I've made the decision to return to a hobby I dearly love after a 30 year absence. I will be limited to a 4'x8' layout. I like the thought of DCC and modern diesel power. As the layout will be small, does HO or N scale make more sense? I'm kind of thinking of a modern day standard guage East Broad Top. Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
Depends on what you want out of the layout. If you'd like to run long trains through expansive scenery, N scale may be the way to go. But if you'd prefer lots of switching action, you might find coupling and uncoupling cars more convenient in HO. Likewise, if you like your trackside industries to look large enough to actually require rail service, go with N; if you'd like to realistically superdetail those industries, try HO. N scale rolling stock and structures are less expensive than HO, but you'll need to buy more of them to fill the same space. Everything's a tradeoff.
One indicator that trends in only one direction, though, is age. As we get older, our eyes and hands find it harder to deal with smaller scales. You don't say how old you are, but if those are issues now, they'll only get worse. Go for the larger scale now. But if your eyes are still clear and your hands are still steady, go ahead with N.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
How are your eyes? For me at 56 my close up vision isn't so great so HO is better than N, although you can pack a lot more railroading into a 4x8 space using N-scale for sure including broader curves. If you don't plan on operating any long cars - and East Broad Top is old fashioned steam, then HO may be ok.
Cheers, Jim Fitch
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I am surprised that Steven addresses the age old myth that N scale is not so well suited for switching operation (or should I say shunting?). There are quite a few guys in here who may be able to prove him wrong.
If you are starting all anew, N scale has a lot to offer. A 4 by 8 layout gives you close to 4 times more real estate when compared to HO scale and allows you to build a much more generous and less cramped layout.
As to the vision issue, I have dabbled in nearly all scales there are, from Z scale to G scale. N scale is as good or as bad to handle as any other scale. Mind you, the bigger the scale, the more of those tiny details you have to include to avoid making your layout look bland. In G scale, you even have to model the pigeon droppings on the roof of a house and the weeds growing between the setts of your cobblestone alley.
When I think of a 4x8, I think of 18-inch radius curves. (I model in HO.) When I think of HO and modern equipment, I think of a minimum of 22 inch curves, with 24 or more preferred.
So, if you want to model modern equipment on a 4x8, I think you'd be happier with N scale.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Sir Madog I am surprised that Steven addresses the age old myth that N scale is not so well suited for switching operation (or should I say shunting?). There are quite a few guys in here who may be able to prove him wrong.
Keep in mind the OP is 30 years away from the hobby. The guys who may be able to prove Steve "wrong" may be quite experienced with N and have been able mak N work well for switching etc. Implication being that there may be additional factors to making it work as well as HO. And to be fair, I've already discovered that HO has it's kinks for switching etc. such as dead rails on Shinohara turnouts that require extra feeders via relays on non-DCC friendly turnouts.
MisterBeasley So, if you want to model modern equipment on a 4x8, I think you'd be happier with N scale.
No, he said modern day as if the lines name had not changed and still had the same route. In that case, as was said, N becomes the way to go. I use 18" radius curves in HO but he will want to run cars that are twice as long as what I run and anything beyond 50' looks toy like, in fact the only reason the 50' looks ok is that they are so few, just a token number on my layout, now I am talking boxcars in this case because low lying flatcars over 40' look fine a bit longer but he wants to run modern stuff.
gordie61 I've made the decision to return to a hobby I dearly love after a 30 year absence. I will be limited to a 4'x8' layout. I like the thought of DCC and modern diesel power. As the layout will be small, does HO or N scale make more sense?
I've made the decision to return to a hobby I dearly love after a 30 year absence. I will be limited to a 4'x8' layout. I like the thought of DCC and modern diesel power. As the layout will be small, does HO or N scale make more sense?
Rich
Alton Junction
When I think of the East Broad Top I think of trains running through lushly forested hills, small towns, and charming rural scenes. And maybe it is just me, but to capture that look and feel, I'd want the trains to be dwarfed by the surrounding scenery. That to me suggests N when you are limited to a 4x8.
In fact at the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into the discussion, let's not dismiss Z out of hand.
As I age I do find it harder to enjoy operations that require being able to focus on and see a car number in a nicely filled rail yard. HO is challenging enough on that front. N is really a chore in that regard, but fortunately the N scale club I operate on most often has arrived at various methods to make knowing the number of a particular car less important for local switching so long as you can see the road name.
Dave Nelson
Gordie,
First, can't believe no one has done this yet, to the forums, and back to the hobby.
Dcc can be done easily in either N or HO, but, you mention modern diesel power, modern switchers and 4 axle units, like GP60's, etc... will work on HO 4x8, some 6 axle power will as well. However, as was mentioned, most modern equipment is happier on 22" or larger radii, so, N scale may work better for a 4x8 modern era layout.
My question, and can't believe it hasn't been asked yet, is, where is the 4x8 going? What size space do you have? 4x8 really, if you ask the experts, needs a 6x12, or a 8x10, depending on orientation, minimum space, allowing 2 feet on 3 sides for access. (I would also, "technically" recommend allowing access on three or all sides, but, it can, with careful planning, be done in a space that only allows two sides, if you can gain access for track laying and scenic work, as well as rerailing the occasional errant railcar, access to one long side only can be made to work, it is just tougher. But, I myself have made it work on a layout before... Of course, it was built strong enough that I could climb on top of the layout if needed, and, I am just now turning 30... Age may become an issue for climbing on things later, and building a train layout strong enough to climb on is a bit of overkill if you ask the experts, as our trains are light... But we do what we must to enjoy the hobby, right?)
But, if you have the requisite space that most 4x8 layouts need, you could, feasibly, have a larger walk in layout, U shaped, or a around the room (or donut style) layout that has a lift up/drop down section to allow access into the center. Then, either scale will work just fine.
If it's a 4x8 strictly, It can be done in HO, as 22" radii technically will fit on a 4x8, but you will be limited to a basic oval, with a couple of spurs for industries. Passenger equipment will still be out however, as modern passenger cars really like 28" or larger radii. (Passenger equipment isn't mandatory on a modern era layout however, as only certain routes now host passenger trains...) If you will be expanding in the future, then either scale will work. If you will be sticking with only 4x8, then N may work better.
If eyesight or steady hands are an issue though, HO will be the way to go.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
ricktrains48244x8 really, if you ask the experts, needs a 6x12, or a 8x10, depending on orientation, minimum space, allowing 2 feet on 3 sides for access.
Here's an article that explains this concept in more detail:
http://www.layoutvision.com/id28.html
It's been referenced on the forum enough times that it should be a "sticky" by now.
And BTW, If I were building an EBT layout, I'd do it in HO narrow gauge.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Steven OtteBut if you'd prefer lots of switching action, you might find coupling and uncoupling cars more convenient in HO.
Switching works fine for me in N scale -- and I am a little ham-fisted and have had cataract surgery.
There are numerous examples of N scale switching layouts, more than a few published in MR.
Steven OtteN scale rolling stock and structures are less expensive than HO, but you'll need to buy more of them to fill the same space.
Not if one has even a little self-control. One of the great advantages of N scale in a given area is the ability to add more "air" to the layout in terms of running length and room between structures and industries. One doesn't need to "fill" all the space with track and models.
And, as others have noted, if the Original Poster's interests run to modern equipment (which is larger), the 18"/22" minimum radius limitation of the 4X8 sheet may prove frustrating quite soon.
HO scale is fine, N scale is fine. Newcomers should be encouraged to visit a hobby shop or train show to see examples of each so that they may choose for themselves.
There's no rule that says that the 4X8 sheet must remain uncut, of course.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Steven Otte Depends on what you want out of the layout. If you'd like to run long trains through expansive scenery, N scale may be the way to go. But if you'd prefer lots of switching action, you might find coupling and uncoupling cars more convenient in HO. Likewise, if you like your trackside industries to look large enough to actually require rail service, go with N; if you'd like to realistically superdetail those industries, try HO. N scale rolling stock and structures are less expensive than HO, but you'll need to buy more of them to fill the same space. Everything's a tradeoff. One indicator that trends in only one direction, though, is age. As we get older, our eyes and hands find it harder to deal with smaller scales. You don't say how old you are, but if those are issues now, they'll only get worse. Go for the larger scale now. But if your eyes are still clear and your hands are still steady, go ahead with N.
Steve,That's a lot of myths..
I seen guys in their 70/80s still in N Scale.. If you checked you tube for N Scale switching layouts you will find several.
You can super detail structures,locomotives and rolling stock.
Anything that can be done in HO can be done in N scale.
The biggest thing to remember is today's N Scale isn't the N Scale from the 70/80s. One can even sound equipped their locomotives.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I say the difference is between HO and N scales is whether you prefer longer trains and higher scenery to train ratio (N scale) or if you like details (HO scale). HO equipment is highly detailed and the aftermarket manufacturers have made a million more detailed parts to add to locomotives, rolling stock, vehicles, and structures.
j.........
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
On the space issue, a 4x8 only requires a 6x10 area if you put it on wheels. I have a 5'4"x12' tabletop on 4 4"wheels. It rolls very easily.
If you're building an East Broad Top type layout, then tight curves are part of the charm. The original was a narrow gauge line. Also, you should use small motive power. 6 axle units are not East Broad Top
But the real problem is that no matter how you dress it up a 4x8 layout in HO is too small. Go with N scale.
Good luck
Paul
Gordie61
Most everyone has given decent reasons for there thoughts on the age old question of scale. I will not address that here since it has been well answered already,
Instead I will take this oppurtunity to welcome you to the forum and MRR. If get a chance coem visit the folks over in Jeffries Diner. We talk on and off topic there, within certain restrictions. Anyway come join us pull a stool and a hot copy of Joe ( on the house ) and join in the banter.
YGW
Wow guys!! What a wonderful response to my question. This truely is the greatest hobby with awesome people. No i'm not from England. I'm from upstate NY. The vision thing? Yes, thats a concern. I think i'll try N to start. I really want standard gauge modern diesels. But if that proves too small, maybe i'll just do HO with 1st generation diesels.
Get to your favorite retail source of Model Railroader magazine for the current issue of Model Railroader - March 2016 that highlights small railroads, and 4'x8' layouts. This will answer a lot of questions "with actual" model railroading answers. Its not too often MRR can help answer your thoughts this quickly, concisely, let alone thoroughly! Great Model Railroads 2016 also has a nice article about Orbisonia's East Broad Top.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Welcome Gordie!
I am soon to be 58 and I am in N scale. One of the blessings of N scale is it allows me to run large modern locomotives like GEVOS and ACes, SD90macs and others that I would never have room for on an HO layout as well as smaller GP38s and GP15s in multiple lashups. Also I like the fact that I can handle these better than some of the newer super detailed HO locomotives because I'm not worried about knocking off detail parts that can also be hard to see and be difficult to handle.
Hope this helps, Ralph
As already mentioned, you'll need a 6x10 ( or better yet 6x12 ) room, to comfortably navagate around it. What size room are you going to place this in? Can you permanently build a layout in this room, or does it have to be able to be stood on it's side for storage? if you can build a permenant layout, your best best is to do a u shaped point - to - point or a donut style run around.
I have a 10'7"x14'6" spare room. Originally I was " allowed " only half the room ( 10'7"x8' ). I too thought about the 4x8 layout, placing it on wheels. Then someone else suggested a donut style layout. So with SCARM ( track planning program ), I ened up with this:
I think this layout made me happier than going with a 4x8. Then I again got " permission " to use the whole room and ended up with this ( still building this one ):
I'm in HO, so plenty of space.
I have to say I like the detail on the HO better than N scale. Again, could be because of my eye sight. If you go N scale and like sound, try to buy the loco with sound factory installed. There sure ins't much room in the N scale for placement of the decoders/speakers. Just MHO.....
When I left O scale in 1987 I chose HO over N, because N stuff didn't run very well. Now, N scale equipment runs better than HO did then, so I'd probably do N if I were starting over. I'd probably use Kato Unitrack since it's easy and reliable, and has many options in N - curves with built in grades, single and double track, overhead wire etc.
Digitrax makes Surround Sound where you don't need speakers in the engine, ideal for N or Z although the sound quality is probably better than you'd normally get in HO.
Should you decide to go for N scale, bring the layout up high - as close to eye level as possible.
Which scale is this ?
Welcome to the forums. There are many, many, many discussions of scale. Perhaps you can look at real layouts in HO and N to help you decide? Seeing real cars gives you a more realistic idea of scale than asking poeple here what they prefer.
It seems that the scale debate is nearly as heated as DC vs. DCC (cue the groans). The bottom line is do what works for you and smile when someone mentions the opposite. No two people do model trains the same and that applies to exact rationale for picking scale.
I'm a big believer in the old 4x8 layout. Don't let the "Layout Planners" mislead you. The HO scale layout I'm now building is on a 5 1/4 x 8 table because a neigbor building an addition to his house had a scrap 15" by 8' piece of OSB that he let me take. That lets me use the 24" radius track that came with the set I bought. There is one thing I already have on my layout that you rarely see these days. When I attended a show in my hometown, I asked the guys operating the large layouts at the show, "Where do all the people live who work in the industries and businesses on your layout?" My layout has a residential section that already has 7 houses on one street with more planned on other streets around the business district. Bear in mind that you can do a better job of including more houses in N scale than you can in HO. As for two feet around three sides of the board, I have only 11 inches along one long side and it's working fine for me. Between shoulders and hips, I resemble Homer Simpson, but the belly slides above the edge of the board when I need to get over there.
We haven't heard from the person who started this thread in over a year. If he hasn't come to a decision by now, he's probably not going to have a model railroad of any scale.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
hlwaaserThe HO scale layout I'm now building is on a 5 1/4 x 8 table because a neigbor building an addition to his house had a scrap 15" by 8' piece of OSB that he let me take. That lets me use the 24" radius track that came with the set I bought.
You're right, 5¼' wide is a better choice than a 4X8 for standard gauge HO.
How do you feel about building models, of rolling stock, of structures? Kit building, kit bashing, scratch building? For myself, model building is much of the fun in model railroading. Model building is easier in HO than in N, the bits and pieces are larger and hence easier to see and to work with. And the HO makers of detail parts, bits and pieces, decals, and stuff offer a lot more stuff than the N scale makers.
If you are a runner of trains, N will get you more track to run on than HO. If you are a model builder, HO can be very satisfying.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com