SpaceMouse wrote: Actually, I wasn't really worried about the rolling stock and locos. I was thinking more of the structures.but I was able to fix a few things I didn't like tonight.
Actually, I wasn't really worried about the rolling stock and locos. I was thinking more of the structures.
but I was able to fix a few things I didn't like tonight.
THAT actually looks really good I couldnt tell what scale it was until I realised it was the n scale building you were talking aboutit is the N scale building, right?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
daniel_leavitt2000 wrote: Chip, weathering cab be done just as well in N as in HO. Here is a sample from Tom Mann:HO:N:
Chip, weathering cab be done just as well in N as in HO. Here is a sample from Tom Mann:
HO:
N:
Very Nice indeed!!
I have to admit that after this post I have felt somewhat like a fool. I also have come to realize that my trepidation has nothing to do with operations, but rather has more to do with what I like about the hobby which isth use of light, color, and paint to create an illusion.
It has to do with the contrast between the 3 foot rule and the camera. It has to do with making a fundamental shift in my tollerences between these levels of preception. In HO, I have come into agreement with myself about the level of detail I produce and how to frame it with the camera. In other words, if I view the scene at 3 feet, I am satisfied, and if I frame the scene in my camera, I am satisfied.
With N scale, I bring the same level of skill to the table in terms of physical size, I can paint a 1/32 inch straight line in either scale. At three feet either scale looks good. The difference comes in what the camera picks up. If I frame a house in HO with a camera, the digital image shows some places where I could do better, but I have reached a level of okayness about it.
When I frame the same house in N scale, the 2 dimentail image is the same, but the physical size is 1/4 of HO. All the lines are rough and the techniques that I used in HO to show weathering are uneven blotches of paint in the eyes of the camera. I have not developed a sense of okayness about it yet.
But I take hope in the fact, that as Dave pointed, I'm just starting in N scale.
Here's a look at a 50-car coal train on my N scale layout....
Coal Train Video
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Dave Vollmer wrote:Ugh...The train length was an example of relative size. So in your space you could run 60-140 cars in N.N scale diesels, especially Kato diesels, run just as well as HO ones. Just as well. I can say that; I spent 20 years in HO before I switched to N. So I know both scales.Katos run well in any scale.Atlas' new offerings in N are also spectacular, as are the LL/Walthers Proto stuff. All the examples I've seen or purchased run like fine Swiss watches. The trick is to stick to the newer stuff. The pre-1990 stuff is real hit-or-miss.Steam in N is still iffy, but we have a couple of real winners (the Kato Mike, Spectrum 2-8-0, Athearn/MDC 2-8-0, and some others). But, with some tinkering, most can be made to run quite well. Nevertheless, I felt my HO steamers ran better than my N ones, at least in terms of pulling power.Oh, and there's a heck of a lot more to N scale than just NTrak layouts.I've kind of been backed into a corner here as the "defense" team for N scale. Frankly, N scale isn't for everyone, and I wouldn't advocate it for everyone. If I were still a narrow gauge nut (I used to model the RGS in HOn3 many years ago) I wouldn't be in N. I'd probably do On30.But for a guy with no major vision or fine-motor-skill troubles who wants the most railroad for his space, N scale really does offer certain advantages. And operations in any scale is possible. N scale may be less forgiving of bad track poorly-balanced rolling stock, but if you do it right, it'll work just fine.Let me say this, and then I'm essentially done... Chip's question as to whether operation is possible in N has been answered emphatically. Yes it is.
Ugh...
The train length was an example of relative size. So in your space you could run 60-140 cars in N.
N scale diesels, especially Kato diesels, run just as well as HO ones. Just as well. I can say that; I spent 20 years in HO before I switched to N. So I know both scales.
Katos run well in any scale.
Atlas' new offerings in N are also spectacular, as are the LL/Walthers Proto stuff. All the examples I've seen or purchased run like fine Swiss watches. The trick is to stick to the newer stuff. The pre-1990 stuff is real hit-or-miss.
Steam in N is still iffy, but we have a couple of real winners (the Kato Mike, Spectrum 2-8-0, Athearn/MDC 2-8-0, and some others). But, with some tinkering, most can be made to run quite well. Nevertheless, I felt my HO steamers ran better than my N ones, at least in terms of pulling power.
Oh, and there's a heck of a lot more to N scale than just NTrak layouts.
I've kind of been backed into a corner here as the "defense" team for N scale. Frankly, N scale isn't for everyone, and I wouldn't advocate it for everyone. If I were still a narrow gauge nut (I used to model the RGS in HOn3 many years ago) I wouldn't be in N. I'd probably do On30.
But for a guy with no major vision or fine-motor-skill troubles who wants the most railroad for his space, N scale really does offer certain advantages. And operations in any scale is possible. N scale may be less forgiving of bad track poorly-balanced rolling stock, but if you do it right, it'll work just fine.
Let me say this, and then I'm essentially done... Chip's question as to whether operation is possible in N has been answered emphatically. Yes it is.
I'm not beating up on N, quite the contrary, I'm looking to fund an N gauge home based thing and keep my HO at the club for the same space considerations ya'll have. I just had some of the same type of questions Chip had. But thanks for the insight. Your pre 1990s advice is golden since I'm one of those guys repowering and detailing Athearn diesels from who knows when.
I just want a decent coal drag to run at home. I might even go with a different road since I have that opportunity!
thanks
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
sfrailfan wrote:remember I have nothing against N, but I did ask about running quaility, never got an answer,
remember I have nothing against N, but I did ask about running quaility, never got an answer,
N-scale locomotives have come a long way. The pulling power compared to HO in cars seems quite comparable based on reviews I have read. Of course, manufacturer quality varies. I dont think this would be an issue for a user choosing between N and HO, there are plenty of more compelling issues.
There is a caveat to that, though. If you have to remove weight to make room for a decoder or speaker as can happen, especially on older locomotives, then your traction can be reduced.
Chris
Dave Vollmer wrote:Daniel pointed out something critical that I was remiss in emphasizing myself, Chip.Some aspects of N scale operation (for a given size versus HO) can be even more realistic than HO. Train length, for example. Even locals on a line like the Pennsy were longer than most HO mainline trains. You can do a 20-car local in N on a door (I do it all the time!).If you like MUing, your triple-header looks better pulling a 30-car train in N than a 15-car train in HO.Daniel also points out the ability in N (again, for the same space relative to HO) to put more space between towns. At scale speeds, N scale trains take longer to move between switching locations, extending the op session time.I know I'm wearing out this phrase, and I wish I could remember who first said it to me, but it rings true to my ears: "HO is for modeling trains; N scale is for modeling railroads."Good luck with whatever you choose. But at least give it a shot.
Daniel pointed out something critical that I was remiss in emphasizing myself, Chip.
Some aspects of N scale operation (for a given size versus HO) can be even more realistic than HO. Train length, for example. Even locals on a line like the Pennsy were longer than most HO mainline trains. You can do a 20-car local in N on a door (I do it all the time!).
If you like MUing, your triple-header looks better pulling a 30-car train in N than a 15-car train in HO.
Daniel also points out the ability in N (again, for the same space relative to HO) to put more space between towns. At scale speeds, N scale trains take longer to move between switching locations, extending the op session time.
I know I'm wearing out this phrase, and I wish I could remember who first said it to me, but it rings true to my ears: "HO is for modeling trains; N scale is for modeling railroads."
Good luck with whatever you choose. But at least give it a shot.
15 car in HO? My coal drags tend to be 30 to 70 cars long, I have to use pushers on the grades with trains over (about) 45 cars. (dcc, using a separate throttle for the pushers)
remember I have nothing against N, but I did ask about running quaility, never got an answer, and by the way how much power does and kato N gauge SD70 have vs. a kato HO SD70?
I've seen N gauge mod layouts and they look great, but I think hearing from someone who runs N would be a better judge than me looking at a layout in a noisy room with 100 + people looking over my shoulder.
You can go to dallasmodelworks.com and use Craigs car card generator..
http://dallasmodelworks.com/interchange/carcard.asp
I think it would be a great help for ops in N scale simply because the numbers and lettering on the cars could be difficult for some to read. I photographed about 35 of my HO cars, like this..
and printed them on the top of the card. Makes operating easier!
JaRRell
jasperofzeal wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: jasperofzeal wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwS5uqWeGAIt sounds more like somebody breathing hard and trying to mimic the sounds of a steam engine than the workings of a sound system.Do all N sound systems sound like this?Why don't you ask him? You can leave a comment on his video. I'm sure he'd love the feedback.I asked you because you posted the link to the video and you are the unofficial, self-appointed voice of the N scale group here. I model in HO, so I'm not very versed with N scale sound, or HO sound for that matter. I'm not losing sleep over the sound thing, I just gave my opinion on how the engine sounded and asked a general question you could've probably answered.
Dave Vollmer wrote: jasperofzeal wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwS5uqWeGAIt sounds more like somebody breathing hard and trying to mimic the sounds of a steam engine than the workings of a sound system.Do all N sound systems sound like this?Why don't you ask him? You can leave a comment on his video. I'm sure he'd love the feedback.
jasperofzeal wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwS5uqWeGAIt sounds more like somebody breathing hard and trying to mimic the sounds of a steam engine than the workings of a sound system.Do all N sound systems sound like this?
Dave Vollmer wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwS5uqWeGA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwS5uqWeGA
It sounds more like somebody breathing hard and trying to mimic the sounds of a steam engine than the workings of a sound system.
Do all N sound systems sound like this?
Why don't you ask him? You can leave a comment on his video. I'm sure he'd love the feedback.
I asked you because you posted the link to the video and you are the unofficial, self-appointed voice of the N scale group here. I model in HO, so I'm not very versed with N scale sound, or HO sound for that matter. I'm not losing sleep over the sound thing, I just gave my opinion on how the engine sounded and asked a general question you could've probably answered.
Honestly, I'm not exactly thrilled with the quality of N scale sound either, as I mentioned eatlier in the thread. It all sounds kind of "tinny" to me. That, again, is a function of the physical size limit of the speaker. But it's not impossible as was hinted at.
I replied the way I did because I know this guy and he worked very hard to install this sound system and you dismissed it pretty quickly with what sounded to me like a rude comment. I think it sounds decent given the physical constraints of the tiny tender. Some N scale sound systems sound a bit deeper (like the PCM E7s) but have larger speakers.
Self-appointed, hmm... You know, when I was a young Officer Trainee Fourth Class I was taught that the good leader always steps in to fill a leadership vaccuum. So if I've become the unofficial N scale advocate here in the MR Forums, it was inadvertant; but we are underrepresented, as most N scalers I know have fled for more specialized forums.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
Dave Vollmer wrote:Harder, yes. Impossible? No. Over on another board (I can't say which one because of forum rules) there's a guy laying Code 25 rail in N. It's true!
Harder, yes. Impossible? No. Over on another board (I can't say which one because of forum rules) there's a guy laying Code 25 rail in N. It's true!
I put the sound in the "harder" category.. and the hand laid n-scale track I have seen has been soldered on not spiked.. my understanding is the little spikes used to hand lay track create too much of a bump. In any case, my point was that n-scale's small size is both a help and a hinderance.
I'm a rabid N scaler, have been for years, but I've experienced enough to realize that different scales offer different advantages. I don't bother with sound in N scale, not because I think it's a technical impossibility, but because I don't think the effect is worth the cost/benefit ratio. I have a couple of engines that I've added some details to, but I have a bunch of others still awaiting proper horns, snowplows etc. While I'll agree, N is less tolerant of sloppy workmanship, it is much more tolerant of the "three feet away" rule.
I run operations on my N scale layout, but I have to say, I really enjoy the ops sessions at the club I belong to, which has a massive HO layout. We can do long trains, MU lashups, and a wide variety of operations. I like the feel of the equipment, the mass. The bigger trains give you a sturdier sound as they cross the bridges. I do enjoy the sound equipped stuff in HO, too, I think because the sound quality is better. Steam doesn't look too bad running in HO, and sound helps, but O, and perhaps S, is where steam locomotion is best represented. In addition to the heft and size of the models, you can really see the details, large and small, of a steam locomotive. Watching the drivers of an O scale steamer, especially one that's decked out with good weathering, is an experience unto itself. G scale is fun to watch too, but so much of that is out in the yard, viewed against a backdrop of actual azaleas instead of scale trees, it's hard to appreciate.
Either way, keep on model railroading. There's something for everyone (to complain about!)
tomikawaTT wrote: Beware of the words always, never and impossible. All it takes to blow the entire statement is one contrary example, any time, any place.As for sound in model locomotives, when somebody manages to generate bass like a Norfolk and Western 1:1 scale smoke box, I'll consider it. (Holding my breath - NOT!)N scale, being smaller, is somewhat less tolerant of, "Quick and dirty," than is HO, which is less tolerant than O, which... (I think the breakover comes somewhere around 12:1, or with live steam operation.) Of course, since we are all master craftspersons(?), that isn't really an issue...If I was a couple of decades younger (or Arnold Rapido had gotten started a couple of decades sooner) I might be in N scale today. My commitment to my present scale is a matter of financial reality, not emotional commitment. (Translation - I have too much money invested in this to change now.)Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N scale; 1:80, aka HOj)
Beware of the words always, never and impossible. All it takes to blow the entire statement is one contrary example, any time, any place.
As for sound in model locomotives, when somebody manages to generate bass like a Norfolk and Western 1:1 scale smoke box, I'll consider it. (Holding my breath - NOT!)
N scale, being smaller, is somewhat less tolerant of, "Quick and dirty," than is HO, which is less tolerant than O, which... (I think the breakover comes somewhere around 12:1, or with live steam operation.) Of course, since we are all master craftspersons(?), that isn't really an issue...
If I was a couple of decades younger (or Arnold Rapido had gotten started a couple of decades sooner) I might be in N scale today. My commitment to my present scale is a matter of financial reality, not emotional commitment. (Translation - I have too much money invested in this to change now.)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N scale; 1:80, aka HOj)
Some 5000 years ago someone important said "we have ALWAYS lived in caves, we will NEVER live in anything else because it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to imagine otherwise."
Roughly 100 years ago, many people thought we have ALWAYS be land based, we will NEVER fly like the birds because it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Just last week I said to myself "I'm ALWAYS going to be in the doghouse, I'll NEVER please my wife, it is just IMPOSSIBLE!"
Ok, the last statement is wrong..................I never actually said that but anyway, sometimes all it takes is the use of words like these to acheive the NEVERs and the IMPOSSIBLEs. Many times at work when they say you CAN"T make it work like that, or something similar, I use that as motivation to show and do what they say CAN'T be done.
It is all in the mind. If there is a physical challenge (as in disability type challenge) that gets in the way, find a detour. If there is a mental roadblock, get out the map and find another route.
ChrisNH wrote: Some things are harder or impossible in n-scale like installing sound in your locomotive or spiking your own rail. Chris
Some things are harder or impossible in n-scale like installing sound in your locomotive or spiking your own rail.
And David Houston just installed a mini Tsunami in the N scale Model Power 4-4-0. This is a tiny tender, but he did it! Here:
Sound in locos is becoming a lot more common in N. Where HO beats N is that there's a physical size limit to the speaker, which reduces the sound quality in N (not as much bass as HO).
Here's a TCS M1 mini DCC decoder (under the electrical tape) I installed in the boiler of a kitbashed N scale PRR H10sb 2-8-0 I built. Bear in mind that the outer diameter of the boiler is roughly equivalent to a normal-sized adult's index finger:
Now, if I can fit a normal decoder in the boiler, think about how much room there is in the tender for a sound system.
I think to some extent you have to have a longer train (in cars) to get the same visual effect as you could in HO scale. I think the visual impact is about the linear length more so then the number of cars. They discuss this in the recent Model Railroad Planning issue, but the best discussion was one in the Ian Rice book "Mid-Sized & Manageable Track Plans".
I also think that having a sparse track plan that allows for longer trains and more distance between destinations is a design decision you can make regardless of scale. All n-scale does is make your layout area relatively bigger. If you double your available space but then double your trackwork you will be back where you started except it will take twice as long to construct.
Some aspects of the layout do NOT scale. For instance.. aisle-ways, reach-in distance and the height you will need to be comfortable between two decks. Some things are harder or impossible in n-scale like installing sound in your locomotive or spiking your own rail.
Last summer I attended the NMRA regional convention in Round Rock, Texas. Since I am in the process of building an N-Scale layout I naturally selected the only N-Scale layout offered for the Friday night operating sessions. I really enjoyed my three hours. This layout was probably in a 20x25 room and my understanding is that the layout was built with operating in mind from the beginning. The owner has operated it with a regular crew on a scheduled basis for a number of years. Benchwork was narrow enough that manual uncoupling and turnout throws were easy to reach. We had three trains running with two man crews (engineer and conductor) while the layout owner functioned as dispatcher. Each conductor kept a switchlist on a clipboard and did the manual uncoupling while the engineer made the moves. Switching occupied most of the time as we we went from town to town. I would credit the owner but his name doesn't readily come to mind. Why don't you try and find an operating N-Scale layout in your area and make a visit.
Mike B.
daniel_leavitt2000 wrote:Now if your question is do we have the same ops sessions that you guys do in HO, the answer in a resounding NO!
Now if your question is do we have the same ops sessions that you guys do in HO, the answer in a resounding NO!
Perspective!
QUESTION: Why limit the possibilities by cutting back on operations by 50%?
For example, in the thread - "2 x 8 layout contest rules and guidelines" - operations perspective becomes clearer by simply reframing the same parameters...
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1341679/ShowPost.aspx
...with the two layout size rules: Size: 24" x 96", and; HO Scale is specified, but N Scale can used if it is scaled down to 13" x 52"...
...can actually create twice the layout-design challenge - with: Size: 24" x 96", and; N Scale is specified, but HO Scale can used if it is scaled down to 13" x 52".
The operations perspective could also be reframed - by: Size: 48" x 192", and; HO Scale is specified, but N Scale can used if it is scaled down to 24" x 96".
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
I am in the process of planning a basement-sized layout. This will be completed as soon as I have found a suitable house to put it in. I model N scale and I am an operator.
The plan is to build a single level layout following the double tracked Boston line from its namesake city to Worcester, MA. The railroad will interchange with the P&W, Guilford, Grafton and Upton, Quincy Bay, Bay Colony with equipment from several other local railroads.
Part of the early planning process involved printing n-scale sized Google Earth satellite photos in full size n-scale. I have spent over a year testing DCC systems on various other railroads and actively looking for new options (I like the ESU base station, but I still haven't found a handheld that has both tactile feedback (which is needed when running ops) and a large enough info display. I am also trying to find a way to get cab signals.
All of this, my kit bashing articles in N-Scale Magazine on Boston-line specific engines, the years of research that rivals med-school... all to build a layout faithful to some random line in 1998. It has to be more then just big scenery and small trains.
Now if your question is do we have the same ops sessions that you guys do in HO, the answer in a resounding NO! We have scale-sized trains that operate twice the distances you HO versions have. In fact, we can have trains that operate on a mainline and NOT occupy two towns simultaneously. So, on that regard operations are more realistic then in HO.
Another point to ponder is just how realistic is the spaghetti bowls that are many HO layouts. Many I have seen (that focus on operations) try to fit so much in a confined space that the overall effect is ruined. Is an oil refinery capable of holding only 3 cars really realistic? Is that really hard-core ops? You'd be able to fit 12 cars in that space in N (two tracks side-by-side).
I think many HO modelers see N-trak and that is their only exposure to N scale... or worse they see our stuff next to Z and see them as the same target audience. Think of it this way. Most HO stuff is RTR. Not so in N, so we kit bash and paint. Most scale track is RTR in HO. In N we need to hand lay code 40. In HO, most new quality models come with sound.... How does that make operations more efficient?
After 8500 posts, maybe you should but the computer down and go see an N-scale club. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
After reading thru 2 pages of hemming and hawing, I'm wondering if Chip isn't looking so much for reassurance about N scale's feasibility as he is looking for someone to talk him out of it.
Chip, if I'm reading you right, it sounds to me that you're both underwhelmed and overwhelmed with this new venture and want out. IIRC, you have at least 2 other layouts in progress right now, so maybe you bit off more than you can chew at this point. I think you really need to figure out for yourself what you want to do, independent of anybody else's expectations.
Just my
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
wm3798 wrote: I'm not as wrankled about your post as Dave is...
I'm not as wrankled about your post as Dave is...
Well, Chip, you asked us to level with you. If nothing else, I've done that!
Sorry if I sound harsh, but like Lee, I get tired of having to explain to people that the difference between HO and N scale model railroading really is... nothing but perception. And perception can be changed.
You're good people Chip, no matter what those people at the sheep farm say...!
SpaceMouse wrote:But couplers and mini-decals have scared me a bit. I have before me putting 2 sets of 1/16 BPRR decals on 20 plus coal cars and I can't even imagine cutting them out let alone getting them straight on the cars.
But couplers and mini-decals have scared me a bit. I have before me putting 2 sets of 1/16 BPRR decals on 20 plus coal cars and I can't even imagine cutting them out let alone getting them straight on the cars.
N scale MT couplers are easy to do, the springs are bigger than the ones on HO Kadees. My biggest problem has always been getting the cover on the box.