I switched to N-scale model railroading in the 1990s, when it seemed that the major manufacturers of N-scale made real progress in terms of quality.
But since those days, it seems that there has been NO progress made in the quality of N-scale locomotives. There are details in almost all HO-scale models today that are finer than you find in any N-scale models - it just doesn’t make sense. For example, how come N scale handrails still look like scaled sewer pipes when HO models have handrails that are thin enough to be proper scale only if they were N?
And if Micro-Trains can do it for N-scale cars, why can’t the loco manufacturers try at least a little harder?
These days, I scream inside when I see new N-scale locos whose highlighted features are:
Directional lighting!
Dual-flywheels!
Skew-wound motors!
I mean, really?
What is keeping some of the production enhancements in HO scale (or even Micro-Trains quality) from trickling down (or across) to N scale locos?
I know that HO is more popular, but you would think that, by 2013, that that someone would make at least an attempt to make a premium N-scale loco product (think Athearn Genesis).
Ok, your talking about a scale that is half the size if HO, so it is by nature harder to get finer detail, hence why the handrails look like pipes. I don’t let this bother me, Features? It is harder to get more electronics inside of a loco body only a few inches long by less than an inch wide by one inch high. Besides, Micro-Trains can do it since they have the tooling necessary, and if they have a patent, can sue if another company creates something similar.
The HO models of today have details that are physically (not merely proportionally!!) finer than the N-scale models of today.
In other words, you might have a handrail component that is a half of a millimeter in actual (not scale) diameter on an HO loco, but an N loco of today might have a handrail component that is closer to a full millimeter in actual (not scale) diameter. It makes no sense.
If manufacturers could at least use items of that physical delicacy on N-scale, it would be such a significant improvement over what N-scale has today.
The HO manufacturers are not using tooling that is proprietary to Micro Trains!
Drew,Some of the newer N Scale freight cars have finer detail however,you can barely see them.
N Scale remains a modelers scale as far as details-you need to add them and I don’t think that was change any time soon.
Now,as pretty as the HO details are the truth is 90% of the time you can’t see 'em under normal layout viewing.Also cars and locomotives have become quite fragile and even adding KD couplers can lead to problems and broken details.
From my last few years in N I fully believe most N Scalers is more interested in running 100 or more car trains on a layout full of scenery then owning highly detailed locomotives.
I suggest looking at the locomotive detail parts from BLMA and go from there.
There’s also Jim Jelly’s article “Character, Not Caricature”, and true, you want incredibly fine detail, N scale is a scale that would need a lot of work. I think I might just be used to it.
Well, Drew, all I can say is that maybe N-scale is not for you. [^o)]
I like most others did not get into N scale because it had so many fine details that looked great, but would break off after a while. We got into it because of most items are half the cost of HO.
We can model much of the real world that we choose to have on our layout with less compromises then other scales. Sound is not one of the main reasons I do N scale, but it is available for those that must have it, and sounds good with the larger 6 axle diesel engines.
I do not care for lots of detail that I will not notice while operations as I am not a roundy rounder. In fact I could not even do that on a point to point operations layout.[:-,]
Others have their reasons for N scale and these are some of mine.
Locomotives, details, etc. My kato’s are by far the most superior loco’s as for adding onto locos I have issues. I have a ton of BLMA parts, unfortunately I can’t get them placed exact or the holes drilled exact.
the things I could go for are more roadnames not just the same ones, newer locomotives, more first gen diesels, re runs of previous models(like BN F7’s), body mount couplers, and honestly to prototype cars.
Why that last one? if the same roadnames keep getting rereleased manufacturers could atleast try to make them like the real thing. If the financial burden is too great, atleast number and label them properly. none of my BN cars match the road number series of the real thing, I’ve checked everything not a single freight car matched.
I think the same used to be said of HO modelers at one point.
But then things changed, and HO scalers seemed to enjoy it quite a bit. Not everybody wants to be an active modeler. It’s hard enough to get weathering right, let alone all of the stuff that needs to happen first.
I take great pleasure in having miniature trains, in the same way that watch aficionados like having those small intricate machines on their wrists. I would buy whole new sets of next-generation locos if the manufacturers would step up to the plate.
Remember when Life-Like introduced Proto 2000? It changed things. The technology seems to be there. I just want someone to try harder with N.
After 50 years the manufacturers finally heard the years old plea of body mounted couplers on freight cars which many N Scalers speak out against just like they still speak out against C55 rail and LoPro wheels.When some of us spoke out against the low mounted headlights on FVM new(at that time) NS GEVOs we was French fried by those that said all was well in N Scale land and told us basically shut up and don’t by them if you don’t like them…
If you notice the later runs of FVM NS GEVOs has the correct high mount headlights.
One thing N Scale lacks is direction and unity in the ranks and until that improves don’t expect to see finer detailed or road specific detailed locomotives-unless there is a outcry by the minority like there was in HO years ago or the outcry over the FVM NS GEVO headlights…
There is a downside…N Scale MSRP is usually a tad less then HO and that can’t help as far as producing highly detailed locomotives.
Its hard now to look at a standard detailed N Scale freight car for $24.95 and see its RTR HO brother with more detail for $29.95…
well I made a poll on the N scale.org FB page so far 10-2 in favor of body mounts, MTL’s honestly should be the standard couplers of N scale for every manufacturer. Kato kinectimatics are picky and troublesome, Atlas accumates are just as bad, con cors dummie couplers are next to useless. will it drive prices up, probably just a couple dollars.
My biggest issue with MT couplers is the “slinky” action of the coupler…Its a designed fault that MT is well aware of and as a “fix” they sell tiny axle springs that fits on the point of the axle.IMHO not much of a fix to a known design fault.BTW they should improve the door design on their 40’ boxcars.
As far as the body mounted couplers try discussing that on one of the stronger N Scale forums…
In case you haven’t guess I still very passionate about N Scale and would like to see the needed improvements plus some manufacturer standards.
yeah, Another thing I would like to see is regular bachmann Locos especially they’re diesels to look less toy like. I couldn’t stand the geep’s and U’s I had they looked too tall and rather big. they also need pilots for they’re locos. I feel that the conversion kits for older Kato F & E’s, Con cor E’s, no as a matter of fact all of them should have an illustrated guide on installations my CC E’s couplers droop. I agree with your standards.
BN#24: Accumate couplers aren’t that bad in my opinion, but I agree with you as far as the Kato couplers. Same with Bachmann couplers, and the couplers that Model Power uses. I really like FVM’s wheels, enough so in fact that they are a standard on my railroad. Same with Accumates. I have plenty of truck-mounted couplers and some body-mounted ones, but I really don’t feel like performing the needed conversions.
the whiskers on accumates sometimes catch the switch frogs when I run them, as well as some uncouplings. the coupler on my Lt. mountain(bach. spectrum) is a good coupler a bit big but a good coupler none the less. as for standard wheels, I’d like to use FVM’s, the plastic wheels on the MTL’s I like but they are plastic. I’d really like to see detail parts like kato or atlas ones made a lot more. Decals we definitely need decals for various cars and locos that have yet to be made.
It probably should be pointed out that older and more crudely detailed HO scale locomotives are still available in the marketplace and presumably are still selling well enough to please the maker or importer. To get those wonderful levels of accuracy and detail you have to pay more as a rule. The HO market is larger and has room to cater to a wide range of types of customers. N is by no means a “minority scale” but it is just smaller enough to account for the narrower range of offerings.
Speaking as an HO scaler I marvel at the detail level of many N scale locomotives and while I sympathize with the OP, I think it is the HO market that benefits from having the N scale market prove that yes it is possible to cast pastic, with an acceptable degree of durability, for things like stirrup steps and handrails.
