Ho? N?


J

jweir43

New Member
I know this question has been asked several bazillion times, but I'm trying to decide between N and HO. I only have about an 80" x 80" square to use so space is somewhat of a premium.

I've done just a little bit with both gauges, and the problem I see with N is that ANY little hiccup causes them to derail. A secondary problem is that the little rascals are so small that big gnarly hands have a bit of a problem with the delicate mechanism. Finally, I'm not sure that N has electronic remote controls and the way this layout is going to have to go, one corner's access will require a ladder braced against the stairs (a rickety proposition at best) so to get any sort of control on that corner will have to be done by some sort of electronic wizardry.

On the other hand, HO with any decent curve radius is going to eat up a lot of real estate that I don't have.

I know this question has probably been thrashed about in quintessential detail, so if anybody has a URL to a good discussion of the matter, I'd appreciate the link.

A couple of questions that probably are NOT covered (and if they are, the URL ...):

Has anybody used OSB flooring in place of plywood for the basic structure? It looks to be a bit sturdier than ply of the same thickness.
Is there a source for either gauge for "close" scale diorama (cheap) structures and vehicles? THe stuff I've seen from the train manufacturers seems pretty pricey for what you get.
Ditto inexpensive rolling stock? This is an "entertainment" setup, and I don't need perfectly detailed scale down to the rivethead. I can buy a full "kiddie Christmas" set, throw away the engine, powerpack, and track and still come out ahead on the freight cars left over versus buying them one by one at the train store.
​

Just for info, I was born about 30 miles east of Union Station in San Diego and my wife was born 30 miles north. THe San Diego & Arizona Eastern ran through my home town and the AT&SF CoastLiner ran through her home town. I'm going to do a rough replica of them on either side of the layout board.

Thanks for any help.

Jim
 
I model in N scale of course so here is my take on this...

If you can comfortably model in N scale to your satisfaction then I don't see any reason not to go with N scale. As long as detail isn't your thing then having the smaller scale just to do operations or just to watch the trains run around may be good enough. It will allow you a lot more room for track, structures, and well... everything. But like you touched on - working with N scale takes a bit more dexterity and patience.

How are your eyes? I am 43 and mine are failing already. But I am making due with reading glasses, light, and a magnifying lens stand. I could not imagine tearing into an N scale steam loco, but I will tackle that when the time comes. Just something to consider.

80" x 80" isn't really all that bad. I have seen some HO 4' x 8' layouts that look like they would be fun to build and operate. I think in 80" x 80" you could do something pretty good with HO depending on what you want to do with your railroad. But it sounds like you want more than just a loop around. This space you have, is it around a room? Or is this space you have for an island or "against the wall" kind of layout?

I think if you give everyone a little better idea of what you want to do on your layout you will get a lot of good debates about both pros and cons of both scales that are relevant to your needs. Do you want a loop to have trains run continuously? Or are you planning on operation and wanting a point to point?

Fill in the blanks, and I am sure you will see some action in this thread. And I know others will add to this.
 
Thanks, NScaler ...

1. I have just built a garage/woodworking/metalworking shop on the first floor and a full-house electronics engineering room on the second floor. Joining the two is a stairwell that has a 90° bend halfway up. The area ABOVE the stairwell has a railing around it that measures 80x80, so I plan on "roofing" that part of the stairwell in on the railing that makes it into an 80x80 plywood/OSB "roof" that will have the layout on the top of it. The underside is going to be open to the folks coming up the stairwell, so the bottom has to be as pretty as the top. I foresee a LOT of pretty conduit or perhaps a false bottom that will open up and let me work from the bottomside.

2. I'm thinking of two sides to the layout, one on the south edge and one on the north edge. I'm also thinking about making two ovals, one on the southside and one on the northside. The southside will be a rough approximation of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern between San Diego and El Cajon 30 miles to the east where I grew up. The northside will be an approximation of the Santa Fe Coastliner running along the Pacific Ocean from San Diego to Del Mar 30 miles north where she grew up. Both will return along parallel tracks down the center of the layout with some features that never existed like tunnels and such with "real" features simulated like a college environment where we went to school and so on.

3. My eyesight at 70 is nearly where it was at 18, which is blind as a bat at distance but really good close up. I can do little tiny integrated circuit soldering with what is called surface-mount so it isn't all that bad. I did tear into an N-gauge diesel to do some work and it wasn't all that bad, but HO is a hell of a lot easier.

4. The only absolute feature that I know I want is an airport in El Cajon where I learned to fly and another airport in Del Mar where she played as a kid.

Howzat?

Jim
 
Hey Jim, how about meeting the two scales half way; Hon3. Small enough to have a fair amount of track, smaller radius curves, but big enough to work with. Course you are pretty much limited to steam power, but might be worth a look-see.
 
I think with the features you are wanting to add you are pretty much going to have to use N scale. An airport is going to eat up a fair bit of space. I really don't see you getting all that comfortably in that space in HO.

I am curious about your comment about keeping N scale trains on the track, and I am wondering if that is (still) common or not. I have never owned a layout, and have only had oval tracks with simple power packs. All of my time in this hobby has been spent on modeling and dioramas that I built years ago. Can anyone comment on this?
 
My 2 cents, FWIW: Was in HO for years. Decided to try N...wanted longer r-o-w, larger vistas. THEN, discovered am fumble-fingered in N scale! Plus, my eyesight was no good for 1:160 AND mild arthritis started in hands. Was SO HAPPY NO HO had been sold! Am Very Happy with my re-switch! Two youngest sons [ in 20s ] are now owner of all my N scale stuff so it worked out fine for me. TTFN.....Old Tom in NH
 
I saw your welcoming thread, 70 years old with a wealth of experiance. In my opinion there are three major things at work making this decision. Can you see "N" scale? I at 62 cannot. Do you want lots of track and action, or a relaxing rural scene with trains running through? Will anything short of 40 car freight trains and 20 car passenger trains make you feel cheated? Maybe: Four.. How much room is available?

Seriously now back to #1. I can still fly, I cannot comfortably detail locomotives without lots of magnification.
 
G'day from Australia , Ah yes , the question many of us have pondered..I DID start in N Scale....Analog it was , could never get it to run halfway decent , no matter what I did , either derailing or stuttering...If not the locos , it was the rolling stock...In the end I decided to take my very limited skills on another pathway once I saw my friernds HO layout and haven't regretted it for a minute..Re the space..I used a basic track plan from a Bachmann EZY Track...Track Pack called the Madison Central , then I added two Mainlines on the outer of that on an old table tennis table...built in a double tunnel , two bridges , a road and streets , about a dozen buildings and a construction site.. Even though it was a bit "busy"...it worked really well , about 1000% better than my attempt at N....and the only thing that brought it unstuck was when I went DCC and added contemporary locomotives like SD70s , Dash 9s etc...not good on predominantly 18" curves and number 4 turnouts I had , although the four axle locos like my GP38s ran all day on it..So ...I bit the bullet , dismantled it and am literally about to add a decent baseboard to give me flex track wider curves..I went to our local train show last June and was green with envy of at least half the exhibitors doing great N Scale in smaller spaces so it CAN be done..and some of our fellow forum ers here are expert N scale modellers..so despite my shortcomings I 'd say that a lot of thought and questions on possible N scale is worth doing...Good luck.. Cheers Rod
 
JimT said:
I saw your welcoming thread, 70 years old with a wealth of experiance. In my opinion there are three major things at work making this decision. Can you see "N" scale? I at 62 cannot.

I at 70 use a headband magnifier when I want to see something really tiny, like a tiny little capacitor for my class that measures 2 x 2 mm and the markings thereon. Not a problem. Without magnification (and my contacts for distance) I can still read resistor color codes. Vision isn't a problem.

Do you want lots of track and action, or a relaxing rural scene with trains running through? Will anything short of 40 car freight trains and 20 car passenger trains make you feel cheated?

Nope. I want to model my home town as a boy and my wife's home town as a girl. My town had the San Diego and Arizona Eastern hauling a few hopper cars full of lemons out of Lemon Grove CA and my wife had the Santa Fe Coast Daylight with three or four passenger cars going north out of San Diego for LA and SanFran. BUT I want to put a HELL of a lot of detail (like the airport I learned to fly at east of Lemon Grove and the airport that my wife played on as a girl in Del Mar) and other stuff, so a relaxing rural scene will suit me just fine.

Maybe: Four.. How much room is available?

80 x 80"

Seriously now back to #1. I can still fly, I cannot comfortably detail locomotives without lots of magnification.

Nor can I. But this isn't a DOWN TO THE RIVET railroad. If the stuff looks ANYTHING like railroad I'll be happy. At that scale, who gives a damn?

I can still pass the medical to fly and inspect airplanes for airworthiness. Not a problem. I'm just a little more crotchety about what I'll accept for airworthy and what I won't.

Jim
Click to expand...
This is 10 characters because I have to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rodney mcgiveron said:
G'day from Australia , Ah yes , the question many of us have pondered..I DID start in N Scale

snippety doo day, snippety aye...

.I went to our local train show last June and was green with envy of at least half the exhibitors doing great N Scale in smaller spaces so it CAN be done..and some of our fellow forum ers here are expert N scale modellers..so despite my shortcomings I 'd say that a lot of thought and questions on possible N scale is worth doing...Good luck.. Cheers Rod
Click to expand...

Sounds like a definite "maybe" to me... ;)

Jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it matters, BUT, I rather think of modeling concept first to make an interesting layout. For HO, why not go traction, sharp curves the norm, talking 6-10 inch radius. Your location of bad reach can be done with walk in dog bone design, or a center open (small access or a lift out) you should check out 100 layout plans by Linn Westcortt and the later versions as well to get ideas whats possible in small areas. You will find you can do a lot more than you think, I am making 2x4 modules each one is packed (planned) tho my space is larger that yours you can get plenty of modeling in a small area. Its just a matter of design, concept, purpose, if anything maybe you can find extra yard space for fiddle staging yards beyond the actual layout space.
 
dinwitty said:
I don't think it matters,
Click to expand...

Ah, grasshopper, it matters a great deal. You go into great detail on traction, sharp curves, and access. I simply ask for a layout of this size, and for what I have experienced about the stability of N gauge, which one is the one of choice.

It is an engineering decision, not a detail decision.

Thanks,

Jim
 
It wouldn't hurt to check out a couple train shows. Maybe that will help you decide? I like HO. But for some reason I am drawn to N scale. I love the fact that it is smaller and harder to work with. It's more of a challenge. To me the fact that I can fit more track into an area was never a really big concern when I started in this hobby with N scale. If it was I would have went with Z scale.

I agree that the lack of detail is kind of a moot point that seems to be brought up often when comparing the two scales. If you can't model it, you probably can't see it. Because if you can see it, it can be modeled. You may just have to be a bit more creative, which to me is the fun parts of modeling.
 
after reading your first post here ,,id go with HO,,especially if you have large hands and bad eyes,,80x80 is a pretty big space ,even for HO scale
 
I can't provide any great insight to help you make your choice because I think it comes down to a matter of personal preference. Both scales can be controlled with remote controls.

If you are on the fence between the two, make a list of pros and cons of each scale. Rank them according to what is important to you. Go to a train show and look at the different layouts and price the equipment you would want in each scale.


The only solid advice I can give you is with an 80X80 layout build your bench work so that it can support your weight and have fun with your trains no matter what you decide.
 
vic2367 said:
after reading your first post here ,,id go with HO,,especially if you have large hands and bad eyes,,80x80 is a pretty big space ,even for HO scale
Click to expand...

Well, if I'm going to have two loops, one for me and one for her, then each loop is going to have to be in a 40x80 rectangle. That means that the loop turn radius is going to have to be no more than 20" to make a 180° turn, which is also fine, but a 20" radius in HO is a little tight for the passenger cars I'm hoping for in the Del Mar (Santa Fe Coast Daylight) side of the layout, isn't it?

Or do I not understand turn radius as it applies to railroading?
 
No, you understand Radius correctly. People are misunderstanding your 80x80 discription they are thinking feet, you have 80x80 inches at your disposal. You are talking about 6 1/2 feet by 6 1/2 feet. Not a large area at all, and you are thining about "two" layouts with airports. Interesting concept.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JimT said:
No, you understand Radius correctly. People are misunderstanding your 80x80 discription they are thinking feet, you 80x80 inches at your disposal. You are talking about 6 1/2 feet by 6 1/2 feet. Not a large area at all, and you are thining about "two" layouts with airports. Interesting concept.
Click to expand...

Well, SORT OF two airports. Even at 160:1, a scale 5000' runway is 32' long. That ain't gonna work. On both sides of the tracks, the "runways" of the airports will disappear into the background with a small terminal building, a fixit hangar, and a couple of Cessnas gathered 'round the fuel pit. I figure that ought to fit into about one square foot, leaving the other 11 sf of that side for "other stuff" like the lemon packing shed in Lemon Grove and the passenger station and oceanfront beach in Del Mar.

However, being a EE that sort of understands LEDS, the green/white rotating beacon will actually be a rounded pulse to simulate rotation and the runway lights ought to be pretty trivial.

Jim
 
I model HO scale, but this might be of interest to everyone in whatever scale they model...

Years ago, one of the model railroad magazines (I think it was Railmodel Journal) had an article from a gentleman who had used the "selective compression" technique on his rolling stock as well as everything else on his layout. He literally cut sections out of longer cars and shortened them to lengths he was comfortable with for running on his layout.

That is something I plan to do someday with my passenger equipment, since most of the stuff I have is in the 80'+ scale length. I figure cutting them down to 60' or so would allow them to run on the 24" curves I plan to have (I don't have a layout at this time, but when I do build one the space I have available pretty much sets my maximum radius at 24".) As an aside -- my railroad of choice (Illinois Central, circa 1968) used "E" units for their passenger trains. I will be using "F" units instead, due to their shorter lengths. And if I'm "shortening" my passenger cars, I figure it makes sense to use smaller motive power as well. No, the IC didn't have "F" units (at least until the merger with the GM&O) -- but I don't mind painting and decaling my own, so that is not a problem in my mind's eye. :)

If you don't mind "non-prototypical" rolling stock, this might be a partial solution to limited space.

Regards,
Tom Stockton
 
If your talking trains running around in circles, thats one thing, having a switching layout may be more interesting. Part of running a layout is keeping it interesting. Study some track plans. 18 inch radius there is equipment out there that will work, some shorty passenger cars. But I bet you can find 24 inch radius will fit. 6 1/2 feet can get you 36 inch radius but you may be very restricted on layout design. For me 24" radius is my "Norm" for my layout to run almost anything. Again unreachable areas are solveable. You might have a loopy track layout but disguise it looking like something else. Thats where track planning design comes in. John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid started as a 4x6 layout, and grew from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top