Is N scale finally 'scale'?

[Anonymous]

I had thought of switching to N scale. My holdup has been the grossly too large couplers, wheels, and track. It seems that some manufacturers are addressing this issue with code 40 track, smaller flanges on wheels, and scale couplers. Has anyone used all three and found it close to the fidelity of HO?

[BRAKIE]

I am going N scale on my home layout.I have looked at code 55 and code 83 track.I perfer the 83.I will not be using the tiny flanges--for the simple reason I do not trust them.Now,be warned before you go all out for code 40 or 55 and small flanges you best be able to lay track flawlessly if not you better go with code 83 and the standard flange,plus alot of engines will not operate on C55 or C40....Now before you start knocking N scale remember HO is far from being perfect as it is bragged up to be.I still have HO and am a member of a HO club..The information I gave you comes from researching the N Scale forums,yahoo groups and so forth..BTW I was in N Scale in the 80s and can tell you it has come along way over the years.

[Anonymous]

N scale is what I model in. HO or S is my preference. However, for what I want, N was able to deliver; I can have the empire I want versus's a smaller HO layout.

I personally don't like N scale by itself on bare plywood. To me, it looks kind of pathetic. But, when you get a layout that looks good, N scale fits right in. To my taste, N needs a more completed layout to look good. The best modular unit I saw at our Vancouver NMRA train show was in N scale; then I didn't notice the scale at all.

With Kato, Atlas, and the newer Life Like, and believe it or not, Bachmann's latest offer in the Consolidation steam, engines are runnig very well. Steam is about to take some leaps and bounds in the next year, in N scale.

Some use Z scale couplers on their trains, but why bother. You would be better served to make the layout look great (scenery and structures) and worry less about the couplers.

What code you use is a matter of debate, loyalties, preferences, and patience. If Atlas code 55 were made the same as Peco 55, I would use that; but it isn't. So my preference is Peco 55; once it is ballasted and painted, it looks pretty much bang on. With Peco 55 you can run anything. Peco 55 and 80 turnouts are excellent.

I like N scale because I find it forces me to pay more attention to layout construction, design, scenery and structures; in terms of an agenda to get most of it done, so my N scale trains will look good.

N scale is primarily a diesel scale - I know many run steam. But if you go completely contemporary, with SD90's etc, and long cars in the consist, the size begins to approach HO. In fact, if you go contemporary, I think N scale appears more appropriate and HO begins to look like G scale.

[snowey]

I recently switched over to N scale, after being in HO for a few years, and I like it A LOT better! Even in the time I've been in it (3 years), it's come a long way. For a while, they're weren't many offerings in steam locos, but now that's improved tremendously. In fact, not only steam, but also track, rolling stock, everything! In fact, I like it BETTER than HO.

[Anonymous]

I model in both N and HO scales. I like HO for steam and switching. I like N for long prototype trains and the ability to have an "Empire" in a small place. I disagree about the couplers and wheel flanges. As we say in aviation, "no one can tell the difference from 10,000 feet". The couplers and wheels are just not noticed.

[dknelson]

I am a dyed in the wool HO scale guy and will not be switching to N (I find O more tempting) but I operate on N layouts and I believe the scale fidelity is very impressive today. I think one problem is that as the scale gets smaller photographs tend to highlight the necessary compromises more and more -- you see this in HO too compared to O or S. Seen "live" the current generation of N is very impressive indeed -- and we all benefit as the manufacturers make things like smaller grab irons and lettering to suit the N market, the same advances help the other scales
Dave Nelson

[raysaron]

Since model railroading is an operating hobby, it seems to me that function comes first and any compromises in appearance are secondary. I am happy with painted Atlas code 80 (or is it 70?) track and MT cookie-cutter wheels. I've painted the frames on my MT freight trucks--because I couldn't see them under the car. On the rails, who can see the flange size. Relax. Have fun. Its a hobby.

Ray

[Anonymous]

You all are probably right. At that size my complaints disappear. I like the idea of an 'Empire' with N and my interest started with watching long trains from top of a 8-story building. But as a 12 year railroader with NS, I want to model more detail in trains and track structures. So I guess I'll stay with HO. I could place a N scale train on the layout backgroud.

[BRAKIE]

Check out those C&O units on the Atlas N Scale forum. You be the judge.

[dknelson]

If you see photos of the Reid Brothers layout -- no question but that N is scale! Also Bernard Kempinski's stuff in MR and GRR and MRP. That is superior work. I forget the name of the Milwaukee Road modeler who does some Chicago switching scenes but again, that is totally scale modeling as good as any in any scale.
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

If you see photos of the Reid Brothers layout -- no question but that N is scale! Also Bernard Kempinski's stuff in MR and GRR and MRP. That is superior work. I forget the name of the Milwaukee Road modeler who does some Chicago switching scenes but again, that is totally scale modeling as good as any in any scale.
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

If you see photos of the Reid Brothers layout -- no question but that N is scale! Also Bernard Kempinski's stuff in MR and GRR and MRP. That is superior work. I forget the name of the Milwaukee Road modeler who does some Chicago switching scenes but again, that is totally scale modeling as good as any in any scale.
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

i am totally wif dave nelson

[Anonymous]

Agree completely with Cascade 1. Many of us don't have the space for larger scales, and N d oes gice me a lot of railroad in a 6 x 12 space. If I had the space I'd mostlikely go with HO simply because I enjoy super detailing locos, both steam and diesel)

[Wdlgln005]

Yes!

Code 55 by Atlas is a good alternative to Code 70. MT makes the best couplers, and conversions are becoming easier. Accumate is getting better.

Diesels by Atlas, Kato & Lifelike with modern split frame run great. New FT's by MT & Intermountain a great addition to the hobby. New Consols by Bachmann & MDC make steam viable. Check out new freight cars by IM, Red Caboose & Bowser to go with the Atlas, MT & MDC fleets. Passenger cars by Kato & CC budds.

Now we need a new supplier of structures & kits. Wake up Walthers! Please don't just dust off the old European molds. How about doing more of the industry groups in N scale! That's all we need to produce some great model railroads!
Have fun Nscaling!

[MAbruce]

Most people I hear that switch to N from HO tend to be initially nervous, but once they are modeling in N, they like it better. In fact, I usually hear them say something like "I don't know what took me so long..."

Over the years, N-scale has received a good deal negative spin in the HO world. While most of their concerns were probably true 20 years ago, much has happened since then. Quality and selection have taken huge leaps forward. Yes, there are still some areas of sparse offerings, but overall, N-scale has come of age (Just look at all the new products over the past two years alone!). In fact, I will be bold and say that think it will eventually overtake HO in popularity. Space limitations have always been HO's biggest bugaboo, and N-scale solves that. MRR’s are finding out N-scales secret: You can do much more with N in a 4x8 area than HO.

[Sperandeo]

Last weekend I had the pleasure of operating Joe Kasper's N scale BN layout in Olathe, Kansas. I'm not sure what size rail Joe uses, but his handlaid turnouts certainly look very good. His layout operates with CTC signaling, and the signals by Sunrise Enterprises are dead scale and extremely realistic.

Joe runs long trains with 1980s-era equipment and multiple-unit diesels, and I didn't see a derailment attributable to the track or equipment all day (whatever the scale, people still make mistakes). Joe's Murray Yard is a large operation with a yardmaster and three switch engine crews – it's big enough and busy enough to need all that manpower – and the guys who ran it really enjoyed it.

After a couple of hours in the dispatcher's seat, I took a local industrial switching job, so I got to enjoy Joe's railroad up close. It's really impressive to see industrial buildings that dwarf the cars you spot next to them – they look like they can really use rail service. Only parts of Joe's railroad are scenicked so far, but where it is it's very attractive and convincing.

I've operated with Joe before, and the experience hasn't caused me to switch to N scale. But if the question is can you build a realistic and smooth-running model railroad in N scale, my answer is a great big YES.

So long,

Andy

[DavidH]

To answer the original question more specifically, my advice is to forget the use of code 40 track. Code 55 will give you good scale appearance and is much easier to work with. Code 55 is NOT that hard to install and maintain, contrary to some peoples' views and low profile wheels are readily available and operate very reliably. MT couplers are excellent both for appearance and operation and Accumates are good appearing and usually reliable.

For the sake of sheer train watching pleasure, I will occasionally run 30 car or better trains using all of these things and I have no reliability problems to speak of. If problems occur, it is usually operator error.

The biggest problem with N, for me, is, as I have aged, eyesight has become an issue, which has to be overcome with higher levels of lighting.

Each of the scales has its own attributes and, after 39 years in the hobby, I am quite certain I could be happy in any of them. Although I have been in N since 1969, I am a model railroader first and an N scaler second.

What N can give you is more in less space or a great deal more in the same space, when compared to HO. It is not, primarily a scratchbuilder's scale, and the range of associated (non-rolling stock) accessories is much smaller than in HO. It is, however, a train watcher's delight.

I f you are just worried about scale appearance or operating reliability, don't be!

David

[Anonymous]

Every time this question or something similar pops up, somebody invariably cites the Reid Brothers. Yes, their layout is beautiful. But, honestly, how many modelers out there can duplicate it in N scale? N scale has made great strides, but as I see it, big drawbacks must be overcome before you can truly call it "scale." Here they are:

Wheel flanges. Way oversized. Sure, you can get smaller sizes but how many modelers have converted?

Rail height. Like flanges, you can use code 55 rail, but most modelers don't.

Handrails. Thick.

Couplers. Even Kadees are oversized. They are in HO, as well (except the #58's), but they still look better in HO.

Talgo trucks. No need for comment.

Detail. Molded on or missing altogether. To my eye, at least, detail does not disappear or become irrelevant just because the scale is smaller.

If you don't want to believe any of the above, just take a look at the photo section of MR. In an instant, you can tell which models are N, which are HO or larger.

Now, before all the flames begin, someone asked a question. I responded with an honest opinion.

John

[DavidH]

John, most of what you said is merely a matter of opinion based on your own approach to the hobby. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. In answer to two of your points though, to do with code 55 and low profile wheels, the answers are "lots" and "most serious modelers now in construction phases".

Generally speaking, if you are building to Proto:87 standards, N scale is not going to appear adequate to you. For most of us, though, appearance and operation for all normal purposes in N can equal HO. We each need to make our own choices.

David

[Anonymous]

I think it pretty much boils down to whether you want to model a train or a railroad.

[Anonymous]

Just as "scale" and "compromised" as other scales.
You can detail to the maximum and build a tiny slice of a railroad in Oscale.
You can detail a whole lot and build a reasonable branch line in HO scale.
You can detail as much as your skills allow and build an empire in Nscale.
Choices, Choices, Choices

[Anonymous]

So the couplers and wheel flanges are too large. Jeez! Get over it. Lets make the flanges smaller and have lots of derailing. Let's make the couplers to scale and watch them leave cars behind or break. If you want lots of realism use O gauge. I am willing to accept the compromises in N scale and I don't count the number or rivets moulded on my engine. Some of you guys must have too much time on your hands.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DavidH

John, most of what you said is merely a matter of opinion based on your own approach to the hobby. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. In answer to two of your points though, to do with code 55 and low profile wheels, the answers are "lots" and "most serious modelers now in construction phases".

Generally speaking, if you are building to Proto:87 standards, N scale is not going to appear adequate to you. For most of us, though, appearance and operation for all normal purposes in N can equal HO. We each need to make our own choices.

David

Bringing Proto:87 standards into this really goes beyond the scope of the original question. Whom I have in mind is the average model railroader with an average skill level, working within a typical budget.

If "scale" means a miniature reproduction that is reasonably close to the prototype, then HO will always be far closer to scale to start with than N.

John

[bluepuma]

Close enough, the handrails are a bit thick, the MT couplers, Kato couplers, Accumate are good, not too small, kill the issues with the Rapido size. Small N scale locos are
way too lightweight, and the steam locos 4-6-2 are light. However, a big collection fits into small space, I get to have passenger trains and 20 car trains in a small bedroom. If I had all the space in the world, I'd still want N scale size, then I'd have more of a shot at making scale distances where the RR could be scale miles rather than 1/4 or 1/8th of a mile. I get a scale 3/4 mile now, it would suck to have that cut by half, then have to run short trains, locos, no passenger cars. Not sure if I'd even bother to make a layout if there was HO but no Nine mm rail.

[Anonymous]

A few personal observations.
n gauge enables a lot of railroad in a small space.
a scale mile in n gauge is only approx 32 ft. ho is 64 ft!
even if you have plenty of space,it gives n gauge an edge when more realistic distances provide a better perspective.
modern locos from companies such as kato and atlas are now very reliable.
better support from makers of structures for n gauge, might well boost the market share to a level that might surprise them.
this model railroading is meant to be fun, and individual approaches to it can and do vary widely.

[DavidH]

"If "scale" means a miniature reproduction that is reasonably close to the prototype, then HO will always be far closer to scale to start with than N."

John, it is interesting the way you put that, because it highlights a functional difference between the scales. If you are a model builder, it will always be easier to have a higher level of detail with larger sizes. If you are trying to reproduce the world in miniature, compromises will be much reduced with smaller scales.

In the end, it is all about what is important to us, what material is available, what space we have, and so on.

David

[Anonymous]

I model a railroad, one that serves to move freight and persons from one place to another. N-scale gives me the opportunity to actually model "places", rather than just "scenery". Obviously, if given an unlimited amount of space, a larger scale will offer greater fidelity. But I consider the miniaturization of the journey to be of paramount importance, which means I must be able to go to genuinely different places as I follow my train. It's all about context; the most fragile, delicate, intricately perfect model does nothing to transport me when it is forced into an implausibly compressed scene.

I've been in N-scale for nearly 20 years, and good lord has it grown up in that time. I'm not quite detail-obsessed enough to speak from experience, but I do know that there are options for those that want scale wheels and couplers, etc. I encourage you to consider not the small details when thinking of scale, but rather the big picture... make the mountain impassable enough to deserve its tunnel, make the industry large enough to be inefficiently served by anything other than rail, make your stations sit more than a train length apart, make your forests tall and proud, and you'll start seeing what we mean when we say N-"SCALE".

[Anonymous]

I changed to N scale from HO because of room size. I like the idea of long trains and distant vistas. I cant get these in a larger scale and though I am getting older and my eyesight is deteriorating I'll stay in N scale.

Ian

[GDRMCo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dknelson

If you see photos of the Reid Brothers layout -- no question but that N is scale! Also Bernard Kempinski's stuff in MR and GRR and MRP. That is superior work. I forget the name of the Milwaukee Road modeler who does some Chicago switching scenes but again, that is totally scale modeling as good as any in any scale.
Dave Nelson

Do you mean Dan Lewis because he models the Milwaukee.