Hi,
I am trying to decide whether to start my new railroad in N or HO. I am tight on space but concerned that N scale would have more issues with keeping the track clean ect… I will be using DCC which I have never done before. I have modeled both in HO and N using analog DC in the past and was wondering if using DCC has any better performace in N scale.
Thanks 
I would think DCC In both scales would be about the same in the way of performance. N scale is a little more limited on what is out there but if you are pressed for space N scale would be better for getting more railroad per square foot. How much space do you have to work with? What are you wanting to do? switching or running a loop?
I agree with Eric, there is no difference in performance in either scale. Most newer locomotives in both scales come DCC ready too.
Agree with both of them. There is really nothing else that could be said. I should also note that there is a fair deal of locomotives that do come Decoder ready, and some that also come with the decoder already installed. Installations of decoders in N scale locomotives are sometimes easier than making certain scenery effects.
To me, it depends on what you want to do and what do you want to experience with the layout.
Do you want to run longer trains through the maximum amount of scenery? Then N-Scale is your game.
Do you want to do more switching operations and have the widest possible selection of locos, cars, detail parts, buildings, and electronics? Then HO-Scale is what you want.
N-Scale is much better at presenting an entire scene with a much greater scenery-to-railroad ratio. Long trains that snake their way through a scene is N-Scale’s bread and butter. One can create a bigger section of the world, showing the trains against nature’s scene and man’s creations. Want to model a canyon or a Steel Mill? It’s a lot more likely in N-Scale.
HO-Scale is much better at operations where car numbers & reporting marks are much easier to read. It’s also easier to uncouple cars manually as it’s less likely one will derail an HO car while doing so. One can “get in closer” with HO-Scale, so superdetailing equipment and scenes is something that can be done better and easier. Painting and decaling in HO-Scale is also an easier proposition. And since HO-Scale is the most popular scale than all other scales combined, there are far more products out there for it. Odd and rare equipment, specialized parts, & cities worth of building kits are routinely available in HO. Then there’s the DCC area. HO models are, IMHO, much easier to put in DCC decoders.
One needs to come up with a list of “givens and druthers” (as Linn Wescott would say) and decide what they want to do with their layout. They need to come up with their own list of pros and cons and make the call on what’s more important to them.
Paul A. Cutler III
I have to agree with Paul here , though N has come a long way, details (if can see um ) are less available in N, and for me HO is at the limits of my working ability ,vision wise , but the tempt of twice the running in the same space is appealing . But my eye,s dictate for me …Jerry
Paul,You’re about 40 years behind times.
N Scalers been switching cars for years.
N or HO? It depends on what you want to model. If you like steam then you’re going to be pretty limited with N-scale. More modern diesels - not so much.
Personally, I like the better detailing of HO-scale; even it means nearly half as much mainline. Since I model a specific road in the early 40s - which includes both steam and early diesel - then HO was the better choice for me.
Tom
Actually I would make the sa
Take a look at Fox Valley wheels, much closer to scale than Atlas, Bachmann or many other companies. They are close enough that I decided to make them the standard for my railroad.
True. But, having reached the point where even HO reporting marks are a visual challenge, having them shrink to 1/2 size would make car card/waybill operation sufficiently arduous to constitute a deal-breaker.
By deliberately choosing to forego long trains of long cars it’s still possible to run an HO short line in a tight space. While not space-constrained, my coal hauler has 350mm (14 inch minus) curves, simulating the mountain goat trail route its more-or-less prototype was stuck with. The 1:1 scale Uintah Railroad (which ran those Mantua 2-6-6-2Ts) had 68 degree curves, close enough to 12 inches in HO as to make no difference. Throw in absurd grades to limit the number of cars that can be pulled and the line-haul train shrinks to something that will fit into a passing siding that won’t wrap half way around the table. (Mine are less than one meter long, in 1:80 scale - which is larger than HO)
John Armstrong drew one track plan in both HO and N scale for a rather restricted area (less than 4x8.) The HO version had a five (short) car plus 2-8-0 freight and a passenger doodlebug. The N scale version featured a dozen cars behind a 2-8-2, plus four heavyweight passenger cars trailing a Pacific - and looked less crowded.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N scale, aka HOj)
Ah yes…
The age old debate, which scale is best? All of them and none of them. No scale answers all needs. But the popular scales Z, N, HO, S, O, and G all can be made to run well.
If the tiny scales (Z, N, HO) appeal to you, then go with N. It has a decent selection, much better than Z, and you get a lot more railroad and scenery in a given space than with HO.
Enjoy
Paul
I think you answered your own question. You mentioned you are “tight on space”. You can do a lot more with a layout with limited space in N than you can in HO. I am in HO btw. There are no issues n vs ho regarding track cleaning or using dcc. Although installing a DCC decoder yourself in n can be challenging but no issues in operation.
I have a thought before you decide. Is there a train show in your area that you can go visit? Pick one where both n and ho layouts will be displayed. You can view both and decide what is right for you.
And a little off the topic, but why does it have to be n vs ho. After all we’re just the same weird bunch still “playing” with Trains.[swg]
The era is important in any N vs. HO decision. N lends itself to the modern era due to detail. Diesels can have fairly good detail in N gauge, while steam, is left a bit lacking compared to what can be had in HO.
DCC control is Ok in either scale, but sound is better and more full featured in HO and largers scales.
As all the others have noted, It is not a battle of which is better, but more a matter of what you plan to model, space available and how you plan to operate your road.
Richard
I do N-scale and have to wear glasses or a visor for up close work. Needed to do so way before I started the layout I have now.
Since I don’t care about lots of details that will just break off HO does not hold any appeal on the detail reason. I use DCC and keep the wheels on the engines clean and have very, very few electrical contact operation problems. This is in a non climate controlled shed.
I do not like roundy round type layouts, (got boring very fast) but wanted to do operations. Contrary to what others have stated you do not need to read to numbers on the rolling stock to do operations. Even with CCandWB’s
If not for the low cost of quality N-Scale and DCC I would not be able to have any thing close to what I have if it was only HO. I did my first N-Scale layout in 1975 so I do see the amazing improvement in quality and looks of engines and cars. If you must do an older era, then you may have no choice, but to do HO. I do late 1990’s so the amount of stuff available is way more then I could every need.
Either way the idea is to have fun.[:D]
If you want sound, it’s considerably easier to stuff a speaker inside an HO loco.
And if you put a bigger speaker or two in an O scale loco it might almost sound like a locomotive.
Sheldon
Split the difference. TT scale to the rescue.[:P]
Steve S
My problem with N scale, at least the main one before my eyes and hands dictated staying in HO, is the size of hte rail. Code 80 is still very common - and about as high in proportion as Lionel O-27 three rail. Code 55 seems to be lately more common, as well as rolling stock that will handle it, but even that is as heavy or even heavier than the heaviest rail ever used in normal railroading; Code 40 still means hand laying almost all the way, but it does look great, at least for relatively modern Class 1 railroads, being pretty much like code 83 in HO. Paint the rail, bury it in ballast, or otherwise disguise the height, and some people have done marvelous work in N.
C55 and low profile wheels has became the standard for serious N Scalers and C55 looks about the same as HO C83 after ballasting and painting…
Modern rail is getting heavier due to heavier locomotives and freight cars.
Modern short lines is having problems with their light rail and shippers demand for larger cars.