HO vs. N

[wm3798]

I don't expect everyone to be like myself...  The world would be a pretty scarey place!

It just seems like every time the question of choosing a scale comes up, there's always someone who declares that N scale is impossibly small and that it should be avoided at all costs.  So the question is, do these naysayers expect everyone else to have five thumbs and coke bottle glasses?  

Maybe it's my libertarian nature, but I didn't choose my scale because "everyone else is doing it" or because it was "the most popular" or because "That's what my club had".  I chose it because it offers a lot more flexibility when designing a layout for operation, can occupy a more reasonable space when space is an issue, and (my favorite part) it presents a challenge to build my skills in a variety of areas, ranging from scratchbuilding to electronics to photography.  Is it hard to see?  Absolutely.  Is it rewarding when you put a little extra effort in to work through that?  I think so. 

I also believe that working on fine detail work on a small scale provides exercise for your eyes, hands and brains, just as working crossword puzzles has been shown to develop focus, long term memory, and an uncanny knack for knowing three letter words with no vowels in them!

With all the pre-fab products available in HO, I just don't see that as being a terribly challenging scale to work in (other than to try to achieve a realistic track plan). 

But just in case, I do have a Ma & Pa 10 wheeler and a gas electric car in HO... (You know I still love you guys!)

Lee 

[Dallas Model Works]

My two cents: I like HO because I prefer building models of trains more than running models of trains. (Not that I don't like running them.)

I like detail and I find that HO is the right size for that.

If I was more inclined to running trains over building trains, I would probably opt for N because of the greater running  "distances" it allows.

Ask yourself what appeals to you more and you may find your answer.

 

[rolleiman]

My

"More Popular"... So if everyone else is jumping off a bridge...

 

Lee 

 Well, After reading through the comments, including the moronic ones (example) , the real question you need to answer for yourself my freind is WHAT do you want to run?? The comment that 30+ inch radii (HO scale) cannot be used in an 8 x 12 room is also retarded. I saw someone mention 46" radius. That is in fact the largest you will get on such an area. The fact is, if you can spare a 24-30 inch wide shelf around that room (or whatever you can reach across comfortably) you can use any radius you want. Keep in mind however that the wider your radius, the shorter your straight sections will be. Not necassarily a bad thing but keep it in mind.

So, I'll ask again..

What do you want to run (locos, cars, etc)?

Think about time frame.

Think about what you would like to (can) spend. 

Your moniker is 4-6-6-4 Challanger.. Is THAT what you want to run? Are they available in N scale at a price you can (are willing) to pay (I honestly don't know)..  

Or will you be happy running 4 and 6 axle diesels and small steam engines? Passenger trains, Frieght trains, Both?

Do you want to do mountainous scenery or city or a mix of both? 

Are you going to have to Move this layout anytime soon? 

Do a little planning. Investigate your cost. See what's available. Go to the Walther's website and seek out a few of the items you are planning on purchasing (they give what should be the retail price charged in hobby shops). Most of all, be realistic in your expectations.

[Geared Steam]

Yes, HO is more popular, and it's probably easier to do.  If easier and common is your thing, then by all means, do HO

This is a great way to marginalize some great HO modeling Dave, if you want to drum up support for N, maybe a different approach would work.

 

[Dave Vollmer]

Yes, HO is more popular, and it's probably easier to do.  If easier and common is your thing, then by all means, do HO

This is a great way to marginalize some great HO modeling Dave, if you want to drum up support for N, maybe a different approach would work.

 

And that's why I put the smiling grin guy...  To indicate that I was joking.  I did notice, however, that you removed the smiley when you quoted me.  Clever.

This was my tongue-in-cheek answer to the often serious argument people make that people should do HO because it's more popular and easier.

Sheesh.  No room for humor...

[jecorbett]

Let's face it. Size matters but it's all relative. I can remember when HO was the small scale and the O guys were saying the same thing to the HO guys that many are saying to the N guys today. If Z ever catches on in popularity, I have no doubts that a generation from now, you N guys will be telling the Zers the same thing HO guys are telling you now.

[loathar]

Let's face it. Size matters but it's all relative. I can remember when HO was the small scale and the O guys were saying the same thing to the HO guys 

I remember that when I was first starting out. "That HO stuff will NEVER catch on!" "Here, I've got some nice Marx O scale sets on sale..."

[Lateral-G]

I used to model N-scale for many years (from about 1980 to 2002). I dropped out of the hobby for a bit and now that I'm back I'm going HO (HOn3 to be exact).

When I was young N-scale didn't bother me because I could see it. But since youth has gone and reality has set in I needed to go up in scale in order to fully enjoy what I was modeling. Being fat-fingered too doesn't help. There were many times when I was doing N-scale I had wished for all the choices the HO guys had. But since I stuck to my choice it also forced me to learn how to make the things I wanted and to have patience for manufacturers to make that which I just couldn't do.

There are lots more options now in N-scale these days (WRT track, locos, structures and rolling stock) than back in the day when I was doing it. 

In N-scale you can have twice the layout in the given space than you could with HO. For me though, I wanted to model narrow gauge and doing so in N was and still is more difficult.

I'm not going to tell you one is better than the other, however. Each has its merits and detractions. You have to decide what YOU want. Give it a carefull consideration because if you decide to change scales later on it could be quite expensive the further you get into it.

Good luck with your decision.

-G- 

[pcarrell]

I've been watching this thread for a while now to see what would come of it.  I can see that both sides are quite passionate about their positions. 

I do see a lot of generalities being thrown out there, and perhaps that has to do with folks unfamiliararity with scales they don't typically model in.......understandable.  I don't want to stoke that fire any more, but I think I might have a thing or two to add to this discussion.

Let's start with this.....

Just to clear the air.......kit and scratchbuilding can be done in any scale.  It's nothing more then putting parts together (well, there is more to it, but you know what I mean.....look, now I'm speaking in generalities!).  And kitbashing is alive and well in all scales (yes, from the biggest to the smallest), though to the casual observer it may not be appearent.  There are hard core modelers in all scales who do this sort of thing all the time in their chosen scale.  In the end, if you want a particular loco, car, or whatever, and it's not readily available, isn't this where real modeling (scratchbuilding / kitbashing) comes in?  And does that kind of modeling recognize the size of an object?  I'd suggest that it doesn't.  The biggest difference really is in the level of fine details included in the model.  But don't let that fool you into thinking that a small model can't be very well detailed just because of it's diminuative size.

It's true that the cost difference is not too big between these two scales, item per item.  It's also true though, that N scale allows more to be fit into a given area.  Because of that fact, N scale may well end up being more costly due to buying more products to fit in said area.

It's also true that HO scale has more DCC equipped and sound equipped loco's available off the shelf, but then we get right back to the kit building / model building issue again (sort of) when it comes to adding DCC and/or sound to an N scale loco.  And while you have that thing apart, how about doing some detailing and upgrades?  Isn't that what modeling is really all about anyways?  And if you don't feel like ripping into a loco in N, there are choices available to meet those needs too, and there's more coming all the time.

Everyone here has done well in pointing out the benefits to their particular scale, so lets take a look at the problems.

You want to know what I see is the biggest drawback to N scale?  (I'll pick on that scale first, since, admittedly, I'm more familiar with it.)  Lets look at the operational side first, OK?  N scale is not real big, as we all know.  Because of that, there isn't a lot of room for weight in the loco's to weigh them down.  This means that pulling power is somewhat limited.  Steam power suffers more then diesels in this area.  You can always double head, but sometimes that doesn't work well for whatever reason.  The fix for this has typically been to add traction tires to loco's (and also upgrade rolling stock to roll more freely), but then that cuts down on electrical pickup.  And thats the second major problem the N scale has, electrical pickup.  Since the models are smaller, they have a smaller area that they spread across the rails for electrical pickup.  This is accentuated when you use small steam, critters, or even smaller diesels with traction tires.  There are things that can be done to help all of this, but it's an inherent problem built into the size issue.  Also, adding a decoder for DCC and/or sound can sometimes be challenging due to space limitations.  OK, now lets look at visuals.  N scale is small, there's no denying that.  Because of that, the detail threshold is lower for the most part (though not always) then larger scales.  Thats to be expected.  A doorknob in HO scale for example, is clearly a doorknob on an average off the shelf model, whereas, on an N scale model it's not much more then a bump on the molding.  This is the tradeoff you make for having the wide open vista's and mountains that actually dwarf the trains that run through them.  All of this is not to say that you can't add details to your N scale model and have it rival some of the best that HO has to offer.  Kinda gets back to that "modeling" thing again, doesn't it?  Another point to concider, N scale is well known for leaning towards modern diesels, but it's not impossible to model even civil war era (or just post civil war) trains in this scale.  They're available and can run quite well.  Lastly, there's the issue of quality.  N scale is getting better all the time, and there are some excellent models available, but there's also a fair amount of junk available too (HO has this issue too, but maybe not as bad).  It does one good to ask other N scalers what's good before you plunk down your hard earned dollars.

Alright, let's look at HO scale.  It's much larger then N scale, and so it has a whole different set of issues associated with it.  Curve radii is typically much larger and structures take up more real estate as well.  Operationally, this scale has had many of it's issues solved over the years, but the issue of traction tires is one that I've seen come up from time to time.  There are those that feel they are not necessary and so they don't want to lose the electrical pickup, and others who need the extra grunt to get up that steep grade on their layout.  In this respect, the HO camp seems more split then the N scalers, though there are N scalers that don't like them as well.  Visually, HO scale is a delight to the eyes, but because of it's larger size it has a higher detail threshold.  This means that you may find yourself spending lots of time and money in the small details that really do show in this scale.  It can bog a person down, but if done well it is a real treat visually.  Fortunately, a lot of products are available to help you with this job.  The thing is, often, though not always, the absence of this level of detailing leaves one with the impression that something isn't right, that something is undone.  I've seen well done HO models that don't have this high level of detailing, but I'd suggest that they are the exception to the rule rather then the norm. 

So with all of that said, what did I pick?

I went with N scale.  I can be up close and personal with my trains if I want (just view them at eye level), but I can also have larger scenes then would be available in my space with a larger scale.  Also, I can use a 17.5"r curve and it's considered most generous with my longer passenger cars looking great (IMHO) on them.

And what should you pick?

Go to a hobby shop or a club, and get your hands on some of the models.  Try them out if you can, and take a good look at them.  One of them will "speak" to you.  Thats probably the right one for you.

 

[shayfan84325]

The thing that bugs me about N scale is rail height and ballast size.  The old N scale track had HUGE rail - it equated to over 14 scale inches tall.  Now there's code 55 rail, it's better, but it still equates to almost 9 inches tall.  I feel like I can look at [pictures of] nearly any N scale layout and tell that it's N by looking at the rail height.  For me, that's pretty objectionable.  Ballast size is a similar problem.  Grab a chunk of N scale ballast and measure it, muliply that times 160; it's the size of a football!  A 2" rock in N scale should be .012" across.  That's pretty fine sand.  Locomotive handrails should be .008" in diameter.  Sewing thread looks like a 1" cable in N scale.  1/160 scale makes it really tough to keep things from being over scale size.

I was an N scale modeler in the '70s.  I hand laid my code 55 track and I was happy with it.  I had a heck of a time keeping those little engines running.  I understand that 21st century N scale motive power is much improved over that.

I've seen some great looking N scale layouts, and really fine N scale rolling stock; I hear the passion that current N scalers have for it, so I know it can be a lot of fun.  One advantage that it has is that you can run much more prototypical trains.  I've seen N scale trains of over 100 cars being pulled by 5 or 6 big diesels - it looks pretty cool (at $5 per car and $80 per loco that train would cost $900 just to set it on the track).  I also really admire the level of detail that I see in really nice HO layouts, but the trains are usually shorter.

Now that HOn3 flex track and turnouts are available, you might consider a narrow gauge layout.  I know your handle reflects an interest in monster steam locos, like mine says I'm a Shay fan.  Maybe your interests are really broader than that, like mine are broader than just Shays.  There were (are?) articulated narrogauge models and prototypes, but they are not huge like standard gauge articulateds.  What's nice about narrow gauge is that you can make curves tighter than Standard gauge, so you have a lot of the same track plan flexibility that N scale offers, but you get to make details like HO scale - because it is HO, with skinnier track.

At 8 X 12 feet, your layout will be twice the size as my HO layout.  I've got 35 feet of main line, with bridges, trestles, tunnels, a turntable, and all kinds of fun stuff.  You could have twice as much as me in HO, but I think you'll find than N does not quadruple your fun in the same space.  My reccomendation is to go HO of one gauge or another.

[stilson4283]

I am not going to add too much to this only to say take a look at the last layout contest and you can see what can be accomplished in the space of a 10x12 (a little bigger than the space you have). 

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/10x12Contest.html

Also look into the designs on the MR interactive site for plans in both scales. 

Chris

Lancaster, CA

[pcarrell]

The thing that bugs me about N scale is rail height and balast size.  The old N scale track had HUGE rail - it equated to over 14 scale inches tall.  Now there's code 55 rail, it's better, but it still equates to almost 9 inches tall.  I feel like I can look at nearly any N scale layout and tell that it's N by looking at the rail height.  For me, that's pretty objectionable.  Ballast size is a similar problem.  Grab a chunk of N scale ballast and measure it, muliply that times 160; it's the size of a football!  A 2" rock in N scale should be .012" across.  That's pretty fine sand.  Locomotive handrails should be .008" in diameter.  Sewing thread looks like a 1" cable in N scale.  1/160 scale makes it really tough to keep things from being over scale size.

Good points!  I'd forgotten those in my disertation. 

N scale now has code 40 that is gaining wider acceptence, but it's not mainstream yet.  Ballast size can be a tough to deal with issue, but there are ways to get that worked out too.  As for the handrails and such, they're a lot better then they used to be, but you're right, some improvement wouldn't hurt.

[concretelackey]

Something to keep in mind here is that the OP stated 8x12 layout......he did not elaborate on whether this is an 8x12 room, a 8x12 layout (either L shaped or U shaped) that is only 30" deep, or a 8x12 table.

I think maybe the OP needs to supply some more info so that we can assume less?

[Don Gibson]

I have decide that I am going to use N scale but if people can give me a reason that I sould use HO scale give me some good reason I am working with a 8x12ft layout and dont think I can put much.

CURVES limit equipment. CURVES take up space. How much SPACE do you have?

(1) get a PAD with crosshairs from any Office supply store.

(2) DRAW (ink) the room boundaries to scale, include stairways, doorways, windows, and all immovable objects.

(3) PENCIL IN various layouts, being cognoscent of all accessable needs  such as appliances to reach, furnaces to service, etc. 

An 8X12 is an 'HO' sized layout, and too often what a simplistic 4X8 takes up, when you walk around it to operate (think a pool table).  Better to cut into 4' trapazoidal corners (with large access holes) and shove your layought against a wall and into corners, where 32" arms can reach everything.

Remember, RR right-of-ways are narrow. Curves take up the room.

shayfan84325 : WORRIED ABOUT realstic track. etc?

http://www.proto87.com/

 

(3)

[shayfan84325]

One advantage that it has is that you can run much more prototypical trains.  I've seen N scale trains of over 100 cars being pulled by 5 or 6 big diesels - it looks pretty cool (at $5 per car and $80 per loco that train would cost $900 just to set it on the track). 

I just checked Walthers.  It just goes to show how out of touch with N-scale I've become - N scale freight cars currently cost $12+.  This train would really cost $1600 to put it on the track.  Add another $100 for decoders and $25 for a caboose (I'm old school) and we're rapidly approaching 2 grand!  Holy Visa bill, Batman!

Give me HO brass locos - much more affordable!

[Dave Vollmer]

Valid points all, David B.

I will say that the Pizza Cutter Arguments seem to be taming down somewhat; in fact, MicroTrains has been lambasted lately on the N scale fora for its decision to ditch the low-profile wheels in favor of the non-NMRA compliant pizza cutter flanges.

I used to think PC flanges did make for more reliable operation, but I've recently begun switching over to metal low-pros and have not noticed any increase in derailments, even in backup moves.

But overall, the answer clearly remains that your choice of scale must be dictated by what's more important to you.

For those guys who make each and every car an exact replica, with free-standing grabs and brake chains, etc. I would say HO and up is probably a better route to success. 

I was willing to suck up the oversized couplers, flanges, and truck-mounted couplers and even oversized rail so that I could run 15-20 car trains in a tiny space.  I chose N scale because I never could fit the kind of railroading I wanted to do in limited space in HO.

My circumstances are somewhat different than the average model railroader.  As I move every few years with the USAF, having small trains and a small layout is great.  I never know how much room I'll have at my next assignment; the N scale and door layout thing makes it much more acceptable to compromise on floor space in favor of location, for example.  I left HO in 2002 after tearing down 2 HO layouts at move time.

For example, I plan at my next assignment to go into base housing (thanks to the dead housing market).  While the field-grade officr housing is brand-new, the bedrooms are still very small.  My N scale door layout will still fit, with room for a guest bed!  I'd have to restrict myself to a short shelf switching layout in HO for the same effect, and I'm just not interested in that.

N scale, even with its compromises, has been the answer for me.  So, you have to ask yourself, "What's important to me?  Broad curves?  Operation?  More railroad in a given space?  More visible detail?  Correct couplers/trucks?  Broader product range?  Portability?  Longer trains?"

I know people assume that whenever I speak the praises of N scale I'm "recruiting," but the honest truth is that N scale does not fit everyone's needs.  It fit mine.  But your milage may vary.  I suggest you look very deeply and seriously at what's important to you, and decide on scale from there. 

Were I not in the military and having to move so often, I would probably still be in HO.  But now that I'm in N, I like it, and I will probably stay with it even after I retire from the USAF (8 years to go this month!) because the scenery-to-trains ratio has me hooked.

[shayfan84325]

Dave,

I always look forward to your posts.  You make great points.

If you ever find yourself out here in Utah (HAFB) look me up, I'll buy you a cup of coffee and a donut.

I want to add one more comment.  Scale speed.  An N scale train is going 50 smph if it covers 27.5 feet in a minute.  More that 6 inches per second is too fast for mainline speed.  In a yard, your switcher should not exceed 1.5 inches per second in N scale (15 smph).  For me, that seems like the action would be too slow (even for a shay fan).

 

[Tracklayer]

I've always been an N scaler for two reasons, because I can get more into a smaller space and also because I just simply like the scale. I considered going HO a while back because my eye sight isn't what it use to be, but since getting new glasses that problem has greatly improved.

Tracklayer 

[2-8-8-0]

It also depends on the road your modeling, and how prototypical you want to be (especially with steam). In HO, brass or plastic versions have probably been made of every steam engine that ever rolled down a class 1's rails. In N, many types still have no models, let alone a model of a B&O S1 for example. And compared to the cost of some of todays plastic models, brass isnt a bad deal at all.

I dont mind the huge couplers, by the way. In N i am looking at the whole train, not zeroing in on a coupler or wheel flange. The grabs on some N scale cars, however, look like 2x12s...

But the ability to have big bunches of hoppers, complete with their oversize couplers and humongograbirons, offsets the drawbacks for me. Its all up to you!

PS....not all brass is economical. My Westside EM-1 cost me just under 1k when i bought it, and i sold it for about the same price. 1k buys a fleet of plastic engines, in N or HO. That EM1 could PULL like...well, like an EM1, though.

 

[SpaceMouse]

I'm sort of a dual scaler right now. I have to say that the more I work in N, the more I admire what Dave V. has done with his kit-bashes.

I'm working on an N-scale diorama, which will be one of two detailed areas of my new layout. (Still waiting for clearance from the CFO.) The mine itself is a reclaimed eBay reject, but everything else is being scratch built. I have to say that it is not just a little harder than HO scale. It maybe that I just need better tools than what I have in HO, but the small coal trestle I'm building is a challenge. 15/16" total height with supports every 3/4" for total of 4 1/2" in length. That small stuff is making me nuts.   

[twhite]

Well, I'll jump in here if you don't mind, 4-6-6-4.  I know you and I have had a couple of private conversations, and from them I gather that you're pretty much interested in steam.  And I think you're interested in medium to big steam, and from your moniker, I think that includes Challengers and possibly USRA 2-8-8-2's and maybe a Big Boy or two.  Most big HO steam manufacured currently can fit around a 22"-24" radius, but the question is: do they look GOOD doing so?  And if you decided on long-wheelbased non-articulated steam like 4-8-4's or 2-10-2's how would THEY look? 

8'x12' can work for HO depending on how you plan it.  It might be a squeeze, but it can be done.  However, as an HO-scale modeler who also is in love with big steam, I'm going to jump into the deep end of the pool and suggest that you take a good, SERIOUS look at N-scale for what I think you want to plan.  N-scale steam doesn't offer quite the variety of HO scale, but it's growing by leaps and bounds, lately.  Genesis offers both N-scale Challengers and Big Boys, and Proto has come out with a USRA 2-8-8-2, and in smaller steam, Spectrum seems to offer a pretty good variety.  Kato just came out with an SP 4-8-4 that has gotten really good reviews--so the N-scale steam end of it is getting a lot better than it used to be. 

It's going to be your decision in the long run, of course.  How friendly to younger modelers are the guys at your LHS?  Hopefully at least a couple of them will have suggestions for you--frankly, from your posts and our conversations, you sound like someone really enthused about the hobby, and you should get the best answers that we ALL can give you. 

My advice is to spend some time comparing the two scales, see what YOU think about what would work best within the space you have.   I started out in HO with about the space you've got now, and over the years I expanded it to the size I'm enjoying right now.  But you might want to utilize what you've got right NOW to the best advantage you possibly can. 

So I'd go to my LHS and compare the two scales as to what you'd want and what is available.  Spend some time comparing and then come to your decision.   Frankly, whatever scale you decide on, just remember--it's a GREAT hobby!

Tom

[wm3798]

Dave,

If the base housing where you're going is like the ones that were built at Dover, (I inspected them for the USACE) they have great big walk in closets and garages! Tell your wife she can have one or the other, but not both!

It's been often repeated, if you want to model a train, go with HO.  If you want to model a railroad, then N scale is the only way to go.

And honestly, there are options for N scale ballast that don't look like watermelons.  Woodland Scenics ballast, even the fine grade, is pretty fat.  But if you blend it with some natural rock ballast, or fine screenings from your local gravel pit, you'll not only save a ton of money, but you'll have much better looking ballast...

Lee 

[Packers#1]

Well, I picked HO, because it's what I was given to start with. I thought about going to N once or twice, but the local railraod club is HO, and I can run most of what I wanted to run in HO scale. I'm not quite sure if what I wanted is in N scale though, as far as equipment goes. (i.e. SD/GP 7s to dash 2s)

IMO, find out what equippment you want, then find out if it's available in your scale. If you know anyone who is in the hobby, try to get the same scale as them. (usually though, it's HO or N)

One company: Atlas. Thet have almost all the EMD GP and SD series(ALMOST) in N scale.

[Packers#1]

HO all the way. The advantge of HO is sound & dcc. N doesn't have a lot DCC locos & very rarely you'll see a N scale loco with sound. Also HO has a huge selection everything & is eaiser to add & paint figures. Also with HO you can make or buy interiors for passenger cars & buildings. I model HO & N so I know the difference.

I don't care about sound, and there are NUMEROUS PLUG-N-PLAY decoders for engines from NCE and Digitrax, to name two.

[Packers#1]

One phrase: Usable space. As has been mentioned already, N offers the ability to cram a lot of stuff in while still looking reasonable. Also, I already planned your layout, so please don't switch.

[secondhandmodeler]

Packers#1

Do you get paid by the number of times you mention Atlas?

[Dave Vollmer]

Dave,

If the base housing where you're going is like the ones that were built at Dover, (I inspected them for the USACE) they have great big walk in closets and garages! Tell your wife she can have one or the other, but not both!

It's been often repeated, if you want to model a train, go with HO.  If you want to model a railroad, then N scale is the only way to go.

And honestly, there are options for N scale ballast that don't look like watermelons.  Woodland Scenics ballast, even the fine grade, is pretty fat.  But if you blend it with some natural rock ballast, or fine screenings from your local gravel pit, you'll not only save a ton of money, but you'll have much better looking ballast...

Lee 

Lee,

I'm tempted to use the garage...  except that it's at Offutt AFB, near Omaha.  Winters are very, very harsh...  Not sure I'll want to freeze my <you knows> running frozen trains in the garage when it's -5 degrees F outside!

[3railguy]

I think you need to decide what you plan to run and what kind of industries you want to model. If you plan to model large industries like refinerys or processing plants and run long 50 car trains with multiple locomotive lash-ups, then N scale is a good choice. It is also a good choice if you want to run class 1 passenger trains.

The old school pros and cons of N and HO are nil and void. The quality and selection of N scale has improved vastly in recent years. It is nothing like N was ten, twenty, or thirty years ago and some things that were posted here are 200 proof BS. N scale is still a futzy scale to work with when maintaining equipment, building structures, etc. But that's between you and N scale.

[navygunner]

Packers#1

Do you get paid by the number of times you mention Atlas?

Hmmm., curmudgeon or Altas hater?

I appologize for singling you out, but when we go to the internet for advice, we are opening ourselves up as human beings.  We are asking for help, that's what makes us human.  We try to learn.  In N Scale we help our fellow man.  Nastiness, whether intended or not is called to the carpet.  We are a community trying to share ideas and concepts, not a bunch of anonymous thugs.  The ADULT thing to do is to appologize for being uncivil.

If you think the posts are inane, ignore them.  That's what I do.

As to the HO v N question, you have to ask yourself, what do you expect of MRR?.   Ultra detail is had in O and S scale, moderate detail and improved ops are available in HO, Good ops and moderate detail is to be had in N and ultimate ops and not quite so good detail is available in Z Scale.  Your PERSONAL CHOICE is what you make it.  It is not for us to decide, we can provide input on opinions or personal expieriences with our scale of choice and the successes and mistakes that we have made. 

If you want to run really big steam in N Scale, you will need 20 inch radius curves to run the biggest out there.  My biggest steam will not run well on 13 3/4 inch radius.  It is not run of the mill steam.  As to the cost of 100 car trains and HO v N, it costs about the same in car count, but in layout it costs a bunch more in HO to get the same effect.  I went to 22 and 20 inch radius, because I had the room to go there in N Scale.

I've got less than 60 sqft of layout with a 2-8-8-4 and 11 85 ft passenger cars on the outer rails;  8 40ft tank cars and 12 33ft hoppers hooked to an Athearn 2-6-6-2 on the inside of the mainline right now.  When I want to run modern stuff, I hook 3 SD70's up to 2 sets of 5 car articulated twinstacks, 3 sets of 3 car articulated maxistax and 20 roadrailers.  The neat thing is that I've got room for a bunch more cars on each in a 12ft x 12ft bedroom, with less than half of the floor space taken up.

The downside is that I can't read the dimensional data without my bifocals.  I can't get the hoppers that I want ready to run.  I make do with what I have or make what I want.  It's that simple.

Bob

[secondhandmodeler]

Packers#1

Do you get paid by the number of times you mention Atlas?

Hmmm., curmudgeon or Altas hater?

I appologize for singling you out, but when we go to the internet for advice, we are opening ourselves up as human beings.  We are asking for help, that's what makes us human.  We try to learn.  In N Scale we help our fellow man.  Nastiness, whether intended or not is called to the carpet.  We are a community trying to share ideas and concepts, not a bunch of anonymous thugs.  The ADULT thing to do is to appologize for being uncivil.

If you think the posts are inane, ignore them.  That's what I do.

Bob

  Sometimes "buy Atlas!" is not the answer.  I'm sorry if I come across as rude, it's just that every thread involving any manufacturer is met with "buy Atlas"!  Even if it involves steam locos.  Sorry for being a curmudgeon.