Is N gauge under-rated?

[Chris M]

For most of my life from circa 1963 to 1998 I had 00 layouts. Around 1998  I dropped out of railway modelling and sold every last bit of my stock. Not too many years later I found myself building a railway round the garden which got me back into the model railway world. It was around 2012 that I decided to build another indoor model railway. Having had a good look at what was on offer I decided to go N gauge. The quality and N gauge was so much better than it had been 20 years earlier. I found that N gauge really does have some big advantages over N albeit the big disadvantage being that it is smaller and so has less "presence". This can be got over by standing closer to it!

 

The reason for posting is that sales of N clearly haven't taken off in the way that Dapol and Bachmann had hoped. Both companies invested a lot in N with plenty of new highly detailed models in the early years of this century but both have now cut back on new tooling in recent years. If sales were going well then there would be plenty more new models in the pipeline. I think this is a shame but I don't blame the businesses for making sensible business decisions. I do worry about Rapido deciding on a Co-Bo for their first N gauge loco as that is likely to have a very limited market. I also say thank goodness for Revolution and Sonic for stepping in where the conventional manufacturers cannot afford to go.

 

For me N deserves to be more popular as it's small size makes it more suitable for use in a typical house than 00.

[Chris M]

Here is one of my attempts to model an 00 mainline in a typical bedroom space of 10ft by 8ft.  I was quite pleased with it at the time but on reflection it is rather cramped and limited.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Chris M

[Chris M]

I have built three layouts in N, two of them trying to represent the main line. This was the first one measuring just 7ft by 3ft 6in. It has a much more spacious feel and I think captures the main line so much better.

[Chris M]

I have now moved up o a layout that is 11ft 6in by 3ft 8in which allows me to make a reasonable attempt at modelling the main line with pretty much full length trains. In 00 I would need a room over 24ft long to do the same thing. So what I'm saying is that maybe more folk should consider going for N gauge if they want to model the main line convincingly.

[Chris M]

This is an example of the open space feel that is more easily achieved in N .

[shanks522]

Not sure about under-rated, I just think that most people who begin railway modelling are automatically drawn to 00, ie Hornby. 
 

I model in various scales but N is always the favourite, and right now it’s fantastic with the likes of Revolution & sonic etc. 
 

certainly wouldn’t get a 16 coach sleeper in 00 with the space I have! 
 

Graham 

[shanks522]

This is what I love about N, trains in the landscape. 
 

 

[whart57]

I had a Lone Star push along train set when I was young - and you have to be a certain age to remember them. So you could say I have been aware of the space saving possibilities of N gauge for a life time. But I have never warmed to it. I did dabble a little in 2mm finescale for a while, joined the 2mm Association and bought some bits and pieces to try things out. Yet that bug never bit.

 

My problem with N is that while it clearly has advantages in terms of space, to get into N you also have to be interested in the same things everyone else is interested in. And I'm not. The range that OO manufacturers have produced (albeit some are only available as "pre-owned" items) is pretty wide, and N doesn't get anywhere close to that. That is probably one reason why N gauge has limited popularity. Another is that for those who like to build stuff for themselves it really is a tad too small. Grande Chapeau to those who do manage to make 2mm scale locos, but my lower limit is 3mm scale. I can just about get a small motor into the Victorian era engines I like in 3mm scale, no chance with N.

 

That said, I have a tiny Japanese motor bogie which runs beautifully and could be fitted into a brake van or coach and thus make a pre-Group train a possibility in N, but I have too much else on to even contemplate it at the moment.

 

So my conclusion is that N is not so much under-rated as that N fits a particular niche very well, and it might even be dominant in that niche. If you want to model the post-steam, post-Beeching era of British railways and do it at home - i.e. not on large club layouts - then N should probably be your first choice. It's not such a good choice for steam-era branch lines. And it's not such a good choice for me and my off the wall interests, though my main layout is 9mm gauge and follows N gauge wheel and track standards. It's just the stock running on it and the surrounding scenery that is to 3mm scale.

[fezza]

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. 

[osbornsmodels]

IMHO under exposure is the ongoing problem in the mainstream mags. That however is probably a combination of 2 things,(1) Editorial bias and (2) lack of submissions. Shanks 522 also has a very strong point (Hornby is the default for most newcomers to the hobby.

[Allegheny1600]

I was forced into N scale in 1983 by dint of living in a bedsit!

Although I devoted a space of 8’ x 2’, I think it had to be a moveable board. Anyway, I had a lot of fun with it and through my local club, made numerous friends. I also sharpened my modelling and maintenance skills as a result, Grafar mechanisms being what they were at that time.

Fast forward some 25 years or more and I tried N again, British outline western region steam and I was very impressed. The mechanisms had come on leaps and bounds, I would say that British N scale is now better than oo.

 I was also involved with a group who had a large N scale exhibition layout that we did many shows with, demonstrating the trains in scenery aspect and excellent running qualities of D&E traction, it was brilliant.

I pushed myself too far though when building a Parkside wagon kit, got eye strain and rather lost interest, sorry!

My primary interest is H0 scale because I now have the space for it and have a substantial investment in it but if I were short of space, I would take up N again with no hesitation.

Cheers,

John

[whart57]

27 minutes 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. 

 

As I said, that is it niche.

[njee20]

I think that’s pretty unfair. It sounds like you have somewhat esoteric interests, to which N doesn’t cater. That’s fine, but I’m not sure you can say “post-1968” is a niche.

[Phil Parker]

32 minutes ago, osbornsmodels said:

IMHO under exposure is the ongoing problem in the mainstream mags. That however is probably a combination of 2 things,(1) Editorial bias and (2) lack of submissions. Shanks 522 also has a very strong point (Hornby is the default for most newcomers to the hobby.

 

It's all 2) and not 1) - We'll cover N gauge happily in BRM, it's been on the cover a number of times, but the layouts need to stand up to scrutiny of the cruel camera lens. That means ballast that doesn't look like it comes from a garden centre for a start. It's harder to produce really good models in a smaller scale of course, but we need to be able to show the results off in large images. There have been some cracking models in the past that can take the enlargement, but since N is 15% of the hobby, there are less of those and 4mm scale models.

 

In meetings, we've wondered where all the quality N gauge is as the RTR models have been superb for many years. Fundamentally, if people don't build layouts though, we can't photograph them.

[AndrueC]

Yup, I'll having to choose between N and OO in a couple of years when I move house into my 'retirement bungalow' wherever that ends up being. But when you can take the space formally occupied by a double bed and produce a layout with two loops, eight sidings and run trains with six passenger coaches it's hard to argue against N.

[Nearholmer]

Under-rated in the sense that the quality of modern British-prototype r-t-r is stunning, and doesn't seem to be appreciated for that as it might be, yes. So very different from the N that I used to rob loco chassis from to build 009 in the 70sand 80s!

 

But, technical excellence of r-t-r is only part of what might attract an individual to a given scale/gauge combination. As others have said, it just isn't as versatile a format as 00/4mm, and it is noticeable that a lot of people now migrate from 00 to 0, rather than to N, in very tight spaces, which tells you that they value the intimacy of a "shunty" layout, usually with lots of detail, over the "helicopter view".

 

Good for what its good for, and if I was a manufacturer I'd not bother with it for pre-1968 prototypes.

 

PS: PP's response may contain a big clue: modern railway modelling trends tend to equate "good" with "what looks good in a colour photo reproduced at larger than life size", which has long made me scratch my head, given that there's a lot more to railway modelling that close-up photo-realism.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Chris M said:

This is an example of the open space feel that is more easily achieved in N .

Looks like Dawlish Warren to me. 

 

Under-rated by whom? N offers full-length trains and full-length stations in a more-achievable space in a modern house. Scenery may - may - be able to be slightly more broad-brush than in larger scales, but some of it is clearly just as detailed. And for that we also surely need to look at the 2mmFS community, who choose to work in finer tolerances, and yet in several cases produce stunning buildings and scenery, which many 4mm layouts cannot equal.

 

If I have to look closely at layout pics to see a layout is N, and I sometimes do, then the builder has ticked all the right boxes.

[spamcan61]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

it is noticeable that a lot of people now migrate from 00 to 0, rather than to N, in very tight spaces, which tells you that they value the intimacy of a "shunty" layout, usually with lots of detail, over the "helicopter view"

 

From a personal point of view, at least,  then deteriorating eyesight with age also plays a part in this, in theory I'm a "trains in the landscape" guy but if I do ever move from 00 then 0 is a more likely destination the N.

[Chris M]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Looks like Dawlish Warren to me. 

 

Under-rated by whom? N offers full-length trains and full-length stations in a more-achievable space in a modern house. 

Yes it is .

I meant under-rated by folk who choose to build layouts in 00 when N might give them a more realistic railway. It’s entirely up to individuals of course but most mainline layouts houses in a typical room will work far better in N than 00.

 

 

[Revolution Ben]

Hello all,

 

I am not sure I agree with the initial premise.  I think N has taken off but railway modelling in *all* scales has taken off, so N does not stand out.

 

As someone who's been modelling in N since the mid 1990s, I think we are in a golden age.  Why?

 

*  There is greater range than ever before.  In the late 1990s it was pretty much just Farish, now (or very soon) there will be Farish, Dapol, Kato, EFE, Sonic, Revolution, Rapido and the N Gauge Society all offering RTR models of prototypes that would've seemed impossible even a decade ago, like the Co-Bo.  In addition retailers including Osborns, Rails of Sheffield, Kernow and KMS Railtech are commissioning exclusive N gauge models.

 

*  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.

 

*  The N Gauge Society is a steadily growing resource, producing a colour bimonthly magazine exclusively dedicated to N, supporting hobbyists with a wide range of kits and RTR and offering members a network of local area groups to become involved with.

 

So what still needs doing?

 

1)  Track.  Despite the improvements available by using the excellent Finetrax range, basic plant and play track, with a range of crossings and turnouts, ideally from Peco, is desperately needed.  Code 80 or 55 just don't cut it anymore with the superb rolling stock now available.

 

2)  Layouts.   I do echo Phil's point above: where are all the inspirational 'new' N gauge layouts?  There is some excellent content here on RM Web, but I feel that perhaps more than most, N gauge enthusiasts tend to hide their lights under bushell - perhaps because as has been said the lens is less forgiving the smaller you get, and making N 'photo-realistic' is that bit harder.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris M]

24 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

 

Good for what its good for, and if I was a manufacturer I'd not bother with it for pre-1968 prototypes.

 

PS: PP's response may contain a big clue: modern railway modelling trends tend to equate "good" with "what looks good in a colour photo reproduced at larger than life size", which has long made me scratch my head, given that there's a lot more to railway modelling that close-up photo-realism.

 

 

 

 

 

I’m glad manufacturers do bother with pre 1968 prototypes. 
 

Phil - I’ll be off down the garden centre later for some more ballast! I chose Woodland Scenics fine ballast over the more accurate (and cheaper) option of chinchilla dust because even though it is wrong it looked better to my eyes. It’s true the camera is very cruel.  My layout is designed for me to enjoy as a model railway rather than to look good in photos. I do find taking photos is a useful way of finding areas that need to be worked on.

 

I agree with those who say building things in a larger scale is easier in the eyes but at the same time larger scales demand a much higher level of tiny detail which would be just as trying.

[eldavo]

Definitely not underrated in this household but as ever it's a case of horses for courses.  The current RTR stock is stunning and mostly the running is very good especially if you are into diesels.  If you want a shunting layout though maybe it's not the best choice. Some will also find the accuracy required for building stuff at this scale a step too far.  From time to time I think of building another N gauge layout but I seemed to have been distracted by O gauge!

 

 

Cheers

Dave

 

 

 

[JDW]

An interesting discussion. My two cents are that as Phil said, its a much smaller part of the hobby so there's maybe a bit of a catch 22 in that it features less in magazines, so gets less publicity, so less people do it, so it features less, and so on. Most people (myself included) start out with a Hornby set, so OO is pretty much the 'default' these days. For me, I completely agree that N is excellent for running full length trains through flowing scenery but I just find it too small and (to my mind) fiddly to be enjoyable, even with the advances in fidelity in recent years. There are some great layouts out there, no doubt, but it depends what you want. 

[Phil Parker]

52 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

PS: PP's response may contain a big clue: modern railway modelling trends tend to equate "good" with "what looks good in a colour photo reproduced at larger than life size", which has long made me scratch my head, given that there's a lot more to railway modelling that close-up photo-realism.

That's not what I said. The poster was wondering why there wasn't as much coverage in magazines - and there it does matter how thing appear on the page.

There is a lot more to railway modelling than close-up realism, but if you want to appear in print it does.

[Nearholmer]

Phil,

 

I said that your words contained a clue, and I still think that they do: magazines to some degree set the trends, and to some degree act as a definition of "good", and given that they now rely very heavily on big, colour photos, often taken from angles that a viewer couldn't achieve in reality, the de-facto result is that people tend to equate or conflate "good" with "looks good in big, colour photos".

 

It may not be the intent of those who produce magazines to create this definition of "good", its probably something more like an accidental byproduct of their rational decisions based on what sells well, but I really do think it happens.

 

Kevin