TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Ed Kapuscinski on July 02, 2024, 10:35:02 PM
-
You can actually have and use a fleet of 86' boxcars.
[attachimg=1]
Thank you @Bluford Craig
-
Hell Yes.. Craig has done a great job filling my auto parts facility with big.. long.. boxcars :)
-
I see the models, kits, and parts available to HO scale and think that sure would be nice.
As an owner of many 86 boxcar and similar sized cars I realize if I wanted to have what I have in HO it'd take over the room instead of just a couple shelves and bookcases.
-
You can actually have and use a fleet of 86' boxcars.
And here, all this time, I thought N scale was so I could have a fleet of 85' passenger cars. To each his own, I guess. (I do have a fleet of Bluford hoppers, although no 86' boxcars)
Too bad we are limited to one up-vote, Ed, because you deserve one for the statement, and another for that late autumn scene. No, make that three, with one more for the weathering on the boxcar.
As an owner of many 86 boxcar and similar sized cars I realize if I wanted to have what I have in HO it'd take over the room instead of just a couple shelves and bookcases.
Many years ago, I looked into purchasing an N-scale focuses small manufacturing company from a couple who were moving on to other things. The husband told me "we have $37,000 in inventory, do you have an idea what that looks like?" I answered "it would depend on how many locomotives, but I figure a 30" wide bookcase about 5' tall." He laughed and told me I was close, and that most of the potential buyers who came to look had assumed it would fill a garage.
-
Always knew you liked 'em big and long Ed! :scared: :D
-
You can have those in Horribly Oversized scale too....just need twice the space to pull it off.... :trollface: :ashat: :facepalm:
I get what you're saying though. :D
I forgot, how big is the layout you're working on? For comparison, I needed a minimum of 36" curves to realistically pull off the 86' boxes, 89' flats, and autoracks without having crazy amounts of overhang. Big, long trains running in smaller footprints is what I miss about N Scale. My oldest son continually reminds me of the N Scale empire I could have had...lol!
Cheers,
Brian
[attachimg=1]
-
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
They look pretty good at 15" R or more
-
You can have those in Horribly Oversized scale too....just need twice the space to pull it off...
4X the space. Square of the difference.
Ed captured my sentiment. A very large layout - mine is currently a "pink foam prairie" - does those big cars justice. And here you go:
(http://www.everywherewest.com/afton_monsters.jpg)
-
Yup I have several and no use for them on the layout . :D
-
Looking good Ed.. Mine arrived yesterday. I hope to have them on the rails in a month benchwork is 1/2 done. Slowly but surely I am getting there.
-
Yup I have several and no use for them on the layout . :D
Time for another layout!
-
Yeah, exactly.
In HO, I remember thinking 50' cars were 'big', and with 22" radius curves, 85' Rivarossi heavyweight cars looked absurd
A long train was 10 cars. An MU consist?
So here I am in N scale in 5'6" by 8' 'big' layout, running 30 car trains with up to 4 units, auto racks, piggybacks, passenger trains, and 15" curves and still loving it. Signalled two-track main line.
Or I could be doing a weedy branch or logging railroad in the same available space in HO. Nope. My portable logging railroad modules are up to 21x42 inches and have carrying handles and fit right in the back of my SUV. See ya at Altoona.
-
Nice work, Ed!
But it's not just 86' box cars that work in a reasonable amount of space in N scale. As an earlier post noted, those 85' passenger cars are another example. But all prototypically big things are just better done in N scale unless you have an 80' pole barn for your layout. The Big Boy is 19" long in HO scale; it's less than 10" in N scale. Say you wanted to re-create a prototypical train from the mid-1950's with the Big Boy in front. Say 50 cars, averaging 40' each in length. A 40' box car in HO scale is about 6" over the coupler faces. So you're talking 25 feet of cars and another 2 feet roughly for the engine, so 27 feet total. In N scale, that becomes about 14.5 feet. You'd need a REALLY big space to put that train on one section of tangent in HO scale. In N, not so bad.
My steel mill scene on my layout has buildings that are really scale size in N - but they were marketed as HO scale buildings (the Walthers steel mill buildings) because real steel mill buildings are huge, and a real scale steel mill scene in HO would take up an enormous amount of space. So Walthers "selectively compressed" them. In N scale, that's not necessary.
What depresses me is how many folks still think N scale is simply poorly running "toys." Nope.
John C.
John C.
-
Discovering N scale pretty much kept me from abandoning the hobby. I had no room for any permanent HO setup, and the oval of EZ Track on the spare room floor was getting old faster than my locomotives' drivetrains were filling up with carpet and cat hair. By high school I was at the absolute nadir of model train interest. Then I found an N scale set at the LHS. The equivalent to my HO oval fit on a board I could stash with (and set on top of) my family's folding card table, with room to spare. Suddenly I had a 'real' layout. And the rest is history.
-
You can actually have and use a fleet of 86' boxcars.
(Attachment Link)
Thank you @Bluford Craig
Agree 100%!
With an assembly plant on the layout as the focal point of operations, I have more than a few of the 86' boxes and 89' racks. Fortunately the yards and plant trackage are spread out along a 33' wall, which in N scale can is more than enough to represent this type of operation, and the long cars that serve them, justice.
And I'm VERY relieved to have stocked up on racks before they were $50-60 a pop, and the 86' boxes around $22 ea...
-
All this talk about boxcars.... The reason I am in N scale is that the N scale distance from Polk street (at Dearborn St) to Roosevelt road is 11 feet. No 'selective compression'- a 500' freighthouse can be 500 scale feet long, no need for a 6 car Super Chief pulled by an AB because you need to save space. Now, all I have to do is actually build the damn thing.
-
You can have those in Horribly Oversized scale too....just need twice the space to pull it off.... :trollface: :ashat: :facepalm:
... or 72% of the space for Z scale .... :D :ashat: :ashat:
Ed
-
Agree 100%!
With an assembly plant on the layout as the focal point of operations, I have more than a few of the 86' boxes and 89' racks. Fortunately the yards and plant trackage are spread out along a 33' wall, which in N scale can is more than enough to represent this type of operation, and the long cars that serve them, justice.
A 33' wall would be a 1 mile wall in N scale..
-
You can actually have and use a fleet of 86' boxcars.
(Attachment Link)
Thank you @Bluford Craig
Wait, 1 and 1/2 cars is a fleet, Champ?
-
A 33' wall would be a 1 mile wall in N scale..
Yup... the space I have isn't optimum in some respects, but that wall makes up for the shortcomings. All this rain has revealed a leak in the foundation, so for a while that wall shall only have about half of the necessary benchwork along it until repairs are made :(
-
And here, all this time, I thought N scale was so I could have a fleet of 85' passenger cars.
This is what I had thought, as well. Almost any freight car over fity feet is out of my era. As for locomotives, I do not run anything larger than a Pacific or mikado or E-unit/PA.
-
... or 72% of the space for Z scale .... :D :ashat: :ashat:
Ed
... or 35% of the space for T scale :D :trollface:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/41/3184-040724092921.jpeg)
-
Is anyone doing small steam in T though? I'd think the valve gear would be difficult.
-
As a convert from HO, I've always had a stray eye to N whenever I'd visit a hobby shop. I'd briefly imagine a much bigger layout in the same space, running longer trains and with more scenery...but the toy-like quality of N scale back then (early-1980s-mid 1990s) was a massive turn-off.
When I made the switch in 2006 I noticed the quality was catching up and the things I disliked about N - the unrealistically tall ride height, rapido couplers, pizza-cutter wheels and skimpy or too-thick details - were being phased out and newer design/manufacturing technology was making better N scale possible. These days, N is basically a smaller version of HO scale, and that's what I've always wanted.
Now, HO scale looks and feels like O scale to my eyes.
-
Is anyone doing small steam in T though? I'd think the valve gear would be difficult.
Funny you mention that..
Lets not forget small switchers..
-
A 33' wall would be a 1 mile wall in N scale..
The run on my last layout was almost exactly 100 feet. I always found it gratifying to run a prototype Broadway Limited around the layout at prototypical speed and have it take six minutes to make a full lap.
-
I’m really starting to agree with Grant Emerson of Southern Alberta Rail fame. The more space you have, the smaller the scale you should use.
-
I’m really starting to agree with Grant Emerson of Southern Alberta Rail fame. The more space you have, the smaller the scale you should use.
My nuance is that it depends. I love giant N scale layouts. But my own maintenance woes on occasion. (Partially faulted by the fact that my layout can go a month or two with no use as I want to do other things but) Combined with experience with larger scales through my job. It can be a weird balance sometimes. Think a lot of people shoot themselves in the foot going way too big without much of a plan for how they intend to keep it running and I think N scale sort of exacerbates those sorts of issues.
-
My nuance is that it depends. I love giant N scale layouts. But my own maintenance woes on occasion. (Partially faulted by the fact that my layout can go a month or two with no use as I want to do other things but) Combined with experience with larger scales through my job. It can be a weird balance sometimes. Think a lot of people shoot themselves in the foot going way too big without much of a plan for how they intend to keep it running and I think N scale sort of exacerbates those sorts of issues.
Amen to this!
It's one of the things that many people don't think about, and the reason why I'm almost glad that I'm space constrained. I know I'd fall into the trap myself.
-
My nuance is that it depends. I love giant N scale layouts. But my own maintenance woes on occasion. ...
My only maintenance concern in the 5? years I've had the layout running has been track cleaning. To that end I've been building a cleaner train in bits and pieces. It's comprised of two motorized German track grinders - one with polisher wheels, the other with felt buffer wheels - and a Roco/Atlas cleaner configured for vacuuming. I went "automated" early because I was snapping off arms on the one telephone pole I located for test purpose - some test! - and was cringing at what was destined to happen once I populated with things like signals.
It has been mostly effective, but like you I haven't been operating enough to not have to run the cleaner train for several laps prior to anything else, and even then some sections require hand touch-up. Considering a single lap with the cleaner takes about 20 minutes, my available JFRTM time is mostly eaten by cleaning.
One of these days I'll be far enough along on the cleaner train to document it. Currently it's in a usable-but-not-pretty state of "temporary" wiring. :facepalm:
-
Amen to this!
It's one of the things that many people don't think about, and the reason why I'm almost glad that I'm space constrained. I know I'd fall into the trap myself.
I understand where you’re coming from and that feeling is why I really enjoy modular railroading. I don’t feel the pressure to finish the big one. But if I wanted to, I only have to worry about it a few feet at a time.
I think Grant’s point is that it’s easier to create the illusion of being immersed in railroading with small scales in large spaces. Keep in mind his railroad is quite simple. He’s more interested in over-the-road operations as opposed to local or heavy industrial switching. If your goal is heavy duty operations, it might not be the best approach. If you want to create that sensation of being engulfed by the railroad in a small space, try a simple switching layout in a large scale. It’s about illusion and perception. It’s an interesting line of thinking for sure.
-
I’ve got a few of those cars from an earlier run circling around my doughnut (Hiles Tower) layout. The center of the car only shows the railhead when navigating the Atlas curved turnouts. The layout was created without these cars in mind, but they do look at home sweeping along the 28” radius around the perimeter.
[attachimg=1]
-
I do sometimes look at the 12 x 14 foot space the HOn3 Rio Grande Southern First District occupies and imagine the PRR Middle Division in N scale with all 4 tracks occupying that same space.
I could also have done one hell of a Colorado Midland in N scale in that space too.
-
You didn't mention me :D
-
FWIW, I actually did get a lot of railroad into a roughly 3 x 6 foot space:
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/30/1151-141022162252-308241770.jpeg)
-
I’m really starting to agree with Grant Emerson of Southern Alberta Rail fame. The more space you have, the smaller the scale you should use.
I have a lot of space, and I did briefly consider switching to HO. Not so much account the space, more the fact that I can get pretty much everything I want equipment-wise in HO (C630M, M630, M636, M420, RS-18, GP9RM (and Slugs), GP40-2L, GP40-2W, GP38-2W, GMD SD40's, SW1200RS, tank hoppers aka cement tubes, slab sides, Canadian pig flats... basically everything that Rapido offers that was around in and in Ontario circa 1987-89). What stopped me? We'll, I wasn't overly serious about switching, and the thought of selling all that N scale equipment at a loss and having spend more $$$ and time to rebuild my fleet in HO was enough.
In mocking up some track to display my newly acquired NSC barrel ore car train, it was kind of difficult to imagine being anywhere as impressed with it in HO. Even though these are short cars, five N scale GP40-2W's and 50 or so ore hoppers and a van looked pretty impressive on the S curve... a train length approximating what was actually ran. And this fit in a space less that 12' in depth, although linearly it was closer to 14-15'. My peninsula is 6' wide at the loop end, so there's a lot of space to have broad curse on both the CN a nd CP mains, a real bonus considering the number of 86' and 89' cars that will be passing over them. The ability to have long cars not look silly on mainline curves is a big draw, and the bigger the space, the broader the curves get.
The ability to fit the following along a 33' long wall in N scale:
CN main yard consisting of four arrival / departure / setout/lift tracks (17' long), 10 classification tracks (10-12' long)
CN secondary yard for local traffic non-automotive consisting of four tracks (~4' long)
CP yard consisting of seven tracks (7-8' long - CP was always able to do more with much less.
The Assembly plant including plant trackage for parts and the five track rack loading terminal.
An industrial area with an electric arc steel mill, plastic pellet distribution facility, carton manufacturer, furniture plant, tire manufacturer, distribution warehouse. Probably something else I've forgotten.
Maybe I've been in N scale so long that nothing else seems normal, but while visiting Caboose Stop in Cedar Falls last Friday, I spent a little time checking out the HO models, and they sure look comically big to me.
-
Maybe I've been in N scale so long that nothing else seems normal, but while visiting Caboose Stop in Cedar Falls last Friday, I spent a little time checking out the HO models, and they sure look comically big to me.
It's a matter of what you get used to looking at. I've been dabbling in Z for a little while now, and when I look back at my N scale stuff, it seems quite large.
I guess if Z ever starts to look small to me, I'll have to try out some T gauge ;)
Ed
-
In case anyone is wondering if these cars can run on a door layout. This is, essentially, half one.
(https://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-06-20.15.42-scaled.jpg)
It ain't pretty, but it works.
-
In case anyone is wondering if these cars can run on a door layout. This is, essentially, half one.
(https://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-06-20.15.42-scaled.jpg)
It ain't pretty, but it works.
Do you notice an excessive amount of drag on the 86'ers w/metal wheels through those curves? I'm using a similarly tight curve on my 6'x3' setup, and find the drag very noticeably affecting the speed, not to mention with the 0-5-0 switcher. Metal wheels seem worse in this regard than the plastic wheels these used to come with. I swapped out most of my plastic wheel equipped cars long ago with FVM wheels, but they're affected every bit as much as the Bluford equipped metal wheels.
I get it, not designed for those types of curves and drag should be expected, but I'd have guessed the metal wheels would've been lower friction than the plastic.
-
It's a matter of what you get used to looking at. I've been dabbling in Z for a little while now, and when I look back at my N scale stuff, it seems quite large.
I guess if Z ever starts to look small to me, I'll have to try out some T gauge ;)
Ed
Getting to be I can't seen the N scale stuff too well anymore :scared:
-
In case anyone is wondering if these cars can run on a door layout. This is, essentially, half one.
(https://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-06-20.15.42-scaled.jpg)
It ain't pretty, but it works.
Long Car - Short Car.. thats a big no no.. :)
-
Long Car - Short Car.. thats a big no no.. :)
Conrail is an NS predecessor. Just foretelling of things to come....
-
I love a lot about N-scale. I love the reality of having to either kitbash or scratchbuild structures, equipment and hand-laid turnouts and some track.
I love the way a 24" minimum mainline radius makes my UP and SP trains look, as opposed to the same radius in HO scale...with even larger spiral-eased, superelevated curves looking even better.
I never intended to build small layouts since I got started in the late 1970's, so I can't comment on how much trackage I can stuff into a tiny layout since it's something I doubt I'll ever do.
The scale is small enough to run semi-prototypical length trains if operating, or full length trains for the cosmetic effect, but, it's large enough to see the details with Optivisors or a decent camera. Not too big, and not too small...almost perfect.
Most of all, I love the scenery-to-track-ratio of 1:160th scale...HO being much too large, and Z being too small. N-scale just "fits" my eyes' perception of a model railroad that looks more "real" than any other scale in my experience...and my cameras agree with me. I'm a firm believer in running little trains in large spaces.
With the advancement and increased affordability of LASER cutting tools, high resolution 3D printers and etched products, most of the detriments that N-scale had 30 years ago don't exist today for an ambitious modeler...and I love it.
Of course, there's always room for improvement, but, it IS the "Golden Age" of N-scale nowadays, and for my chosen era, road and location, it just keeps getting more golden.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
I love the way you can allow the scenery to dominate the train models. If you wanted, you could actually model this scene.[attachimg=1]
-
Long Car - Short Car.. thats a big no no.. :)
Lol. Believe it or not, I had more trouble with the 60'er behind them than the shorty in front. It was because the truck mounted coupler on the boxcar is a long one, so there was a long lever pulling it off. It was ok, but dicey.
-
Do you notice an excessive amount of drag on the 86'ers w/metal wheels through those curves? I'm using a similarly tight curve on my 6'x3' setup, and find the drag very noticeably affecting the speed, not to mention with the 0-5-0 switcher. Metal wheels seem worse in this regard than the plastic wheels these used to come with. I swapped out most of my plastic wheel equipped cars long ago with FVM wheels, but they're affected every bit as much as the Bluford equipped metal wheels.
I get it, not designed for those types of curves and drag should be expected, but I'd have guessed the metal wheels would've been lower friction than the plastic.
Yeah, there was some drag, but nothing I'd consider problematic. Especially because the metal wheels made it really easy to mount the resistors I need for detection on them.
Just add more power ;)
-
" they can fit in your mouth" :)
-
" they can fit in your mouth" :)
/>For some reason, playback won't start at the correct time, so skip to 4:04
-
Yeah, there was some drag, but nothing I'd consider problematic. Especially because the metal wheels made it really easy to mount the resistors I need for detection on them.
Just add more power ;)
Trip optimizer is taking a mental health day thanks to you.
-
(Attachment Link)
A bit late to this party (as usual). This is a great photo, and shows off one of N Scale’s best attributes.
Ironically, I am strongly considering selling off my fleet of 85’+ cars and associated six-axle power…
There are many factors for this decision, but one of them is aesthetics. I planned my layout for era-swapping between the Erie / DL&W in 1952, and the EL in 1972, and have been accumulating a roster for each era. But the layout was built to support steam-diesel transition era scenery with a double-track main and features local freight switching. My staging yard tracks were designed for a train of thirty 40’ freight cars, an A-B-A set of F units and a caboose to orbit the layout while the local does its thing. The length of the train looks “right” on the layout. But when I replace that train with a staging-length train of 1972 equipment, those two SD45’s are only hauling fourteen or fifteen 85’ cars. Grossly overpowered and looks “wrong” to me. And 1972 local freight switching was only a shadow of what was there in 1952. As much as I am enamored with the UPS piggyback trains of the EL and the colorful Dereco era, I have more ‘fun’ switching cars on the peddler freights.
So I am seriously considering going “all in” on the pre-merger DL&W and Erie. If I do, there will be a fair amount of EL items and pre-Conrail rolling stock for sale at Altoona in September...
Ron
-
Ooh!
Wait, will I be banned from buying any, given what you know I'd do with it?
(https://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/This-is-ttrak.jpg)
-
So I am seriously considering going “all in” on the pre-merger DL&W and Erie. If I do, there will be a fair amount of EL items and pre-Conrail rolling stock for sale at Altoona in September...
im just gonna ignore i saw this in care of my wallets further debt
-
Ooh!
Wait, will I be banned from buying any, given what you know I'd do with it?
(https://conrail1285.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/This-is-ttrak.jpg)
this is a complete sin my friend.....
-
I'm biting my lip. Ed :D
Ron. I did it successfully and I'm and I'm not sorry! Less is more.
Greg O.
-
Ed, as long as it isn't something I painted, I'll allow it :trollface:
-
I've always liked the scale for its history of quality construction...
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724110608.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42267)
Prototype fidelity
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724110658.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42268)
Avanced technology
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724111538.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42269)
Realistic Track: Scenery Ratio
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724112101.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42270)
Long-term reliability
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724112325.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42271)
Exquisite detail
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724112555.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42272)
And realistic operations!
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724112721.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42273)
Is this a great hobby, or what? :D
Lee
-
You forgot prototypical ride height.
(https://shop.bachmanntrains.com/images/N_Scale/70754.jpg)
-
And the vast array of highly detailed scenery accessories!
(https://www.therailwire.net/forum/gallery/42/9-170724152310.jpeg) (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42274)
-
And prototypical couplers that operate flawlessly even when intermixed between brands..
(https://www.fiferhobby.com/wp-content/uploads/combinedsidessm.jpg)
Photo from Fifer Hobby
-
Photo from Fifer Hobby
Ah, that brings back some memories of when I wrote up this comparison on Atlas forum, not too long after the N scale McHenry coupler was introduced. Nice to see it is still available on Fifer's website (I gave them permission to use it).
Since that time few more knuckle couplers were into N scale. One of these days I should update this coupler comparison.
-
A bit late to this party (as usual). This is a great photo, and shows off one of N Scale’s best attributes.
Ironically, I am strongly considering selling off my fleet of 85’+ cars and associated six-axle power…
There are many factors for this decision, but one of them is aesthetics. I planned my layout for era-swapping between the Erie / DL&W in 1952, and the EL in 1972, and have been accumulating a roster for each era. But the layout was built to support steam-diesel transition era scenery with a double-track main and features local freight switching. My staging yard tracks were designed for a train of thirty 40’ freight cars, an A-B-A set of F units and a caboose to orbit the layout while the local does its thing. The length of the train looks “right” on the layout. But when I replace that train with a staging-length train of 1972 equipment, those two SD45’s are only hauling fourteen or fifteen 85’ cars. Grossly overpowered and looks “wrong” to me. And 1972 local freight switching was only a shadow of what was there in 1952. As much as I am enamored with the UPS piggyback trains of the EL and the colorful Dereco era, I have more ‘fun’ switching cars on the peddler freights.
So I am seriously considering going “all in” on the pre-merger DL&W and Erie. If I do, there will be a fair amount of EL items and pre-Conrail rolling stock for sale at Altoona in September...
Ron
Ron,
As Mr. Miyagi might say, "Ah, focus Ronaldson, focus" ;)
For me, sticking to a specific "timeframe" (March/April, 1953) as made it less complicated to model the SP. Mind you, I said "less complicated", NOT easier LOL. Look forward to seeing you in Altoona!
-
And prototypical couplers that operate flawlessly even when intermixed between brands..
(https://www.fiferhobby.com/wp-content/uploads/combinedsidessm.jpg)
Photo from Fifer Hobby
What, no Bachmann boxing glove?
-
What, no Bachmann boxing glove?
It would require its own image... in large format! :trollface:
-
What, no Bachmann boxing glove?
No, that review was done before Bachmann, Scale Trains, Hornby/Arnold and TSC came out. And of course before the more recent couplers.
-
What I love about N scale:
That you can get a lot more N scale Santa Fe locomotives into the same space (foreground locos), than you can in HO (background locos)!
(https://a4.pbase.com/o3/17/804917/1/137810764.x2VCLuq0.IMG_0876.jpg)
This photo is from an visit to Nor-Cal Free-Mo Labor Day 2011 meet: https://pbase.com/atsf_arizona/norcalfreemo_labor_day_2011&page=2 :)
-
To be fair, they didn't cram as many HO locos as possible on the upper shelf. Still, point taken. But HO locos have so much air space inside you can add a decoder, big speaker, animation unit (to make the engineer wave), smoke unit, random cut-out circuit, (so the loco suddenly has a :breakdown" during an ops session), coupler actuators .... and STILL able to cram more weights into it. You can't put a value on THAT.
However, N scale is the best.