Part of the point of the discussion of mass, (volume) of models compared to just the linear scale differences, is that mass adds heft.
If an HO scale model of an F 7 weighed one pound even, a different scale scale loco built to the same exact construction methods and materials filling it's volume the same percentage would weigh:
N scale : 2.6 oz
HO scale 16 oz...1 LB
S scale 40.32 oz... 2.52 lb
O scale 96 oz...6 lb
That's not to say that this heft is the main or most important determining factor in the decision regarding scale trade offs, but it does come into play.
I model HO. I can get the low speed performance I want from even relatively small critter locomotives with a lot of work. (Yes, that's a trade off in itself)
In S scale, the weight ratio is just over 2.5/1 over HO. That would be GREAT when building small critters.
O Scale? 6/1!!! Yeah, I can see why it's been called the King of Scales. I've seen O scale 2 rail locomotives in action and I hafta say, my HO doesn't capture the sense of weight in motion as does O scale.
In N scale? 1/6 of HO's mass. If I were to be an N scaler, I'd have to change my approach from slow little industrial switcher action to larger longer trains, with 3 or 4 locos. And I'll admit, there could be more appeal in that than I gave it credit for earlier when I think about it a little.
Dan
So Paul....After 87/160 cubed the total volume of 6 N-Scale boxcars would fit into one HO boxcar, proven by the math. But we also have N scale is .54375 which is a little over half the size of HO, also fact. This is where math gets a little freaky. It's been a lot of years but I do seem to recall some kind of clause in mathematics with mixing volume and percentages. It doesn't all completely make sense.
TF
Well my crap worked on the drawing but I see where you're going with this Paul. .54375 cubed is 1/6. I beg your humble pardon I didn't see your math before so I didn't know how you came up with that. Now I see, you are exactly right.
N scale is not 1/2 of HO.
Therefore 8 N scale models do not fit into the space of an HO model.
The ratio is 87/160 = .54375
Cubed = .16077
1/6 = .166667 which is close to the N/HO ratio cubed.
1/8 = .125 which is not close to N/HO ratio cubed. N would have to 1:174 for this to be true
And yes the hobby press has for years been very sloppy on their comparison of scales. But the size of N scale models is very close to 1/6 the size of HO which makes a better shorthand comparison than 1/8.
Similarily comparisons between HO other scales such as O is 2 times the scale of HO or S is 1 1/2 times the scale of HO are also wrong. (Note this is for U.S. O scale at 1:48 ratio)
Paul
cuyama Math, people. 40' HO scale boxcar = about 5½" long 40' N scale boxcar = about 3" long
Math, people.
40' HO scale boxcar = about 5½" long
40' N scale boxcar = about 3" long
Hey.... How did you come up with that one.
Maybe
(40÷87) x 12 = 5.52
(40÷160) x 12 = 3
Could be
I have some easier math.
If a full ice cold bottle of beer represents HO.... and a slightly more than half full ice cold bottle of beer represents N. = No wonder so many people choose HO.
But on a more serious note. What I always thought was neat is a grade is always the same from Z scale to prototypical railroad. Radius on the other hand completely different in every scale, unless they are calculated percentage-wise like the railroad does. I forget how that's done.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
TF: While I would agree with you on the mass between HO and N at being a factor of 8, dimensionally, it would still be regarded as approximately half the size.
This is because each dimension is reduced by half, sort of. The ratios don't work out to be half, so it's not quite.
But you get the idea.
Jim (with a nod to Mies Van Der Rohe)
Don't forget it also boils down to what you like to run. Modern engines and freight cars can be huge. So if you like to run that stuff you need more room, regardless of scale. I run HO with most cars being 40' or less and smaller engines. They work great on 18" radius and $4 switches but you change that to modern deisels and 86' cars, they need like a 24" min radius or 1/3 more and they look funny on that where as 40' look fine on 18" radius.
IRONROOSTER The result is that going from say HO to N your models are not half size, but about 1/6 the size of HO
The result is that going from say HO to N your models are not half size, but about 1/6 the size of HO
I have not posted back to my thread because I pretty much said everything I had to say starting it.
You guys have done such a interesting job with your thoughts and comments, there really hasn't been anyting I really disagree with.... except for one thing.
Model Railroader had an article once about the size of N-Scale opposed to HO. The article basically stated you can fit 8 N scale box cars into one HO boxcar. I'm not one who likes to be argumentative but I made a drawing to sum up my thoughts.
Cube image correction
If you break down the size of N-Scale opposed to HO in cubes, one can get a better understanding of Volume vs Mass.
If one wanted to think of volume in relation to the comparison. I could easily see N-Scale being 1/8 the size of HO. 1/6 must have been a mathematical error in my opinion.
If one wanted to think of mass in relation (like I do) to the comparison. I see N scale being a quarter size of HO. If you reduce somethings size in half, height and width will reduce the same as length.
I'm not saying I'm right, I am just stating a point the way I think. I see N-Scale 1/4 the size of HO The size of N is a quarter from the side view, 1/4 from the end view and 1/4 from the top view opposed to HO.
Edit 1/16 was a typo I changed it to 1/6 as Paul previously posted after I saw my mistake.
Let me clarify a little. I like to run at VERY slow switching speeds. Where I live, volcanic dust is just something ya have to accept, even in the cleanest homes. They use red cinder to sand the roads in icy weather. Roads dry out, it blows everywhere. That and other dust from our low humidity climate lands everywhere, including on those railheads, and stalls my lighter HO locomotives, which are heavier than N ones.
If you are running at decent and even realistic speeds, N can behave well enough, sure. There are indeed many happy N scalers here locally. I'm talking just about MY approach.
I misused the word gleam. I should have said a good cleaning. I'm not knocking N, I think it's cool. But this thread is about trade offs. N wouldn't fit the bill for me in my ways of working a layout. Dan
SouthgateThere are good mechanisms, but I can't see them running well unless you gleam the track every time you run.
Thousands and thousands of operating N scale layouts prove this false every day.
Every scale has pluses and minuses.
SouthgateFor me N is way out. There are good mechanisms, but I can't see them running well unless you gleam the track every time you run.
Surely you jest? N Scale can operate on track cleaned once a month or longer with a rag,alcohol and a bright boy if needed.
N Scale is less forgiving in the I lay sloppy track department then it is with normal dirty track.
I used Kato's Unitrack to set up a portable switching layout on my dinning room table and went weeks at a time without the need to clean it and still had stall free slow speed switching operation..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Lone Wolf and Santa FeAh, the mythical TT scale. I’ve heard rumors about it but I’ve never seen it.
It never had the toy train component that O and S have to keep their scale sides alive.
There was still some activity in the U.S. 10-20 years ago. Track and some engines, rolling stock, etc were available. Lionel had a collector series of 1:120 models of some of their O gauge line, while not motorized some TT folks converted them - there was even a kit for for a while.
The NMRA SIG for TT appears to be defunct - at least their website is. Now it seems to be mostly in Europe mainly eastern Europe where it has long had a following.
Too bad as TT would be the ideal scale for the proverbial 4'x8' sheet of plywood.
cuyama Lone Wolf and Santa Fe I often wish there was a scale in between HO and N scale. It's called TT scale and it's been around longer than N scale. Like other "in-between" scales, it had trouble gaining enough of a following. (In the US, at least, it was popular in a few countries). Today's N scale runs so well that the HO vs. N question is really a matter of personal preference, not "what works?".
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe I often wish there was a scale in between HO and N scale.
It's called TT scale and it's been around longer than N scale. Like other "in-between" scales, it had trouble gaining enough of a following. (In the US, at least, it was popular in a few countries).
Today's N scale runs so well that the HO vs. N question is really a matter of personal preference, not "what works?".
Ah, the mythical TT scale. I’ve heard rumors about it but I’ve never seen it. I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned G scale. I always see G scale layouts at train shows. The details are amazing. Anyway I guess it boils down to if you prefer to see a train or if you see a locomotive and cars. How zoomed in do you want it to be?
Timing has a lot to do with it. Started with N as I had a postage stamp set. Left till after college and went back to N shortly but no layout this time as things got busy. Soon sold all the N scale stuff and went HO going as far as building a large layout. Moved and now have a small space, have kept the HO as the detailing has just gotten better over time and that is what I enjoy. Thought of going On30 for what can be done detail wise for scenery but you dont lose much detail these days going HO. Also even though you can get 26' boxcars in On30 and it is only 1" longer than a 40' car I feel that HO gives me the feel I want with the only compomise being scenery, particuarly in thing like working switch stands.
I moved to N scale from HO because my layout space was downsized but I really couldn’t part with some of my HO stuff, so I kept it for a small switching layout for “some day“.
N scale has come a long way from when I started in model railroading. I really enjoy N and and what I can do in a smaller space without so much compression of scenery and the longer trains with the “big dog“ locomotives. But I have to admit, I do get “detail envy” when I look at the new ScaleTrains locomtives that are hitting the market even though their N scale offerings are really nice.
One thing I do appreciate though is even if details are scaled down, so is the price. And even at 61 years old I am still blessed with good eyesight even if it is corrected some, so hopefully I can still enjoy it for some time.
Ralph
Nobody's mentioned the running quality of the different scales. In HO, I can get acceptable performance, because I can cram every tiny cavity in locomotives with lead sheet, shot, wool, or chunks. This, for electrical contact. I live in a naturally dusty dry climate. Plus, appreciable flywheels can be put in HO, even small locos. I have a sherline lathe, and make flywheels to fit space. Acceptable does mean smooth and reliable to me.
If I was to go back in time and start over, I think I'd go with S scale for this and the other reasons mentioned. I made an HO Keystone 44 tonner weigh over a pound. That woud be a dirt crushing 2 1/2 lbs or so in S. And generous motors and whopping flywheels. It appeals!
But the big trade off between HO and S is availability of stuff. This goes back and forth some. Vehicles, as mentioned, in S scale? I drool at the sheer variety at Wal-Mart. Availability in RR rolling stock would be far more limited in S. I can and would scratchbuild.
For me N is way out. There are good mechanisms, but I can't see them running well unless you gleam the track every time you run. O scale? Mmmm... I'd skip over that and go Proto 24. Outdoor in the summer, build in the winter. Vehicles abound! (I have over 90 built kits and about 35 die casts) And that crane in my avitar is 1/24, 9 functions RC. That with a RR in the same scale? Dan
But I'm heavily vested in HO, and it took too long to get where I am. I wouldn't have it in me to start over.
The best description I’ve ever heard is something like this: If you want to model a piece of rolling stock, choose O. If you want to model a train, choose HO. If you want to model a railroad, choose N.
I would disagree with thing in the opening post, that some details need to be modeled overscale in N. If it can’t be modelled to scale it’s provably best to leave it off. The eye can fill in lots of things that should be there, especially if viewed from a distance. Close up photography may notice the missing details, but it certainly notices overscale details too.
There at compromises in every scale. You have to pick the scale that has the fewest for you. I do think most people (me included) approach things from the wrong angle. It should be figure out what you want to model and the space you have, then find a scale that suits it. Most people pick a scale and then try to get it to conform to their wishes.
I agree with the OP's asessment regarding detail.
I do HO and I really do consider it a comprimise between the scope of N and the level of detail of HO. It's a comprimise that works for me.
However, my opinon is that when it comes to a layout and scenery, for most folks, N is the largest scale that actually lets you build larger things "to-scale".
All but the largest HO layouts still end up having to compress the footprints of most large strutures (skyscrapers, large industry, infrastructure, etc), not to mention the size of the real estate they sit on which is usually even more compressed.
In N scale, however, even a modestly sized layout can include larger elements at full scale and though they are still often compressed, N gives you the option to even give a true-scale representation of realistic plots and property dimensions.
None of this is enough to convince me to switch to N, but it is a tradeoff that I'm making conciously.
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
I first started with a Lionel O-27 train set, which was nice but if I remember right, we moved to a different town and the layout never got set up again. In 1959, my sister's boyfriend brought over and assembled a couple of BB kits ( back then they were yellow box). I was hooked. I still have all of my Athearn cars and locos.
But to answer the question, if I were to change scales, I'd definitely go with S scale. It is small enough to have a modest sized layout, and large enough for fumbling old fingers and eyes to handle some details.
The units of measurement are ideal. 3/16 " =1'0". 1/64" =1". You can build structures etc with a standard architects scale. An in recent years, there has been more mfrs making S equipment.
IRONROOSTER Obviously, everybody's sweetspot will vary depending on what they are comfortable with and want to do. But it's important to remember the 3 types of differences. Some people have been surprised when they went to On30 and found that while they could fit the layout track into an HO size and the parts were easy to work with, the buildings' foot prints were still 3 1/4 times the size of HO and thus they still needed that much more space compared to HO for the layout.
Obviously, everybody's sweetspot will vary depending on what they are comfortable with and want to do. But it's important to remember the 3 types of differences. Some people have been surprised when they went to On30 and found that while they could fit the layout track into an HO size and the parts were easy to work with, the buildings' foot prints were still 3 1/4 times the size of HO and thus they still needed that much more space compared to HO for the layout.
I think it's much easier to go to a smaller scale than a larger one. As a "recovering O scaler" I still tend to think of things being that size, so I often am surprised when say doing an HO structure that it takes up less room on the layout than I had planned, leaving room for other things (parking lot, loading dock, etc.)
BTW I don't buy that about switching to a larger scale as you get older because of your eyes. One of the best things I've done re model railroading is pick up a pair of "computer glasses", they work well for working on or operating a layout.
I started out with Lionel 0-27 toy trains and I loved them but they were not really scale models so I switched to HO scale when I was in junior high. N scale was around but I always thought it was too small. I like the details of HO scale. I like making custom interiors for buildings and love making scenes with the figures (people). When I started in HO most of the cars were fairly short 40 or 50 feet long. Now cars are almost twice that long. I often wish there was a scale in between HO and N scale. I’ve seen toys that size and they seem perfect.
BTW I still have some Lionel trains that I set up and run at Christmas.
BRAKIEPaul,That S Scale Helper SW1 turn my head more then once..Its a beauty and I came within a mule's kick from buying one..
It is. I have 2 of them as well as other switchers (NW2 and SW9) that S Helper made. All great.
Being that I only model HO, I don't really focus on the others scales. Ulike the others, HO probably has a larger of available items. The structures available is just staggering.
Why not combine scales? Paul Dolkos told me that he creates the illusion of depth with N and HO scales. He put N scale structures in the background of his HO layout. I recall him showing that in some of his MR articles.
TF,Like you I started N Scale back in '68 and spent many years in the Normal Scale and have always regretted selling my N.. I should have sold my Horribly Oversize scale instead.
Paul,That S Scale Helper SW1 turn my head more then once..Its a beauty and I came within a mule's kick from buying one..
I thought at first, TF was up too late last night, (joking with you, TF), but this is actually drawing a crowd, so my thoughts,
I have always liked S scale. All of the die cast trucks, cars and farm machinery would fit right in! No problem finding vehicles.
Same with On30, of which I actually heave a steam engine and some nicely done Spectrum cars, and it is/was going to be a future shelf lay out ?? or maybe a new Christmas train ?? I dunno.
I stuck with HO for my current lay out, as that's what I had from the previous, and the availiable space I had to build in.
I don't know if there is any compromising involved.
Mike.
My You Tube
IRONROOSTEROne of the things I think that many over look is that our models are 3 dimensional, the layout is 2 dimensional (in terms of building footprints and how much stuff will fit), and the curve radii and track distances are 1 dimensional. The result is that going from say HO to N your models are not half size, but about 1/6 the size of HO, but the layout is about 30% the size, and track dimensions ares about 1/2 size. Similar results the other way for going up to O scale. In S scale the track dimensions are about 1/3 larger, the layout is about 85% larger, and the models are about 2 1/2 times larger. So the layout is a little less than double HO, but the models are 2 1/2 bigger. Obviously, everybody's sweetspot will vary depending on what they are comfortable with and want to do. But it's important to remember the 3 types of differences. Some people have been surprised when they went to On30 and found that while they could fit the layout track into an HO size and the parts were easy to work with, the buildings' foot prints were still 3 1/4 times the size of HO and thus they still needed that much more space compared to HO for the layout. Paul
In S scale the track dimensions are about 1/3 larger, the layout is about 85% larger, and the models are about 2 1/2 times larger. So the layout is a little less than double HO, but the models are 2 1/2 bigger.
I have built large layouts in both N and HO.
.
Originally the STRATTON AND GILLETTE was N scale, and I eventually settled on the midwest for location and 1968 for the era. I built a train room for my dream layout and set to work. The room was plenty large enough for HO, but I wanted 50 car trains and triple headed lash-ups and double track mainline.
That was 28 years ago.
Now I want 10 car trains, single locomotives, and a smaller layout room. HO suits me perfectly. I also changed the date to 1954 and moved the railroad to the shore.
If you would rather be in HO, change. I could never finish an N scale layout once I realized it was the wrong scale for me.
-Kevin
Living the dream.