N or HO?


R

RRNube

New Member
I'm sure this is an ongoing debate in the community... so, let me be more precise.

I have HO stuff that I bought my 7 year old but doesn't fit as much for the space. So, I thought I'd look at N scale. However, N scale seems to be more expensive for everything, especially engines. Sure I can pack more into a space but at what cost, especially with a now 8 year old and his marauding friends?

I'm no longer married to a 4X8 table. I can in fact build an arrow shape in the corner or a basic L shape along the walls. Then again, HO requires larger turn radii maker for a deeper table that would then require access... which N would not.

Round and round I go... HO seems far more available locally and less expensive. N would open an entirely larger world but at probably the 2X the cost for the same space.

How did you decide on which scale?

T
 
N is actually a bit cheaper per unit. Be sure you're comparing similar quality products. Track is even a tad cheaper as well. The problem is you can put so much more N scale stuff in the same space so it goes back to being more expensive per volume ;)

The good thing about N scale, as you point out, is it can be against the wall and still be able to make a loop. This is a HUGE deal if layout real estate is at a premium.
 
HO is the answer for younger folks. Much easier to rail and run, plus much more available. If space is a concern, there are plenty of small layout plans available and much smaller equipment to purchase. As a matter of fact, Big City Hobbies has their "MinitrainS" available. It's HO Narrow gauge (HOn30) that runs on N - scale track! I'm in love with these fun little trains.
Here's a link: http://www.bigcityhobbies.com/minitrains.html
 
I started in N and recently switched to HO. The reason? I found it much more difficult to get my N scale locos to run consistently. In my opinion, HO is much more forgiving in this respect. If the trains don't run, it's just a static diorama. Also, I really wanted sound in my locos. This is possible in N, but much easier to achieve in HO.

I don't agree that N is more expensive. A brand new Kato costs about $125. That's also the case for quality HO locos. In addition, HO rolling stock is on average about 2x more expensive than N rolling stock.

There's no denying that N let's you fit more railroad in a smaller space. Ultimately I dr used that the aggravation of trying to get my MRC sound decoder equipped N scale locos not to stop every few inches was not worth the extra space allowed by N. now I am working on a shelf switching layout in HO, and while I don't have my mini N empire anymore, the trains run well with Tsunami equipped locos.l
 
The larger scales are easy to see the detail, plenty of room for stuff inside and have a 'feel of heft' to them, which helps capture the spirit of the prototype. I much prefer the look of O scale wheels to the smaller scales, forexample.

My line of reasoning is to go as big as I can afford. 1 guage or O scale, even S scale, would be nice, but alas, HO is the biggest I can afford.

Anyway, that's how I see it. I'm sure there are at least as many views on this subject as there are modelrailroaders.

Paul
 
With a seven year old, I would recommend HO. Keep it simple and reasonable. I started the current latout when my sons were small, and one of them actually built a small N layout when he got a little older. Now both are grown and moved out and it's Dad's hobby. Have a good time with the kids, it will be soon enough you'll likely to have it to yourself.
 
Thanks for the posts. I'm leaning more toward HO at this point. Might build the table in the corner and take it from there.

At my local hobby store the N track switches are more expensive or as expensive as HO ones. Figures are more expensive. Rolling stock was about $10 a piece. It's one data point but I saw no savings in going to N especially since you can end up with twice as much!
 
RRNube said:
I saw no savings in going to N especially since you can end up with twice as much!
Click to expand...

I find that most folks posting and asking this question already hope to stay with HO, they are just looking for confirmation. Glad it worked out that way for you.

But it's worth noting that one needn't cram a given space with "twice as much" N scale. One of the huge advantages of N scale is that it can allow some breathing room between elements. If one exercises restraint in packing in tracks, N scale can give a more realistic appearance in the same space because it's less crowded. And thus, no more expensive.

Best of luck with your layout.
 
RRNube said:
Round and round I go...
How did you decide on which scale?
Click to expand...
Join the club. I switched to N-scale in 1969/70 just because of the space issue. I re-entered the HO market in 1983 because of the detail issue. I tried to do both for a time. I abandon N-scale in 1993 because of the price issue, and razed the layout in 2003.

Of course everything is not more expensive in N. I just saw some really nice KATO passenger car sets for the same price I paid for 2 cars in HO, but I digress.

The base question it sounds like you have answered, is "Can I live with the more limited running options in HO scale." For me, the answer is, "yes". I will adjust my equipment selection to run on 15" radius curves or just switching if I have to in order to fit an HO scale layout into the avaliable space.
 
Am I the only one who had problems getting N scale to run reliably? (an I'm talking about modern equipment-manufactured recently- not the old stuff that I understand was not very good). If so. I wonder what I did wrong.
 
Ken Portner said:
Am I the only one who had problems getting N scale to run reliably? (an I'm talking about modern equipment-manufactured recently- not the old stuff that I understand was not very good). If so. I wonder what I did wrong.
Click to expand...

Almost everything built since about 1990 runs great for me. Flextrack, quality turnouts, lots of gaps and feeders, many rail joints soldered.
 
I've been in N scale for nearly two decades and I am starting to amass a collection of HO to someday build a layout in HO scale, now that I have more space.

I always saw HO and N scale as pretty close, cost wise, BUT there's a lot more offered in HO and that means there is frankly, more crap. As someone else posted, equivalent quality engines cost about the same in N as they do in HO but there is a larger volume of lower cost (and lower quality) locomotives on the market for HO.

Performance wise, I think it comes down to skills of the individual modeler. The smaller the scale, the less forgiving it is. Mistakes in layout building and maintenance that cause small irritation in HO will cause catastrophic failures in N scale.
 
Old 97 said:
HO is the answer for younger folks. Much easier to rail and run,
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this. When I was a younger folk and switched to N, I found the small size of the N-scale easier to handle and deal with. I could rail N-scale cars with one hand and no ramp. With HO and O it took two hands, and even today I have trouble railing G-scale. While I am certain there are large variations in dexterity, from personal experience I can recommend N scale for grades 3 and up.
 
Good debate! My son wants the smaller scale because he thinks it cool. We went to a train show recently and saw a super small scale, no idea what it was, but it literally was in a suitcase - full layout and scenery. He wanted it right away.
 
RRNube said:
My son wants the smaller scale because he thinks it cool. We went to a train show recently and saw a super small scale, no idea what it was, but it literally was in a suitcase - full layout and scenery. He wanted it right away.
Click to expand...
That sounds like Z-scale. It is pretty cool. I love it, but talk about expensive. I have not been able to talk myself into the $40 for a caboose that I wanted.
 
Could be T scale (1:450). Not to be confused with TT (1:120 - an old European scale which lost out the HO in popularity).

http://www.tgauge.com/


If small is what your son likes, then small seems to be the way to go. I had N scale trains when I was a teenager and I had no problem with size in those days. N scale is way too small for me now. Oh dear, I'm getting old aren't I?:rolleyes:

Paul
 
This question is as loaded as the toilet paper over the top or from the bottom debate. There is no wrong answer. I do tink the twice as much thing in N could be looked at in another way. Whats the length of an HO train with 2 GP's and about 20ft boxcars? Now how big is the same train in N? You are looking at 12-14 feet in HO and only about 6ft in N. What looks more realistic on a 20ft long layout run? Can you imagine the amount of scenery you can get on a 2ft wide layout in N scale. I have a 4 track yard and it only takes up about 6 inches of that space. Yes, if you fill the layout with buildings, it does get more expensive, but fill it with hills and valleys and streams and ponds. All of which is fairly inexpensive. HO would be my choice if I wanted yards and lots of switching. Since I like mainline running and enough switching to break the trend, I chose N. My layout is a double, over under loop. It is 4ft wide by 26ft long. I placed a scenic divider down the middle so in one way I get 2 2ftx26ft sides. One side has a lower level and an upper level about 4" higher than the lower. On the other side those 2 levels cross each other in an up and over act. Therefore in reality, my train covers 104' of track before it reaches the starting point again.

Remember, just because you have the space, doesn't mean you have to fill it with train and building. To me, a 14' train running on a 20' run kinda looks out of place. Throw in loops on the end and you're kinda chasing the tail, so to speak. And, being that many follow the prototype, how realistic is a 20 car train with 2 locos running the mainline unless its a switch crew?

Buy what you're happy with, afterall its yours. My kids love the small size of N, others ask why its not bigger. My layout as built, would be impossible in HO.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top