cares what "scale" they are. As a model railroader, I find N scale to be a trade off. You gain the advantage of having a little space hold a nice layout, as well as having a large space with an awsome layout. The practical reality is the train must stay on the track hence the need for functionality. If prototypical details on locos and rolling stock and such are whats important to you then maybe N "scale" (yes i said "scale") is not perfect for you. The fact that they are detailed enough to present themselves as realistic may be insufficient for your taste. In that case they will always fall short. But I say that if you truly consider details as important in the model railroad hobby, you must consider the layout in total. Not just the train running on the track. What good is a superdetailed loco and cars, if they just run around on a mediocre layout or just plywood. Ask yourself if detail is really important to you. If it is I am convinced that the level of detail that is compressed into an N scale layout is greater in quantity and that is a quality all it's own. The scene in Nscale can be developed to a greater degeree than in HO scale. You can have an industrial area or town with more in it on the same footprint than HO scale. I believe this fact to be of critical importance. When you see a train, ask yourself, how much of the rest of what's in your view can you create in HO or larger scales. I believe in N you can do more. Grousing about flanges and rail head height to me is really irrelevant. Who looks at that when the train rolls by? I don't, do you? If these are the things that you look at perhaps it is more of a collector mentality you have. Not that that is bad, but as someone who enjoys building a layout and running a train, I think you get more bang for the buck in NScale. Furthermore, when is the last time you took a photo loop to the train store. I have several Atlas tank cars and many Microtrains cars that when you look at them under a loop you see things that are not visible with the naked eye. Such as fine print which is legible and crisp and my favorite, rivets and bolt heads.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!