Is N gauge under-rated?

[D9020 Nimbus]

10 hours ago, Ben A said:

 

*  There is higher quality than ever before.  Better engineering, microelectronics and the adoption of the NEM coupler standard (together with Dapol's excellent 'easi-shunts') mean that in detail and operations, N is far closer to 00 than it was.

If only Farish interpreted the standard the same way that Dapol do…

[nick_bastable]

18 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

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

here is a secret several acclaimed 2mm ie finescale N modelers confess that they number their wagons as squickles   bet you can not tell as they move 

 

Nick

[njee20]

4 hours ago, MyRule1 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

My son has been playing with my N stuff, on a circuit of Unitrack, since he was 3. he started with some sacrificial bits of stock, but frankly now I share most of my stock with him, it’s there to be used after all! He’s a good test for the running abilities of my 3D printed wagons! Ok a Smokey Joe would probably be a bit more resilient, but I’m continually amazed by my son’s dexterity at putting N gauge models on the track. I think the only casualty has been a Farish FIA, which got trodden on by accident after being left on the floor (it was easily repaired), and a Loksound V3.5 decoder which objected to the current spike after derailing on some points!
 

30 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!

In any scale you have a ‘minimum working size’. That’s fixed. What it represents changes. So no, you don’t apply individual numbers to N gauge wagons, because you can’t see them. You don’t need the same level of intricate detail that you do in OO or O, because it’s not visible. The only thing I guess is painting stock - but I’m not even sure that is materially harder in N. 

 

1 minute ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

If only Farish interpreted the standard the same way that Dapol do…

Neither are standard! Farish are a bit tight, Dapol are a bit loose. I found this by printing my own sockets, that were to standard!

[F-UnitMad]

23 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

And the cost would have been ballpark same, so why didn’t I do that?

 There is an argument that says a layout of a particular size costs about the same regardless of the scale used, because larger scales require less locos and stock.  However it seems to me that prices for N & OO are pretty similar. Therefore as nice as it might be to get "more in the same space" by choosing N over OO, it's going to cost more, too, as a full length train of, say, 10 coaches in N is going to cost roughly twice as much as a 5-coach train in OO.

Maybe there is less take-up of N because it's not going to save anyone money over OO, or even O, for a given space.?

[Steamport Southport]

It all depends on what you want. I've dabbled in most scales/gauges.

 

N gauge is fine for running trains through scenery. That's probably it's main attraction. Not so much if your interest is in highly detailed locomotives and/or rolling stock. Yes, I have seen some of the excellent recent stuff and models by some of the finescale 2mm modellers.

 

I don't have the space for large locomotives and twelve coach trains in 7mm scale. Nor the money.

 

Personally I feel that 00 is the perfect compromise for me. If I didn't have so much of it I probably would have migrated to EM or P4 by now. But that train has probably left apart from maybe a small project.

 

3 hours ago, bmthtrains - David said:

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 

 

Would it? A typical GWR branch line station takes up more space than a mainline station if modelled correctly. Land was expensive in towns and cities so stations were compact.

 

The WCML is generally only four tracks wide, you can fit that on a baseboard about a foot wide, say two foot to be generous. If you have a decent size room or loft space then modelling mainlines is easy. You can dispense with all that boring scenery if you want.

 

You could probably fit a decent size mainline in about 10' x 8' if you really wanted. With a fiddle yard on one side. I picked 8 foot as then you wouldn't have any problems with tight curves. obviously a bit longer would be more desirable. But many homes would have a spare room about that size.

 

 

Jason

[Zomboid]

With my wearing-boxing-gloves dexterity, N is too small and fiddly.

 

HO (or OO, but my trains are American) is in the sweet spot where they're small enough that decent operation doesn't need a warehouse, but big enough to be robust and have some kind of presence.

 

N is really a fairly specialist thing in terms of where it excels, and the compromises it requires outside of that are less commonly acceptable than the compromises of 1:80ish scale.

[fezza]

It is a matter of taste in many ways. My view is that there are often bigger compromises in 00. How many 00 home layouts run expresses of just 4 coaches or MGRs only a quarter of the length of the real thing? Be honest now... 

 

My 'always under construction' modern GCR N gauge layout has a double track main line, two through stations, three passing loops, two goods sidings, an MPD, and a DMU stabling point all on a standard wide door. There's also a substantial  village. I'd need to move house to do all that in 00.

 

Steam locos vary in running qualities, but my advice is always test them in the model shop and don't buy if they don't run perfectly. There are plenty of good ones out there and plenty of other shops. Even identical models in the same batch can vary so testing is the only solution. Oh and when shops tell you an indifferent runner "will improve with running in" just ask them to fetch you another - and find a more helpful shop if they don't like it. 

[LBRJ]

I think N is very underrated   

I have played about in the scale for not that far off 40 years

(also in various types of 4mm and  the odd dip into 7mm -maybe why I know lots but never get owt done? :D)

 

I may be really out on my own in the left-field here, but I really do not think modelling in N is the right thing for small spaces...

On the contrary, it is at is best in large "trains in the landscape" type of layouts

[Chris M]

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

It all depends on what you want. I've dabbled in most scales/gauges.

 

N gauge is fine for running trains through scenery. That's probably it's main attraction. Not so much if your interest is in highly detailed locomotives and/or rolling stock. Yes, I have seen some of the excellent recent stuff and models by some of the finescale 2mm modellers.

 

I don't have the space for large locomotives and twelve coach trains in 7mm scale. Nor the money.

 

Personally I feel that 00 is the perfect compromise for me. If I didn't have so much of it I probably would have migrated to EM or P4 by now. But that train has probably left apart from maybe a small project.

 

 

Would it? A typical GWR branch line station takes up more space than a mainline station if modelled correctly. Land was expensive in towns and cities so stations were compact.

 

The WCML is generally only four tracks wide, you can fit that on a baseboard about a foot wide, say two foot to be generous. If you have a decent size room or loft space then modelling mainlines is easy. You can dispense with all that boring scenery if you want.

 

You could probably fit a decent size mainline in about 10' x 8' if you really wanted. With a fiddle yard on one side. I picked 8 foot as then you wouldn't have any problems with tight curves. obviously a bit longer would be more desirable. But many homes would have a spare room about that size.

 

 

Jason

 

I agree that a country terminus needs plenty of space which is why N gauge might well enable a more convincing scene to be created.

 

I can't agree with "You can dispense with all that boring scenery".  Far too many layouts in all scales, even well modelled ones, start with track laid on flat boards and have scenery added around the track and on top of the flat boards. Unfortunately that's exactly how they look which ruins the illusion of a real railway. Real railways were built through the land and N gauge gives folk with ordinary size rooms the space to create that feel of a railway being forged through an existing landscape. It has to be admitted that all too often this doesn't happen but there are plenty of examples where it has been done well.

[2mmMark]

Looks at various Nn3 & N metre gauge models under construction and thinks  "RTR N is niche?!"

[whart57]

Building locos and rolling stock yourself is pretty niche, doesn't matter what scale.

[Steamport Southport]

13 hours ago, Chris M said:

 

I agree that a country terminus needs plenty of space which is why N gauge might well enable a more convincing scene to be created.

 

I can't agree with "You can dispense with all that boring scenery".  Far too many layouts in all scales, even well modelled ones, start with track laid on flat boards and have scenery added around the track and on top of the flat boards. Unfortunately that's exactly how they look which ruins the illusion of a real railway. Real railways were built through the land and N gauge gives folk with ordinary size rooms the space to create that feel of a railway being forged through an existing landscape. It has to be admitted that all too often this doesn't happen but there are plenty of examples where it has been done well.

 

My comment was about it being impossible to fit a model of the WCML mainline in a small space in 00. Simply not correct. There have been plenty of minimum space mainlines over the years including ones in sizes like 8'x 4' with full length HSTs.

 

If you dispense with the scenery then you can have a four track mainline in a space of about a foot wide. Put that round the sides of a medium size room and you can easily model a stretch of the WCML. Then you could watch trains going by all day. 

 

How big is Stoke Summit? Ignoring the vast fiddleyard, it wasn't that big ISTR. No station and really just a section of mainline with the minimum of scenery. You could make a much shortened version and still manage 12 coach trains.

 

Cut back the scenery, drastically shorten the length and you could fit something like this in a large room or loft.

 

 

 

Besides I do find scenery boring. If I want to look at it then I would go for a walk not look at a model railway. Railway modelling is all about locomotives and rolling stock for me. The rest is just necessary evils. That I would dispense with if possible.

 

Does anyone really like baseboard building, electrics or track laying? I don't want an answer. Just that they are the worst aspects of railway modelling IMHO. The latter part is important, it's my opinion. Opening a thread asking for opinions means you aren't always going to get ones that agree with you....

 

 

Jason

[njee20]

Bit of a weird stance. Yes, ok, technically you’re right that you don’t need more than an inch either side of the track. But by extension you could have an end to end 4-track section in O on a board 18” deep, and 8’ long. I think it’d be a bit disingenuous to say you had a 4-track mainline layout in O, though!

 

I don’t think anyone’s denying that you can build OO gauge layouts in fairly modest spaces, but you can’t escape the fact that more N gauge fits in. If you just want to slap track on a board and fill every inch you can fit more of that in too. If you want to build an inch perfect replica of a real location then you can do more of that, or do the same in less space. 
 

And yes, people can enjoy different facets of the hobby… 

 

 

[Moose2013]

Moose answer question: Yes, n-gauge is under-rated. Period.

 

One can model multiple scenes set within a great albeit wee n-gauge world, not just a single scene or two that a similar OO or HO layout might afford.  That's why this moose selected n-gauge for a large gauge...

[ianathompson]

On 14/03/2021 at 19:08, Kris said:

Yes in n gauge we can fit a layout into a space that is only 2ft wide,

 

 It is a bit difficult in N gauge with a roundy roundy nowadays.

I started building such a N gauge layout as a "second string" layout because I have a room full of scratchbuilt continental narrow gauge in 7mm as my main interest.

 

This N gauge layout spanned the transition era between the 'traditional' Farish and the modern Farish models becoming available.

I bought a can motor 2-6-4T when they first became available only to discover that it needed mimimum curves at around 12 inch radius.

I can testify that this is the case in that it refused the original (radius 1) curves that its predecessors accepted.

 

I now have a 2'6" by 8'6" roundy roundy instead of the original two foot wide baseboard that was eight foot long!

The old track alignment is still visible and makes a marked contrast with its current course.

 

On 14/03/2021 at 22:08, The Johnster said:

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.

 

Having (massively over) invested in N I decided to build a BLT to take to the Cotswolds whenever I have to look after my mother.

This offers a bucket load of operation in 6 feet by 1 foot, including the fiddleyard.

It is also compact and easy to transport.

The stock is easily carried in a couple of bait boxes intended for fishermen.

 

One of the problems with contemplating exhibiting such a layout , was I so inclined, would be the issue of coupling and uncoupling.

I quite happily do this by hand with a wire hook using standard N gauge couplings.

If I knock stock off because it is small and light and I am clumsy I curse but at the end of the day there is only me to be offended.

If I wanted to exhibit the layout I would not really consider this to be acceptable, particularly if it happened as often as I seem to manage!

This would entail modifying the stock and restricting the areas where uncoupling could take place.

(Or making unrealistic backwards and forward movements to persuade the hooks to disengage for a delayed uncoupling.)

 

To answer the poster's question "Is it under rated" it depends upon what you want. (Or how long is a piece of string?!)

 

Getting good running needs much more care and attention to rail joints (both in the vertical and horizontal planes) than the larger scales.

Point crossings (I hate the term "frogs") need to be electrical switched to ensure good running which was  easily arranged with my scratchbuilt track.

The well known RTR track brand used on the BLT had numerous problems with both these issues, sufficient to leave me wondering what would have transpired had I been a beginner unused to fiddling with points and track.

Against this I have a layout that would otherwise not have been possible.

 

There are also ancilliary aspects to the answer, depending upon now much work one is prepared to put into a model.

I have managed to produce working signals, which as an ex signalman I consider as an imperative for realsitic operation, including Steven's dropflap shunt signals.

 On the other side of the coin I had to scratchbuild these as I could not get on with the kits available.

Kits generally are much more rerstricted than in the larger scales as presumably there is not  the demand to make them commercially viable.

I did not consider this to be a problem as there are few GNoSR kits  in any scale but I have noticed that some have now become available for 4mm scale station buildings.

 

At the end of the day I appreciate the options that N gauge offers but I would not contemplate using it for my main layout.

 

Ian T

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by ianathompson
typo

[pctrainman]

If size were not an issue I would have gone for OO as increasing age and a series of mini strokes would have made things easier for me to handle but size was a dominating issue and still is but I  I have somehow managed to build a 5 Foot X 3 foot 6 inch layout that is fully computer controlled in N with no help other than online advice , yes some things were difficult and some things such as the MSE Semaphores were near impossible but I got there in the end , to be honest the hardest thing of all was the computer control side of things and that part still needs a lot more refining , so if you want things to be relatively easy and have the space I would so go OO  but in my case where the layouts overall size size was very important I have no regrets about choosing N .

[Barry Ten]

In anticipation of the Sonic 56xxs, I've started work on an N valleys terminus which is basically a scaled down version of one I already built in 00. At the time I did the original, the signature items - 56xxs and B-sets - weren't available in RTR N, but now there are a lot  more possibilities.

 

 

 

Having worked with Peco Code 55 on my US layout, I felt that I wanted to have a go at something finer for this project, so

I ordered some Finetrax points and plain track which I've now started laying.

 

I'd had very little experience of track laying before, but these kits go together very well and all the hard bits are taken care

of via the components and jigs.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Barry Ten

[Revolution Ben]

2 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

In anticipation of the Sonic 56xxs, I've started work on an N valleys terminus which is basically a scaled down version of one I already built in 00. At the time I did the original, the signature items - 56xxs and B-sets - weren't available in RTR N, but now there are a lot  more possibilities.

 

Hello Barry,

 

That looks interesting - do you have a thread for the layout?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Barry Ten]

Just now, Ben A said:

 

Hello Barry,

 

That looks interesting - do you have a thread for the layout?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

Hi Ben

 

Not as such, although I've just started documenting the track building and testing process on my blog:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/24832-adventures-in-code-40-points-and-frog-switching-and-a-saucy-temptress-from-the-americas/

 

[Barry Ten]

My main N activity is based around modelling the South Eastern United States. In this context, with a "big" (10 x 11) layout and nearly 3 scale miles of mainline, it would be mad not to use Code 55. 

 

 

With the larger American locos and rolling stock, you start approaching the "presence" of smaller 00. 

 

 

Code 55 can look OK when deeply ballasted and weathered:

 

 

 

[johnlambert]

I've had a N gauge layout for at least 8 years (if my social media feed is reliable).  I'd had a Hornby train set when I was younger but most of that had gone by the time I fancied returning to the world of model railways.  The choice of scale/gauge was influenced by the (lack of) space available in my flat.  I nearly went for O gauge or OO on a shelf but I was influenced by some lovely N gauge layouts at exhibitions (ones that included shunting as well as mainline running).

 

It is fair to say that I'm a convert to the N gauge cause, I've generally been impressed by the running qualities of the locos (particularly the diesel and electric outline models) and the level of detail that the manufacturers have achieved.  Features such as all-wheel drive and pick-up plus five-pole motors with flywheels are a world away from the unreliable ringfields and hyperactive pugs of my childhood.  I'm sure I'd be equally impressed by modern OO equipment if I'd gone down that route.

 

I think N gauge is definitely under-rated and it would be nice to see more people modelling in this scale/gauge because that can only be good for this branch of the railway modelling hobby.

 

Here's a photo of my layout, which gives me pleasure even when it's not running because I find it quite pleasing just to look at.

 

[Paddy]

Hi Folks,

 

I have always modelled in N Gauge because that it what my brother bought for my birthday back in the early 80s.  It was a Minitrix Britannia and a couple of their MK1s.  I seem to recall the Britannia running well so I bought a Farish 2-6-2T.  I am sad to say that it was next to useless and eventually I moved on from model railways.

 

When I returned in 1996, I was surprised to see how the range from Farish had increased but they were basically the same old models.  One can argue that the models had a certain charm but there is no doubting they were decades behind Bachmann OO and Hornby's year 2000+ releases.

 

For me personally, I bounce back and forth between amazement and concern at British N Gauge.  The latest models from Farish, Dapol etc. are wonderful and in many photos one is hard pressed to tell the model from its OO counterpart (coupling aside).  Whilst these models are exquisite in their detail (and I do appreciate that) when I place them on the track a lot of that finesse effectively disappears.  Above things like alternate wagon numbers are mentioned but this is applicable to other detail as well.

 

My concern (not sure if that is the right word) is that by demanding all this detail we have made N Gauge models fragile, expensive and possibly diminished one of its major benefits - more in the same or less space.  Now I know this point of view is controversial but by looking at N Gauge through large scale glasses are we damaging the market?  As Richard Lines once said about TT and OO... "The little one costs as much as the bigger one and I get more for my money so...".

 

Rather than trying to make N Gauge into OO, it would better to embrace N Gauge for what it is and have models that have less detail, are more robust, lower cost?

 

Despite saying the above, I know this will never happen as today's model railway market is all about detail and features.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate... 

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

[Chris M]

12 minutes ago, Paddy said:

Hi Folks,

 

I have always modelled in N Gauge because that it what my brother bought for my birthday back in the early 80s.  It was a Minitrix Britannia and a couple of their MK1s.  I seem to recall the Britannia running well so I bought a Farish 2-6-2T.  I am sad to say that it was next to useless and eventually I moved on from model railways.

 

When I returned in 1996, I was surprised to see how the range from Farish had increased but they were basically the same old models.  One can argue that the models had a certain charm but there is no doubting they were decades behind Bachmann OO and Hornby's year 2000+ releases.

 

For me personally, I bounce back and forth between amazement and concern at British N Gauge.  The latest models from Farish, Dapol etc. are wonderful and in many photos one is hard pressed to tell the model from its OO counterpart (coupling aside).  Whilst these models are exquisite in their detail (and I do appreciate that) when I place them on the track a lot of that finesse effectively disappears.  Above things like alternate wagon numbers are mentioned but this is applicable to other detail as well.

 

My concern (not sure if that is the right word) is that by demanding all this detail we have made N Gauge models fragile, expensive and possibly diminished one of its major benefits - more in the same or less space.  Now I know this point of view is controversial but by looking at N Gauge through large scale glasses are we damaging the market?  As Richard Lines once said about TT and OO... "The little one costs as much as the bigger one and I get more for my money so...".

 

Rather than trying to make N Gauge into OO, it would better to embrace N Gauge for what it is and have models that have less detail, are more robust, lower cost?

 

Despite saying the above, I know this will never happen as today's model railway market is all about detail and features.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate... 

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

I certainly wouldn’t have gone N gauge if it wasn’t for the well detailed models now available. I would really like a large prairie for my layout but I won’t have one of those old Farish ones on my layout no matter how cheap they might be. Likewise I have absolutely no inclination to allow any minitrix loco on my layout - they just don’t look anywhere near right. Call me picky if you like but I like my models to look something like the real thing.

[Barry Ten]

My only experience of British N, so far, has been a Dapol pannier. I bought it whenever they came out (2012 ish?) and after trying to fit a decoder into it, basically gave up and put it back in the box until this month. I don't remember it being a terrible runner out of the box but it's certainly not got better with storage. Although it can be got down to a semi-reasonable crawl on DC, it won't start or change direction at the same voltage, so it needs a kick to overcome some internal resistance. I've stripped it part way down, cleaned out the gunk left over from the factory lubrication, tested the gear train, given it hours of running in, but it's still not (yet) capable of sufficiently smooth starts to be a useful shunting loco. Certainly if this had been my first exposure to N I'd have given up on it, but I know from the American stuff that they can run like Swiss watches. I think the Dapol panniers were generally quite well regarded so presumably I got a rogue.

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hi Paddy,

 

Interesting post, but I am not quite sure what you are arguing for.

 

As you said, the Minitrix Britannia ran well; the Farish did not.  That was what put you off N gauge: the running.  I agree with this, but the way to solve it IMO is not to cut costs.  It is to improve the standard of the chassis.

 

Kato US chassis are superb - smooth running, powerful, reliable - and for me are the desirable benchmark 

 

But the US market has two key differences:  Firstly, dieselisation in the US took place well before it did in the UK.   So while some steam locos are available, nearly all US modellers run diesels in varying numbers, and I think most would agree that *generally* good running is easier to achieve with bogie chassis than steam type chassis.  Secondly, the US market is huge so development and tooling costs are amortized across more models.  The numbers behind this are really stark: for a typical locomotive with, say, a $100k development/tooling and $50 unit assembly cost, the price each for 1000 is $150; for 2000 models that number comes down to $100, and for 5000 models it comes down to $70.  And that is without 20% VAT.  Typically US production runs are 5-10,000; yet a British N gauge loco will do well do sell through 2000 units.

 

For the same reasons comparing the price of N models with 00 is disingenuous.  Actually, N gauge models are cheaper to tool and manufacture but the lower production numbers offset that advantage.

 

The best way for N gauge models to reduce in price is for more of them to be sold.  And the way to encourage more sales is to produce smooth running, high quality models.   Then, as sales increase, hopefully prices can start to come down in a virtuous circle.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.