I am in the process, as some people know, of planning a layout. I was wondering a few things about the differences between HO-N scales. I would like to go with HO (about 150 dollars of good equipment), but I would like to check out N before I throw the idea out the window. I geuss I am looking for things like cost, availibility, which is easier to work with ect.
Thanks,
Morgan
PS-I would like to model CN and a bit of CP, is there much availible for CN in N scale, I don’t see much for N.
As for cost, you’ll find prices are very similar for HO and N scale equipment. Smaller does not mean less expensive!
As for availability, as you’ve already seen, there is far more stuff in HO than N scale.
I prefer HO, especially now that I don’t see as well as I used to. That N scale stuff gets smaller everyday! [8D]
Rotor
Morgan,
For starters, HO is 87.1:1 scale, N, 160:1. The plus to N is, since it is smaller (almost 1/2 the size of HO), you can get almost twice as much action in the same amount of space. The minis is, working (e.g. llubing and fixing locos, attaching couplers, putting together kits, etc.) is going to be more of a challenging because things are tinier.
Depending on your comfort and hand skills, the size of N alone may eventually deter you from pursuing it further. Alos, there is definitely more in the way of steam in HO than there is in N.
Only a few things to ponder…
Tom
HO is good if you like bigger, but in a small space.
N is good if you like a lot of scenery, and in a small space.
I don’t know specifically about CP & CN, but I do know that N is very popular. I’m in N and I find that the selection of equipment in N is close, but not quite, that of HO, particularly if you want diesel. Rolling stock selection is good also.
I do know that N modelers have been asking for CP & CN alot lately, and the companies are listening as I’ve seen more products come out in these schemes that I have in the past.
The biggest advantage of N is the trains to scenery ratio. If you keep the track plan fairily simple the scenery looks huge. If you want to model a big yard it will look gigantic compared to HO. Just remember that this illusion is enhanced as you move the tabletop closer to eye level. This is even more noticable in N than in HO. Gets rid of that “bird in the sky” view, ya know?
Probably the two biggest drawbacks to N are size and oversize flanges on older equipment. The size can be an issue as eyes grow older. The flanges are mostly an issue on the older equipment, although there is some more recent items that this is a problem on. It’s not really an issue if you are using the code 80 or even the Micro Engineering code 70, pretty much everything works on these. You have to be more careful if you use some of the code 55 stuff. The flanges can hit the ties or spikeheads. Small flange equipment works well here.
I model N for the trains to scenery ratio. I model the mountains and coasts of Maine and so my mountains can look quite realistic compared to the trains in proportion and I don’t have to do a ton of selective compression (which can be hard to pull off convincingly).
Really, you can’t lose either way. HO has a bit more stuff. N has a better scenery ratio. The cost is roughly the same. Either way, you win!
Hey, these guys posted while I was typing…no fair!!! Now I sound like a parrot!
I guess it just shows that we are all in agreement on the essentials!
I’m an HO modeler and will likely remain so.
I do, however, appreciate the benefits that N scale offers. Especially when it comes to running lonnnng trains and creating large scenery areas. Modelers with a nicely sized basement layout, like a 25’ x 10’ can run 40 car intermodal trains pulled by 5 locomotives without breaking a sweat!
The detailing and overall quality of N scale locomotives and rolling stock has greatly improved over the last 15 years. I may be mistaken, but Kato seems to have taken the lead in the variety and production of quality N scale engines.
Cheers.
I’ve just made the switch from HO to N scale (the second time I’ve done this now). For me, its a space issue. I like to run trains and N scale just offers a better opportunity for railroading in a small space. There is definitely more stuff for HO, but N has a lot of things for it as well, plus companies like Kato and Micro Structures actually have things in N scale that they don’t in HO.
I happen to model both CN and CP among others, and I’ve found there isn’t as much as I’d like, but there definitely is enough to keep me happy. Kato seems to do the best in getting CP engines and Atlas does well with both CN and CP. Atlas also makes a lot of CN/CP rolling stock to complement. But the best place to get stuff is here:
http://www.pacific-western-rail.com
They’ve got a great selection of CP and CN stuff for N scale.
changed to N scale because of space limits. Much more difficult for failing eye sight.
A Magnifier on the work bench solves the problem. So far am really happy with the switch.
I’ve always been an N scaler, but have began to notice recently that my eye’s aren’t what they use to be, so I may end up having to sell all of my N scale stuff for HO. The only problem with that is I really don’t have the room for a layout any bigger than 4 X 8, and that just doesn’t seem big enough… Oh well. Time will tell.
Good luck on what ever you decide.
Tracklayer
Only you can decide what’s best for you, based on the space you have available, your hobby budget, your particular interests in model railroading, and the like.
Naturally, the HO modelers will tell you HO is best, and the N scalers will advise you to consider N–that’s entirely logical because those are the scales they have chosen for themselves. The truth is that each scale–including all the others available–has its own set of advantages and limitations, and the bottom line is that none are any “better” than the others, nor any “worse.”
But since you noted that you “would like to go with HO,” it seems that you’re already leaning in that direction. Might as well start out with what your gut feeling tells you, and see how it goes. $150 won’t buy you a whole lot in either scale, as far as a complete layout is concerned and once you figure in extra track, switches, scenery materials, accessories, and the like, so you’ll not be out a lot of money in either case if you change your mind later on.
Smaller scales allow longer trains and a higher scenery to track ratio or more track in a given space. Larger scales are easier to work with, to see, and have more of a presence when you watch them go by. All of the popular scales Z, N, HO, S, O, and G have enough stuff to support you. However, if you want to models of a specific line, you should check availability - HO usually wins here, but not always.
Enjoy
Paul
Here is another possible consideration: It is possible to have an HO locomotive pull a prototypically long train, even without traction tires. HO rolling stock rolls easy enough and most HO lomotives have the necessary heft. Not so with N-scale. N-scale rolling stock will require a much steeper incline before the cars start to roll downhill on their own. This is because it is not possible to proportionately reduce the minute surface imperfections that create friction when you reduce scales. Consequently, you will need more locomotives to pull agiven number of cars in N-scale then would be required for the same number of cars in HO scale.
I am a retiree and model in N scale for many many years. Yes, I agree they are small but it isn’t that bad. I would not go over what the pros and cons of N vs HO but just to say that N scale has progressed tremendously.
Engines made by Kato and Atlas run very well, coupling by MicroTrains is just as good as Kadee. Tracks by Peco or Micro Engineering come in code 55 and they look good. As for accessories they are aplenty.
You have to decide what you like to model and how much space available. Both scales are good and I decided on N solely because of space constraints.
Happy modeling.
Cliff
http://cliffordconceicao3310.fotopic.net/c328807.html
Your decision may also be influenced by the style of operation you want to have
Some have mentionned longer trains as a Nscale benefit, but I would add that beside longer consists, you may also have more opportunity for switching in the same amount of space with Nscale.
For instance I have 12’ X 2’ of layout room available
In such space, I can model in Nscale a small town depot with a decent siding (25 to 35 X 40’ cars), a few industries along a house track, a foreign road crossing and interchange track, plus one end ladder of a small (4 tracks) yard, a highway overpass hiding the end of the modelled area.
With the same amount of space and HO equipment, I would rather model a country stub terminal, which would be also fine, but would lend to much slower pace ops, and emphasize on details, scenery,etc…
marc
it just depends how much space you have, and how much you will have in the future. What scale are your friends modeling? Sometimes it’s nice to run your great engine on someone elses scenery just for the fun. Plus have you looked into the canadian version of N-trak, or is that out of date now? They had some great stuff going. You could always have a small n-scale n-trak and a ho layout at home[:P][:P][:P][:P][:P][:P] Good choice though, modeling something within the country. I model CP in N, and in Australia, I have to all of my wagons myself, it just ain’t as big here as there. Dannydd
I am an Nscaler. While this has already been touched upon, one thing I really envy the HO guys for is the fact that the larger scale steam engines can pull more cars per engine. This is especially apparent with engines like my Life Like Berkshire. I don’t mind the deisel thing that much. I love running two and three deisels together. N scale steam has some real disadvantages compared to its bigger HO scale brothers. That is the one thing I have envied the HO guys for: steam. It has gotten much better in Nscale than it used to be.
Well, I’m a believer in HO scale for the average modeler. Our hobby is a visual one. HO trains are large enough to be pleasing to the eye, yet small enough to get some decent trackage in a reasonable space. For those with severe space limits, N makes more sense.
One topic not yet covered is passenger operation. If you like modern 85 foot cars and +10 car trains, N scale is the way to go. For example, the new Kato Zephyr would require about 6.5 feet of station track to fit the entire consist in N scale. You would need at least 13 feet to model it in HO. HO, especially brass, offers a great selection of prototype equipment but N really gives you that great feeling of seeing a long string of sleek trains gliding along the rails.
Another point to consider is storage space. I modeled in HO for years until my step-father passed away and I had to fit all of our collection into my house. It was awesome in his house but overwhelming in mine. The box for a 40 foot box car consumes about 5 cubic inches in N compared to around 16 cubic inches in HO.
I have personally opted to switch to N scale because of the N-Trak option. As I see it, I can create a few select scenes that can be stored in a small space then set up to join in with a group to create a huge layout. The major disadvantage I have found to this however is that operation will be limited to the groups schedule unless I create some “private” units to be kept at home to connect the ends of my modules. Also, I now need to schedule some non-modeling time to participate in the clubs business meetings.
Just some food for thought…