At a Crossroads

[robert3985]

Dave, whatever turns ya on dude!   

From my perspective, even being older (67 until the end of next month) and losing some of my physical acumen (eyesight's a bit worse), I would NEVER change from N-scale to any other scale...period.  Some of the things you're talking about mean absolutely nothing to me, particularly the "heft" thing, which only applies when you're actually lifting a model onto or off of the track.  I have operated on several HO scale model railroads, and even relatively famous ones seem toylike to me, mainly because of the crappy scenery-to-track ratio.  Operations-wise, my N-scale experience is that N-scale trains run better than HO scale trains, are easier to couple up and uncouple and the trackwork seems to be more reliable and smoother.

When my layout is finally to a semi-finished operations-level, I'll be replicating a day in 1952 and/or in 1956 to run trains through the areas I'm modeling.  This involves long trains pulled by huge engines, helper ops and several local manifest freights as well as local mixed trains, as well as switching at several industries and in the Ogden/Riverdale yards. 

I don't build layouts on hollow-core doors, or design spaghetti bowls of track, some of my 12' sections having only the double-track mainline running through them.  My philosophy is "Big Scenery for Little Trains"...and one of my main LDE's consists of 24 feet of half a dozen scenes, and at it's deepest point is 4'3" from fascia to skyboard.  To duplicate that in HO would cost me 48' of length and 8'6" of depth...all to get a close approximation of the huge cliffs at Echo vs mainline UP operations and engine coaling/water ops with 30 car trains.

The "heft" to me, is seeing big mainline engines pulling long trains, and although I agree that we hardly ever see a whole train in real life as it runs by us, we do see them when we're running our layouts.  Western railroading is evidently much different than Eastern railroading, with all the trees and kudzu covered scenery dominating the East.  Western mainline model railroading almost always involves canyons, huge bridges, mountains, cliffs...huge scenery dominating the relatively little trains, which N-scale is perfectly suited for...not being too small to make details invisible on the structures and everything on the track but still small enough for the scenery to dominate...but yet overall small enough do not require me to swivel my head to take it all in.

I would never, ever be happy with a Lance Mindheim style industrial layout.

N-scale is by far better suited for my style of model railroading and what I wish to accomplish.  HO scale would make it impossible for me.

But, that's just me.  Gotta do with the hobby what makes you happiest, and if non-N-scale is it, then go for it!

As for sound in N-scale, the biggest improvement to any sound in any scale is a quality speaker in an air-tight speaker enclosure.  Not exactly a big deal, and I'm sure you have the modeling skills to do that.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Scottl]

Dave,

This thread has made me think about my own situation a lot.  Like you, I have varied interests (including On30) but what brings me back to N scale over and over again is not my investment in it (which is sizable for me), but the key benefit of being able to run comparatively long trains in a modest space, and to not have them in a spaghetti bowl of track while doing it.  I do like the scenery work quite a bit, so the added benefit of the potential for a high scenery to train ratio is also very attractive.  This can be taken to remarkable ends like @mark dance Columbia and Western and @GaryHinshaw Tehachapi BC layouts, among many others (I just know those two from personal experience).  That remains a strong attraction for me and continuing on the path I am on.

I've had many moments of nearly buying a beautiful HO locomotive (most recently, the Scale Trains T4 units    https://www.scaletrains.com/collections/rivet-counter-ho-scale-ge-tier-4-gevo/products/rivet-counter-ho-scale-ge-tier-4-gevo-canadian-national), but when I try to draw up a HO layout that will fit my space, I realize how limiting the larger scale would be.

This has become even more challenging as it seems that perhaps a new garage is not out of the question and that buys me a lot of real estate to run trains.  But when I put a HO layout into it with those (Huge!) large radius curves, even a dedicated garage seems undersized.  Now if I had a space like @C855B I would drop N scale in a heartbeat for HO, but I don't see anything remotely like that in my future.

I was in Toronto on Friday to pick up my son and stopped at George's Trains, one of the two main stores in the region.  They had a lot of really nice HO equipment, but I have to admit, the $60 (CDN) for a HO freight car made me pause and realize how expensive my interest in modelling would be. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to really convince you of anything, and I know the urge to bring home one of those fabulous locomotives and to listen to the sound.  But you sure seem to like to run long trains based on the evidence here over the past few years!

[crrcoal]

I enjoy switching so drilling the yard will be the focus BUT I'm really going to enjoy the power sitting idling and drifting back and forth from the servicing facilities.

^This!  I have to admit that I really like just listening to a Geep sitting there in idle.  Reminds me of my time in Richmond, Virginia when I'd hang out by Bryan Park Terminal on the RF&P where the locomotives were burbling while awaiting service or their next assignment.

Soooooooooo, think of the space and money I can save by just building a diorama of an engine facility and never move my motive power. 

Thanks,
DFF

[nuno81291]

And in stark contrast to Bobs interest some of us have no desire to operate huge freight trains, expansive scenery, helper territory or anything of that nature. There are many short lines in New England with a lot of character, not to mention some of the industrial trackage was gnarly. To me a local with a few cars slowly making its way through a realistic setting in larger scale like HO is much more enjoyable than N. then again it is a macro vs micro sort of thing. Not every Ho layout is spaghetti any more than I see people do in N. I don't think cost is so much a factor because you fit less and less the larger you go scale wise.

[johnb]

It seems like a lot of us are at the same crossroads at the same time. For me, it is not a scale thing, but a location/era/road thing.

I  even blogged about this very issue this week. I  really close to ripping apart my roundy round this week....

https://sopacincg.com/thinking-about-scrapping-the-layouts/

[davefoxx]

I was in Toronto on Friday to pick up my son and stopped at George's Trains, one of the two main stores in the region.  They had a lot of really nice HO equipment, but I have to admit, the $60 (CDN) for a HO freight car made me pause and realize how expensive my interest in modelling would be. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to really convince you of anything, and I know the urge to bring home one of those fabulous locomotives and to listen to the sound.  But you sure seem to like to run long trains based on the evidence here over the past few years!

Scott,

It's all about thrifty shopping.  I only paid $28.99 for an Athearn Genesis box car yesterday with tons of factory added detail, e.g., brake lines, air hoses, and cut levers.  Considering that these details are already added without the need to buy separate detail parts and considering that all of my N scale cars required conversion to Fox Valley metal wheelsets that levels the playing field a little bit.

Yeah, the locomotive was $199.99, but that was with DCC and sound.  So, that's not outrageous compared to the equivalent in N scale.  I'm also not going to need the number of rolling stock that I have in N scale.  I have more freight cars and passenger cars than could fit on every inch of track on my layout.  I'll avoid the temptation to do that in HO (famous last words, right?).  You see, I won't be doing the dual eras in HO, and the only passenger train I'll want is an F40PH and three Amtoobs.  I won't fall for E units in HO, since I'll still have my N scale ones.  But, I will go slightly outside my era for this SCL bicentennial U36B No. 1776:

http://www.atlasrr.com/HOLoco/hou3336.htm

I've been dying for one (the N scale Bachmann one is dead to me), so this announcement in HO is sweet!

As for running long trains, I really haven't done that much.  Over the five years that the Seaboard Central 2.0 has existed, there was only about two years that the expansion was in place.  Otherwise, my trains have been limited to eight to ten cars.  Not exactly huge.  So, this won't be a huge adjustment.  I intend to aim for a track plan that also allows two locomotives and ten cars.  I need to figure out how long that dimension is and then hit AnyRail.

DFF

[davefoxx]

It seems like a lot of us are at the same crossroads at the same time. For me, it is not a scale thing, but a location/era/road thing.

I  even blogged about this very issue this week. I  really close to ripping apart my roundy round this week....

https://sopacincg.com/thinking-about-scrapping-the-layouts/

I'm lucky here.  I know I'm sticking with the Seaboard System between the years of 1983-86.  That allows predecessors, like the L&N GP40-2 in Family Lines colors that I bought yesterday, because the fleet didn't get repainted overnight.  Some locomotives never saw the paint shop before the CSX merger.  In fact, here's my locomotive as a Seaboard System engine in 1983.  The only difference between it and my model is that the L&N markings under the cab were removed.  They didn't even patch it for "SBD" yet.  Also, notice the black and yellow SCL unit behind No. 6614 that managed to avoid the Family Lines scheme until the SBD merger.  The variation makes modeling the SBD fun and interesting.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3291778

DFF

[davefoxx]

And in stark contrast to Bobs interest some of us have no desire to operate huge freight trains, expansive scenery, helper territory or anything of that nature. There are many short lines in New England with a lot of character, not to mention some of the industrial trackage was gnarly. To me a local with a few cars slowly making its way through a realistic setting in larger scale like HO is much more enjoyable than N. then again it is a macro vs micro sort of thing. Not every Ho layout is spaghetti any more than I see people do in N. I don't think cost is so much a factor because you fit less and less the larger you go scale wise.

And this is me.  When you figure how much it costs to build an eighty-car train with several locomotives in any scale.  Ouch!  Again, I'm satisfied with two locomotives and ten freight cars, which is prototypical for a Seaboard System branch in North Carolina.

DFF

[GaryHinshaw]

Here's another layout that I have long admired:

DFF

Looks a lot like the Seaboard Central.   Congrats on taking the plunge!

[davefoxx]

Thanks, @GaryHinshaw!

DFF

[DeltaBravo]

Someone better tell @DeltaBravo that he has to change to a larger scale.

Z scale suddenly looks good to me, even if I can't see the wheels

[seusscaboose]

Z scale suddenly looks good to me, even if I can't see the wheels

nah.... go for High-speed AVE trains