Most HO railroaders are probably in that scale because of circumstances. As a kid in the 70s, HO was the dominating scale used for toy trains, and the local hobby shops were mainly offering HO stuff. That is the explanation why I mainly model HO. Today, online shopping and information opens things up dramatically. Anyone starting from zero can pretty much go in any scale and thrive. Space is really the only major constraint.
Simon
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I think that HO and O are two pretty different animals ..... and they're both wonderful.
Its been said that with O, a bit more focus is on the actual trains. With HO, there is more focus on the railroad, the layout.
I think with the 3-rail folks, there are many collectors. And, have trains displayed on the walls of their layout rooms. Many started it with Lionel trains from thier youth. However, there are many very beautifully detailed scale engines in 3-rail, too. They like to call it "3-rail scale."
The lack of 2-rail O engines can be frustrating. Thankfully, Atlas O seems to have thier production problems straightened out, and are starting to ship engines again. 3rdRail/Sunset make very highly detailed, and correct to the railroad, steam engines and some diesels .....which can be quite expensive.
If you really enjoy sound like me, obviously there are larger speakers in O scale. And, Atlas is now using ESU decoders in their 2-rail O scale engines.
I've done both scales a lot, and you just can't do in O what you can do with HO. I know nothing about N scale, but I know with HO ..... the world is your oyster. lol
Basically Model Railroader is an inaccurate title for the Magazine and Forum, it Should be Titled HO & N Scale Monthly.
Years ago Tony Koester's April column was an April Fool's joke about switching to "O", to someone in "O" Gauge it was a pretty demeaning column, and I haven't renewed my MR Subscription since. MR was already pretty much ignoring anything but HO and N by then any way, so that was the final straw for me, didn't renew, and if I didn't see this thread as the most recent on the index page, wouldn't have seen it at all.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
I've been to a number of train shows over the years and O scale is represented very well with many modular layouts. They look great and so does the equipment. I'm sure if you went over to some of those guys they would tell you it's alive and well. A good friend of mine recently got rid of his HO layout and trains to switch to O scale. Why? He's getting up there in age, and it's easier to handle.
People that enjoy model railroading will find a way to enjoy the hobby, whether switching scales, smaller layouts or arm chair modeling.
Oh, I model HO and I have an O scale track that goes around the top of the room for my O Scale LIRR Worlds Fair train! I'm happy!
Neal
Too big takes up a lot of space.
Too expensive.
It still comes down to space, money and time.
Life, and model railroading are full of compromises, given unlimited resources, I might want to be in two rail O scale.
But I reject the idea of limiting my other modeling goals to be able to model in that larger scale.
I like long trains, mainline action, reasonable detail, that make HO the right size for me.
My current layout space is about 1000 sq ft. We are possibly moving soon, and the new house we are expecting to get has a 1500 sq ft basement - just for me.
That will build a suitable empire in HO, and a short line in O.
Not interested in a short line.....
Sheldon
mbinsewi MIKE:
In all due respects, the question was based entirely on my personal observations of the postings I've read on this forum.
It was, in no way, implying that the name "Model Railroader" should be changed to "O" nor would I even suggest that the name be changed because, as you stated, "This is a forum centered around HO".
I'm truly sorry that you "don't get 'my' off-the-wall question???
Seems like, upon reading many of the replies, other viewers took the question in stride and just offered their constructive opinions. And I really appreciate their contributions.
This is a great hobby no matter what gauge/scale one favors.
I disagree with some of the negatives.
There's actually quite a lot available for 2 rail O scale. Atlas makes much of (maybe all) their Trainman and Master line in 2 rail as well as 3 rail. Much of MTH's Premier line of steam locomotives is available in 2 rail with scale wheels. Their Premier line of diesels usually have a conversion kit available. Premier is their detailed scale size line. Both Atlas and MTH make conversion kits for their rolling stock. So while you may not have as many locomotives for a specific railroad as HO does, there's plenty to choose from and the major railroads are pretty well represented.
Thanks to 3 rail O scale, there are plenty of structures available, both RTR and kits. Many laser kits are made in multiple scales including O. When looking at sizes, all scales including HO favor smaller prototypes.
It does cost more per piece and there are fewer places offering discounts. Unlike HO, there really is no budget line available (although you can find some older, cheaper items at train shows). So for a given budget you'll have fewer items. It's just one of the many trade offs we make in the hobby. But if you can afford multiple locomotives in HO, you can find something in O to get you started.
Space is another issue. It does take a lot of room for O scale. This is the issue that put me in S scale. I just don't have enough room for the layout I want in O. For me, this is a trade off issue. I could have a layout in O, just not as many towns along the mainline. But many folks are very space constrained, so HO or N is the best way for them. I think this is the major reason for few O scale layouts. I also think this a major reason there are so many 3 rail layouts - with it's much tighter curves you can fit a layout into some pretty tight spaces.
Paul
Tinplate Toddlerbut they all boil down to something which is 1/48 scale
Not all, the O-27 stuff is not even close to scale. The trucks are actually wider than the car body.
Tinplate Toddleraccessories, buildings and structures find their home on any 1/48 scale layout
See your next comment...
Tinplate Toddler I dare to say that the most recent creations in that scale from Menard´s find more homes on a "toy" layout, than a "scale" layout.
There is a reason for that. They arent really scale. They are actually marketed as "O Guage".
I am quite aware of the different O gauge and O scale standards, but they all boil down to something which is 1/48 scale, but running on different tracks. However, accessories, buildings and structures find their home on any 1/48 scale layout. I dare to say that the most recent creations in that scale from Menard´s find more homes on a "toy" layout, than a "scale" layout.
Oh, btw - don´t let my low post count or handle fool you, I am a dyed-in-the-wool scale modeler with a record of 55 years in the hobby, who has built layouts from Z scale all the way up to a live steam garden layout.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Tinplate Toddler rrebell On30 is the only reason there is alot of what there is in O. Interesting point of view! However, I don´t think that statement will earn you lots of friends "over there" - in the CTT forum.
rrebell On30 is the only reason there is alot of what there is in O.
Interesting point of view!
However, I don´t think that statement will earn you lots of friends "over there" - in the CTT forum.
Byron's comment about the rrebell statement notwithstanding. CTT (from what I have seen) is largely focused on 3-rail O guage, hence the "classic toy trains". Two rail scale doesnt really fit into the "Classic Toy Trains" genre.
When you talk about O, you could be talking about 5 different things
1) O-27 Toy trains with less than scale dimensions (tin plate stuff too)
2) O guage - Somewhat less toy and more of scale (car body is usually scale), still has oversize wheels and truck mounted couplers, etc.
3) O scale - 1:48 scale dimensions, but runs on slightly wide gauge track
4) Proto 48 -1:48 and runs on scale 4' 8.5" track.
5) Various Narrow guages of O
I fit into 2 above with the equipment I own. I dont run said equipment. Why? A 7 car passenger train is over 14' long. I have room for exactly two passenger stations, and suspending my disbelief to do laps isnt my thing. It gets too boring, then you end up spending money buying new interseting things to run through the unchanging scenery.
I'm not a fan of tinplate. It's too toy-like for me, no matter the scale. But I do like scale O-scale (two-rail). It's impressive, and I admit I have four 2-rail undec. O-scale locos and a half dozen cars. However, every time I think about finishing them up, I add up the cost of all the O-scale detail parts and think of what I could get in HO instead.
For example, in HO scale if I need a Hancock Air Whistle detail part, it's $1.00 for a pair. In O-scale, it's $5.00...each! A dynamic brake blister for an O-scale GP9 is $50, and so on. Yikes.
Also, the cost of the rolling stock isn't cheap, either. An Atlas NE-6 caboose in 2-rail O was $75. At the same time in HO, it was $27.
How about track? Atlas O Code 148 flex track is $18.25 for 40", a #5 switch is $92, and a #7.5 is $97. In HO, the Code 83 flex is $6.95 for 36", #6 switches are $22 to $24, and #8's are $23.
It seems just about everything in O-scale is roughly triple the price of the same thing in HO-scale. And that's if you can actually find the stuff, and have room to set it up.
So, to answer the question, the reason why O-scale isn't more popular is due to various factors: 1). Price, 2). Availability, 3). Space. Other than that, it's a great scale.
I know a bunch of O scalers - A couple of shining examples are Gary Schrader and Dave Adams.
Check out O scale west for some more info on the scale and what is being done these days.
For us heavy metal, SP fans, the detail on the latest Key Cab forwards in O scale is almost enough to make you want to switch scales just to run that loco!!!
I think the reasons for less O scale have been pretty well covered in this thread, but it is awesome when you see a well executed O scale layout.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
rrebellOn30 is the only reason there is alot of what there is in O.
That's a very HO-centric view and demonstrably false.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyamaThe exception is modern industrial parks with their own switcher
The other exception I should have mentioned is the true industrial railroad such as a large cement plant or something like the Coors brewery in Colorado that rosters its own motive power. Although these can also be great subjects for a layout, they are not what most people are building as small switching layouts.
SeeYou190I was going to build a switching layout, what is now commonly called an "ISL" on one wall of the bedroom.
By the way, small switching layouts are only referred to with that acronym on this and maybe one other forum. The term is inaccurate in fact, since a good part of the trackage in most small switching layouts (except the industry spurs themselves) would be owned by the railroad, not the industry. And the railroad would do the switching.
The exception is modern industrial parks with their own switcher, but most of the small switching layouts folks are building are intended to operate as a branch or terminal area of a railroad (Class 1, Regional, Short Line, Terminal Railroad, etc).
The ISL acronym is also ambiguous, since it could stand for Industrial Short line, Independent Short/Switching Line, Isolated Short Line, etc., etc.
This is not directed at you at all, Kevin, but once every couple of years I am moved to refute the notion that this acronynm is “common” or widely accepted – or accurate in any way.
Clarity is good, IMHO. And is doesn’t take very long to type "small switching layout" in the interest of accuracy.
Byron
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe I used to know a man who, because of his old age, switched from HO to O scale because he wanted more details and he wanted to be able to see them. His layout was small. He only had a couple of locomotives and a few freight cars but he had one of the nicest layouts I’ve ever seen.
I used to know a man who, because of his old age, switched from HO to O scale because he wanted more details and he wanted to be able to see them. His layout was small. He only had a couple of locomotives and a few freight cars but he had one of the nicest layouts I’ve ever seen.
I agree with this. Wholeheartedly. I love the idea that I may one day build a 1:48 diorama of sorts. About 5 feet by 3 feet. With a fully-detailed Challenger sitting majestically on a turntable. Maybe under a sanding tower. Something. But in the meanwhile, I like the panoramic vistas and wide open spaces of my N scale thing. And not sweating the details.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
G Paine Even On30, which uses HO gauge track, suffers from the same space, availability, and cost concerns as O standard gauge. It can run tighter radius curves than O standard, but everything else (buildings, vehicles, scenery, etc.) takes the same space
Even On30, which uses HO gauge track, suffers from the same space, availability, and cost concerns as O standard gauge. It can run tighter radius curves than O standard, but everything else (buildings, vehicles, scenery, etc.) takes the same space
Many thanks for all of your well thought out replies. Appreciate it.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
traindaddy1Before you "send me to the other forums like the Classic Toys etc., I'd really like to know why, in your opinion, there isn't more interest is the larger "O".
Well, you might also ask "Why not more 'S'?". It's smaller than O and larger than HO. Unfortunately, it suffers the same fate as O when it comes to availability.
I grew up on American Flyer and enjoy the size but there just isn't much out there presently that offers what HO does for my particular prototype. And while N would allow for more layout in the same-sized footprint as my HO layout, the choices for modeling steam/early diesel are - again - very limited.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
People say they shy away from N scale because they can't handle the details. Fair enough. But the fact is that you don't really need all the fiddling details in N because they can't be seen, especially at 24 inches. It's nice if they're there, but not a disaster if they're missing.
In O scale, if the details are missing, they're noticed. You have to show rivets and door knobs and hatch handles; even eyeballs, belt buckles, and wrist watches on the figures.
That's why I don't do O. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Three reasons............
Space (lack there-of), Cost (consider twice HO), and Availability/selection of components. The latter of course is just the result of the supply demand circle. Less demand, less supply......demand picks up, the suppliers will produce more in quantity and selection.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
When I switched away from N scale in the 1990s I looked very hard at 2 rail O scale, and even Proto-48 as options.
.
My experience with the "dream house" layout left me knowing I had made bad choices in this hobby. I was never going to want a large layout that required multiple operators and massive amounts of equipment.
My interest at the time was a layout that would fit in my small duplex with my growing family. I was going to build a switching layout, what is now commonly called an "ISL" on one wall of the bedroom. I needed one locomotive and about 10 freight cars.
Even back then, with Atlas and Intermountain making O scale rolling stock, and Lorrell Joiner promoting the scale, the final decision was made on availablility of equipment and supplies. With HO scale I could have everything with no compromises. There was even so much more available in N scale than in O.
Now that I am going to have a 11 by 22 foot dedicated layout space in my house, I am glad I chose HO. I can do what I want in HO. With O scale there would be a lot of compromises.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
7j43kIt is CENTERED on HO because there are so many more people working in HO.
Ed,The reason the N Scale count is low is because there is three great N Scale forums. Why hang out on a HO forum?
One of the most beautiful ISLs I ever seen was a O Scale two rail that was 16' x 2'.
That Atlas 2 Rail RS-1 was a master piece with its added details.
Have you compared O Scale 2 rail prices with HO?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
mbinsewi This is a forum centered around HO. I just don't get your off-the-wall question??? Are you asking why O isn't a main topic on this forum? Or are you asking why members in here model in HO and not O ? I don't get it. Mike.
This is a forum centered around HO. I just don't get your off-the-wall question???
Are you asking why O isn't a main topic on this forum? Or are you asking why members in here model in HO and not O ?
I don't get it.
Mike.
It is CENTERED on HO because there are so many more people working in HO. There is nothing keeping other scales out. But it is wise, when someone comes in from a different scale, for that person to self-identify. That's to keep people from assuming they're HO.
Over on the Atlas Rescue Forum, there ARE sub-forums for the three major scales. Not here.
By the way, here's the number of topics on that forum since it started:
HO 4661
O 50
N 183
Ed