first, welcome aboard.
The detail on HO is better than on N, but i think about it like this if you're viewing a layout at arm's length HO is like viewing a real railroad from about 300' away. With N scale its about 600 feet away. You'll see more detail at 300 feet, but far more scope at 600 feet. the running qualities of both HO and N have improved greatly in the last 15 years, so it really comes down to what the modeler wants to accomplish with a layout.
Let me get this one out of the way now, since it's bound to come up.
If you are old and feeble with knuckles the size of golf balls and barely able to see beyond the end of your nose, you will be depressed to the point of institutionalization if you even think about trying N scale. If you are not currently in that unfortunate state, bear in mind that it won't be long before you are, so give up now, because in the end we're all doomed to shaky hands, cataracts and a drool bucket.
At least that's how some of our HO modelers think...
If, on the other hand, you like the idea of a passenger train that's more than two cars long, a yard that actually works like a yard, and curves that resemble those on an actual railway and not on a roller coaster, you might think seriously about using N scale. And it doesn't really matter if your space is large or small. The smaller the space, the more you can do with N scale. The larger the space, the more realistically you can model a RAILROAD, and not just some trains.
Obviously, I'm a bit biased, having dabbled in N scale for over 30 years. I still enjoy it immensely despite my reading glasses and ever widening girth. (Another distinct advantage of the smaller trains is wider aisles around the layout!)
I encourage you to scan some of the outstanding N scale work that is often displayed on these pages, and to do a Google search of "N Scale Layout" ... you'll be amazed at what's available, and what's possible. I also invite you to click the link below my signature to see what I've been up to...
And don't pay no nevermind to those nattering nabobs of negativism who think you can't enjoy N scale due to its size. Afterall, HO stands for "Humongously Oversized!"
N Joy!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
back when pike's peak was still a pimple some O scalers looked down on HO as too small to be significant. today a lot of HO types see N scale the same way. a lot depends on your own circumstances. personally, as i get older, shakier, and my eyesight deteriorates, i sometimes wish i had gone into O scale when i had the urge years ago.
well, at least HO still looks pretty good to me from about 3 feet away. N scale does keep developing and perhaps someday with smaller rail and better detail it will reach the fidelity of the larger scales but by then i probably won't be able to see it at all.
grizlump
That didn't take long!
Actually if I had it to do all over again I might well have chosen either O-scale or N-scale instead of HO. As previously noted, O-scale has the advantage of being larger, so easier to see and work on (also costlier). And N-scale has the advantage of being smaller so you can model a lot more railroad in the same space, which is also appealing. When I started back into the hobby, I was still pretty "immortal" so HO seemed the way to go. Nowdays there's a strong chance I'd pick O-scale. Or maybe at least S...
shrug.
pointsnorthI am trying to determine what scale to use. Am new to the hobby and realize the size difference between HO and N scale. Looking on the internet the subjective impression I get is that HO looks a little more "realistic". I have no first hand observance of either of these gauges except for the fact that I owned an HO set quite a few years ago; the detail on the pieces at the time was excellent. Would N scale look as detailed? N scale would allow me to have a more elaborate layout but I would like to have the detail and sense of realism that I remember the HO scale presented. Thanks for any input.
I converted to in N-scale when it was new. I was in grade school and had only a very limited space for which to have a layout. Just because its size N-scale was the best choice. When I was on my third layout, I began to get interested in having more detailed equipment. This was about the same time that N scale brass locomotives started coming out. For a while I had every single one produced. Then they started producing them faster than my budget. This lasted until I started wanting specific models of things that I had to build myself. N-scale was just to small. At about this same time I became the owner of a PFM on board sound unit and started doing command control. Once again the N-scale was just to small. S-scale had almost zero presence and O-scale too expensive. Hence I ended up in HO.
All the scales have come a long way. The detail in N is far better than it used to be, but to answer your question about "would N scale look as detailed" the real answer is obviously no physics just don't work that way and there is only so small one can make certain detail parts. The more important question is if it is "good enough" for you? Only you can answer. Likewise do you want to develop the skills to detail it to that level? Once again only you can answer for yourself. N-scale certainly runs better than it used to. The electronics have gotten small enough. But likewise the detail of HO has gone up, and the relative price of really good HO stuff has come down. One no longer has to buy brass to have good models. S and O scales seem to be having a popularity resurgence. Z has actually gotten a fairly good collection of decent looking equipment but still mighty pricey. On30 has some really tempting cheap stuff these days.
I am now in the school of thought that one starting from scratch should model in the largest scale they have room for and can afford. I now have the space, but no way I am paying $5000 for an Alco PA in 1:24th scale. They are beautiful but beyond my budget.
I started in O decades ago. Moved to HO. Moved on to N, and am considering an Nn3 industry on my new layout. HO equipment is more detailed and and easier to work on. In this day and age I feel both are very reliable if you do your part in laying down good track.
An oversimplification would be that HO is about trains and N is about scenery. Although it's true that you can pack more N scale into a given space than HO, you could also put an N scale track plan in the same HO space and have lots more room for scenery/buildings/water features.
Ask yourself some preliminary questions. Do you want to "just run trains" or do you want to operate a "real railroad"? Do you like grand scenery, or do you want to marvel at the detail possible in a larger scale. Do you have a good quality magnifier and are your hands still steady. (Yes I do, and no they aren't.) A compromise might be HOn3, but I know little about that type of model RR.
One of my reasons was that N scale allowed my wife to get involved. She is an avid miniaturist and enjoys making scenery. Yet another match made in heaven! You should choose a path that brings you happiness.
Might I suggest you attend a model train show where layouts of various scales are on display. Figure out what scale jumps out and grabs you and go with it! Each scale offers a different type of visual perspective. The visual intimacy of the larger scales can be just as fascinating as the visual panoramas of the smaller scales. Yes, the amount of available space dictates that compromise be applied. However, I suggest that you go with the largest scale you can practically fit within the available space. That way you get lots of railroading plus a level of detail that draws you into the layout. For those who love panoramic vistas, don't forget that "T" scale is now available (no, not "TT" scale).
Hornblower
Looking at it from my own viewpoint, HO is easier to see, N is harder to see. I modeled in N Scale back in the 80's but now have little to feeling in my hands so handling the smaller stuff is more difficult, hence my decision to go with HO. I would have gone with O Scale but I don't have the room for a believable layout in that scale.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
That only works if your trains don't need to appear to go anywhere. If you're going for any kind of operations, you need to be able to move trains from the back to the front...
I've seen it done to some effect on a purely display layout, where the smaller trains at the back of the layout do force some perspective, but the effect wears off pretty quickly to me.
Wow, reading all these responses from the HO scalers "damning with faint praise", one would think you need the eyes of a hawk and the coordination of the bomb squad to model in N scale.
Since thousands and thousands of folks model successfully in N scale, obviously there's another story to be told, but unfortunately you won't hear it much in this forum. (And most of them, like myself, modeled in HO first ... just sayin')
Is fine modeling done in N scale? Yes.Does the equipment run well? Yes.Is it better detailed than ever? Yes. (and better-detailed than much commercial HO up to the 1990s)Are there wooden building kits available? Yes.
Go to a train show and have a look at the operating layouts in multiple scales. Examine some equipment at a hobby shop. That's a way to get an idea for yourself -- and this is definitely a personal decision.
There seem to be many more N scalers participating in N scale specific sections of other forums, so just recognize that you'd hear a completely different story there.
Best of luck with your decision.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
pointsnorthtWould like to see some wooden structures in N scale instead of plastic- just to see the perception of realism they provide. Thanks!
At one time I had both but when I decided to put time in on the hobby I went HO and gave all my N scale to my nephew as well as my Bachmann HO track and a bunch of older IHC steamers and various cars
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
But Byron, where would this forum be without these tempests in a teapot?
My only issue with N scale is the relative lack of steam locomotives vs. HO. Even with that, there's enough variety in N if you're willing to do some of the kind of modifications done by Russell Straw, Max Magliaro et. al.
HO or N really doesn't matter. That's why they make the Optivisor.
I can't see up close at all because both the lenses in my eyes are artificial, the result of cataract surgery. I have good distance vision, but being artificial, the lenses don't compensate for up close views. However, cheap pairs of strong reading glasses compensate quite well and up close work generally requires an Optivisor anyway.
I do have a big issue with 1:1 modeling. That stuff is HEAVY, it requires more land than I own or have any prospect of owning and the sound of safety valves popping at 6 AM in the morning tends to annoy the neighbors (not to mention literally scaring the crap out of the cat).
Andre
If I had a dollar for everytime this HO vs. N debate came up, I could buy the the brass import loco of my choice. It amuses me that HO is considered large scale because I first got introduced to HO in the early 1960s after having Lionel and American Flyer trainsets earlier and HO was considered the small scale. There was no internet back then, of course, but I'll bet the O scale guys were saying the same things about HO as the HO guys are saying about N scale now and the N scale guys will be saying about Z scale a generation from now. Everything is relative and the trend seems to be toward smaller scales, but HO is as small as these 58 year old eyes and ten thumbs would ever want to deal with. Working with fine details in HO just about puts me in the nuthouse so I can't even imagine what it would like to work in N and I don't ever want to find out. If everything was equal, I'd choose S scale but everything is not equal and right now, HO is king as far as what is available and that is what I have commtted to for what I'm sure will be my last layout.
There really is no right answer as far as what the best scale is. It will be different for every modeler. Every scale has trade offs and every modeler has to decide what is most important to him and select the scale that best suits his desires. If you end up enjoying the hobby as much as I have, then you made the right choice.
I agree with the others who said go to a train show with layouts. The scales with sufficient commercial support are Z, N, HO, S, O, and G (which is actually a family of scales from 1:32 up to 1:20.3 all using #1 track).
Personally, I started with HO, moved to O and then to S. Along the way I set up an N scale layout for my son and played around with some G for awhile.
I have found S to be the best balance of big enough to see and build while small enough to have a nice layout in a reasonable space.
But really any of them will work. It really is about what you want to do.
One point to note is that with the small scales: Z, N, and HO, build them a little high for better viewing.
Enjoy
Paul
Start with the math: HO = 1:87 -- N = 1:160 -- (87/160 = 54.38%).
Conclusion #1: HO Scale is 55% larger in size than N Scale -- why the detailing has always been a little better in any given year -- N Scale does get better due to manufacturer technology for engines, rolling stock, and structures.
Thus #1: The HO Scale "eyesight justification" already covered.
Conclusion #2: N Scale provides 55% greater operations than HO Scale -- in the exact same layout space -- and has always been the overriding reason to first consider N Scale over HO Scale.
Thus #2: The forum thread question we often see, though not yet addressed here, is how the query involves HO Scale equipment already purchased, without consideration (and innocently so), as to how much space is needed to run those HO engines & rolling stock -- where N Scale is really a better choice -- for what is typically a small given for the layout space.
Caveat for both scales: Your human hips are the same size regardless of N Scale or HO Scale. Aisles must be the same walking-width when designing any layout. Likewise, human beings can usually reach apx. 30 inches comfortably into the layout before back strain sets in.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
HO is best.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Nope. N scale is ROUGHLY 55% of the size of HO . If you want to know how much larger HO is, you have to divide 1 by .55 which gives you 1.82 (rounded to nearest 1/100th). HO is 82% larger than N using those numbers (it's actually 83.8% larger than N). However, using 55% as the ratio of N to HO is convenient mathematically and close enough.
Wrong again. A 4 ft wide table used for N is relatively speaking the equivalent of a 7.3 ft wide table used for HO. A 4x8 table used for N would allow you to build a layout that would require a space of 7.3 x 14.6 for HO.
4x8 = 32 sq ft.
7.3x14.6 = 106.58 sq ft. That's the number of sq ft you'd need to build an equivalent HO scale layout if you were copying an N scale 4x8. It's 3.3124 times the number of sq ft (which is what happens when you square 1.82).
Assuming dead on dimensions in both scales, an HO scale F7 occupies 6.03 times the volume of its HO counterpart (i.e. 1.82 cubed and rounded to nearest .01).
EDIT: Interestingly enough, HO scale is actually 55.2% the size of American O scale (1:48). British O scale is 1:43.5 which is exactly 2x HO (and thus the name).
As was said earlier, if you really want to understand the potential of N scale, you won't find it here. Google "N Scale Forum" and see what you can find. I'd post links here, but our hosts frown upon directing you to more focused resources...
Thanks for playing along.
Seems to me that N-scalers are the most frequent posters on this topic. Minorities are typically more vocal than the majority.
I always recommend people visit layouts of various scales, and operate them if possible, before "diving in."
Assuredly, one of these years I will operate on Byron's layout and see if N is an operator's scale.
This afternoon I made/installed door handles for/on the several Ridgway yard buildings by Banta. I could never do that in N scale. (By the way, Banta's kit of the Port Costa roundhouse looks like a gem.)
Mark (HO-scaler for 50 years and will stay that way)
andrechapelon I can't see up close at all because both the lenses in my eyes are artificial, the result of cataract surgery. I have good distance vision, but being artificial, the lenses don't compensate for up close views. However, cheap pairs of strong reading glasses compensate quite well and up close work generally requires an Optivisor anyway.
Mike, I have artificial lenses too and elected they be focused for infinity. We could have elected to have the focal point at 12 inches, but I preferred a combination of reading glasses and optivisors for close-up work.
Mark
markpierce andrechapelon I can't see up close at all because both the lenses in my eyes are artificial, the result of cataract surgery. I have good distance vision, but being artificial, the lenses don't compensate for up close views. However, cheap pairs of strong reading glasses compensate quite well and up close work generally requires an Optivisor anyway. Mike, I have artificial lenses too and elected they be focused for infinity. We could have elected to have the focal point at 12 inches, but I preferred a combination of reading glasses and optivisors for close-up work. Mark
I'd rather have it that way, too. It's a bit of a pain to have use reading glasses and optivisors, but it's just one of trade-offs one has to make.
Mike
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Like many other issues discussed somewhat controversial, the question of scale is an issue of personal choice and liking. N scale has come along way in those 50 years - level of detail and performance are years ahead of what HO scale used to be 50 years ago. It is a valid choice for those with limited space and/or a knack for long trains and big operation.
For me, it is not a question of HO vs. N scale, there is room for both scales. My personal preference is O scale (Finescale), followed by HO.
andrechapelon Assuming dead on dimensions in both scales, an HO scale F7 occupies 6.03 times the volume of its HO counterpart (i.e. 1.82 cubed and rounded to nearest .01).
Is that an *African* F7 or a *European* F7 ???
john