# HO vs. N



## HookupsXXX4 (Dec 4, 2003)

First off, BIG THANKS to Hankster for putting up a R/R board! This is going to be great.

I am in the middle of building my benchwork for my layout. I am putting together a 8X15 shelf layout. I am thinking of a point to point, I am a huge fan of operating sessions. 

After having most of it up, I stepped back and thought to myself that, man, I would have alot more room with N.

I am modeling a line that goes out of Pittsburgh in 75-76. I want alot of Mts. and forests. With N, I would be able to have alot more. 

I am just wanting hear the Pros and Cons about N. I have been with HO over the years.

Thanks,
Jerry
_____________________________
New World Hobbies-nwh.vstore.ca
Axiom Motors-axiommotors.com
MAXAMPS.COM
K of K


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

HookupsXXX4 said:


> First off, BIG THANKS to Hankster for putting up a R/R board! This is going to be great.
> 
> I am in the middle of building my benchwork for my layout. I am putting together a 8X15 shelf layout. I am thinking of a point to point, I am a huge fan of operating sessions.
> 
> ...


I don't do layouts, but I've seen a few. They bring some pretty big modular N scale layouts to train shows, for instance. 

The smaller scale you go, the proportionally larger the turn radii used, so you never get as much more track in your space, as you think. Plus, the smaller you go, the closer you have to be, to see the same detail. I would tend to consider HOn3, or HOn30, before N scale.

Roy


----------



## HookupsXXX4 (Dec 4, 2003)

If I where to go to N, my track plan would stay the same. I want the extra room for scenery.

I don't real like the look of HOn3. 


Jerry

_____________________________
New World Hobbies-nwh.vstore.ca
Axiom Motors-axiommotors.com
MAXAMPS.COM
K of K


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

HookupsXXX4 said:


> If I where to go to N, my track plan would stay the same. I want the extra room for scenery.
> 
> I don't real like the look of HOn3.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I understand. Narrow gauge is very different looking. 

As for the scenery, you will tend to see tree groves, rather than individual trees, and towns, rather than individual buildings. 

There is also the question of quality of operation. I must leave that, to someone familiar with modern N scale equipment.


Roy


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

N is not very good when modelling steam or where ABSOLUTE reliability is required. I STARTED in N, back when you had to remove the Rapido couplers and build and add Kay-Dee's. Coal is most fun I think. I now do the N&W in the 1930's so you DON'T have to have A's(before 1936), J's(1941) or Y6b's(1948). You can model the early 1930's with the excellent Lifelike Y3's. Add on about 100 hoppers and 3 cabeese and you're set!


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Depends on your era and whether you want to model the "train" or the "railroad"...

N-scale is great for early to modern diesel era (aka 50's to today) modeling. Lots to choose from of good (or even excellent) quality for locos and rolling stock, along with buildings, scenery, etc...

When it comes to early railroading, it's hit or miss. There are only a few good late steamers out there, Kato's Mikado - Bachman's Consolidation (older era, but in common use), a coupld of articulateds etc. Early steam is also difficult to find, but the MDC/Athearn Consolidation and Mogul models are VERY good runners.

If you want to do early steam or transition (steam to diesel) you can do it in N-scale but HO gives you more options to work with. N-scale is gaining ground, but it will take time...


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

But only about 20 percent of the HO scale items have an equivilant in N scale. I've NEVER seen an N scale marker jewel.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

StarCruiser said:


> N-scale is gaining ground, but it will take time...


N scale has been around for a LONG time. I got an Aurora "Postage Stamp" N scale train set for Xmas back in the '60s. It had been called "N" scale for some time, at that point. It started out as OOO scale, years before.

I brought up the issue of operation not so much because my N scale trains ran all that badly. However, my operating experience with early Z scale was disappointing, and what I've seen of more recent HO scale just blows my mind. I figure that the smaller, and lighter, you go, the more difficult it must be, to attain any given level of performance.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Yes - N scale has been around almost as long as I have (think, Star Trek's age and you're about right).

Operations is not an issue with N scale diesels - nor with ... selected ... steamers. The problem N scale started with is what Z scale is just now getting past - the attitude that it's a "toy", not a "model" railroad. Once the manufacturers have started getting past it, the quality has started to climb quickly, and the variety is starting to improve as well.


----------



## scrambler81 (May 3, 2006)

I would think that the biggest problem with N has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment, and everything to do with the quality of the modeler. As we get older, the scratch building, detailing, and even just servicing the locomotives, will become more and more difficult. The eyes go, and the dexterity goes, and those little trains and houses will be a bear to work on. I'd guess the majority of railroaders are well over 40, so ease of use is bound to factor into the decision.
HO is still small enough to fit a lot in a given space, but big enough to make it easy to work with.


----------



## Lpgeoteacher (Sep 22, 2004)

Long ago in a place far far away I got involved with N Guage. I still have the entire Bauchmann N Guage set that I got for christmas in the early to mid 1970's. I loved N guage because everybody else had HO. One of these days I'm gong to dig out of the basement that old set and put it together. (After an exstensive cleaning). If your interisted in N Guage stuff I've got some on the Swap and Sell board. Check it out.


----------



## powerking (Sep 18, 2006)

That is a debate I'm still having with myself, and I have equipment for both. My plan is to build a small RR in each scale and see what I like/dislike  and go from there.
Peter


----------



## Maz HOF 2001 (Nov 1, 2006)

I can remember as a boy of 8 or 9, back in '67-68, Norm Taggart of Taggart's Toys and Hobbies, telling me to go with N scale. The flexibility of the size was phenomenal, compared to HO or O. At the time, there were just a few mfr.s that were prominent in N scale. Scenery items and structures (mostly Revell) were available in ready-built form by the box, but not more affordable for my much-limited budget. I remember _Model Railroader _ showcasing an N layout that folded, and fit in a suitcase!

I couldn't go along with it. I was, by then, commited to a collection of Matchbox, with 300-400 models, and also couldn't wait to put a RR crossing piece on my Aurora T-Jet setup, so HO it had to be! There still are very few decent-looking automobile models for N scale. As a diecast collector who favors realistic models, I could never go that small.

Sadly, Taggart's closed about six months ago. My old hometown (Chagrin Falls, OH) will never be the same. (not a big surprise) Whoever bought it out recently probably sold all the miscellaneous inventory on evilBay.

*Jim in Pittsburgh*


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The weight of the locos limits the pulling, the requirement of METAL wheels on all the rolling stock for smooth operation, and the small size of pretty much everything makes N gauge hard to work with reliably. I know....I tried and tried. I had 6 of the 2-8-8-2's and some Atlas 2-8-2's and even a (Gasp) diesel E8. I put Kay-dee couplers on everything, and used the best track work I could do. Only number 6 switches. I cleaned the wheels, and track before every extended running sessions. The requirement of perfect tolerances for coupler heights, guaging of wheelsets etc made N a pain.

I switched to HO, and the skills I picked up from N were usable in HO! I now have 12 2-8-8-2's from Powerhouse, Lifelike and even Rivorossi. I have several hundred hoppers and overall over 25 engines. I have started a 'fleet' of Norfolk and Western M2c 4-8-0's based on MDC engines and parts from Bowser. DCC is easier to install and I can even have detailed interiors in my passenger cars!

I'll never go back to N.


----------



## partyplatedave (Feb 7, 2006)

i am not sure cus i am an O guy.....but the usualy benchwork table is a 4 by 8.....for ho the table you want to be building would be huge...i cant really tell you


----------



## db8 (Jan 31, 2007)

*N or HO*

In N scale, you can have a LOT more railroading in the same amount of space. That said, the variety of structures and rolling stock (locos/freight cars/passenger cars) is much greater in HO scale, but there seem to be a lot of new high quality goods coming out in N scale as well these days.

If you keep your gentle curve radii of HO (or even shrink that down a tad), you can certainly have a very impressive looking N scale layout with a much higher ratio of scenery to trains (thus being more realistic) in N. 

Check out atlasrr.com for lots of cool stuff in N, plus a very knowledgeable group of modelers in either scale on their scale-specific discussion forums there.

Cheers,
Harry


----------

