Should I Return to HO?


Brakeman Hal said:
JazzDad...


I believe that, JazzDad!

I was just waiting for someone to tell me not to forsake a good thing that I have so much time, labor, and expense invested in!

Look at the difference between my O-scale 2-Rail and the little HO engine! No way am I going back to that small equipment!

Brakeman Hal

View attachment 43345
Click to expand...
Hal - it looks like the HO track fits inside the O gauge. Since you don't have turnouts, I would check if you could run the HO inside the O. If it works, then you could run both. It might not be prototypical looking, but I think it would be worth looking into.
 
Hey Sirfoldalot:

Yes I have a Pacific, but I'm using it for light freight service because I couldn't find a Mikado or Consolidation in O-Scale 2-Rail.
It's an MTH locomotive, a Pennsy.

I'll post a picture soon!

Thanks for the inspirational boost...I guess I'll stay with the big stuff...I like the rumble from the weight of the train as it passes, which is 6 times the weight of equivalent equipment in HO.

Brakeman Hal
Selector said:
I would review why I went for O in place of all that I had invested in HO, and then very critically analyse why I think it's a great idea to undo all that thinking. I don't mean to be judgemental, but if you made a rather basic error in information-gathering and understanding when you changed last time, what about YOU have you corrected so that you don't make the same errors this time? IOW, do you labour under inherent biases that afflict your judgement, and are they merely guiding you to making another mistake?
Click to expand...

It's difficult to comprehend your premise, Selector, so I'll just say OK...that's just what I was thinking!

Hal
 

Attachments

  • 001.JPG
    001.JPG
    210.6 KB · Views: 150
I agree, it would look like junk. I think outside the box, when I'm solving a problem. But I think you answered your own question in post #10. I admire your O 2-rail!
 
I don't see why not. Back in the 70's I was in N scale and the locomotives at the time ran like crap for the most mart and there was such a limited selection of road names and locomotives. Sounds a bit like your situation. Tore out the N scale and moved to HO.
 
MHinLA said:
As I don't think there are any switches (TOs) on your dogbone [ it's not a folded DB ]. If you went to HO you'd have room for a small branch line coming off the main, climbing a grade, winding its way across a short trestle to small coal/copper/salt/talc mine. You would not need a return loop or wye as the 3-4 ore jennies would be pushed up the grade and train merely backed down with the empty or loaded cars..On the flat you could have one more switch for a stub end siding for these cars and where a main line train backs into to retrieve these cars, destined for an imagined foundry/manufacturer. Both TOs of course, can be manual, with ground throws..
This addition would lend a bit more of RR activity to the big picture, if and when you want...
Click to expand...

I don't want ANY activity on my Calico Freight Lines Railroad! I just like it running around and around on its 127-foot course, with nowhere else to go!

I don't want to be bothered with throwing switches for sidings and spurs, and I don't want ANY man-made structures of any kind on my layout other than the track itself running around my High Desert rocky buttes.

SIMPLICITY is my God!
Hal
 
Last edited:
Before building my present layout, I had an all-indoor 150-foot railroad for running my G-Scale 2-6-0 Mogul and its short consist.

Now THERE was a real heavy rumbler...It made O-Scale seem like a child's toy!
Brakeman Hal
001.JPG
 
Brakeman Hal said:
Over a year ago, I re-tracked my 127 foot Folded Dogbone layout from HO to O-Scale 2-Rail.

Now I'm finding that my choices in Steam and Diesel engines and rolling stock is severely limited in wheel configuration and Road Names.

Re-railing back to HO would not be a big problem, as I'll continue using the same benchwork, but finding a buyer for all that O-Scale 2-Rail flex track would be a problem, as would the Pacific 4-6-2 loco, a GP 35 Diesel, and all 8 pieces of rolling stock.

My desert mountain scenery would actually look better, at nearly double in apparent size. (1.8 times actually.)

So shall I make the big switch again?

Brakeman Hal

View attachment 43334
Click to expand...
it depends on hat you like, if you have a easy time handling and using HO, and you think it would be good for a while, go for it.
If you are in the opposite category i would say stick with it, O scale may be big but it is reliable for all ages as you can always grab it an handle it. i've done it before where i took a lionel cars and put 2 rail couplings on it.
 
If you are not interested in anything other than seeing your train running round and round, then I'd have to say stay with your O.. Because, what, other than smaller trains, would it make a difference ? I only made my prior suggestions based on the ample new space you would have, going to HO.. IE. I don't see the advantage of ripping up what you already have soundly in place by repeating the same thing with any other scale..
Or, for that matter, why not go to N and run a longer train ? Yes, N can be difficult to work on due to its minutia. But since you wouldn't be working on them, or throwing switches, having sidings, or numerous structures et al, N would be really neato against the dramatically huge towering rocks...
But, again, my true vote is to leave it be. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top