Is N scale finally 'scale'?

[DavidH]

I rather believe that it would be Bill Denton's fantastic switching layout that is being referred to . . .

David

[Gunneral]

For disbelievers, have a close look at David Haines N scale Raton Pass layout and say which scale it is!

[Anonymous]

INDEED TODAYS TRAINS HAVE REACHED A LEVEL OF PURFFECTION NEVER BEFORE IMAGINED.THEREFORE YES THEY ARE IN VOGUE.

[raysaron]

N never was 'scale'. Since it originated in Europe, it has a metric
basis: "N" = (Nine) 9mm gauge or N gauge. The scale of N gauge
is 1/160.

HO is 1/87 scale.

[AggroJones]

I would be in the N scale, especially now with all the plastic steam. But I have so, so much HO stuff.

[DavidH]

Raysaron, what in the world are you refering to?? Metric has nothing to do with whether or not N is "scale". The standard track gauge of 56 1/2 inches divided by 160 = 8.97 millimeters. It is about the width of a human hair underscale. If that isn't a scale reproduction, I don't know what is.

David

[bcammack]

One of the reasons I gravitated to N scale was simply that all of the N scale layouts I saw had a greater feeling of fidelity to them than comparable HO scale layouts.

Someone said something similar, but to cast it into a different light, the small stuff that you'd have to model in HO because it was big enough to notice in it's absence simply diminishes to visual imperceptibility in N. Because of this, an N scale layout, scenic'd and detailed to the level of the average modeller's ability will seem to have greater fidelity because the things that are missing would be too small to notice anyway.

I guess it's an artistic-license sort of thing. For example, I ended up using HO scale ballast for my layout because the N scale stuff was so fine it just didn't look like gravel ballast to me. Scale-wise, the stuff is probably the size of melons, but it by-golly looks like gravel ballast to me! :)

[Anonymous]

I am just starting out in model train and decided to go to the N gauge for the space issue.....I feel like I can get more in less space and as I am going for the 1860's look in a coal mining setting with a sparce amount of buildings and a lot of mountain scene, it should be easier to build the layout. any comment would be of a great value.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by archie2

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?

All of them can.

There's nothing magical about the Reid brothers' work. Just time and effort. And on well-done models it does take a second to discern the scale.

[Anonymous]

I always thought it would be nice to use N scale in a high mountain area of a layout for forced perspective.

Any Opinions on this?

[Anonymous]

I have had layouts in N and HO. My first layout was N, a 8x8 L shaped affair 4' off the ground. My wife was not "with the program" until she saw, and was able to run trains over the line. That was 1974. I dabbled in HO on and off since then , but have returned to N with my current layout (I own up - I bought it moved it - and was in the process of modifying parts of it when the inevitable move hit.)

Plans are in hand (Thanks to 3rdPlanit) to create sections of layout to overly the current baseboards. These will be built at Wallace Rockhole and moved to Gawler when I return home on holidays (Hey come on, that's only 1700 kilometres)

I love the look of trains in landscape - hence N. I also love to operate trains - to givev them real work, shunting, sorting and so on - for that I still prefer HO, but it CAN be done in N too.

David S

[Bikerdad]

QUOTE: 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

Not so. The locomotives, rolling stock, people, animals and land vehicles will be closer to scale. Buildings, industries, rivers, mountains, bridges, canyons, etc will be closer to scale with N-Scale. How many HO layouts can afford the space for a proto 640' bridge? It is a common thing out there in the real world. How many can put a 300' tall bridge, or a 35 story building?

Hyperion said it best, but I'll expand on it: if you want to model TRAINS, then HO is a good balanced scale. If you want to model LOCOMOTIVES and ROLLING STOCK, then O or S is better. If you want to model RAILROADS, then N is superior.

One last point about the flanges, rail size, etc. The concerns about high flange wheels are essentially a moot point IF you are starting out in N. Just as in the DC vs. DCC argument, as someone entering into the scale/hobby, there isn't much need to concern yourself with BACKWARD compatibility issues, cause you don't have any old equipment!

[Anonymous]

Hmm, I've been thinking about N scale. I've got room for a 5x8 layout. I'd be an o.k. size HO layout, but with N, it'd be and empire! Especially since I saw that N Big Boy. The problem is, it all seems so small. And, is it more expensive than HO?

[Anonymous]

My only gripe with N scale is the lack of diesels (hey, I'm only 25, and steam was long gone when I was a kid). I model the NS, and I am in the process of planning a proto-freelanced layout based on the St. Louis District of the Kentucky Div. I used to be in HO, not very big, since being in the military puts a damper on large layouts, and the thing that switched me over to N was the 2001 NMRA convention. I saw many beautiful N scale modular layouts (my favorite being one from Oklahoma). That, and speaking with the Woodland Scenics reps there who had the N scale Scenic Ridge project layout on display. I was hooked after that.

I handlay all of my track with code 40 rail, and right now am working to change out all of my wheelsets to low profile, and also changing the couplers to Z scale. But, that is strictly a matter of preference, and unless you are a glutton for punishment like I am (and crazy as well according to my wife), I wouldnt recommend it. If you do want to handlay, I recommend (and this is regardless of scale) looking into Tim Warris's Fasttracks Turnout jigs.

Other than the lack of diesels, there really isnt much to gripe about. All of the diesels I have bought from Atlas and Kato are truly top notch! I would compare them to HO as far as quality, as they are both really becoming the same. Also, now that DCC is more out in the open, manufacturers are making it easier to convert. But, its up to you, I like having an empire in a small space, and I like detailing things. Go with what makes the hobby great for you.

Matt

[Marc_Magnus]

Yes I think it is, sorry for my english I am Belgian but a veteran of Nscale.
About the subject of track, of course code 55 is for me the best looking track.
Using on my american empire the Peco code 55 since it exist I am able to run any kind of equipement, from the old Rivarossi/Atlas models to the awarding today steam loco without no problems.
Recently I buy some lengths of Peco 55 track and see that the look of the track is better than the older one, Peco had made now finest ties and I hope they do the same with all the turnouts
I hope too that a day they will change the big "trowbar" wich is certainly not graceful; I cut mine often to make them smaller but is not easy.
Micro engenering code 55 is certainly finer, but not so strong than the Peco and there is no many turnouts avaible and the compatibility with Peco need transition rails.
So I think if you are begining a new N scale layout do it with code 55.
It need to work precisely, but good running track is so important anyway with all the codes.

[Catt]

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

This says it all.[:D]

[Anonymous]

I had HO trains as a teenager (I'm now in my 40s).
I've been in N since the mid 1980s. My first layout was done with the
standard code 80 rail (Peco turnouts) because that's all there was.
I've razed that layout, and about 10 months ago began building an all-new
one using Micro Engineering code 55.
My advice is this:
The code 55 didn't seem at all that hard for me to put down. If you've never worked in N-Scale before, I bet it will be tricky for you at first, because HO code 83 is gargantuan by comparison. But the rail height and width, and tie spacing etc, look so much better than code 80 that I would never use 80 again.
So far, everything I have runs perfectly on it. Long steam engines pulling strings of passenger cars will BACK AROUND 180-degree turns, through a turnout, without a hitch.

The keys here are:
1) gauge - Making sure that EVERY wheelset on EVERY engine and car is in gauge is a MUST. I just use the standard NMRA N-Scale gauge and check everything I buy. If you don't do this, you'll have derailments at turnouts for sure.

2) Broad curves. My first layout had a minimum radius of 12". Now, everything is 18" or broader. This makes a HUGE difference. Sure, trains might "negotiate" those tighter turns, but they cause more derailments, and aggravate slight discrepancies in the trackwork.

If you're worried about scale "looks", stick with the higher-quality stuff. The better rolling stock (Microtrains, and a few others)., better engines (Kato of course, but also the newer LifeLike and Bachmann Spectrum N-Scale stuff is really nice. Concor/Rivarossi is medium-quality, but some of these are really nice too, although it's hit-or-miss). Both Kato and Concor make nice N-Scale passenger cars, but I'd still have to give the nod to Kato here.

Couplers: Microtrains (Kadee). Hands down. There are some other similar ones, but I still don't think they are as good yet. If you really want to be in "scale", you can put Z-Scale couplers on all your N-Scale equipment. It looks terrific, if you've got the patience for it. (I know HO modelers who use N-Scale couplers for the same reason).

I looked the Atlas code 55. But since nearly everything in N-Scale has flanges too deep to run on it, I had to rule it out. I wouldn't mind putting the low profile wheelsets on all my rolling stock. But what about steam locomotive drivers? There are lots of engines that you just can't fix for the Atlas code 55 unless you are willing to machine down the flanges. Besides, frankly, the ME track looks better.

I also highly recommend using the Woodland Scenics foam roadbed and foam glue. This stuff costs more than using cork, but it is FABULOUS. It's quieter, goes down easier, and flat-out looks better.

I've never tried to go all the way down to code 40. But for sure, you would need to change out all your wheelsets to low-profile ones (nice ones are made by Northwest Shortline, and Microtrains). And even though I like tiny trains, I think even I would find code 40 just a little too fine to mess with.

I would strongly advise you to buy a few lengths of code 55, 40, and 80, and even a few turnouts. Look at them. Hook a few pieces together and run an engine on them. That's what I did. That's why I decided that hands-down, Micro Engineering code 55 was the way to go for me.

Cheers, and good luck!

[Anonymous]

I've been out of the hobby for many years, and have been hoping for 8 or 9 months to get back into it.

I did primarily HO as a kid, and a little N. I preferred HO.

With adult life being much different than Kid life, I cannot imagine myself making anything but the smallest layout. I want to enjoy it, but not have it be a huge committment. I also don't want to take up tons of space with it. Although my wife and I have the space, I simply do not want this hobby to get out of control.

This leaves me with two choices: an HO switching layout without continuous running, or an N scale layout with continuours running. N scale seems more tempting all the time.

I'll see these cool HO passenger cars at hobby shops, etc., and I seriously cannot imagine ever having a layout big enough in my life to run that stuff.

And I love all the modern engines. But running them in HO is going to be difficult.

I've also been considering doing some HO traction modelling.

It may end up coming down to this for me: a small shelf N-scale layout, where the back portion of a loop is hidden (i.e. - the trains only pass through the scene once), and a small HO switching layout or Traction layout on top of it (like the way the super hard core guys have double decker layouts, but I'd just have a double decker shelf).

This way I could make a bunch of cool buildings & stuff in HO, but then also run trains on the N scale layout.

Hmmmmm....

As with any hobby I get involved in, as I get older, I'm starting to realize I don't have to go to extremes. These home-filler layouts in the magazines are super cool and inspiring, but they're just not realistic for me. As a kid, I always figured I'd want those, but now that seems crazy, unless I could retire at age 35!

[Anonymous]

Oh, and if you want some N scale code 40 inspiration, check out the San Diego club's website:

http://sdsons.org/

these guys are good.

[Anonymous]

I'm intrigued by the idea of using Z-scale couplers on N-scale models. I'm pretty new, though, so I'm not sure what the steps of the conversion process would entail... Also, what are the advantages (other than more prototypical appearance) and disadvantages of using Z couplers?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfvonb

I'm intrigued by the idea of using Z-scale couplers on N-scale models. I'm pretty new, though, so I'm not sure what the steps of the conversion process would entail...

It's not quite a bolt-on affair, and it takes a little time, but it's not too bad.

For example, for current Atlas and Life-Like engines that you can quickly install a 1015 N-scale coupler in, I build up the coupler "pocket" with .020" and .010" styrene strips. The "pocket" then snugly fits the 905 NN3/Z scale coupler. I then drill a clearance hole in the bottom of the pocket, and drill and tap a hole in the top of the pocket, and mount the coupler with a brass 00-90 screw. This screw is located in the same location that it is for mounting a 1015 coupler. This method centers the coupler heightwise in the middle of the N couplers.

Another example is an Intermountain or MT box car. These cars already have a location for body mounting an N-scale coupler, but it doesn't quite work for the NN3/Z scale couplers. I add a .020" x .125" strip shim to get the coupler to the desired height. The existing mounting hole is too far back for the NN3/Z scale coupler, so I drill a new one so that the NN3/Z coupler mounts at the edge of the box car, which gives a coupler spacing for these cars that is very close to what it is with truck or body mounted N scale couplers, which I think looks correct.

I just tried body mounting a NN3/Z coupler on an Atlas PS2 covered hopper, again using .020" strip styrene shim the coupler to the proper height. This time, I used the normal mounting hole location (on the bottom of the car, there is an indentation where one is to drill), and the cars couple closer than with truck mounted couplers (which I think are too far apart). I still have to find a way to do this so that a screw doesn't stick up in the frame, but I think I've found a way.

One could also replace the N coupler box on truck mounted couplers with Z-scale couplers, but I haven't tried that yet, personally.

QUOTE: Also, what are the advantages (other than more prototypical appearance) and disadvantages of using Z couplers?

The thing is, other than one or two kits that convert Marklin equipment to MT couplers, there is only ONE NN3/Z scale coupler available (either 903 kits, or 905 assembled). So you have to find a way to use that coupler. The problem with that is that I haven't found a method of installing one in a locomotive with a snow-plow, or any other situation where a longer shank is required.

Otherwise, the NN3/Z couplers work well with MT couplers, Accumate, and Kato couplers. The magnetic delayed uncoupling even works well between MT N and Z couplers. The Z couplers in their boxes work pretty smoothly, even better than the cramped 1015 couplers. But at the same time, the Z coupler box is longer than the 1015 couplers, so on some locomotives, you have to remove at least one of the Z couplers to get the shell off of the chassis (while you don't have to do so with 1015 couplers). The Z couplers already come with a thinner, blackened "air hose" wire, that looks a little better.

In some cases, where needed, Z couplers allow a closer, more prototypical coupling distance.

Another disadvantage might be that the NN3/Z couplers aren't as strong as the N scale couplers. I have pulled 15 heavy cars up steep grades with one of my Z-scale coupler equipped engines without issue, but that's still not close to what others might put a coupler through. I've also run one of those Z coupler equipped engines with another engine that isn't too closely matched (one engine runs faster than the other), which puts some stress on those couplers as the engines "tug" at each other, and I didn't have any issues with that either. So for me, it works, but someone else might find a problem down the line.

---jps

[Anonymous]

thanx, jschuknecht, for addressing a coupler question that's been on my mind. I'm debating whether to go ahead with an N scale switching industrial layout on a long shelf. I like the idea of Z scale couplers, but i don't have your engineering skills. Somewhere in this wide world, there must be an easily adaptable coupler pocket, ready made or close to it, to accompli***he same thing, in less time. What about a homemade template or jig, where these babies can be knocked out en masse, and simply glued to the rolling stock? If such a beast existed, i wouldn't mind a little carving on the car itself, but attacking the inner workings of the pocket itself scares me. And can these Z couplers take the linear back and forth movements of a shunting layout without causing a high number of derailents? To add fuel to the fire, i like sharp radius's, and most of my trucks are still Talgo, for that very reason...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by choocher

...I like the idea of Z scale couplers, but i don't have your engineering skills. Somewhere in this wide world, there must be an easily adaptable coupler pocket, ready made or close to it, to accompli***he same thing, in less time. What about a homemade template or jig, where these babies can be knocked out en masse, and simply glued to the rolling stock? If such a beast existed, i wouldn't mind a little carving on the car itself, but attacking the inner workings of the pocket itself scares me...

It's not really all that involved, and the skills for this can be picked up quickly.

For the Atlas locomotives, it's simply a matter of cutting four strips of styrene to the right length (for each pocket), gluing them in place, then drilling and tapping, and any touch-up paint needed.

For each body-mounted coupler on the cars that I have worked on so far, it's simply a matter of cutting one strip of styrene to the correct length, gluing it into place, then drilling and tapping, and any touch-up paint needed.

For a talgo truck like an Intermountain, MT, or similar, it should simply be a matter of dismantling the coupler box on an existing talgo truck, leaving the bottom piece that is connected to the truck, sanding that piece to the correct height, drilling and tapping, and mounting the Z coupler on top. Depending on which truck you are working with, you might have to shave off some parts of the coupler box to get a flat surface.

QUOTE: ...And can these Z couplers take the linear back and forth movements of a shunting layout without causing a high number of derailents? To add fuel to the fire, i like sharp radius's, and most of my trucks are still Talgo, for that very reason...

Well, the couplers should perform similarly for that (as far as I can tell so far). And when you are talking about shunting cars back and forth, talgo trucks are much more susceptible to derailments than body-mounted couplers, regardless of how good the coupler is.

---jps

[Anonymous]

I've been looking at the NMRA standards, and I have some questions about Fine:N.

Are Fine:N and N compatible? If not, what would I have to do to run N locomotives (e.g.: my Bachman 2-8-0) on Fine:N track? Other rolling stock?

Is there much in the way of Fine:N products on the market right now?

[Anonymous]

I had HO as a teenager in the 1970s. I started in N in 1985, and
built a room-sized layout with code 80 track, but with all Microtrains
and similar-quality rolling stock. The track was all Peco, which
was the best you could get at the time.

I've ripped that all down, rebuilt a whole new layout, and this time around,
I'm going with all Microengineering code 55 (track and turnouts).

I'm sticking with the good locomotives I had before (Kato, some Atlas and the better Lifelike, plus the new Spectrum N-Scale steam, and lots of home-scratch-built-and-improved steam). Couplers are all Microtrains.

I think it looks at least as good as HO. I think code 40 is overkill, and you'll have a lot of problems with flange height if you go that route. You can get bulk packs of low profile wheels to convert the cars, no problem. And NWSL makes low-profile metal wheelsets to take care of lighted passenger cars.

But the locomotives will be a big pain. Even the best of the best may have some problems on code 40 rail. You'll have this same problem on the new Atlas code 55. But the Microengineering is slightly different, so everything decent will run on it (except things like some old Arnold locos with gigantic flanges).

Honestly, I think the code 55 looks really good.

You might try using Z-Scale Microtrains couplers. I've used them on some N-Scale equipment and they look better, more in scale.

[BRAKIE]

Andy,Know what really got my attention that N Scale is a serious modeling scale? None other then MR's Clinchfield layout..BTW..I had the pleasure of viewing this layout at the Cincinnati NMRA convention back in the early 80s.[:D]

[BRAKIE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by archie2

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:
John

John,Think of this..How many of us can build the AM,V&O,the Sunset Valley Utah Belt,Maumee Route etc in HO? Same difference..[;)]
BTW..I will add my gripe about N Scale..Its the lack of a common usable coupler on freight cars..You see cars come with MTs.MT wanna bes and of course the rapido coupler.Oddly some cars from some manufacturers comes with both.
My biggest complaint about HO is the spaghetti thin hand rails that will break if one sneezes to hard..[:(!][V]

[bikerraypa]

QUOTE: Originally posted by hyperion

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

Well put, indeed. I converted to N and I'm not going back. Granted, it's harder to work with than HO insofar as the tiny details go, but I think it pays off. Switching a fleet to low-profile wheels is easy and relatively cheap, the quality of operation between N and HO models is about the same, MTL body mounts are replacing my old Talgo trucks, and whether your couplers are MTL or a Kadee #58, a trip pin still doesn't look like an air hose.

As hyperion so wisely stated, if the individual train is the focal point of your layout, HO is the way to go. I still have a few HO models for that specific purpose. However, if the railroad itself, to include its industries and topography, is considered with the trains a total package, then N has an edge, particularly for those of us with any kind of space limitation.

Ray

[Boiler-man]

N has and always will be a Scale!

[trainboyH16-44]

I think that this could be a legacy thread, it's been here for 2 years!
I think in the time that this thread has been around, N scale has become even more scale, but it will be some time yet before it is truly 'Scale'. HO is almost at that point, and N is 1/2 of HO, so it WILL take more time to get there, but it will get there eventually.