Is N gauge under-rated?

[AY Mod]

2 hours ago, shanks522 said:

I just think that most people who begin railway modelling are automatically drawn to 00, ie Hornby. 

 

That's undoubtedly true but also of relevance to returnees. After a few years away from OO foundations in the hobby and facing space constraints I jumped into N. I regretted it due to the poor running qualities of most of the products at the time; an attractive and well-modelled scene was let down every time anything (apart from Peco Jubs) ran through it. Back to 4mm it was after that foray and there I've stayed.

 

Yes, a good N gauge layout could be achieved now but why would I unless I suffered similar pressures to downsize?

[cypherman]

Hi all,

The thing about N gauge in the present day is just how much more detailed and better running it is since I dabble with it in the late 70's. The difference between the Minitrix stuff I had and modern engines and stock is nothing short of amazing.

[Allegheny1600]

40 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

The thing about N gauge in the present day is just how much more detailed and better running it is since I dabble with it in the late 70's. The difference between the Minitrix stuff I had and modern engines and stock is nothing short of amazing.

Yes indeed and the Minitrix stuff was THE quality stuff of that time!

My first N scale loco was the Lima class 31 that towered over the same firms mark 1 coaches, that and it’s Jack rabbit starts, inability to run slowly, it’s amazing I stuck with it as long as I did.

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Yes indeed and the Minitrix stuff was THE quality stuff of that time!

My first N scale loco was the Lima class 31 that towered over the same firms mark 1 coaches, that and it’s Jack rabbit starts, inability to run slowly, it’s amazing I stuck with it as long as I did.

I remember spotting the Lima Deltic in Bradford Model Railway centre - it looked massive, didn't know it was coming out so it was a surprise at the time. 

 

My N model is coming along but I am again foiled by the Peco curved code 75 points - they are bl**dy awful, really don't know why.  However, wiring the frog should sort it. 

[Hibelroad]

I started out with Lone Star push along and often wondered what would have happened if I had stuck to that scale. In the event I could only afford third hand at the time so picked up oddments of 4mm scale. There is no doubt that commercial N gauge is very high quality and the ability to replicate long modern trains must make it attractive to new modellers. On the down side kit or scratch building is very fiddly (although some can make a superb job of this, particularly 2mm scale modellers). However there is now a good range of RTR rolling stock. It is understandable that manufacturers can only produce models which sell well but I would expect N gauge to thrive and may overtake 4mm given time. 

[woodenhead]

10 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Yes indeed and the Minitrix stuff was THE quality stuff of that time!

My first N scale loco was the Lima class 31 that towered over the same firms mark 1 coaches, that and it’s Jack rabbit starts, inability to run slowly, it’s amazing I stuck with it as long as I did.

My memory of Mintrix was spinning wheels on the Britannia and extra pickups on the 9F (though it's wheel spin looked more impressive).

 

The Warships and 27s were rock solid haulers though, don't think my dad ever got a Minitrix 47, he had Grafar.

[Rivercider]

I have long since realised that I prefer watching other peoples creations at exhibitions rather than playing with my own OO layout, which seldom gets operated these days. I have never been tempted down the N gauge route.

 

In recent years I have attended 10-12 exhibitions a year, and try to have a look at everything on offer even if only briefly. I am always more drawn to layouts with at least some shunting, which is more difficult in the smaller scale, so I more rarely find an N gauge layout that really interests me.

In O gauge it is like watching from the platform, in OO like watching over the fence, and in N watching from a hillside or helicopter.

It seems to me that the best N gauge layouts are those where the railway is in the landscape, I have seen and enjoyed Chris M's first layout (based on Aller Junction as I recall). Another layout that is outstanding both on RMweb and in real life is Andy Stroud's Blueball Summit, again a railway in the landscape. There are not many more I found memorable.

 

Over the years I have doodled many layout plans, and only built one proper layout. Given the space there are 2 or 3 schemes I would perhaps try in OO, but if I was to change it would be up to O gauge, for a shunting plank,

 

cheers  

[Chris M]

My layout based on Aller Junction was my second N gauge layout not my first. It’s nice that Rivercider enjoyed it. My first Adventure into N gauge was a branch line on a spiral. It had a huge amount of operation in just 44in by 28in albeit with some R1 curves. I mention it as it did include shunting which I agree is fairly rare on an N gauge layout at exhibitions.

 

The running on this video isn’t my best but I was operating and filming at the same time.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I was greatly impressed by Ridgeacre as a layout that got a lot of operation in a small space - very clever.

[Gareth Collier]

5 hours ago, fezza said:

In the last 20 years there have been massive leaps forwards both in terms of detail and running quality. You clearly aren't going to choose N if you are modelling pregrouping, but it's a great choice if you model post- 1968 and you want an actual model railway with near to scale length trains. I love it. 

 

I must have gone wrong somewhere then because I've tons of pre grouping N 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Gareth Collier

[DaveF]

In my office/spare room I have an 0 gauge layout , Midland Railway circa 1910 along one wall  and an n gauge layout on the opposite side of the room, set in Switzerland around 1990.

 

I find I like them equally.  Both usually run to a timetable, I run the 0 gauge when I want to do shunting and the n gauge when I simply want to run trains round.

 

David

[AndrueC]

There's very little shunting on my layout. Originally it didn't even support the concept since pulling a train out of a siding meant it ended up on an incline and if uncoupled would just careen down to the mainline. I've addressed that now with a couple more short sidings that allows for a pair of locomotives to work together but it's just not currently what I want. My layout doesn't even have a station, lol.

 

I wanted to watch trains running through scenery and for that N gauge has a definite advantage. It takes a train over a minute to complete a circuit of both my loops during which it passes through a couple of tunnels (one long enough to completely hide six coaches), through a cutting as long as the train, over two bridges and up to an intermediate level.

 

All that and the layout sits reasonably well within my spare bedroom.

Edited March 14, 2021 by AndrueC

[The Johnster]

I also had Lone Star Locos pushalong as a child, and even as a child was aware of the crudity.  They were shrink-rayed versions of Rovex Triang, including the 'standard' track', and the attraction was that, with an old biscuit tin full of track, you could 'try out' different track plans.  I also had the piers and girder bridge; I probably learned a lot about layout planning from it.  By the time Treble-O-Lectric was avaialble I was nearly in my teens and committed to 00, so I have no experience of it, but cannot imagine that the belt driven method was either reliable or particularly effective; my obsession with slow running was already taking hold!  ISTR they had miniature tension lock couplings, and it is IMHO a pity that that British N, when it hit the market, used the awful American N oversize self coupling buckeyes instead of going for minature t/ls, or in fact anything excpect the American N coupler, which might IMHO have some potential use in 00...

 

My only experience of N was a period of 009 modelling in the 70s during which N loco chassis underneath kit or kit bashed locos was the norm.  Great fun but the challenge was to identify suitable chassis, ie ones that would perform decently at reasonable scale speeds, and in this sense Minitrix or Arnold were the go tos.  British outline steam N was awful in those days; bodies wildly out of scale on chassis that didn't fit the prototype, couplings that were even worse than Lima's 00 behemoths that held the vehicles half a wagon length apart, track that was massively overscale in profile, and steamroller wheels that were the correct diameter at the flange, which was so crude as to make original Rovex or Trix Twin look finescale, and gave the wheel the appearance of being at least a foot smaller in diameter than it should have been.  Lima were particularly awful, with locos towering over coaches apparently built to the European scale ratio with sides as thick as the overscale 00 coaches.  Not for me.

 

I had a divorce and consequent 'unsettled' lifestyle hiatus of a quarter century and rejoined the hobby 5 years ago.  This was an opportunity for a completely fresh start and I considered N, as I live in a flat which is not the most spacious on the planet.  Clearly, appearance had improved drastically for N gauge RTR products in my absence and the range of items available now allowed a pretty useful 1950s WR South Wales RTR based layout to be achieved, with auto traliers, B sets, various panniers, small and large prairies, and kit for the essential 56xx.  Goods stock was a lot better as well.  I was still put off by the undersize buffers but this was not a deal breaker.

 

So, and (finally!) relevant to the thread, why did I continue with 00.  The answer is cost, and that the very strength of N, that you can get more in, is also a weakness, that you need more track and stock and it costs more.  Ok, you can discipline yourself, and build the same BLT plan as the 00 layout, but with longer loops and sidings and spacier feel, using the space to increase the radii of your curves, which will improve your operating, but if you're me, you are going to succumb to the tempation to lengthen your coal trains which means buying 3 or 4 times as many minerals.  And, if you're me, you are going to use some of the extra space to start modelling the colliery, so as well as factoring in the increased cost of trackage your turnout bill goes up as well.  N would be cost effective if half the size meant that each item is half the cost, but of course there are very good reasons why this is not the case.

 

My income is low and fixed (get the violins out for the poor old  pensioner...), so cost was the major limiting factor, and the lack of dream layout space played to this.  I had some items left over from my previous life (few of which survived the transition to the new layout, but that's another story, and a rather expensive one, that I was not expecting at this initial stage), and the concept was that the layout should be DC (both for cost reasons and the possible difficulty of retrofitting my locos) simple, minimalist, electrically simple, have hand operated turnouts and signals, and be in an operable condition fairly quickly, and above all, as cheap as possible. 

 

These are the reasons I chose 00, and why I did not change from 00 to N when I had this opportuntiy.  The point germane to this discussion is at least as much the question of why so few existing 00 modellers change to N as it is of why so few new modellers take up N as a starter.   There are of course many reasons why us 00 chaps stay with the gauge, or 4mm scale modelling, but cost must be one of the major ones.  If you work to the principle that an item of RTR stock or RTP track in N costs ballpark the same as it's 00 equivalent, and that because N is half the size you need twice as much of both, admittedly very simplistic but adequate to illustrate the point, the N gauge layout will cost twice as much.

 

In the event, I managed to build the layout successfully according to the 'founding principles', except that I missed the cost target by hundreds of pounds in the first year and probably into 4 figures now; I stopped keeping score  because it was a bit depressing.  This is because my surviving locos, 3 Mainline panniers and a 56xx, and an Airfix prairie, succumbed to mazak rot and quartering problems in the case of the Mainlines, and slide bar failure in the case of the Airfix.  So, as well as the new locos I wanted, Hornby 42xx, Bachmann small prairies, and the famous Bachmann 94xx, I had to replace the old ones. which blew the budgie big time!  I managed, by using 'Bay or secondhand, or taking advantage of offers; I have never paid RRP for a loco since restarting in 2016.  The Baccy 94xx is the most I have ever spent on a single item for my railway, £106.99 at Rails, and will hopefully be the permanent record holder.

 

Would I have done better in terms of spending had I gone over to the little gauge?  Possibly, but it is difficult to state this as any sort of certainty or be objective in assessing it.  My 00 plan went badly wrong in terms of spending but has been spectucularly successful in other respects.  My intention was to build a layout that looked plausible on which I could operate to a timetable using the 1955 Rule Book and General Appendix, with elements of a 1960 Valleys WTT, and this aim has been achieved, but the loco budgie is out of the cage, out of the window, and gone feral; the saving that I thought I would achieve by not changing gauge has not been achieved, or even close!

 

I should of course, having now bought all the locomotives and the bulk of the stock I will ever need, be able to spend a lot less on my hobby while continuing to reap the benefit of the last 5 years' spending (yay!).  Well, we all know how that's going to work out, don't we, children...

[shanks522]

1 hour ago, Rivercider said:

 

In O gauge it is like watching from the platform, in OO like watching over the fence, and in N watching from a hillside or helicopter.

It seems to me that the best N gauge layouts are those where the railway is in the landscape

Think this sums it up perfectly. 
 

In every gauge there are superb examples of what can be done in the Space available. 

For instance, if we all had a board of 6 x2 what we build?  an 0 gauge micro yard, a 00 BLT or depot, or something roundy in N. 

 

Graham 

[whart57]

1 hour ago, Gareth Collier said:

 

I must have gone wrong somewhere then because I've tons of pre grouping N 

 

 

Interesting. Is this 'N' or 2mm FS?

[Gareth Collier]

4 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

Interesting. Is this 'N' or 2mm FS?

'N'

[whart57]

In which case I am interested in knowing a bit more about these locos

[MyRule1]

Perhaps part of the issue with N gauge can be explained through this example.

 

A friend (now in his 30's) of mine started with a simple Hornby train set as a youngster, built up his collection. The as new replacement cost, even at Hornby Railroad prices, must be well over £800. This went into store and now his son and daughters (all under 8) have it set up at home and play with it.

 

There are two problems with N gauge in this respect. That it will never be a play scale/gauge and there is no equivalent to the Smokey Joe set.  Use any search engine for "train set" and once you have eliminated Brio and Lego etc what comes up first on the UK, are Hornby sets on Amazon and Argos all under £200. The only N gauge set on the search I carried out was a Fairish WR Pullman set at £375.

 

Having said that I do model in both OO and N. N allows me run post 1970's trains to prototypical length and OO has the wide range of stock to choose from for my grouping era layout. Also the need for  ancillaries such as vehicles, figures etc is better served in N gauge.

 

 

 

 

[Gareth Collier]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

In which case I am interested in knowing a bit more about these locos

I've numerous LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, SER, LCDR and just for a change of region some GER. Most feature on a different forum dedicated to 'N'

There is one of my builds here: 

 

[bmthtrains - David]

N gauge is a niche area of the hobby and will probably always be so, and I have no problem with that. Is it under rated? I don’t think so.

 

N gauge has strengths and weaknesses just as other scales do. For me, it is ideal as I want to run long modern trains through interesting landscapes in a relatively small space (10 foot length max). To model the WCML in OO would be impossible for most people in their own home.

 

Just because something is a minority interest doesn’t in anyway devalue it.

 

David 

[Kris]

I some time feel that some n gauge modellers don't help the image of the scale. If you go to an exhibition (remember those) you will see lots of 00 layouts with long straight sections of line. Where curves are present these are normally of a large (for models) radius, something that dramatically improves the look of a layout. If you look at the n gauge layouts that appear at the same exhibition it is very likely that you will see the same long straight sections but at each end there are frequently very sharp curves that destroy the illusion and take great layouts down to something that looks more like a "toy". Yes in n gauge we can fit a layout into a space that is only 2ft wide, but this needs camouflaging not flaunting. 

 

 

[brianusa]

Sum up in three words - its too small!  All right, there are large magnificent layouts especially over here with proto length freight trains, but for the average 'small layout because you can get more in' operator, it is too small.  I had a 10' x 4', quite complicated layout which drove me into OO within a short time.  Tried LGB and ended up with tinplate trains which as one gets on, become easier to play with!

    Brian.

Edited March 14, 2021 by brianusa

[whart57]

1 hour ago, Gareth Collier said:

I've numerous LBSCR, LSWR, SECR, SER, LCDR and just for a change of region some GER. Most feature on a different forum dedicated to 'N'

There is one of my builds here: 

 

 

As I said earlier, Grande Chapeau to you, mate.

[The Johnster]

One doesn’t see intensely operated BLT layouts in 2mm, and as this minimum space ability of the smaller scale is what I would consider one of it’s greatest attributes, I am at a loss to explain this.  My 00 layout is 14’ in length in a bit of a dogleg, and 20” wide, so an N gauge version would be 7’ by 10”, feasible on a shelf and with much less impact on the space of my flat.  And the cost would have been ballpark same, so why didn’t I do that?

 

Well, another factor that told against it is that, as well taking full advantage of RTR/RTP, I like to do some modelling as well, and 4mm is pretty close to the lower size limit of my kit/scratch building, and numbering/lettering abilities even with transfers.  I would not be able to manage 2mm handrail knobs, or wagon numbers made up of individual characters.  N would mean total reliance on RTR and having to have stock professionally renumbered, and any kits professionally built and finished, and there’s no way I could afford that!

[woodenhead]

12 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Well, another factor that told against it is that, as well taking full advantage of RTR/RTP, I like to do some modelling as well, and 4mm is pretty close to the lower size limit of my kit/scratch building, and numbering/lettering abilities even with transfers.  I would not be able to manage 2mm handrail knobs, or wagon numbers made up of individual characters.  N would mean total reliance on RTR and having to have stock professionally renumbered, and any kits professionally built and finished, and there’s no way I could afford that!

Psst, you don't need to renumber your wagons, it's too small to read so you won't notice