Tony, I see your point to a degree. If you are building the same railroad N vs HO the cost would be less but if you are building on the same foot print (benchwork size) you are going to spend much more for track, scenery et al buildings, rolling stock(you will have longer trains) etc.. Yes N is cheaper per say but not if you are building the same size layout for both. The savings are only when you downsize from the HO footprint. Nice pic and layout in your post. You do great work.
Rick, Rick, Rick.... no matter how long you flog a dead horse it's not going to drink (though the switches are the movable portion of the turnout. )
If you call a 'real railroad' supplier and ask to buy a switch.... "you mean a turnout? or the switch?" http://www.unitracrail.com/pdfs2007/Turnout_Components_Section.pdf When I first started in the industry I got 'corrected' several times. Similarly, if you buy 'wheels' you don't get axles. Oh, you wanted WHEELSETS? But money....yeah.... It's like comparing diamonds to coal and saying they are both carbon. I like to look at it this way.... I'm going to spend all the money I would in HO on a house-sized layout, it's just not going to take up as much space! Yeah. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I don't even like to add the cost up of some of my custom steam builds when it gets to be more than a brass locomotive.
If you call a 'real railroad' supplier and ask to buy a switch.... "you mean a turnout? or the switch?" ---------------------------------- To a ground pounder(brakeman/conductor) or MOW track worker its a switch.. That was once a job class known as a switch tender.He would line switches for inbound and outbound trains. Another job was a switch tender laborer..His job was to clean and grease yard switches and fill switch lamps.
To the contractors, and to anybody that writes purchase orders or specs, its a very expensive mistake to make. We had a railroad project several years ago where the railroad gave us an inventory of "switches" they had on hand, we ordered turnouts to make up the difference for the yard construction project, only to discover that their 'switches' didn't include frogs, stock rails, or guard rails when the contractor arrived. Not only that, but the grant to pay for it couldn't be amended to get it paid for. The railroad had to eat the difference and pay it, when they CLEARLY told us "switches" not "turnouts". Yeah, yikes. But yeah, you 'throw the switch' as you can't 'thow' an entire turnout. You grease switches, not turnouts. But, the ties are called "switchtimber" not "turnouttimber", which makes no sense. It's not really a 'tomato/tomato' either, which is why I put up the identification sketch, its a very discriminate difference that modelers easily confuse and it's not really interchangeable.
Dead Horse? Not Hardly! Gats, I would hardly call you or any other model railroader, a dead horse. To all tuned in here: Just some thoughts to consider. This issue isn't dead by any stretch of the imagination. Do you know how often someone comes up to me and says, "You are right" don't give up the fight? There is a reason we don't have "Turnout Men" on the 1X1 foot scale railroads here in America. See Brakie's post. You dissected my words quite nicely leaving out the most important qualifier. See Quote. And, in case you missed it I highlighted and underlined it...to make it obvious.
I've been looking for industry schematics for ages, if you have one for third rail let me know. Why do some of prototype frogs have that chamfer, where the wing rail is bent?
Wow. Good thread. May be new here, but I am gonna weigh in on my thoughts on the reasons for the increase in N's popularity. Smaller homes; maybe. I still see an awful lot of huge houses with huge basements, and worked in a lot of em during my stint with an alarm company; used to get jealous of the basements! But, the days of building those things just as fast as they could cut trees is ending; even so, a modular or typical ranch home has an awful lotta basement that could be used for an HO layout. So yeah, for those of us in apartments or using a spare bedroom, space is a concern, but I dont think smaller home size is a huge factor. N scale has simply improved; This one is likely. Look at a new Kato diesel or Spectrum steamer, they are simply gorgeous. Diesels in N now run as good as any HO, and steam is really gettin close. A big 6 axle Kato diesel seems to sell for about 100 dollars in N, which isnt any more than a comparable HO loco would be. Rolling stock and kits are excellent. N has improved, and people notice its quality. Changing times; This one makes me kind of sad really; the newer generation of modelers (me included) have never seen steam engines run, unless on excursion trains or tourist lines. I dont remember ever even seeing many four axle diesels. Its been big GEs and SDs as long as I can remember, and people like to model what they are familiar with; I seem to be an odd exception, as I am only 33, but love steam (I like moderns too, but steam takes my no 1 spot) but most model the current modern roads and current power; an area where N is as well represented as HO. Of course, they wanna see 2 or 3 or 4 big locos and a bunch of well cars, so what scale is natural? The size; The fit more in a same size space. I can buy this; note this is different from smaller home size. An average 3 bedroom home with a basement or spare bedroom could support a nice HO layout...or an N scale empire. I could model the entire White Oak sub of the C&O in the basement of a normal ranch in N. You cant do that in HO, period. More space means bigger structures, more scenery, bigger mountains...to me, an HO layout looks more toyish, even though the trains themselves, under close scrutiny, may be more realistic; to me, a 2-6-6-2 tugging 30 or so loaded coal hoppers along a New River that is 3 or 4 hundred scale feet wide, around curves of 24 or so inch radius, looks a LOT more realistic than the same loco in HO, with 15 cars, on those same curves...in the same space. I love Great Lakes shipping, but wont build a layout focusing on that until I have the room for it; even in N, a 620' laker is over 4 feet long, and in the Golden Age of the Lake Boat (oddly, coinciding with the "Golden Age" of railroading) a harbor like Ashtabula would see half a dozen at a time. Not possible in my small apartment just now, but doable in a spare bedroom someday, in N, and in that ranch houses basement, I could model most of the town, in N. In HO, that same boat would be almost 8 feet long; problematic, to say the least. I would go Z if it was viable, and if they get a few good steam chassis and basic hopper cars out, I just might (need about 12642894 PRR H21 class hoppers if I ever do that Lake layout!) But for now its N...and besides, we do have some gorgeous moderns to tempt me... Hrmmms...in Z, that laker would be under 3 feet...
2-8-8-0, thats funny how you are worried what would fit better in a rancher basement, either HO or N scale? How about fitting G scale into a rancher basement, thats exactly what I did and I'm not the only one who runs indoors in the G scale section. Phantom also runs inside with G scale.
Thats funny about the turnout vs switch term arguement. In G scale many manufacturers say switch, but the ones that do say turnout, that is all you get is basically a switch with no controls on it, you put on what type of throw switch you want on it, these are more or less from Manufactures that cater to those who want to run more realistic railroads. Thats the only difference I have seen so far, at least in G scale. I must say when I first seen the term "turnout" used, I was confused at first also, switch - turnout isn't it all the same???.....I thought. Then I found out that G scale turnouts came with no throw swithces on them.
Hehe, well N just seemed the natural choice to me, even if someday I have that basement or big spare room. I like G, and would be fun to run some; but like I said, the Lake boats and the industries they support, and the big machines that support them, are more natural to me in N. Also, as I said, Ill never model that or even attempt to unless I have the room. So, choice no 2 was an appalachian coal hauler (and C&O, luckily, had Lake facilities too) because twisty small layouts can be very believable in the coal fields. In the event someday I can model Ashtabula, Ohio, I want to try to do it justice, and get the signature structures represented on the layout; NYCs 40 stall roundhouse, their lift bridge, their docks. PRRs docks and roundhouse. Great Lakes Engineering's shipyard. The two big bridges over the Ashtabula River, NYCs beautiful stone arch and NKPs high metal trestle. The steel mill on the East side (no idea what it was called in the 1940s, it was Elkem Metals by the time I came along) and the CEI power plant. N is just natural for this. The whole scene is important to me, the trains complete the scene. Of course, the coal fields of West Virginia could be gorgeous in N in that big spare room or basement; scale sized mountains. Scale sized bridges, mines, lead tracks. Scale sized marshalling yards. Once again, N is perfect. Id say the person that said "to model a railroad, use N" was dead on. Thats why its become so popular. I love modern diesels too (NS) and would love a fleet of super-detailed -9s and cars. But, the expense of this, is less space. The moderns I have some affinity for are what a lot of "todays" modelers want, and they wanna see big engines and big cars on big curves and long stretches where they can really open them up. The "dixie line" layout is a perfect example of that sort of layout, in space that simply couldnt support such an impressive thing in a larger scale. Honestly, I do predict N to bump HO outta the no 1 spot, and relatively soon; 10 or maybe 15 years. Fine with me. Im not in any way trying to knock anyone else's scale, far from, as I also occasionally suffer from multiscalitis. The question was, why is N so popular? and this is why I think it is.
2-8-8-0, forgot to say welcome to the board. The N scale modelers do seem to have alot more neat and a bigger variety of commercial structures available to them. I often get jealous of what is available to N scalers as far as structures and railroad equipment. I like modern diesels also, I run 2 G scale SD-70MAC locomotives on a train with 9 55ft tank cars and 9 55ft centerflow hopper cars, of course I need the entire basement to run such a train. I more or less run my trains as a collection, not a railroad. I would love to run it as a railroad, but thats not going to happen because I'm trying to make the basement a multi purpose area. There is a living room area, another bedroom, laundry room, work shop, kitchen table area in which the trains all run thru. I wanted the basement to be used for multi purposes such as entertaining guests as well as running trains, so this doesn't leave any room really for scenery. For those with curiousity of my G scale trains, I have a link to my photo albums you can click in my signature to see what I run. I must say it's not a model railroad layout by any means like the great works of photos I seen posted in this section, like I said it's just me running G scale inside as a collection. NJ has some weird weather and I would not be able to run the trains as much outside as I did if they were inside. Maybe one day I could install back drops with building front facades to make it look some what real, but G scale is very costly. I can only imagie what kinda N scale empire I could have with the amount of money I have invested into G.
:tb-wacky: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/album.php?albumid=769 Invalid Album specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator Must be an Admin thang...LOL :tb-biggrin::tb-wink: .
Thanx for pointing thast out, I have been having on going problems with my signature and have now corrected the problem for the 3rd time. Here is the correct link to my albums > http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/album.php?u=10664
I hope all of you N scalers didn't mind a G scale person coming for a visit. It's nice to visit another scale section once in a while just to mingle a little.
Here's one reason that N scale is popular, especially among the crowd that wants to get bigger, less compressed multi-unit long trains: HO space utilization: N, same space: This aspect of being able to fit much more trains/railroad into a given physical space is a direct "givens & druthers" decision. For many, those givens and druthers, especially with modern GEVOs and stack trains, are driving an interest in N scale. And EMD Trainman, welcome to visit, for most of us, trains are trains, and we love it all. I might add that we in N do look at the G scale and think "amazing" as well (this from Barry Bogs layout in Houston, a well known indoor G scale layout): nsc2010wed Photo Gallery by ATSF_Arizona John Sing at pbase.com To each his own. We are all part of a wonderful hobby, with many fascinating angles. IMHO, the best of both worlds is something like "you come over and we'll run G scale together at my house, then I will come to your house and we'll run 11 diesels on a 100 car stack train in N". That leads to layouts us all being able to share like this room-sized N scale layout depicting Ogden, UT: .
It's my job to look at all Forums here. But even so, I have found pleasure in scales other than N. Over the many years, I've had interesting discussions in all sizes, here and elsewhere. A good idea, is a good idea, no matter what size. And can usually be adapted... Boxcab E50
