Please “don’t shoot the messenger”
Seems like (to me) that the “Model Railroader” guys and gals concentrate on HO and smaller gauge/scale projects.
Before you "send me to the other forums like the Classic Toys etc., I’d really like to know why, in your opinion, there isn’t more interest is the larger “O”.
As always, many thanks.
In a simple phrase - “space required.”
For a given amount of railroad, the space required for a scale O layout (not tinplate) is about four times that required for HO, and about 16 times that required for N.
I had the pleasure of seeing a large O scale layout in California many years ago. An O scale Big Boy came chugging around a large radius curve, and it looked absolutely incredible! But most of us don’t have the kind of space needed for something like that in O.
Then we also get into the cost (that Big Boy, way back in the 1980’s, cost several thousand dollars), availability of models and all that as well.
Hi there. I have a portable 2 rail O scale in construction, but my main layout is HO. Why not O scale for my main? Here is a list of my reasons:
-I can’t stand the appearance of 3 rails
-O scale is expensive. 2 rail equipment is more expensive!
-HO has wider road offerings
-HO equipment is better adapted for operations
Simon
I think we are talking about O scale, not O gauge model railroading.
Space is certainly the number 1 reason for the rather low interest in this scale, but most likely followed by the lack of scale locos and cars.
In Europe, things are quite different! 7mm scale has been always strong in the UK, both SG and NG model railroading. In Germany, O scale is experiencing a renaissance since a few years, mainly driven by Lenz (the DCC people). Having said that, HO scale is still the dominant scale.
Unfortunatey new O scale (2-rail) is now very scarse in Americia. This is especially true of locomotives. O is harder to find than even a few years ago, and there is very little selection of types of locomotives and cars. Most O made today is 3-rail O gauge.
Proto48 which uses the correct track gauge is even harder to find, it is basically a scratchbuilders scale.
How do you know that there isn’t? On what, are you basing your statement? Maybe spend some time in the classic trains forum, and ask the members there why they don’t show more interest in HO.
My grandson’s O scale is in my basement, along side of my HO. Lately, I’ve been running it more than he has. He’s a teen now and has many other interest, and we only have him for a short time each summer.
This is a forum centered around HO. I just don’t get your off-the-wall question???
Are you asking why O isn’t a main topic on this forum? Or are you asking why members in here model in HO and not O ?
I don’t get it.
Mike.
I certainly agree that space is the big impediment.
Coming in second and third:
There’s less available in O scale. That’s a problem if you are an off-the-shelf type of person, and you want to follow a particular prototype. I don’t know about the availability of parts, O compared to HO, because I don’t work in O. I do suspect there are more parts available in HO, though.
There are more people working in HO. Which means if you want to have a play-date, there are more people who share your scale. In particular, I am in Free-mo. It is HO scale. There are about 8 people in Northern California active in Free-mo. What do you think it would be in O scale?
Someone could suggest a fourth: cost. But O scale people seem to have fewer pieces of rolling stock. Thus “saving” money.
Because of all of the above, I am happy staying in HO.
All that said, I LOVE O scale. It is grand. It is glorious. Years ago, I bought my one O scale locomotive (and caboose). Brass. 4-8-4. It sits on the mantle. It’s never run. But it IS a sight to behold. Which explains its placement.
Ed
It is CENTERED on HO because there are so many more people working in HO. There is nothing keeping other scales out. But it is wise, when someone comes in from a different scale, for that person to self-identify. That’s to keep people from assuming they’re HO.
Over on the Atlas Rescue Forum, there ARE sub-forums for the three major scales. Not here.
By the way, here’s the number of topics on that forum since it started:
HO 4661
O 50
N 183
Ed
Ed,The reason the N Scale count is low is because there is three great N Scale forums. Why hang out on a HO forum?
One of the most beautiful ISLs I ever seen was a O Scale two rail that was 16’ x 2’.
That Atlas 2 Rail RS-1 was a master piece with its added details.
Have you compared O Scale 2 rail prices with HO?
When I switched away from N scale in the 1990s I looked very hard at 2 rail O scale, and even Proto-48 as options.
.
My experience with the “dream house” layout left me knowing I had made bad choices in this hobby. I was never going to want a large layout that required multiple operators and massive amounts of equipment.
.
My interest at the time was a layout that would fit in my small duplex with my growing family. I was going to build a switching layout, what is now commonly called an “ISL” on one wall of the bedroom. I needed one locomotive and about 10 freight cars.
.
Even back then, with Atlas and Intermountain making O scale rolling stock, and Lorrell Joiner promoting the scale, the final decision was made on availablility of equipment and supplies. With HO scale I could have everything with no compromises. There was even so much more available in N scale than in O.
.
Now that I am going to have a 11 by 22 foot dedicated layout space in my house, I am glad I chose HO. I can do what I want in HO. With O scale there would be a lot of compromises.
.
-Kevin
.
Three reasons…
Space (lack there-of), Cost (consider twice HO), and Availability/selection of components. The latter of course is just the result of the supply demand circle. Less demand, less supply…demand picks up, the suppliers will produce more in quantity and selection.
People say they shy away from N scale because they can’t handle the details. Fair enough. But the fact is that you don’t really need all the fiddling details in N because they can’t be seen, especially at 24 inches. It’s nice if they’re there, but not a disaster if they’re missing.
In O scale, if the details are missing, they’re noticed. You have to show rivets and door knobs and hatch handles; even eyeballs, belt buckles, and wrist watches on the figures.
That’s why I don’t do O. I’m sure there are other reasons.
Robert
Well, you might also ask “Why not more ‘S’?”. It’s smaller than O and larger than HO. Unfortunately, it suffers the same fate as O when it comes to availability.
I grew up on American Flyer and enjoy the size but there just isn’t much out there presently that offers what HO does for my particular prototype. And while N would allow for more layout in the same-sized footprint as my HO layout, the choices for modeling steam/early diesel are - again - very limited.
Tom
Even On30, which uses HO gauge track, suffers from the same space, availability, and cost concerns as O standard gauge. It can run tighter radius curves than O standard, but everything else (buildings, vehicles, scenery, etc.) takes the same space
Many thanks for all of your well thought out replies. Appreciate it.
On30 is the only reason there is alot of what there is in O.
I used to know a man who, because of his old age, switched from HO to O scale because he wanted more details and he wanted to be able to see them. His layout was small. He only had a couple of locomotives and a few freight cars but he had one of the nicest layouts I’ve ever seen.
I agree with this. Wholeheartedly. I love the idea that I may one day build a 1:48 diorama of sorts. About 5 feet by 3 feet. With a fully-detailed Challenger sitting majestically on a turntable. Maybe under a sanding tower. Something. But in the meanwhile, I like the panoramic vistas and wide open spaces of my N scale thing. And not sweating the details.
Robert
Interesting point of view!
However, I don´t think that statement will earn you lots of friends “over there” - in the CTT forum.
By the way, small switching layouts are only referred to with that acronym on this and maybe one other forum. The term is inaccurate in fact, since a good part of the trackage in most small switching layouts (except the industry spurs themselves) would be owned by the railroad, not the industry. And the railroad would do the switching.
The exception is modern industrial parks with their own switcher, but most of the small switching layouts folks are building are intended to operate as a branch or terminal area of a railroad (Class 1, Regional, Short Line, Terminal Railroad, etc).
The ISL acronym is also ambiguous, since it could stand for Industrial Short line, Independent Short/Switching Line, Isolated Short Line, etc., etc.
This is not directed at you at all, Kevin, but once every couple of years I am moved to refute the notion that this acronynm is “common” or widely accepted – or accurate in any way.
Clarity is good, IMHO. And is doesn’t take very long to type “small switching layout” in the interest of accuracy.
Byron