Funny, I was thinking of switching to N, from H0.
Albeit, I do not have a layout built yet (still struggling with planning) and while I already have about dozen locos and 30 or so cars in H0, we share about the same space, mine being 23.5' x 12'.
I keep reading how I need larger curves, larger switches - never enough inches in a curve. Yet, I read above that one can make a decent H0 layout in this size space.
So, how does one squeeze all the needed trackage into this space?!? Unless you go to N and forefeit some level of detail to gain 4x more track and scenery.
Consequently, I've been going through this fellow's website (http://www.altamontandblueridge.com/) and his N layout looks superb. Not to mention his meticulous attention to every detail of the layout and around it (electrical, HVAC, building construction, lighting and so on...)
Sigh.
YouTube Channel
Website
wjstixBTW if you're interested in changing to a larger size to be able to do more detailing, ever think about On30
Why not switch to model airplanes as well? SMH. The OP specified "modern" so just a guess here, but I don't think On30 is part of that description. What would be more helpful would be to read what the OP stated and try to help within his parameters. Just sayin...
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I was thinking about switching scales also N to HO.
It was going to be 1994-1996 (I could expand into the late 80s and late 90s.) The focus point is the Southern Pacific/Cotton Belt. HO has more accurate details to accomplish it.
Don't forget about Amtrak with Superliners I and II with F40/P40/8-40BHW.
I bought an HO Amtrak station just in case if I do switch.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
It's easy when switching scales to go nuts buying stuff. I'd suggest - especially if you're interested in sound - spending the money to buy a few top-of-the-line engines, rather than "one of everything".
BTW if you're interested in changing to a larger size to be able to do more detailing, ever think about On30 - 1:48 scale models running on HO gauge track? Because it's narrow gauge, the equipment will take sharp (18-22"R) curves quite well, whereas O standard gauge generally needs 36"R or larger (with many layouts built with 5' or 6' radius curves!).
Speaking as a long time HO operator, welcome aboard. 10 x 24 feet is a decent size, you can build a fine HO layout in that amount of space. Have you read "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong? It's thought provoking and chock full of essential information, clearance requirements, easement of curves, lots of good stuff. Modern can be anything from the end of the transistion era, say 1960, to present. Freight cars grew from 40 foot to 50 and longer feet. All steam was retired. Cabeese went away sometime in the late 1980's. Roofwalks on box cars went away around then too. Diesel locomotives grew in horsepower and length. GE grew from an also-ran to as big as EMD.
With a ten foot room width you can do turnback loops with say a 36 inch radius and still have room for aisles, and eliminate the need for duck unders. I have a duckunder on my layout and I really wish I didn't. This wish grows stronger as I grow older.
Was it me, I'd try to get enough track up to run trains as soon as I could. As time permits, lay more track, do the scenery and so on. But think up the minimum amount of benchwork and track work you need to run a train and do that first.
As far as rolling stock, any maker who advertises in Model Railroader makes good stuff. And you can get nice stuff at trainshows for very cheap. It may need a little tinkering, or a new coat of paint, but it's good and it's low cost.
DCC is all the rage now. If you have multiple engineers running multiple trains all at the same time, DCC is the way to go. If its going to be just you, running one train, DCC is overkill. And you can start off without DCC, and upgrade the layout to DCC later without much trouble. You will have to install a DCC decoder in each locomotive, but that's perfectly doable.
Good luck and Merry Christmas.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
OklahomaRailfan Hello Everyone, I am thinking about switching from N scale to Ho scale. I am seeking advice on on modern Ho equipment and layouts. I like details and Ho scale has way more of that and options too. The space i have is 10x24. Hopefully that will be sufficient for a decent layout in Ho. Thank You
Hello Everyone,
I am thinking about switching from N scale to Ho scale. I am seeking advice on on modern Ho equipment and layouts. I like details and Ho scale has way more of that and options too. The space i have is 10x24. Hopefully that will be sufficient for a decent layout in Ho.
Thank You
one question ,by modern do you mean era, or what the current offerings in ho are like?
hon30critter, (Dave) Thank You!
Heres the thing. I like my N scale. However I like details as well. Ho scale seems to be excellent in the detail department. I will keep what trains I have in N scale, but Im thinking I want to go to Ho and do an Ho layout.
I love how detailed the modern locomotives and buildings are in Ho.
You mentioned that you could not imagine things like lighted vehicles in n scale, well here's a major factor. I love those kinds of details. I will also say this, I am partially blind. That's another major factor for me.
It sounds to me like your layout is going to be quite incredible. Also that ho is the place for extensive detail.
Thak You. Good luck with your layout.
When I was still in the "thinking about building a layout" stage, I considered N because of the ability to run prototypically long trains. I quickly changed to HO after seeing an N scale layout at a train show. My eyes and hands aren't what they used to be. Besides, there are many more offerings in HO than in N.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
It looks like Ulrich is trying to talk the OP out of switching. I agree with you Dave, dexterity is a major issue and it's hard enough to install those itty bitty grab iron parts on my HO Proto 2000 gondola kit - I'd need an electron microscope and mechanical motorized mini tweezers to do the same thing on N scale.
A 10x24' room would allow you to build and design a decent layout, especially if it is around the walls (and using a lift out). I would suggest minimum curves of 28" to ensure most longer modern rolling stock will manage, but I use 32" inch minimum since I have fair amount of long 89' autoracks and TOFC flat cars as well.
Details are what I am after. Especially on modern freight locomotives.
I also like the availability in HO scale.
Thank You Cuyama
The reason I am considering getting into Ho scale is that i like the greater detail of the locomotives. That is reason 1. Reason 2 is that i am partially blind. That has not stopped me so far in N scale but it may later on. I know i won't be able to do everything that I want to In the space that I have like I can in N scale, but I wasnt sure if something decent was feasable.
Thank You for your advice. It is appreciated.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/217622.aspx
Ulrich:
I made the link clickable.
The key word in being able to do N scale in fine detail is indeed "dexterity". Many of us lack sufficient quantities of that key ingredient to satisfy ourselves in N scale. Its more important IMHO to be satisfied with the work you can do in whatever scale works for you. I know that you have done some fine modelling even in Z scale, but I couldn't go there even if I wanted to. I'm happy where I am in HO and HOn30.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
It´s one of those die-hard myths that N scale is rather crude and cannot be sufficiently detailed. The degree of detail finally depends on your own dexterity!
Bubule´s Turtle Field RR shows explicitly, how detailed N scale can be these days - take a look here:
Hey OklahomaRailfan!
Welcome to the forums!!
I will qualify my answer by saying that my layout has not been built yet. I have been working on the design for several years using 3RdPlanIt while waiting for the layout space to become available. It is now available by the way.
My original layout plan was for a 10' x 22.5' folded double return loop. I was able to achieve minimum 26.5" curves with most being above 30". Recently, I expanded the layout plan to 12' x 23.5'. The reason for the expansion was to allow for larger radii in the helices that access the lower staging area. The plan permits me to have a mountain/mining area that is about 6' x 10', a service terminal about 6' x 6', a 5 track yard which will hold about 40 cars realistically and includes an arrival track and yard lead and caboose track, a downtown/train station scene about 13' long and an industrial area that is about 9' long. The station track will hold an ABA consist of FP7s and 9 passenger cars. There are eight industrial spurs.
Yes, there will be a lot going on. My point is that I have been able to fit a lot into a space similar to what you have available.
I will also say that I have found HO to be an ideal scale for doing things that I really love like scratchbuilding structures and industrial switchers and railtrucks. Adding details like working caboose marker lights and ditch lights has also been relatively easy. Many of my vehicles have working headlights and tail lights. I couldn't imagine trying to do that stuff in N scale.
Regards,
If you like details HO scale is far better than N scale and there are many after market parts for all kinds of models for locomotives and rolling stock plus vehicles, structures and scenery. Modern HO equipment has a minimum radius of 22 for most cars while some of the ones with detailed undersides require 24 inches. Some steam locomotives require larger radius.
Welcome to the forum.
OklahomaRailfanI am thinking about switching from N scale to Ho scale. I am seeking advice on on modern Ho equipment and layouts.
You might want to be more specific on your questions so that others can help. There are many modern-era layouts being built in HO -- as well as in N.
OklahomaRailfanThe space i have is 10x24. Hopefully that will be sufficient for a decent layout in Ho.
Many layouts have been built in that space (or less) in HO. Modern era locomotives and rolling stock are generally longer, so that requires a much broader minimum radius in HO than N, of course. Many modern era layouts in HO use 28" or larger radii, so naturally a lot less layout will fit in HO scale in a given space than would fit in N. Structures are roughly 4X as large in terms of footprint area; and passing sidings, yard tracks, etc. must be scaled up to fit.
Not to say that it can't be done, but you'll probably find that you need to adjust your expectations of what will fit relative to N scale.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group