The number 1 reason people consider to use N scale is because the lack of space. This is why the scale was invented over in Europe, lack of space. This is why it makes up 99% of layouts in Japan, lack of space. To make the argument that if you use the same space for N as you would for HO and not add any extra switches and the like just doesnt happen. When N scalers use the space that they can get HO into, they tend to fill it up.
“Better Scenery”. Lets define that, shall we? Does that mean that N scale scenery has better detail to it (I think not) or that the Train/scenery ratio is better (this is truer).
**
**
Yes, the N scale detail and quality has come a long, long way, but the problem is that HO scale is growing even faster when it comes to detail. There is no way you can compare an N scale Kato SD40-2 with it’s HO counter part, or even compare it to a low end Athearn RTR unit. In HO, etched metal parts is becoming the norm. In N scale, you still have no factory applied grabirons (GMM makes them, but they are still too big) and stove-pipe handrails.
**
[quote]
Zero Sum Gain - A typical quality N scale diesel locomotive can be had for about $85**
Yes, N scale can save space, however, the original poster defined what space he has available, so that isn’t part of the equation here. If he draws up an HO track plan for that space, it will be decidedly more cramped than the exact same geometry installed in N.
Better scenery is very much in the eye of the beholder, but I would argue that whether your looking at a large layout or a small diorama, the scenery:railroad ratio in N scale will always present a more plausible scene. Industrial buildings can be larger, trees can be taller etc. in proportion to the trains. Can you tell if the conductor figure has blue eyes or brown? No. Is the warehouse you spot your boxcar at bigger than the boxcar? Not so easy in a larger scale.
Yes, the factory installed decoders are not top of the line… that’s why I said that for a few dollars more, you can purchase a better decoder and install it yourself…
You’re right, an HO engine can support more details than an N scale model. But FYI, Intermountain is putting factory applied grabs on their F units (and have for a few years) and the new Atlas Master series includes separately applied uncoupling levers and other details. Handrails are also improving as injection molding materials and techniques develop.
What you don’t get in HO on an average size layout is adequate turning radius, reasonable train lengths, and a realistic proportion to scenery.
Among the top brands of locomotives, I don’t think you can identify any major differences in performance. Ntrak displays often feature long runs where N scale locomotives operate for hours on end pulling trains that can number in the hundreds of cars. I would argue that before split frames and wireless pickups this simply was not possible. Perhaps this is a case where the design works better in N than it does in HO… The bottom line is, the evidence supports the idea that it works.
Nowhere in my 07 May 2008 9:48 AM response did I advocate cramming; rather I was saying that if you did decide you wanted to cram it is going to cost you 237.5% more to cram a given space in N-Scale than it would cost you to cram that same space with HO-Scale.
I have narrated several times here on the forum that my reason for switching from HO-Scale to N-Scale had to do with curve radii; my original layout space only allowed for 18" radius curves and my stable of four axle steam locomotives looked like aitch on those hairpin turns. My current design standard calls for minimum radii of 19.5/18 inches but, unless I go to a slightly wider platform, it looks as if there will be one location where I will be forced to use radii of 18/16.5 inches. With that radius of curvature and a platform width of 54 inches my new layout should be pretty breezy!
Because of the necessity/election to move or relocate my layouts the majority of them have seldom - or at least only moderately - gotten into the scenery stage. My new one will be different. I am, as I have also narrated, basically a railfan operator as opposed to a regimen of shoving-cars-into-a-side-track operator although, on occasion, I enjoy doing some of that; I do not labor over pre-printed schedules but rather I UTILIZE HAND SCRIBED RANDOM SWITCHLISTS! There will probably be a couple of locations where my design will require some structures to be crammed into a narrow corridor running parallel to the mainline but that is by design.
I do not anticipate that my layout will cost significantly more than an HO-Scale layout occupying the same general area.
Let me bring up one more point since the gist of this topic deals with scale selection. With adequate space I would happily revert to modeling in Horribly Oversize-Scale if, when all is said and done, because, with the availability of reasonably-priced steam locomotives, it would allow me to m
Hey I am 60 going on 61 and I am into N scale, I agree about trying to put the train back on the track but days no, hours maybe Ha ha. Just kidding, , my space is limited so its N scale. , right now its a 3x6 layout in the early stages, I am using kato unitrack, now that is more money but the ease of use is worth it.
I disagree. The big reason that I see for going into N scale is that you can have longer sidings and trains, more town than just the trackside buildings, more industries in the towns, more towns, etc. If you’re just going to have the same track, buildings, etc you might as well stay in a larger size.
Every scale has its own advantages (and disadvantages) but for me if I were to go into a small scale, it would be to have longer trains, more sidings, more towns, etc. in my available space.
I think in this scenario, you would add structures, to get more complete scenes. And you could add additional industry trackage. By using the some basic plan for the mainline you get to use trains twice as long, that’s the pont! I don’t think more towns is a great idea, I think more space between towns is a better choice.
Like all others, just my opinion, but I think you won’t be sorry you chose HO. I modelled N in the mid 90s and HO several times before and after that, and prefer HO for a compromise between price, detail, railroading in a given space and availability of good products. And as others have noted, my eyes aren’t as young as they used to be! As for your preference for big steam, there are several “big steam” locomotives available in HO that are truly stunning. Good luck!
I heartily agree with the bold print. I don’t have a hard-core preference for HO or N, but as a visitor to many N scale layouts, I’m usually disappointed by the sheer lack of scenery. Yeah, 100-car trains are impressive, but most of the time I’m watching them snake through the great plains. (big yawwwwn)
Even though they are often technically “compressed”, I often find that a well done HO layout is more enjoyable to view and apt to contain scenes that are densely decorated with many interesting details to view. Though there are definitely barren layouts in HO, in my random layout viewing experience, this sparse scenery dilemma seems to be more prevalent in N scale rather than HO.
As far as large spaces are concerned, perhaps the there’s a misconception that N scale gives you more space for long trains, when in all actuality, it’s giving the modeler too MUCH space for trains that may never adequately be accompanied by scenery and structures without costing you an arm and a leg to complete. Maybe HO would be better after all…
Ya i know there are alot of big steamers in HO scale, alot more than N scale to be shure. I made a small graph from a few of the larger manufacturers web sites and a few online hobby shops and found about 10 N scale steamers to about 21 HO steamers ( i was onely counting the ones that i know are DCC compatable or better). After playing with some Graph paper and looking at alot of layout pictures and stuff i figured that i would need at a minimum of a 30 inch radius in HO scale and with my layout space being about 7’ x 13’ give or take a few inches i found that i wouldent be able to model what i wanted in HO scale ( im not good with graph paper tho so i mite be wrong.
I decided to swich to N scale for now but i still havent bought anything as if i could do HO scale i would. If anyone knows of any track planes for HO scale that have continus running and being able to fit some industries, at least 1 small town, a small yard, the walthers 130’ turn table and a 3/4 stall roundhouse that i mite be able to get ideas from and or adapt for my own use i would like to see it.
What i want out of my layout is mostly the fun of building it. makeing the structures, weathering them, painting the senery, buying, detailing and weathering locomotives and cars over prototypical operations. i would just like a layout that i could have fun running and watching the engines and buildings i will spend most of my time makeing and takeing
When it comes to track planning, no matter what the scale, I’m a strong advocate for making your own custom plan. You are, after all, building your dream. Why build someone elses dream? You know what you want and how you want it to look. Give it a little thought and you’ll come up with scenes that you want to include. Then start stringing the scenes together. Thats a track plan. And if you don’t know a lot about track arangements, go pick up a copy of John Armstrong’s “Track Planning For Realistic Operation”. It will be an invaluable tool and probably the best hobby dollars you ever spend…it’s that good. My copy is many years old, dogeared, pages falling our, etc., but I still read it and learn something new almost every time I read it. And then, when you get a decent plan going, post it here and we can help you tweak it to get the most from it. My own plan went through 22 revisions before it became what it is, but now, thanks to help from folks here, it’s an awesome plan. Think about it. This is your railroad…build it like you OWN it!
Well it depends on what you’re modeling, doesn’t it? I’m not a big fan of southwestern themed layouts, because broad expanses of desert don’t do much for me. However, if that was my bag, I would choose N scale to more completely convey the broad expanses of “nothing” that one sees in photos and video of that region. And as Pelle Soeberg has demonstrated, even a desert holds a lot of detail (His HO layout, btw, is outstanding in it’s scenery:trains ratio, but alas, it is not an operations oriented design)
I live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which to the untrained eye looks a lot like Kansas. I’ve often thought about building a layout featuring the branch line near my home. To me the beauty and interest would come from the expanses of corn fields, the remote small towns, and the diverse industries served by rail. The detailed areas would be farther apart, but could be more intensely done.
Likewise, as a modeler of an Appalachian coal hauler, I have room on my layout for as many as 6 different coal loaders, which will generate enough traffic to keep those 100 cars busy. I’m planning on several truck dumps, at least one large tipple, and several intermediate
The reason i asked to see some track planes or pictures is so i coule get some ideas about how a HO layout in a tight place will look, seeing the large steam engines running in it and seeing if there is a way to fit in the steam servacing facility.
Exactly! Out here in the desert southwest, space is the thing. Nothing is close to anything. But the railroads were the lifeline of the region. So they are, or were, the focal point of pretty much every large town, for a long time. I think N scale gives the best chance to get the feeling that locations on the layout are miles and miles apart. And despite looking like a lot of nothing, there is a lot of scenery, it’s just different than Eastern scenery. Rock cuts, mountains, dry washes, little oasises, can all be interesting.
So like you said, it all depends. If there was only one answer, we’d only need one scale!