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.
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
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
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.
MisterBeasley So, if you want to model modern equipment on a 4x8, I think you'd be happier with N scale.
So, if you want to model modern equipment on a 4x8, I think you'd be happier with N scale.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
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.
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.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
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.
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
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
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.