Hello All: I have N scale currently and am wondering if the grass is greener working with HO… I was hoping to find someone who can give me advice who has worked with both N and HO… I understand the draw to N scale is putting more in less space… but, well here is my situation:
I like the steam engines personally… I have found that through somewhat limited experience the N steam engines usually run less consistently and with less power than N diesels. I find that joining sections of N scale track to be very tedious, and I consider myself pretty, well okay at it (You know, all joints soldiered and look good, every 2-3 joints are powered, etc). Now, I understand that honestly each joint should be powered, but I am not very good at making a powered joint look natural - maybe because the track is so tiny. I was wondering if working with HO track, ballasting, etc, would be easier but also give the hobbier less trouble and frustrations electrically with trains that run consistent and smoothly - like you see on the MRR videos of the pros.
I have built layouts in both scales. HO scale is, of course, a little easier to handle than N scale, but when it comes to the size of rails, the difference is not that much. N scale usually runs on code 80 track, which means a rail size of .080", whereas HO scale rail is .100" high. That´s not much of a difference.
Maybe a little trick will help you to solve your problem with soldering feeder wires to the track. I soldered them not to the rail, but to the track joiners, before slipping them onto the rail.
I have built both models and a layout in N scale. Laying track in N really is no different than HO. It appears that you are using sectional track - I used flex and the track was permanent.
I do like ‘building’ models and for me, HO parts availability is much better(especially for freight car parts). N scale running quality has improved much. If you are running some of the current engines(Atlas/Kato for example) and are still having issues - get rid of that sectional track with all of those rail joiners. The light weight of N scale engines makes it imperative to have super clean track/wheels. Also, DCC/Sound is much easier to install in HO and sounds much better due to larger speakers.
I have flex track… atlast brown tie code 55 (w/code 55 rail joiners)… been there done that with sectional… it’s expensive and the radius of turns become very limted, just two circles around the bottom of the christmas tree… i’d like to upload a photo but dont know how… Anyhow, thanks for the input… I am learning that code 55 N is going to be pretty different from code 100 (or whatever codes are HO), but, I am also used to N scale flex code 83 (?) which I am learning is pretty similar to HO. So, in short, the grass isnt ‘greener’. I dont think there is going to be much difference between HO code 100 and N code 55… at least not enough to make me switch. Anyhow, do you know how I can upload a photo to this forum? I am proud of my trains under the tree!
thank you for your time and input…looks like I am going to stick with N… the ‘more in less space’ is very beneficial… I am going to insert a photo in a min… let me know what you think! 22"-21" and 20"-19" full circles under the tree… running two bachmann spectrun New Haven 4-8-2 / 2-8-0 's.
Having built models and/or layouts in N, HO, S, O, and G, I can say that working with bigger parts is usually easier. Electric pickup issues do improve with size, the larger scales seem to have less problem (Outdoor G being a possible exception). I have almost no issues with my S scale trains (the only issues are with power routing turnouts where the power is carried through the points, something my under construction layout won’t rely on). With HO and smaller you have to be more diligent about cleaning/polishing rails and wheels.
Downside is that larger scales require more room to do the same thing as smaller scales.
Don’t overlook the fact that some brands are better built with more wheels used for electrical pickup. Cheaper engines may have only one or two pickups per side. This tends to be more of a problem for HO and N because they have economy lines of trains.
If you like the size of N, then stick with it. With practice your soldering techniques will improve. Set aside time for cleaning/polishing wheels and track. And avoid or improve the economy engines.
I have never had running problems with good quality steam loco’s the exception to that is the short wheel base 0-4-0’s
Wiring the track is the same in both scales solder the wire to the bottom of a fish plate( rail joiner )and feed it through the bench work running all wiring under the bench work.
Have multiple feeds each evenly spaced around the layout.
I don’t solder the track together I have never found it necessary in either scale
Keep the track and loco wheels clean this gets rid of a number of problems.
No matter which scale you work in it is not really any easier or cheaper to build a layout each scale has its own pluses and minus points, but you will spend exactly the same amount of money no matter what scale you work in, and run into similar problems that need to be solved.
The larger you get, the easier track, structures, and rolling stock are to work with, but the more you have to put up with ‘selective compression’ in jamming everything you want into your layout.
I abandoned N scale for two reasons. 1) It’s difficult to put convincing sound in an N scale engine and 2) my fingers are just too big and fumbly to effectively detail N scale rolling stock. HO fits me better, so selective compression it is.
I have just given up on N scale, as I can´t get my nose close enough to enjoy the detail. I move up all the way up to O scale (narrow gauge), because I want to scratch built all of what will be on the layout. I have just completed one of the background structures, experimenting with inexpensive materials (which I won´t be using, because I am not really happy with the result).
That´s an N scale boxcar in front of the building!
I have used both N and HO, and still have a bunch of track and turnouts stashed away for N scale in a box, and a very few cars. What I didn’t like about N back in the day when I had mostly N was the track looked grossly big compared to the trains. Now that code 55 is available, it looks much better visually, more in scale with the trains - even though it is still on the large size. Code 55 track in N is very close to what code 100 is in HO, which is larger than much of the prototype rail. But again, in N scale, code 55 looks pretty good and a vast improvement over the code 80 days. Of course all the track I have had stored away for years is the old code 80, but it would still be useful for staging tracks if I ever decided on an N-scale layout again.
Since space has been a problem for me, my wife has been suggesting I build a table top or coffee table layout so I could enjoy trains while I’m biding time for space where I can run my HO collection. I prefer HO because I’m finding it hard to focus on tiny things, but it might still be fun - just I hate to spend my limited resources on a different scale than the one I prefer! But my wife’s heart is in the right place!
As for HO, I like it simply because the individual cars and engines look better to me, have more detail etc and as I get older my eyes are having trouble focusing on tiny parts, and even HO can have enough tiny parts that it is small enough. One of the big advantages of course with N is the bigger scenery to train ratio and you can run longer trains in a smaller space.
I’m another who has been down both paths. Started in American Flyer as a little kid and graduated to HO when I was in 6th grade selling Christmas cards. An HO train set was the prize. Stayed in HO until the service came along so I moved to N scale to better fit in the space and more portability during frequent move. It suited me well for those years and I carried the basic modules with me for a career. Kind of saw N scale grow from very toy like to accurate, detailed models.
However, and this is a big difference for me and my goals in modeling so yours may be different. I tend to enjoy scratchbuilding structures. While I successfully did that in N, time, eyeballs, and desire for detail led me back to HO. If I had a bit more space, I’d go to O for that reason. I want to be up close and personal with the trains, so a six car local has more interest to me than a 30 car, three engine through train. But that’s personal based on my goals, there are many other ways to look at things.
On to the idea of space of N vs HO. While it might seem like you can do four times as much in the same space or the same amount in less space, it does’t work out that way. I think it’s more a visual perception thing that actual size. If I took the space I have for HO and quadrupled up on the town density, I think it would look very cramped. Thats because our eyes take in the same visual angle and now we see two towns overlapping each other instead of one town alone. IE a 4x8 in HO might shrink down to 2x4 in N, but will really look tiny because you can see the whole thing at once.
Lot of discussion that probably didn’t help much but so much is personal. You might try John Armstrongs givens & druthers method to see where it leads you.
I’m very experience in HO, but I also built an N scale layout back in the late '80s.
Back then, I was in my mid 40s, and eventually came to the conclusion that N scale was too small for me to effectively work with. When I see some of the detailed work in N scale on this Forum (or in mags or wherever), I am just amazed. HO is about as small as I can work with, and enjoy the sight of the trains.
There are some real differences in the two other than “ease to work with”. You can run much longer trains in much less space with N, and typically stuff is cheaper. But, with HO you have a bigger selection to choose from (although the gap is much narrower than it was), and being larger, you can appreciate details and IMHO better relate to the minature world you have built.
I switched to N-scale in 1970. Made several layouts. Wanted to make a really detailed locomotive in 1983 and decided that was impossible in N. So I took up HO again. I tried to run both for several years. I discovered brass N scale that ran so much better than the plastic ones. For a while I had every brass AT&SF locomotive that was made. BUT Having two scales splits the resources of both time and money. That is a bad idea. I decided to focus on HO. While both the running quality and detail of N-scale has improved greatly over the years it is still lacking the quality and detail of HO (which has also improved significantly over the past 2 decades). If I had the money I would go for O-scale.
I have never soldered joints in either N or HO, but I have not had the problems other people report either. So I don’t know what other people are doing that causes that particular issue.
I’ve got experience in building in both HO and N scale, so it boils down to your preference. I started with HO scale in the 70’s. During the 80’s I worked as a model maker, so worked in scales from 1/4 down to 1/1000 scale. After working in these extreme small scales (I once worked on a model of the the western span of the SF Bay Bridge-maybe 9 inches long) working in N scale doesn’t seem that small.
When I got back in the hobby about 6 years ago, I went to N scale and haven’t looked back. One of the nice things about N scale is that you can give the illusion of detail, without going through all the effort to make it happen like in HO and larger scales. I made a stack of packing crates using balsa wood strips, wood stain and some other paint. After about 15 minutes of work I had made several stacks of packing crates. It looks fine and you can’t tell the difference underneath the shed I made at my seaport.
The detail of N scale railroad cars is very good now (ever seen the cars exactrail makes?) that I don’t really miss HO that much anymore.
