secondhandmodeler wrote: Packers#1Do you get paid by the number of times you mention Atlas?
Packers#1
Do you get paid by the number of times you mention Atlas?
No, I just love Atlas models. They run excellent.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
concretelackey wrote: I think maybe the OP needs to supply some more info so that we can assume less?
I think maybe the OP needs to supply some more info so that we can assume less?
The OP abandoned this thread about 4 pages ago...
I model in Z, HO, and G. I like the Z because you can make the scenery so much larger than the trains. HO is great because it is middle of the road, the trains are big enough to be promenint, but small enough to be manageable, and G because the trains dominate everthing around it. Also, I think I am going to start a garden railroad this year.
When I go to a train show, I enjoy looking at all of them now, from Z up to whatever the biggest thing they have is. Before, I only enjoyed the HO trains.
It all comes down to, what do you want from your layout? Huge trains that dominate the view, or scenery and great awe inspiring vistas that dominate the view?
Jim
I personally would never go back to N, but if I was to do a scale change, it would be to On30. The modeling (details) are there, and a good numbers of nice locos now available have really caught my eye. But again, I like Shays, Climax, Porters, logging/mining shortline railroading, so the scale itself fits my interests.
Again as many others have already said, you should first review what you want to model, and what details you want, then look for available models, RTR, kitbash or Kit availability for the model, space available and hopefully you can choose your scale.
MHO
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
If I had it to do over again, and didn't have a major investment on my hands already with HO, I'd probably go N. You can just get more railroad into a smaller space. I think the adage that was quoted about modeling a train vs. modeling a railroad, because of the size/space issue, has merit. I still love my HO layout however.
I do like HO for it's increased amount of detail in everything. And I think it's more "graspable" for my kids. But N scale allows you to have more accurately sized industry, spectacular scenery, run long trains and have plenty of space in between scenic or operational elements.
Actually I've noticed that there are seemingly a huge variety of cool structures available in N, so availability isn't an issue there...seems to me. Vehicles, however...just keep 'em off the layout i guess, from what I can tell the selection is suspect. Not that you build a model railroad to highlight vehicles. And maybe being freed from having to model so much detail...detail not practical, attainable or noticeable in N...not worrying about some "small stuff",can be a liberating thing? Just guessing.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I always love these discussions - you'd think there were only 2 scales available. Well after trying HO, O, N, and G, I find that S is the perfect compromise between large enough to see and work with and small enough to have a layout. EnjoyPaul
I always love these discussions - you'd think there were only 2 scales available. Well after trying HO, O, N, and G, I find that S is the perfect compromise between large enough to see and work with and small enough to have a layout.
Enjoy
Paul
I'm a big fan of other scales, but the OP, and the title of the thread, kinda defined the topics of discussion to the two scales.
Sheesh. No room for humor...
Sorry Dave, it wasn't intentional, me leaving off the smiley, cut and paste , oh well, no worries.
Have fun
If I were a millionaire and I had a warehouse, I'd do the 4-track PRR Middle Division in G scale, with none of the short turnouts and sharp curves. Full G.
Sweeeeeeeeeet...
But since I have neither suitcases full of cash nor tens of thousands of square feet, I'll have to do the PRR in N.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Folks:
It all depends on the space available. You can always put more Stuff in with a smaller scale, but that doesn't mean the smaller scales are always best, or nobody would use O.
There was a time when O was the smallest scale. There was a time when HO was the smallest, and you could easily transplant any of our HO vs. N arguments to the 1930s or even 1940s, simply replacing scale-letters. The religious fervor was just as strong.
Occasionally we get a "shudabin" with regard to an S/TT/probably Z system, just like the shudabins we get with 220v 400Hz house current...but like other shudabins, they're ultimately didnabins, and it worked out another way.
HO is, for me, a good compromise between size and fiddliness. We do still understand compromise, yes? :D
wm3798 wrote: If you work in N scale, you'd buy Atlas and recommend it to anyone who asks.Lee
If you work in N scale, you'd buy Atlas and recommend it to anyone who asks.
Lee
Maybe true, unless you model steam, and then Atlas has only one choice on the hobby store shelves right now. My N scale layout is set in the 1920's. I don't own a single Atlas loco since the only one they offer is from a time period too early for me (but don't think I haven't been tempted to make up a plausable story......).
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
secondhandmodeler wrote: navygunner wrote: secondhandmodeler wrote: Packers#1Do 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.
navygunner wrote: secondhandmodeler wrote: Packers#1Do 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
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
I have to agree with you in part, Atlas puts out locomotives every month; the other 5 players in the N Scale market at quite a slower pace. The fact that Atlas does not put out total crap most of the time tends to color some of my perceptions. The other manufactures are capable of producing quality models, but due to their own choices happen to issue stuff at a slower pace. That colors my perceptions and perhaps others. This is from an N Scale point of view. I am not familiar with the state of the HO Scale market.
PS. I have to commend you on your conduct in the forum. You have clarified an otherwise negative post into a reasonable point of discusion. I would not be willing to lable you a curmudgeon.
Ahhhh, the ageless argument.........HO vs N. The answer is quite simple grasshopper.
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.
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.
wm3798 wrote: 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
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,
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!
New Haven I-5 wrote: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.
Packer wrote: 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)
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.
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
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
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
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).
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
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 wrote: 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).
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!