The reluctance to switch scales

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

This is a philosophical/psychological musing… I have a tiny layout in HO, 1’x8’, and although I am very happy in that space, I do occasionally think about how much more space I would have in N. I’ve never felt really strongly about it myself, but I’ve noticed on this forum (especially among modelers who express interest in long intermodal trains, big yards, continuous running-- sometimes all three!) many state in their ‘givens’ a modest-sized space and HO as their scale of choice. There seem to be few people who have made the leap and switched to a smaller scale, and among less experienced modelers there seems to be a reluctance to move away from their scale of choice (in either direction, but for many of us space is a contraint, so I’m talking about moving to smaller scales.) I have sentimental reasons for staying in HO, and my space needs aren’t great, but I’m wondering what might be behind the ‘stick-to-your-guns’ approach, in the face of the more experienced modelers here suggesting N over HO to get all the things they want?

Does it come from a feeling of losing invested time and money? If that were true, would we not continue building the same layout forever? Is there something special about the rolling stock that puts it on a pedestal?

Does it involve one’s health-- worries over eyesight/hand control? As a younger modeler, I’ve seen people seemingly of all ages show this reluctance…

Is it because the scale you chose is what you started with when you first got into trains, and carries enough sentimental weight to justify any other conflicts that arise while trying to fit everything you want into a space that’s too small to realistically hold it?

N.B. I put myself firmly in the ‘less experienced’ category, I try not to give advice on these things as I’m still learning so much myself, but it does come up often here and makes me curious what fuels that side of the conversation. I’ve searched the forum

2

I think I’m one of the “more experienced” modelers here, and that ain’t necessarily me.

It really does depend on what the things ARE that “they” want.

If all it is is to run long trains through scenery, N is good. Z is better. And I think there’s even a smaller scale.

But.

For most of us, there are also other things that might slow that march to a smaller scale:

You lose the incredible wide choice that is available in HO.

The models that are available in HO are (mostly) of a much greater “fineness” than N. If you like that sort of thing.

You are working in a size that is, well, hard to work in. 'Cause it’s small.

You’ll likely have more track pickup problems because of the decreased weight.

Harder to get DCC/sound in.

Harder (I think) to do operation. If that’s what you want. As opposed to continuous running.

If none of the 5 things is a problem, then N might be great.

But what about O?

Sure, it takes up an enormous amount of space. But:

It’s MUCH easier to work on. And you can do MUCH better detailing on it.

It is truly the model builder’s scale. You can use teeny little screws to recreate real bolts. NOT in N scale.

It moves with a grace and heft that is much closer to the real thing.

And operation? Talk to my man, Frank Ellison. The INVENTOR of operation. Ka-chunk (sound of O scale couplers mating).

Every scale has its good and bad points. I believe the only perfect solution is to go with O scale and inherit a LOT of money. I

3

Not correct. Many folks operate with N scale quite successfully.

Modern N scale models run great.

Sure – but even N scale switchers are now available off-the-shelf with DCC and sound.

N scale is fine. HO scale is fine. Note that many, if not most, current N scalers did HO first (as I did), so they made an informed choice and accepted the trade-offs.

To the Original Poster: Choosing a scale is a matter of personal preference that involves many trade-offs. Modelers in any scale must face the limitations of their space, budget, availability of models for their preferred era, etc. What we often see on these forums are folks unwilling to make any compromises anywhere, so they sit in the armchair year after year with big dreams and nothing to show for them.

4

Yes. Trade-offs. My main point.

That, and that the trade-offs are weighted differently for different people.

Ed

5

I considered N scale a long while ago, why? Because the locomotives and rolling stock I was looking for did not exist in HO. I changed my mind because I really didn’t like the “smallness” of that scale, HO was more for me, I find N a bit less realistic in appearance, HO is small but big enough to be realistic in appearance.

6

Never mind

7

Of course, if that’s your thing! What I see here are many new modelers interested in detail/realism but also ‘trains in constant motion’, snaking through scenery, especially big, modern trains with big, modern cars-- seems to me, if space is the issue, you can choose to continue to detail down into the small scales while also freeing up room to pursue that spacious element. It must get challenging, but not as much as the physical constraints placed on trying to fit too much into too little space.

I guess what I’m after in asking these questions is what’s behind that unwillingness to make compromises in scale? There are so many other compromises involved when it comes to space, anyway (e.g. the curve radius conversation that comes up again and again…)

I’m also really not looking to knock any scale, or to tote its benefits, either-- I wonder if some of this comes down to misunderstandings about what’s available/not available in a given scale?

(P.S. Byron, I get email notifications and that shot of the Monon is gorgeous– I’m sorry you removed it. I have immense respect for modelers that work in N and Z, and to me, realism is only contained by the imagination, experience and focus of the modeler, regardless of model size.)

Phil

8

When we made the big move from the mountain states to California I took a shot at N scale. I had been a HO’er for 36 years. I had to leave my layout but kept everything except the wood work so that I could rebuild in California.

I really did give N scale a good go but I just didn’t like the tiny N stuff compared to HO. I gave the N scale layout (4’ x 8”) to a young neighbor and went back to HO. Now in my 80s I’m very glad I stayed with HO, AGE makes a difference. Fifteen years ago I tried G scale in our backyard and that didn’t last very long either, again AGE makes a big difference.

John Allen got me into HO and I’ve never been sorry, 67 years ago. It’s been a great go and until I’m pushing up grass I’ll be an HO’er.

All scales are great for model railroading, I just fell in love with HO.

THANK YOU JOHN

Mel

9

Cuyama’s quote does make a point. Though I’m not coming up with any examples of someone “not willing to make any compromises anywhere”. I do wonder why he made such an absolute statement.

Anyway. Yeah. There’s people who dream way bigger than they can do. Takes all kinds. Some dream. Some do. Dreamin’s less work.

As an example, perhaps someone would assume there were no double stack cars in N, and consequently reject the scale. If I were considering doing stack trains in N, I think I’d “look it up”, before making my decision. Maybe some people aren’t aware that it’s possible to do research on a subject. Guess they miss out, then.

10

We like what we know, which is why some of us live in the city or state we do, drive the make of car that we do, and eat what we do. I am treading on dangerous ground here, but I have noticed that many guys on their second marriage essentially made the same choice in spouse again. With similar results by the way.

I realized it initially and realize it even better now, that to really accomplish everything I want and wanted for signature scenes on my layout I’d need a bigger basement, or switch to N. I’ve done a bit of work with N and have operated on N layouts, and like it just fine. But to walk away from decades of HO stuff, and from decades upon decades of – for want of a better term – “HO skills,” is just too much.

Dave Nelson

11

I made the opposite switch over 20 years ago. I was an avid N scale modeller with a massive collection of Kato locomotives and Micro-Trains freight cars.

.

The change was motivated by several factors:

.

  1. I sold the “dream house” with the dedicated space for the N scale empire.

  2. I realized I was never going to have a steady group of 10 enthusiastic modelers to run such an empire.

  3. My interest in era switched from 1968 to 1954. HO scale steam was much better than what could be had in N scale.

  4. Micro-Trains undecorated freight cars were getting very hard to find. Back then HO scale undecorated cars were everywhere.

  5. I had a growing interest in details.

  6. Life-Like released the Proto 2000 50 foot boxcar, and all my dreams came true. This was followed by Intermountain and Red Caboose manufacturing beautiful freight car kits. It was sealed.

.

I have been very happy with my switch to HO… HOWEVER… Large scale Narrow Gauge is REALLY starting to look appealing to me.

.

-Kevin

.

12

In the end, only YOU can make the decision. Lots of good points here but it all boils down to what makes you happy. I modeled HO all my life but after a recent move, my space became much more limited compared to what I had in the past. In the end, limited space trumped everything and I moved to N. I was concerned about the smaller scale due to my age (sight, etc) but now that it has been built and is running, I enjoy it as much as I did my HO. I like long trains and moving to N made that much more viable in my limited space.

13

Some folks have sunk costs in terms of what they already own, which is understandable.

But on any topic, many people stick to what’s most comfortable – what they already know. Or what they perceive to be most popular.

That was Lance Mindheim’s N scale Monon (below). I didn’t want to turn this thread into another N vs. HO debate – which always seems to happen anyway.

Lance does amazing work in any scale. He is working on a custom N scale layout I designed for a client now that will have a spectacular reproduction of a scene that would be hard to do as well in a larger scale just because of its scope.

14

Because HO seems the best compromise between “I like to operate,” “I like to have 15 to 20 car trains,” and “I like to detail locomotives and decal cars.”

15

There have been quite a few of these over the years on this and other forums. After going round-and-round for weeks or months on the impossibility of their desired scope within the constraints of their available space, time, and money, they vanish, with no layout of any scale, size, or type to show for it.

16

In my 55 years of being a model railroader, I have built layouts in a number of different scales and gauges, the smallest being Z scale and the largest being a G scale garden layout. In all those years I selected the most appropriate scale for the project, based on the scope of it, but also its limitations in terms of size and budget.

17

Oh, yes. Those. I lose interest in them and their problems pretty quickly. Which might explain my comment.

Ed

18

Another topic that I seem to ignore. It seems obvious that each scale has its pluses and minuses. I suppose it could be argued just how large the pluses and minuses ARE.

It could be said, I suppose, that HO is the best because it’s the scale most people choose. OK. But, even then, that doesn’t make it the best for YOU.

At a show, I saw an exquisite Z scale layout. Pretty big, too. Maybe 30 feet at the longest. And a very simple open track plan. Talk about wide open vistas. Stunning, it was. That may be the perfect scale, and layout, for someone. I hope it was, for the people who built it. I didn’t see any operation. Trains were either parked, or running. Cars in the yard looked more like decoration than operation. But beautiful!

Ed

19

“…I guess what I’m after in asking these questions is what’s behind that unwillingness to make compromises in scale?..”

Most of us learn to pioritize our druthers and our compromises. Do we want the space and just live with what rolling stock I will have to purchase that I can’t make? Can I accept a switching puzzle in my 8 square feet in S scale, or should I work harder to squeeze a nice folded loop in N scale in the same space? Switch or run?

It isn’t necessarily an unwillingness to change scales as it is to CHANGE. Change has to have a compelling impetus or it’s just a lot of bother. Also, change in and of itself is not always good…it might be retrograde. Most of us are willing to change if the ‘net’ is better in some defined, and highly valued, way.

In our hobby, changing scale means starting over. Yes, of course we can s

20

Are you going to keep the 1x8 footprint for the switch? Or create a somewhat bigger one?

The footprint of the existing one can fit a small city section. That will measure out to 4 feet and add 2 more feet for scenery. Will mine is length of 6. But extra feet will increase the town or scenery.

I have a lot of N Scale investments with a few HO. I prefer N by the size and easy to store and handle than the other.