I am trying to choose between N gauge or HO. the problem is money and space. The space I have got is 8' X 4' maximum and I would like to have a medium to long run. Any advice would be welcome.
Thank you in advance
Steve
Today I can only say
H0 H0 H0
I think, there's now price difference between H0 and N. I switched 30 years ago to H0 because it was more easy to install Faulhaber motors into H0 than N. And at that time the running property in H0 was much better. Nowadays its still more easy to install sound into H0.
This is an idea for 4x8.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
Steve75 . The space I have got is 8' X 4' maximum and I would like to have a medium to long run.
. The space I have got is 8' X 4' maximum and I would like to have a medium to long run.
Get yourself some slow-running geared locomotives (Shay, Heisler, etc.) and run them at a scale 5 mph. That will make the run seem long, even given the small space available.
Mark
markpierceSteve75 . The space I have got is 8' X 4' maximum and I would like to have a medium to long run. Get yourself some slow-running geated locomotives (Shay, Heisler, etc.) and run them at a scale 5 mph. That will make the run seem long, even given the small space available. Mark
Get yourself some slow-running geated locomotives (Shay, Heisler, etc.) and run them at a scale 5 mph. That will make the run seem long, even given the small space available.
And one step more. What's about narrow gauge, H0n3 ?
markpierce Get yourself some slow-running geared locomotives (Shay, Heisler, etc.)
Get yourself some slow-running geared locomotives (Shay, Heisler, etc.)
Heisler top, Shay bottom:
A 4' X 8' in N gauge will give you a nice run length and room for quite a lot of scenery. The N equipment available today looks and operates as well as what is available in HO. Elevate the layout at least 48" for ease of viewing. Think of using 2" extruded foam ( pink or blue ) over a plywood base. This will give you a stable structure plus the ability to carve and tunnel under your track for roads, rivers, valleys and other track. If finances allow, think DCC for control and ease of wiring.
Good luck finding a good-running geared locomotive in N scale. And N-scale locomotives aren't any slower than HO ones. Also, that layer of foam over the plywood, besides costing you money, will create grief unless you want the track to be all flat, and even then it isn't necessary. Just don't be afraid of using a jig saw to cut the plywood sheet to allow the roadbed to go up or down while being held up with wooden risers from the benchwork.
I recall a long-ago track plan that was a helper district that circled around and around a mountain, finally running into a (mostly hidden) reverse loop at the top. There was a wye at the bottom and a small engine service facility. I always thought of it as a flight of fancy.
Then I encountered the full-scale Tzu-Li-Shan helix (Alishan Forest Railway, Taiwan.) Three turns around a projecting rock massif on a 4% continuous grade. Freight upgrade and logs downgrade powered by Shays. Passenger service was diesel powered, running at a speed only slightly faster than a boy on a bicycle.
Looking at HO scale on a 4x8, there are numerous small locomotives that will happily round 14 inch radius curves while moving short trains up a hairy sustained grade. Ordinary passenger cars, and even fifty foot freight cars are embargoed from the route, but two-bay hoppers, ore cars, log cars, 40 foot box cars and short high-sided chip gons can make it.
And now for the surprise. The 'Mantua Logger' (Uintah Railway 2-6-6-2T) can also handle the curves and make the grade! Not really surprising, since the 1:1 scale version was designed to run on curves of less than 90 foot radius and to climb 6.8% grades. Don't know about the 6.8%, but I can testify that my cosmetically-modified 2-6-6-2 got down to 12" radius on my test spiral before becoming actively unhappy. Unassisted, it will pull a train that would strain three Bachmann Spectrum 0-6-0Ts up a 4% grade on a route including two single-turn helices.
So, it's possible to have a long run in HO in 4x8, but you have to be willing to settle for short trains, small locomotives and some radical layout engineering to get it.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I made the leap to N scale three years ago and beleive it was the right way to go.... Working on my second layout....4X8 would give you a lot of space for operations....
Ask Santa, he'll give you the correct answer. ()
Seriously... There are some practical issues... like how good are your eyes and how dexterous are you? Most of us find that as we get more ancient H0 becomes a lot less awkward than N.
This side of the pond ther is little difference in price between H0 and N locos. There is a lot more choice in H0.
H0n3 is very specialised with a relatively tiny amount of choice.
However... There#s a whole bunch of different questions to work your way through before you decide on N or H0.
We don't know how long you've been into the hobby so there's a whole list of things that you might already know...
So, rather than me telling you what you already know, why not give us some more info and ask some more questions and we'll be able to help you a lot more.
The only daft question is that one that didn't get asked...
Why does it seem like there is ALWAYS just enough space for a 4-by-8-foot layout? I'll bet that if the standard size of building materials was 1-by-2-meters, there would ALWAYS be just enough space for a layout that size.
Since a solid 4-by-8 requires access on three sides, there should be enough space for at least a 6-by-10-foot donut-shaped layout.
I would definitely visit the upcoming train shows to see the differences. The older you get the harder it is to see the details and handle the N scale. I started in N and switched to HO for that reason.
Springfield PA
hi,
hard to find the right words. Almost every newbie starts by telling us he or she has just the space for a 4x8.
Read this first: http://www.layoutvision.com/id47.html
Then post a drawing of the space or room you have, just like Andy Sperandeo did in 102 Realistic Track Plans (page 9) and convince us it's the only option.
A longer route is impossible in both scales. The 102 Realistic Track Plans is a great book to have. Beside the plans, it is a great introduction to the famous book by John Armstrong Track Planning For Realistic Operation. Still a must have for every one.
A good introduction to a couple of corner stones for a good trackplan can be found on this side: (Chip Engelmann's talking about all his mistakes as a newbie) http://www.chipengelmann.com/
For a more in depth study of cornerstones go to the Layoutvision website by Byron Henderson (Cuyama on this forum) mentioned above. A awesome site anyhow.
IMHO a 4x8 for a HO pike with a 18"radius is about the worst choice you can make. But I've to see your room first.
The plan by Wolfgang, he is building a splendid layout (he provided a link, so take the chance to see his wonderful work), is a tricky one. It is a Gore and Defeated #1 (by John Allen) look-a-like. His drawing is not to scale and John Allen applied a 13" or 14" radius. Wolfgang is doing the very same, which means that a lot of equipment can't be run.
BTW an illustration of the words of MarkPierce :
Have fun and a Merry Christmas
Paul
markpierce Good luck finding a good-running geared locomotive in N scale.
Good luck finding a good-running geared locomotive in N scale.
Except for the Atlas N scale Shay, of course. Not to mention that the original poster never indicated that he was interested in geared locomotives.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
wedudler Today I can only say H0 H0 H0\
H0 H0 H0\
Sorry Wolfgang, but to that layout, I must say No No No.
At least not in HO for a beginner. This is the problem with hand-drawn layouts. When we take that drawing and make it a scale 4X8 and then try to draw in the actual radii, it's all the way down to a 12 inch radius!
That's very tight for HO and certainly not recommended for a newcomer as is the original poster.
Morevover, a number of the turnouts are drawn unrealistically sharp, including the one near Moerdrisch that scales out to about a #2.5 frog. Even a very compact curved turnout like the PECO HO Code 75 won't fit as drawn.
That layout could work in N scale, of course, although I think there are better choices.
Byron
I always get a chuckle from these HO vs. N threads because those of us who were early converts to the HO world came from the O, O27, or S world and we were considered the small scale guys. With the advent of N scale, now we are the large scale guys. Everything is relative. The Z scale guys probably think of you N scale guys as the large scale guys. It really doesn't matter. Whatever scale we choose based on our available space, budget, and skill set, model railroading is the greatest hobby in the world. There is no right or wrong choice. Whatever choice you make that is right for your circumstance will bring you the ultimate in satisfaction. Having said that, let me just close with a simple message to all model railroaders , regardless of what scale you have chosen, "Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night".
For the space you have, the only way to get a medium run is to go with N. HO has more economy lines and possibly more discounting, but in HO a 4x8 is a switching layout or a bowl of spaghetti. With N you can work in 3 or 4 towns with visual separation and the smaller rolling stock will allow a better sense of the train actually traveling somewhere.
Enjoy
Dave-the-Train Most of us find that as we get more ancient H0 becomes a lot less awkward than N.
Most of us find that as we get more ancient H0 becomes a lot less awkward than N.
On the other hand, many fine N scale layouts are built by modelers at an advanced age. The current N Scale Railroading magazine has an interesting operating model of Summit CA in Cajon Pass in N scale built in 4'X9' total (including staging and operating aisle). The builder is in his 80s, as I recall.
N scale works. HO scale works. If this discussion were limited to people who had actually built and operated in each of the scales (as I have), there would be less heat and more light.
In a given space, N scale will provide a longer run. Period.
That's not the only reason to choose a scale, for sure, but arguing otherwise is silly.
If the original poster is new to model railroading, the best advice would be to seek out examples of both scales at a hobby shop, club, train show, etc. After seeing both scales in action, and talking to actual modelers, not opinionated non-practicing gadflies on forums, a person can make up their own mind.
Of course, less than a month ago, the original poster said this:
Steve75I am new to modle railroading and I have just got the Bachman Explorer train set in N gauge and I am in the middle of building a table to do a layout on which when finnished will be 4'x8'. I have got 1/2" plywood and 1" extruded foam for the top the track I got with the set I switched for Atlas code 80. The track plan I would like to use is N-12 fron the book Nine N Scale Railroads by Atlas. So the problem is I don't know the best way to attach the track and how to do scenery so any advice will be welcome.
... so it would seem the question of HO vs. N may be purely theoretical for him at this point. However, I will say that plan from Atlas he referenced is one of the least effective uses of a 4X8 space in N scale that I've ever seen, if this is the one to which he is referring:
Steve75 Get yourself some slow-running geared locomotives (Shay, Heisler, etc.) and run them at a scale 5 mph. That will make the run seem long, even given the small space available. Mark
EXCELLENT IDEA! i A quick Google yielded:
cuyama Sorry Wolfgang, but to that layout, I must say No No No.
The plan reminds me of John Allen's original Gorre & Daphetid layout which was smaller than four-by-eight. The plan should work in HO with some track realignments with 15-16" radius curves and custom/hand-laid turnouts with no. 4 frogs, probably necessitating the hidden track moved so it is under the upper town. Perfect geared-locomotive territory with the sharp curves and inevitable steep grades.
markpierce The plan reminds me of John Allen's original Gorre & Daphetid layout which was smaller than four-by-eight. The plan should work in HO with some track realignments with 15-16" radius curves and custom/hand-laid turnouts with no. 4 frogs, probably necessitating the hidden track moved so it is under the upper town. Perfect geared-locomotive territory with the sharp curves and inevitable steep grades.
Mark, this is for a beginner, right? And you're recommending a plan that requires 15 inch curves, custom handlaid-to-fit turnouts, steep grades, and finicky, expensive HO geared locomotives?
I honestly don't see that as a path to success and fun for a complete beginner.
Equipment availability in HO is superb. In N, there are a lot fewer choices, although my Atlas N Shays both run smooth as a top.
But the OP stated that space was his primary concern, so N would be the obvious choice.
I chose N scale for my current layout, but wish I had the space to build it in HO for the added details and better selection. Life is full of compromises, yes?
cuyama Mark, this is for a beginner, right? And you're recommending a plan that requires 15 inch curves, custom handlaid-to-fit turnouts, steep grades, and finicky, expensive HO geared locomotives?
Wasn't John Allen a beginner some sixty years ago when he built his first layout? Isn't everyone a beginner until they've built their third or fourth turnout? I had handlaid track, "finicky and expensive" geared locomotive (they're relatively cheaper and more reliable now), steep/sharp grades/curves rising via a nolix to a second deck, all the while in my mid-teens 45 years ago (with a $3 per week allowance and rare temporary jobs at $2 an hour) and have never considered my skills greater than mediocre. Regardless, I had a ball!
I am very new to the hobby this will be the first layout I have done, so I dont know anything like what does DCC stand for ? and anything about it. I also have 2 children oldest is 11 youngest is 3, plus I don't know all the termanology that goes with the hobby.
Thank you in advance for the advice
Steve75 I am very new to the hobby this will be the first layout I have done, so I dont know anything like what does DCC stand for ? and anything about it. I also have 2 children oldest is 11 youngest is 3, plus I don't know all the termanology that goes with the hobby. Thank you in advance for the advice Steve
DCC stands for Digital Command Control. Each locomotive has a micro-processor called a decoder and a unique address. Track is constantly powered with AC current but the loco will only respond when a throttle sends a command to its address. In addition to direction, starting, stopping, acceleration, deceleration, other locomotive functions can be controlled from the throttle, such as headlights and sound effects if the locomotive is equipped with a speaker wired to the decoder.
This was the plan I found but if any one knows of a better one I would like to see it as I am not very good at track plans because I am not very good at the wireing aspect and can't get them to work. I tryed to usr the free download track plan from Atlas but with no sucess.
I think a 4x8 layout is what we all started out with in HO, run some old Athearn f3's on some sharp curves and you'll be fine, its a nice size.
As others have said though, if you want town to town operations go with N. There's al ot of nice stuff in that scale now, I really like that Broadway Limited car set by Kato.
Here's a better plan, for snap track. Text in German
But the pictures will tell.
hi Steve
Steve75I am not very good at track plans because I am not very good at the wireing aspect
Wiring your layout has nothing to do with drawing a trackplan. You seem to have to learn a lot on both issues.
Steve75I am not very good at the wireing aspect and can't get them to work.
Steve75I tryed to usr the free download track plan from Atlas but with no sucess.
This is crying out loud, tell where you were lost and ask how to go on.
I know, Byron Henderson and all other designers are warning against inproper use and to early use of CAD-software. It can still be a nice way to get at least a drawing of your "room" on this forum.
In the mean time you could visit as much layouts as possible and start study the sites and books mentioned. Till now you've heard a lot of NO, NO's; IMHO the Atlas trackplan you have chosen is not a bad start. Don't get me wrong: not a bad start for a discussion; I agree with Byron a bad start for just building. But you have to think about the footprint of your layout first. And you have a lot of thinking to do about the kind of railroad you want before drawing trackplans. After doodling a lot on paper it is time for a drawing with CAD. Doodling on paper is leading to many overly optimistic idea's. (Wolfgang's first plan showed that clearly; despite of all his experience. And for the second time he is coming up with a couple of not really good plans, before debating the footprint or your wishes. As a old teacher he should have known better) Andy Sperandeo is giving in the 102 Trackplans book a nice introduction to designing with square's; in John Armstrong's book this issue is covered in depth.
So some hard questions:
Do you own the books mentioned?
Did you study the sites mentioned?
Do you want to learn how to get a drawing (with pen or with CAD) posted?
Do you want to learn about the relation between era, cars, the kind of railroad and radii?
And try to ask clear questions; I really did not understand what you were saying in your last posting.
BTW can you describe why you like the plan you have chosen? Do you have a dream about a layout? Like a BN branch in the Midwest in the 80's? Or about coalmines in Virginia in the 50's or about or a modern UP-main near Cheyenne? And your role in it: in an armchair watching your trains or are you the engineer switching an industrial zone or running a wayfreight? Or do you envision yourself running the Pocahontas Arrow in the 60's over the 750 odd miles between Norfolk and Cincinnati in just 15 hours?
N ALL THE WAY!
4x8' can get you a nice layout with great scenery and the run that you need in N scale. For HO scale, 4x8 is only good for kids' train sets with its unrealistic, toylike 18" radius curves. If you're into modern-era trains and only have space for a 4x8, forget HO.
As for price, there really isn't much of a difference these days. They're generally about the same price. Actually, some N scale trains and accessories are actually cheaper than the HO equivalent! That wasn't the case 15-20 years ago! There's also a great selection of N nowadays, and with technological advances such as laser-cutting and high-resolution printing, the level of detail in N is light years ahead of what it was 20 years ago.
I would only recommend HO if you have an entire basement/garage to devote to a layout. Then it's nice and fun. Notice that the real cool looking HO layouts you see in Model Railroader are huge basement/garage layouts or club layouts. Otherwise, for small layouts (unless you're doing a small short line or traction thing, where tight curves are not a detriment), it's really useless.
Jolly Ol' St. Nick may say, "HO-HO-HO" but you caN't spell SaNta without "N"! :)