With traction, interurban, etc., there is a lot of scratchbuilding, soldering for overhead operation, and street construction, regardless of the scale modeled.
HO Scale does have a little smidgeon more R-T-R electric motive power than N Scale, but that is the extent of it. So, N Scale is the choice for CR&T due to 45% greater operations potential within the available layout space.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Paul,Good points but,let's look closer.
1). Availability - The selection of items just isn't there compared to HO. Just look at the Walthers catalog. Their HO catalog is much bigger than their N & Z scale catalog, and one of HO's biggest companies (Athearn) isn't even in it.
-----------------------------------
Huh Paul,Walthers doesn't carry Athearn in HO or N..I know you already knew that but,figured you had a old timers second...
--------------------------------------
Prototype modeling - I am extremely attached to the New Haven RR, since it's my hometown RR and the modern era is rather boring in these parts (other than the Acela). In HO scale, just about every major steam engine, diesel, electric, passenger car, freight car, and caboose has been done. In N scale, not so much. It's much improved, but if I want N scale FL9's, forget about it. If I want accurate NH stainless steel cars, I can't get those, either. And steam? Only Spectrum 4-8-2's, 2-8-0's, and P2K 0-8-0's are even close to being NH prototype. And I don't think there have been any N scale NH electrics at all...ever...in any format. In HO, some of this stuff has only been done in brass, but at least it's out there. I can't say that about N scale. Now if you model a railroad that is well represented in N scale, then you're all set. But it's not for me.
------------------------------------
I agree but,there is NYC,PRR,C&O,Santa Fe,UP,Rio Grande,some NH and other roads.Plus there is some short lines.
---------------------------
Custom painting and decaling - I do a lot of this in HO scale for me and some friends. I can't imagine trying to paint N scale equipment, decaling it, and then adding grabs, horns, et al. I know many people can do it quite well, but I don't think I could take it. HO scale stuff can drive me buggy. N scale would probably peg my meter towards insanity.
---------------------
The younger N Scalers is into adding details from lift rings to grabs...Like you it would drive me batty trying to add lift rings just like it does in HO.
As far as custom painting..No problem..Its just like HO.
------------------------
Operations - Reading car numbers in HO scale is bad enough. In N? Um, sorry, but I left my Optivisor in my other pants. And cutting cars? I've seen people knock HO cars off the track when using a bamboo skewer. N scale cars would probably go flying like movie props from "Twister".
Actually many of us do operated with car cards and waybills without needing Optivisors..I am 60 years old and can read N scale car numbers..Of course my eyes is still working good..
As far as making cuts..Paul,ever hear of uncoupling magnets? You know we have delayed uncoupling just like HO..
There should never be the need to knock cars all over the place-----in any scale.That's the beauty of magnets and delayed uncoupling.
-------------------
Being a simple man with simple needs I would not want a Godzilla size layout that fills a 25' x 50' area in any scale.Oddly giant layouts was never my cup of tea..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
MILW-RODR Uuuuuuuuuuuuh... all this N scale talk has got me thinking about small scale again. Two 's up on the pics WM, very nice. BRAKIE wm3798 Aside from that bland article about the WM layout, it's a pretty good issue! Lee Indeed that was a terribly bland layout.. Was it really that bad? I mean I know the article itself was a tad dry but I didn't think the layout was all that bad. I will have to look when I get home, after this thread was started I went back over all my MR back issues the last year or so and took out all the issues with featured N scale layouts to reread (for at least the 4th time). IIRC there wasn't as much switchi....oooooooooh. Never mind [:|] Well for all you established N'ers out there, what would be a good working/viewing height? I know usually shelf style layouts (the only thing I have room for) are usually 12-18 inches deep for N.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuh... all this N scale talk has got me thinking about small scale again. Two 's up on the pics WM, very nice.
BRAKIE wm3798 Aside from that bland article about the WM layout, it's a pretty good issue! Lee Indeed that was a terribly bland layout..
wm3798 Aside from that bland article about the WM layout, it's a pretty good issue! Lee
Aside from that bland article about the WM layout, it's a pretty good issue!
Lee
Indeed that was a terribly bland layout..
Well for all you established N'ers out there, what would be a good working/viewing height? I know usually shelf style layouts (the only thing I have room for) are usually 12-18 inches deep for N.
LOL!! No,I was agreeing Lee as a joke...
I fully agree its a nice layout and I really like the Laurel Valley...
For me a good working/viewing height is around 36"..Perfect for me when seated.
Valid points, all, Paul. But some of those "challenges" are what make N scale so appealing to me! Until only very recently, the Western Maryland wasn't very well represented at all in the locomotive department. In fact, I was pretty settled in with modeling Conrail during the Paint Out Era up until Atlas released the SD-35 in WM paint. Heck, it took almost 20 years to get a decent plastic caboose that was halfway right.
There are a lot of suitable locomotives available now that I've accumulated, but I've had to paint just about all of them. The main exceptions are the aforementioned SD-35's (available in both black and circus), Atlas GP-35, and Intermountain F-7. If you can still find them, LifeLike did the BL-2, which was sort of an iconic WM diesel right up to the end, and there have been lesser models of the FA-2 and F?? by Lifelike. But I've painted up and lettered my own RS-3 fleet, and I've started building chop nose GP 7's and 9's. Being able to print one's own decals is a major plus, since Micro Scale has very limited offerings for both freight cars and locomotives. I'm an operator, so I don't mess around with super detailing, odds are I'd break it off. I have built some customized engines, such as the choppers, an RS-3 hammerhead, and even a WM K-2 steamer. None are prize winners, but they all suit my purposes just fine, and from 3' away, who cares! In HO, it's a lot more obvious if your details are missing or in the wrong place.
For operations, I don't fool around with bamboo sticks, everything on the layout is in easy reach, so I pretty much just grab the car and go. That probably costs me points with someone somewhere, but so far they haven't been invited to my ops sessions...
As far as availability goes, that's never bothered me. HO has an embarrassment of riches, and most of it is RTR off the rack stuff. That's fine for those who dig that sort of thing, but I prefer the challenge of "rolling my own" and do a lot of scratch building to get what I want. Other than their outstanding prebuilt turntable, a farmers co-op and another building I got in an auction, I don't have ANY Walther's kits on my layout. As a result, I have a lot more money to spend on detail parts and window and door castings that I can use on my scratchbuild projects. (I also make my own trees...)
So is N scale a little harder to deal with? Probably is. But if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
The major problems I have with N scale are:1). Availability - The selection of items just isn't there compared to HO. Just look at the Walthers catalog. Their HO catalog is much bigger than their N & Z scale catalog, and one of HO's biggest companies (Athearn) isn't even in it. Which brings me to...
2). Prototype modeling - I am extremely attached to the New Haven RR, since it's my hometown RR and the modern era is rather boring in these parts (other than the Acela). In HO scale, just about every major steam engine, diesel, electric, passenger car, freight car, and caboose has been done. In N scale, not so much. It's much improved, but if I want N scale FL9's, forget about it. If I want accurate NH stainless steel cars, I can't get those, either. And steam? Only Spectrum 4-8-2's, 2-8-0's, and P2K 0-8-0's are even close to being NH prototype. And I don't think there have been any N scale NH electrics at all...ever...in any format. In HO, some of this stuff has only been done in brass, but at least it's out there. I can't say that about N scale. Now if you model a railroad that is well represented in N scale, then you're all set. But it's not for me.
3). Custom painting and decaling - I do a lot of this in HO scale for me and some friends. I can't imagine trying to paint N scale equipment, decaling it, and then adding grabs, horns, et al. I know many people can do it quite well, but I don't think I could take it. HO scale stuff can drive me buggy. N scale would probably peg my meter towards insanity.
4). Operations - Reading car numbers in HO scale is bad enough. In N? Um, sorry, but I left my Optivisor in my other pants. And cutting cars? I've seen people knock HO cars off the track when using a bamboo skewer. N scale cars would probably go flying like movie props from "Twister".
Of course, I don't have to worry much about size constraints. My home HO layout is 25' x 50', and my HO club's layout room is over 6300 sq. ft. (do you hear N-scaler's drooling? I think I do... ).
Paul A. Cutler III <--- Not taking #3 & #4 very seriously, can't you tell? *******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
shayfan84325 First, you might give some consideration to an HO narrow gauge layout. It offers a lot of the n-scale advantages while keeping most HO advantages. Since you're thinking short line, you probably will be running small equipment anyway, so big locos and long passenger cars are probably not an issue.PS: The code 55 N scale track looks darned good, but code 40 would be more accurate in terms of rail height. If you go N scale, I think it's best to avoid the "regular" n scale track; the rail is something like 16 scale inches tall.
First, you might give some consideration to an HO narrow gauge layout. It offers a lot of the n-scale advantages while keeping most HO advantages. Since you're thinking short line, you probably will be running small equipment anyway, so big locos and long passenger cars are probably not an issue.
PS: The code 55 N scale track looks darned good, but code 40 would be more accurate in terms of rail height. If you go N scale, I think it's best to avoid the "regular" n scale track; the rail is something like 16 scale inches tall.
With narrow gauge you can run short trains with two or three engines and steep grades. 4% or even a branch with 6% prototypically.
I've tested radii for narrow gauge engines and was surprised. 18' for H0n3 is no problem.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
Hi from Belgium,
Anyway I would choice Nscale because......
Because of the more realistic train you could run in a given space
Because of the larger curves you can use in this space
Because the train are running trought the scenery and are, if I can say, lost in the scenery like the real ones
Because now, you can model any area from the 20's to today with the aviable models.
Because you need excellent lay track for bulletproof running
Because now you have good looking track in code 55 like Peco, ME and even yo could handlay your track with jig like BKS or Fastrack
Because the price are a little bit cheaper than HO scale
Because you could acheive excellent details like other scale
Because we have now so good running equipment like their HO counterpart.
Because there are more standard than other scale like the couplers, the dcc plug,
Because Nscale at give me so many challenges, to have a good looking railroad; her are a few pics of my Maclau River in Nscale
So here are a few reasons, good or not, but the ones I beleive made Nscale a good choice.
More pics at www.Nscale.org , choice "Personnal Album", choice letter"M", search album "Marc Magnus".
Marc
I have a 4X2 layout in HO. All I have room for is a glorified test track. It consists of a double track main with a crossover and an industrial spur. At one time I had both HO and N gauge equipment,But many years ago I sold off my N stuff. I could have built a complete loop in N but with my eyesight and being able to manipulate the rolling stock,I'm glad I stuck with HO.
Currently I'm interested in small town, branch line railroading and want to get the feel of being the railroader on the ground.
-----------------------
You'll never get that in HO or N..
That only comes with 2 Rail O Scale built at eye level..
I switch primary scale from HO to N and then sold 80% of my HO..I closed 3 deals on the last of my excess HO over the last 2 weeks.
Why did I choose N ? I wanted a home layout but,have limited space..A 1' x 6' HO layout isn't worth building IMHO even tho' I had 2 such ISLs in the past
Do I regret it it?
Not at all.
Might as well jump in too. Worms make good fish bait. I've been in N and HO. Both are good, with pros and cons that are driven by your desires. Currently I'm interested in small town, branch line railroading and want to get the feel of being the railroader on the ground. For me HO suits that better (if I had the room, I'd go to O even). On the other hand, if I wanted the feel of running a train through signaled or TT&O ops, N would provide more in the space. But for now I've chosen to give up more trains to feel more like I'm on the train that watching from a distance.
Lee,
You are shameless!
On topic though; an 80 car coal drag in N scale or a 15 - 20 car HO drag? Optivisor or selective compression? A set of Alco PA/B/A and CZ not chasing its tail or ummm I don't know what HO has to offer... Er... um.... can you run an 11 car passenger train at home in HO?
Bob
Thanks again for all of the advice. I am like you Lee, I would rather run longer trains. Given my space requirements I might just try N scale. Couldn't hurt? It is only money right? It would still hone my modelling techniquecs. Better than playing computer games.....
Thanks for the advice on the rails too. Now I am off to buy my first issue of N Scale Magazine.....
RE: Track. This is a whole other can of worms unto itself. The pictures I posted feature Atlas' code 55 track. It is an excellent compromise between appearance, availability, and cost. Can you get better looking track? Yes. Do you pay a lot more for it? Yes. The most common N scale track is still Code 80, which others have noted has a very unrealistic rail height. This problem is not limited to N scale. (Consider that typical #1 Gauge is code 332, and is way out of scale for G scale trains).
Yes, wheel treads are a little fatter, couplers are a little bigger yada yada. What I see is a long train winding through a lot of scenery. I see switching areas that are a reasonable distance apart. I see a yard on a 6' x 2' platform that can handle over 200 cars during an operating session.
If I wanted to build a sleepy branch line from a junction to a couple of industries, I would probably choose HO scale, so I could achieve that higher level of detail. Afterall, I'd only have to build a handful of rolling stock.
But what I want is to simulate a transportation system, with trains coming and going through a big terminal, locals that run out to a couple of different towns, and a good sized industry that requires a lot of switching. In my available space, I couldn't do any one of them well in HO.
Yes, I have a lot more rolling stock and engines than I'd need with that branch line. Heck, I have more than I need for my N scale layout! But that's what I want. If I had HO, and I know plenty of guys who do, I'd probably have the same buying bug, and would have spent just as much, only more of it would be in the box instead of on the layout. It all comes down to what YOU want.
From my point of view, either scale is a viable option, it just depends on which compromises you are ready to make.
Hansel Very nice pics! Not so start anything, but why do the rails on the N scale track look high, or said another way "out of proportion.
Very nice pics!
Not so start anything, but why do the rails on the N scale track look high, or said another way "out of proportion.
They look high because they are high (by scale ruler). Wheel flanges are too deep, wheel treads are too wide, turnout flangeways are too wide, and couplers are generally oversize. The most common commercial track is oversize for what the prototype would use in the situation being modeled, regardless of scale. N scale tends to have more disparity than other scales when it comes to track. Fortunately, the disparity is not as obvious in person as it is on the camera, again regardless of scale.
In all scales, scale size track is practical, but not readily available at the mass market and discount stores. In N, Micro-Engineering makes code 40 flex track, which would be correct size rail for many situations. Code 40 turnouts have to be built from kits (BK) or built by yourself or built by a custom builder. HO is a similar situation once you get smaller than code 83 rail, which is correct only for transition era and later main lines. Shinohara and ME do make HO code 70 track and turnouts, but it is not always easy to find.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Interesting discussion so far. Here is my 2 worms... er... two cents:
Also, I've built my HO scale layout almost exclusively with vintage/used/new-old-stock locos, rolling stock, and structure kits. In HO scale, 30-40 year old stuff is pretty good; in N scale, most of the products from that same era are problematic (note the diplomatic term for junk). I modeled in N scale in the '70s and made a great looking layout, but my best loco only ran when there was a full moon on a Thursday. Today's N-scale products seem to work great and look great, but you won't find much joy in the vintage market.
Finally, as a casual observer it appears that N scale costs about as much as HO, so all you really get is more stuff in the same size space.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
I think my best bet is to layout, no pun intended, my space on cardboard in my garage then use paper templates for turnouts tracks and curves along with the space needed for the sidings, inorder to see how things will fit or not fit using both N scale and HO scale track dimentions
So it looks like a scale bashing a comeing.
Russell
Ah Yes!!!!! The old "what-scale" question rears its head. I faced it about 27 years ago . . . . . . . . . . and I opted to change from HO-Scale to N-Scale.
For me the decision was made around the issue of curvature: the 18" radius curves I was forced to use in my space allocation just didn't feed the bulldog as far as my stable of Cary/Mantua and Bowser steam locomotives went. During the years that I had been building and detailing these die-cast locomotives I had hoped that when I retired from the Air Force in 1978 I would have had a space sufficient for 30" or better curves; such was not turning out to be the case -- at least in the short run. I suppose that I could have used a little bit better initiative in my track planning and come up with 24" -- "standard" curves -- or better; I had yet to discover the advantage of high benchwork which would have mediated the observation of my "large" steam engines. Better still I could have "stored" those "large" locomotives and built and superdetailed and operated smaller steamers a la MDC
These "deficiencies" led me to converting my modeling interest from HO-Scale steam locomotive to N-Scale diesel. N-Scale looks great on 18" radius curves. It also allows for "longer" trains than HO-Scale. Those issues may or may not be significant to you but they are matters worthy of consideration in your "what scale" debate.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Sir Madog Most layouts are built way to low to be viewed properly - a killer for N scale!
Most layouts are built way to low to be viewed properly - a killer for N scale!
In general what would be a good viewing/layout height for N scale then? I know there's a difference between a good viewing height (for N 50", or about mid neck) and a good working height. I have a little bit long arms so I can reach the back of a 30" shelf at 4 feet high no problem. I know this will show some stupidity, but at one point I tacked some N track (did this with HO too) down to a shelf board laying around, set some N scale rolling stock and an engine, and came up with a 54" viewing height (chin height on me). It would have been excellent for making me and any operators feel like they're in the layout, but veeeeeeeeery cruddy when trying to build the thing, or hand turn an engine, or rerail a derail, or pretty much every aspect of model RRing except for watching a train run around.
N scale does have sound available, but it's very limitid. Athearn makes there N F45 and FP45 with sound, Precision Metal Craft makes a 4-8-2 with sound, but they can be as expensive and in some cases more expensive than an HO train with sound. The speaker is small, so sound quality and volume lack, modifications will need to be made to the chassic, possibly the body as well, and this is with longer 6-axle diesels, forget smaller 4 axles. Shoot I think I might have just made an N-hater
You're perfectly justified in describing some N scale as toyish. I'm sure that without a lot of effort, we could also find examples of HO, O, TT, G, S or what have you that have a toyish quality. Heck, there's even a 1:1 Thomas out there running around!
If you're looking for detailed rolling stock, and super fine scale details, you'll be hard pressed to achieve that in N scale. It's not impossible, there are some real masters out there. Like, you, I'm an operator, so my concern is mainly that the car "works" by staying coupled and on the track. A little bit of weathering is all that's required for me to consider a car "done".
As for scenery and the overall look of a layout, that's going to be driven by the skill and vision of the builder, not by the scale itself.
The following are all N scale:
So you see, hopefully, that with the right products, and some care, you can get whatever results you're looking for both in terms of looks as well as operationally.
I currently have a switching layout in HO, 2'x8', and have been running that for the last year. I am bored with that and would like to have a layout where I could operate trains.
Hansel My club has both N and HO, but the N scale, and don't kill me, seems a bit "toyish", sorry.......
My club has both N and HO, but the N scale, and don't kill me, seems a bit "toyish", sorry.......
No, I am not going to kill you - N scale requires the "correct" viewing aspect even more than HO scale in order to avoid this toy-like appearance. Most layouts are built way to low to be viewed properly - a killer for N scale!
Thinking outside the box...
What, if anything, do you have now? If you already have some rolling stock, do a paper plan in the scale you have now. If HO won't work, try planning in N. Either way, you have an actual area smaller than you think.
If you don't have any rolling stock, your space could accept anything from a Z-scale empire to beautiful downtown Toonerville, complete with 4-wheel Birney, in G!
Given my personal likes and dislikes, I'd take your stated area and model the Kiso Forest Railway in HOn762, aka HOe - 1:87 scale, 9mm gauge. The same scale is good for European tramways, or can stand in for 2 foot gauge (Sandy River and Rangeley Lakes in Maine, Gilpin County Tram in Colorado...)
I know it's comfortable to simply say standard gauge, ? scale. Standard isn't the only gauge, and HO and N aren't the only scales.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N 1:80 scale, aka HOj)
Thanks all for your comments and suggestions. Love the can of worms pic. I had to save that so I can use that at a later date. I will be attending my first N scale opperating session sometime next month. Hopefully this will give some direction on whether I like that scale or not. I have operated on Dave Holl's layout, MR Oct 08, for a few months and like that scale, HO. My club has both N and HO, but the N scale, and don't kill me, seems a bit "toyish", sorry.......
I have been into just about every scale there is, from Z all the way up to G, including all sorts of narrow gauge. There is a lot to say about any scale, but which way to go is mainly a question of space available and funds.
HO scale still offers the biggest variety in equipment and accessories, but N scale is not far behind any longer. The level of detail available in N scale is amazing when compared to the beginnings of this scale in the 1960´s. In addition to that, numerous companies offer parts to super-detail the locos. Sound is available, too, but don´t expect high fidelity sound out of these little speakers... N scale is also a little cheaper than HO scale...
If you don´t have the space to build the layout of your dreams in HO scale, then do it in N scale - it ´ll be a good choice!
You can do any scale (except maybe G might need a little more than 4 ft) in the space you have.
The 1st question is: how much town do you want? In O for each town you'll probably have the station, a couple of short sidings, and maybe a store all small. In Z you could have several streets and multi story buildings.
2nd question is: can you mount the layout on wheels and roll it a little way out of the corner for building and maintenance? Otherwise the 4 ft reach (5 1/2 to the corner) are a bit far.
3rd question: Is watching the trains the goal or do you plan to do switching or other operating - run 2 trains at once. For this space smaller scales are probably better for a railfan layout where watching the trains is the goal. OTOH if switching and sound are your goal then a larger scale, even S or O, might be best.
4th question: do you like to build? Bigger scales are usually favored for the level of detail you can add.
Enjoy
Paul