Quote "the culture of N gauge seems a lot more RTR and a fair bit less constructional than I'm used to in 4mm"

[Chris M]

This comment was posted in a thread a couple of days ago. I decided to start a new thread as any discussion on this subject is well off topic for the thread the comment was made in. I do wish contributors wouldn't make such statements. 

 

As an N gauge modeller I find the above comment to be rather dismissive of N gauge and I will admit the comment irked me. It seems to suggest that 00 modellers are superior. I see it s horses for courses. Yes, I would agree that there are fewer N gauge kit built locos around than in 00, but I would say the vast majority of 00 layouts rely very heavily on RTR items. I don't see anything wrong in that. I would tend to disagree with the "less constructional" comment though because I see a lot more N gauge layouts that are reasonable representations of a real location than I do in 00. There is an awful lot of "construction" in a real location. So far as I can see both scales can be very constructional but sometimes in different ways.

 

I like to see mutual respect between modellers. Just wondering if anyone else found that comment irksome?

[woodenhead]

I began writing some irksome diatribe about this but then realised it was quite simple, some modellers are absolute b!tching snobs.

 

There are plenty of modellers, I would say the majority of us, who look at any model railway regardless of gauge, scale or whatever other measure you wish to use and see a well executed piece of modelling for what it is.

[westernviscount]

Blueball Summit disproves this sentiment I would say. 

 

However, it might be worth simply addressing replies directly to the commenter. Is a seperate thread necessary? May smack of a pile on. 

[Oldddudders]

Perhaps those who enjoy the smaller scales, and wish to immerse themselves in building rather than buying, often gravitate to 2mm FS?

 

Of course N allows a far more spacious layout than OO or HO in the same area, and thus authenticity may be enhanced, with less 'cramming in' needed. 

 

But 'dissing' any scale or gauge is playground stuff, to be ignored or pitied. 

[Flying Pig]

3 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

But 'dissing' any scale or gauge is playground stuff, to be ignored or pitied. 

 

Before judging, it might be wise to read the thread in which the comment was made.

 

 

[woodenhead]

22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Before judging, it might be wise to read the thread in which the comment was made.

 

Wish I hadn't, someone has a bee in their bonnet.

 

It's correct though, that for years now with a combination of Dapol and Farish stock a very good representation of the ECML could have been built using N (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, J39, WD, 9F).  But because it's now there in TT120 due to the A3 and A4s then it's a must do scenario - if people are doing the ECML in TT, it's because there isn't much choice than do to the ECML in TT, had Hornby started with a Castle and a King, they'd all be doing the Great Western mainline, or a West Country and King Arthur and people would be the doing the South Western mainline.  Hornby are only doing the A3 and A4 because they are copying their model for OO, do the big pacifics....

[AndrueC]

I don't see it as a snide comment, just someone saying what they think and I'd be inclined to agree. For all that I love N scale it is a hard scale to model in if you want detail. Even building scenery kits isn't easy. I've built a few kits from the likes of Ratio/Peco and I don't think I got any of them to come out really well.

 

I don't think I'll ever try to build a loco in N scale. It requires far more dexterity and skill than I will ever have.

 

Update: Okay so I've just read that comment and I still don't see anything insulting or 'dissing' about it. It seems to be a reasonable statement. I'm sure there are people actually build their own rolling stock for N. And they deserve a great deal of praise for it. But I think it's correct to say that they are in the minority and understandably so.

 

Further edit: I have actually built a Peco wagon previously and have two more kits I intend to build then park in a siding looking sorry for themselves. So I'll go back a little on my statement and say that I have built some N scale kits that turned out quite well. But a couple of small wagons is a long way short of a locomotive and definitely the exception for me.

Edited January 21, 2023 by AndrueC

[BernardTPM]

Back when I first did N, over 40 years ago now, there was only a limited amount of R-T-R anyway. There was very much more in 00 than N then but even that was just a fraction of what is available now in either scale; indeed there's probably more 0 gauge R-T-R now than there was N then. As a result a lot was kit or scratchbuilt, but I enjoyed (and still do) making things anyway. I don't see what others do really matters, regardless of scale, gauge or prototype. Just do what makes you happy or satisfied.

Edited January 23, 2023 by BernardTPM

[Oldddudders]

44 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Before judging, it might be wise to read the thread in which the comment was made.

 

 

I am not judging anything. I am stating a fact. I repeat -  'dissing' any scale or gauge is playground stuff, to be ignored or pitied. 

[The Johnster]

There may be an impression among some modellers of my generation that RTR N is coarse scale and inherently flawed and that those who model in it are uncaring of this and should therefore be better ejumacaterised; we remember Minitrix's 4MT 2-6-4T, Ivatt 2MTs, and 9Fs forced to sit generically on German chassis with the wheels in the wrong place, and with hideously overfattened boilers in the case of the 2MTs.  Coaches with sides a scale 2' thick and recessed windows, the horrible buckeye couplings, all sorts of inaccuracies accepted because they were all that were available by modellers whose comfort zones did not include scratch building.  Running on 00 RTR was not brilliant back in the 70s and 80s, and the situation in N was as bad as you'd expect.

 

Such kits as were available were no better than the RTR, actually some were worse!  Don't forget that, at that time, a kit build in 4mm was expected to be better detailed and better scaled than RTR, and for a while 'serious' modellers could be defined by their avoidance of RTR or plastic kits.  Hornby especailly were at a low point.

 

There were a few 2mmfs modellers of whom I was in awe, still am.  I looked at N gauge as a possible solution to my space problems, and decided that I couldn't be doing with those couplings* or those flanges, and lacked the skill to go finescale enough to be happy with.  I would never disrespect the decision of anyone who was not put off by those features, we are all different and choose the scale that best suits us, and the choice is always a compromise because we all want to model Clapham Jc in a shoebox.

 

Since those days, 00 RTR has improved quantum and overtaken kits; loco kit building is a dying art because of the variety and quality of RTR.  In N, much has improved; slow running is much better, the horrible bright flanges have gone, locos are more to scale, coaches are less chunky and some of them aren't mk1s.  The couplings are still an offputter, but I am less dismissive than I once was of N as an RTR medium for my purposes.  I am so embedded in 00 now that I'm in it until they nail the lid down!

 

There are still issues.  The track is still pretty coarse, and the ballast frequently insanely course (I consider much 00/H0 ballast unusable for the same reason).  But N is not what it was 40 or 50 years ago; indeed, it would probably have gone down the drain 20 or 30 years ago if is was!  It is a good scale for those who want main line running, as one can still achieve a continuous circuit layout on a shelf, albeit a fairly wide one, and reach across the scenic half to the fy.

 

This neatly seques into another shibboleth of some 4mm modellers, the RTR continuous run trainset layout.  It is possible, certainly in 00 and very probably in N, to put together a reasonable looking layout from setrack and RTP/card kit buildings, and stock entirely with RTR stuff straight out of the box, and run trains on it without any shunting, changing locos &c, an approach particularly suited to current scene representation where most trains are in fixed formation mu form.  Is this railway modelling?  I'd say one would be on wobbly ground to try to claim that it is not; the intention is to create a model, representing something real, even if not actually copied from a prototype.  There is a huge range of abilities and levels of prototype knowledge within the hobby, and it is difficult to define what a model railway is as opposed to what a trainset is.

 

My definitions are entirely personal, and nobody has to agree with them; actually, I prefer if you don't because then I have a chance of learning something that way.  They are as follows: a trainset is laid out each time for operation using setrack on a table or even the floor👎; it may have it's track pinned or screwed to a board, but it is put away after use and has minimal scenery and buildings, and it may not even have a fixed trackplan.  A layout is a more permanent thing, and if it is put away after use the scenery and buildings are fixed to it in such a way that they don't have to be laid out each time.  Ideally it is permanently erected and the trains can live on it.  There is an attempt to run the trains prototypically within whatever understanding of prototypical operation the modeller has, and there is no reason to expect him/her to be expert in this field.  Trust me, there are professional railwaymen or ex-railwaymen whose knowledge of it is not all-encompassing, me for one, and we all do our best!

 

Now, there are plenty of trainsets and layouts that defy my restrictive definitions, and no right or wrong way of doing things.  Like the scale, your operating methods are chosen by you to suit your requirements and needs.  You also choose, or will naturally perforce adopt, the standard of modelling you are capable of.  The main thing is that you are enjoying the thing, and I personally hate it when other people interfere with that unless they are genuinely of the view that they can improve your enjoyment of the thing, and 'look at the way I do it and copy me' is not cutting the mustard.  'If you wanted to do it like this, then this is the way that I do it and if you don't understand, please, ask me questions and I'll do my best to help you, but if you're happy as you are, no problem, that's brilliant' does cut said mustard.

 

Good on you if you are modelling in RTR N and enjoying it; it's as good a way to model railways as any.  I'd rather see you enjoying your layout than be put off it by someone who thinks he's the b*ll*cks when he's actually just full of b*ll*cks.  Nowt wrong with being impressed and inspired by those with better modelling ability, and letting their work inform and improve your own over a timescale that you are comfortable with, but that doesn't mean you should let anyone talk down to you.

 

 

*I've considered them for 00 use, but not sure there's enough sideways play.

[PaulaDoesTrains]

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I'd rather see you enjoying your layout than be put off it by someone who thinks he's the b*ll*cks when he's actually just full of b*ll*cks.

 

Well said.

[t-b-g]

I long since stopped worrying about what others think of what I do or don't do, as long as I am enjoying myself. I don't model to please others, I model to please myself.

 

I have thought for a while that the OO 4mm world was seeing a steady decline in the number of kit and scratchbuilt locos and stock as modern RTR covers so much. I see many OO layouts with little or very few home built locos and stock.

 

It seems to me that kitbuilding locos and stock seems to be more the preserve of EM/P4 modellers in 4mm scale and of the 2mm Finescale fraternity in the smaller size. It seems to me that if people are going to go to the trouble of building things, it is more likely that they will want to do so to a more accurate gauge. It is certainly how I work. I have little or no RTR but I model something really obscure, so that I don't have to compete with Hornby/Bachmann etc. who produce models in a factory that are more accurate and finely detailed  and liveried than I can achieve.

 

I also think that it doesn't matter. Many RTR locos and stock are better in quality and finish than all but the very best builders can manage, especially in the livery department and very often, the RTR based layouts actually have the better quality locos and stock.

 

So looking down your nose at the layout with the better stock seems a bit of an own goal to me.

 

I have seen superb layouts with mostly RTR locos and stock that are much better in terms of design, performance and scenic work than some poorer efforts where lots of home made work has been included.

 

So I really think it isn't something to worry about. Different people like different things. Always have. Always will. 

[Ravenser]

Well if people want to give me a good kicking or enjoy a pile on , here I am....

 

The OP has ignored and omitted my clarification, that I was saying that the size of N gauge makes construction for yourself much more difficult - hence it is done a lot less than is usual in 4mm , even today.

 

Not that N gauge modellers are inferior in practical skills to modellers in a different gauge , but that the conditions under which they are working seriously restrict the extent to which making it yourself is easy or comfortable in N. Consequently ordinary modellers working in N end up being restricted to RTR ( even on the scenic side, to a degree).

 

I've heard someone exhibiting an N gauge layout at a show tell a spectator that they wouldn't attempt to build kits because it would be too tricky/fiddly . That speaks volumes - not about the modeller concerned but about the awkwardness of building stuff in such a small scale

 

I was wondering aloud whether the larger size of TT:120 might make building it yourself an easier proposition in 1:120 than it is in 1:148 - nearly as easy as it is in 3mm where build it yourself is routine and assembling a wagon kit or making a building doesn't raise a sweat. That would be a significant advantage to TT:120 , if it proves to be true

 

 

 

I also said "4mm" not "OO" . That's not a trivial distinction. There is quite a lot of EM/P4 in the 4mm scene , and people working in those gauges normally pride themselves on making it themselves, not buying it  (rightly or wrongly). 2mm Finescale seems to be a much smaller fraction of the N/2mm scene than EM/P4 are in 4mm. The finescale movement in 4mm has had a very large influence on the scale over the last 40 years, mostly positive. That has thrown quite a lot of emphasis on finesse and accuracy in modelling, and on making things yourself to achieve that. (It has also in the past injected a certain amount of finescale bigotry into the scene , and an attitude in a few quarters that it's better to make nothing than to make a mistake. N/2mm seems to be much freer from that.) Also 4mm is a much older scale than N/2mm , and its culture was formed decades ago when as the Johnster pointed out , "make it yourself" was essential  (And of course in OO9 - also part of the 4mm scene - until very recently making things was also obligatory)

 

I was sparked to say this by the way that, repeatedly in TT 120 threads, any suggestion as to what might be done in TT with the products now being announced/delivered resulted in one or more N gauge modellers jumping into the thread to say "well , if you are going to model X , you should do it in N not TT:120". And always , but always "the reason you should do it in N" was said to be that more was available RTR  in N than would be available in TT

 

That does sound a bit like a perspective from which RTR is the be-all and end-all, and making things yourself isn't significant

 

Whereas potentially one of the major advantages of this new scale, larger than N, is that m,aking stuff yourself becomes substantially easier than it is in N . I do think that TT:120 will have to have a significant craft/make it yourself element in its culture if it is to develop and establish itself as a scale. If it turns out to be too difficult to make stuff , or achieve any degree of finesse when doing so, then TT:120 will have its wings severely clipped.

 

But we won't establish that by arguing about it in the abstract . We'll establish it by seeing what people manage to build in TT:120 over the next 18-24 months . That will give us a benchmark.

 

So I'm pretty heartened to see a thread like this :  Lincoln Locos diesels in TT:120  This is people getting on and building locos Hornby haven't announced, using good quality resin bodies being made available and RTR TT drive trains.

 

I personally could probably make a fist of working in EM if I chose to change gauge. But I wouldn't dream of attempting to work in 2mm finescale . Far too difficult for me to do that in such a tiny scale

 

It's the constraints imposed by the scale , not the innate talents of the respective modellers, that's the point here

 

[Michael Hodgson]

I see this as an overreaction to a fair comment about rolling stock or individual buildings.  What is achievable is practically limited by our dexterity or lack thereof.  It is self-evident that N is far more fiddly to work in than OO but you can model O gauge in even greater detail.

On the other hand, you can get a lot more scenery into a given space in a smaller scale, which makes full length trains and a more realistic general setting practical.  So isn't that where more constructional effort goes ?  A realistic general overall impression of the railway is perhaps more possible in any small scale than the level of detail on rolling stock.  You model what you feel suits you, including your available space, your skills and your  wallet.

 

What one sees as better or worse modelling depends on what one looks for.  And of course some people are much more highly skilled than others, certainly more so than me.

 

[AndrueC]

10 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

The OP has ignored and omitted my clarification, that I was saying that the size of N gauge makes construction for yourself much more difficult - hence it is done a lot less than is usual in 4mm , even today.

Which was exactly what I took from your message. I don't know (or if I'm honest care) enough to assess the merits of your criticisms of the scale but I read nothing derogatory or dismissive in the post. They were one person's views and opinions and a large part of this forum is exchanging our views and airing our opinions. Just because someone holds a contrary opinion to me doesn't mean that they are insulting me.

 

N has it's place in modelling and maybe TT:120 is going to encroach on that somewhat. Time will tell. Given what I've achieved in N in a medium sized room I think I'd have struggled in TT:120. I want to run five or even six coach trains in mostly modern era. In N scale that means trains that almost a metre long. In TT:120 that'd be - what - 1.5 metres? I think that would mean almost an entire side of my board dedicated to platform and I think I'd have to forgo my inner (of four) loops because otherwise the curves would be too tight.

 

But that's not really the purpose of this thread and I've invested too much time and money to change anyway so I'll leave that there :)

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I long since stopped worrying about what others think of what I do or don't do, as long as I am enjoying myself. I don't model to please others, I model to please myself.

 

I have thought for a while that the OO 4mm world was seeing a steady decline in the number of kit and scratchbuilt locos and stock as modern RTR covers so much. I see many OO layouts with little or very few home built locos and stock.

 

It seems to me that kitbuilding locos and stock seems to be more the preserve of EM/P4 modellers in 4mm scale and of the 2mm Finescale fraternity in the smaller size. It seems to me that if people are going to go to the trouble of building things, it is more likely that they will want to do so to a more accurate gauge. It is certainly how I work. I have little or no RTR but I model something really obscure, so that I don't have to compete with Hornby/Bachmann etc. who produce models in a factory that are more accurate and finely detailed  and liveried than I can achieve.

 

I also think that it doesn't matter. Many RTR locos and stock are better in quality and finish than all but the very best builders can manage, especially in the livery department and very often, the RTR based layouts actually have the better quality locos and stock.

 

So looking down your nose at the layout with the better stock seems a bit of an own goal to me.

 

I have seen superb layouts with mostly RTR locos and stock that are much better in terms of design, performance and scenic work than some poorer efforts where lots of home made work has been included.

 

So I really think it isn't something to worry about. Different people like different things. Always have. Always will. 

 

However I feel that the 4mm kit building market has never been healthier. 

 

We've lost a lot of manufacturers over the years but the overall quality has vastly improved. Look at High Level, Judith Edge, Brassmasters, RT Models, London Road and PDK for example. Far from being dollops of white metal like many kits from the 1970s were.

 

We've also seen long dead ranges reappear recently such as Nucast/K's, DMR and Chivers, whilst the Coopercraft and Kirk ranges have also now got new homes.

 

Then you've got smaller "cottage industry" manufacturers making what they want and then running off kits for a few mates and putting some out for general sale. Look at the MacGeordie and K2 ranges for example.

 

Unfortunately I feel that N Gauge got stuck with the "Langley" (and others) idea of bodies made to fit on quite expensive RTR chassis that were often unobtainable. Some were fine, many were very crude. Something that 009 also suffered with. Now it seems that some want that route for TT120 as well. Not entirely convinced that is a good idea personally, but I'll be watching from the sides hoping to be proved wrong.

 

 

Jason

[t-b-g]

59 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

However I feel that the 4mm kit building market has never been healthier. 

 

We've lost a lot of manufacturers over the years but the overall quality has vastly improved. Look at High Level, Judith Edge, Brassmasters, RT Models, London Road and PDK for example. Far from being dollops of white metal like many kits from the 1970s were.

 

We've also seen long dead ranges reappear recently such as Nucast/K's, DMR and Chivers, whilst the Coopercraft and Kirk ranges have also now got new homes.

 

Then you've got smaller "cottage industry" manufacturers making what they want and then running off kits for a few mates and putting some out for general sale. Look at the MacGeordie and K2 ranges for example.

 

Unfortunately I feel that N Gauge got stuck with the "Langley" (and others) idea of bodies made to fit on quite expensive RTR chassis that were often unobtainable. Some were fine, many were very crude. Something that 009 also suffered with. Now it seems that some want that route for TT120 as well. Not entirely convinced that is a good idea personally, but I'll be watching from the sides hoping to be proved wrong.

 

 

Jason

 

If you search them out, there are a good number of lovely kits available in 2mm scale. They tend to be 2mm finescale rather than N Gauge, as I mentioned previously. There are also often very much "cottage industry" kits, produced by somebody for their own use and then made available to a wider audience.

 

My two forays into 2mm have involved an NBrass Dean Goods, which ended up using very few kit bits as I wanted it to fit a mechanism with a scale wheelbase rather than a RTR one which needed rather too much compromise for my taste. It would acceptable to many who don't fancy building their own mechanism.

 

 

Then there is the current project, a scratchbuilt Southern U Class. Only the tender has been done so far.

 

 

I am an absolute novice in 2mm and these are my first attempts, although I have been building models in 4mm EM gauge for around 40 years, so I have had some practice!

[Steven B]

16 hours ago, Ravenser said:

I've heard someone exhibiting an N gauge layout at a show tell a spectator that they wouldn't attempt to build kits because it would be too tricky/fiddly . That speaks volumes - not about the modeller concerned but about the awkwardness of building stuff in such a small scale

 

To me, it speaks volumes about the modeller.

It's no more awkward building in the 2mm scales than 4mm, or even 7mm. The smallest part you can physically fit to a model is the same in any scale. The smallest opening you can cut is the same in any scale.

 

I've yet to see working steam loco reversing gear in 7mm or 4mm scales. I have in 2FS.

 

Steven B

 

 

[drduncan]

I model in EM and N (or rather my 8 year old son has the N gauge in a failed effort to get a clear difference between his and Daddy’s trains).

 

I have no wish to fan flames as it seems things are already getting a bit fraught, but I have a degree of sympathy with the view that it is harder - for a given skill level - to work in n gauge.
 

And I’m not referring to individual skill levels! To my mind the key issue is component supply and the impact this has on model making in any scale/gauge combos rather than - to be deliberately provocative - ‘unboxing.’

[As a digression, this is not to attempt to create a fight between finescale and others, because we all enjoy this hobby in different ways, but to get us to think about model making and what makes this easy or harder. That this clearly is as possible in N as it is in 2mm, is demonstrated by the wonderful Totnes layout to name but one. It is also just as possible in OO as much as EM or P4 whether the builder considers themselves in the ‘ finescale’  camp or not. (My personal belief is that finescale is a mindset and approach rather than a scale/gauge combination; anything that makes pursuing such an approach is be be applauded. Anything that makes such an approach harder I would disparage.) Digression over.]
 

Anyway…One commentator mentioned the ‘Langley effect’ and the need for (very) expensive donor chassis to support building locos. This is indeed off putting. My, albeit limited experience, of trying loco building in N at the behest of my son who wants his layout powered by smaller version of the kits he watches me build (or finds rooting through my stash), is that the supply of key n gauge components (rather than 2mm Fs) is much more problematic than in 4mm. In particular I have yet to find a source of n gauge loco wheels (and I’m sure a similar comment could be made regarding after market N etched chassis kits). This prevents the appearance of the Great Bear or a Scott Atlantic on his layout, much to his dismay (and my relief as I can delay doing the CAD for 3D printing the loco superstructures for a bit longer…)

 

DrDuncan

[bmthtrains - David]

I’m a little confused by both the comment being criticised and the criticism of the comment, and add to that some of the posts that have followed.

 

A few of my own general thoughts:

 

1: No one should be trying to act as a gatekeeper - there is a whiff of the idea that ‘true’ modelling involves a specific level or application of skill lingering in the background here. There is nothing wrong with buying everything RTR or RTP. The hobby is railway modelling and not railway modelmaking after all.

 

2: In some respects I would say it is actually easier to work in N gauge than in larger scales. You simply don’t need to include as much detail.

 

 3: Rule One. Do what you enjoy doing and let other people do the same. I personally have no interest in making loco kits but that doesn’t relate to any of my skills or the challenges of the scale. I just prefer to apply myself in other areas. 

 

David 

[t-b-g]

8 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

To me, it speaks volumes about the modeller.

It's no more awkward building in the 2mm scales than 4mm, or even 7mm. The smallest part you can physically fit to a model is the same in any scale. The smallest opening you can cut is the same in any scale.

 

I've yet to see working steam loco reversing gear in 7mm or 4mm scales. I have in 2FS.

 

Steven B

 

 

 

I agree with what you say. It is just that you make more small bits and fewer big ones!

 

I have seen locos with working reversing "gadgets"  in 4mm and 7mm. Tim Watson wrote up a 7mm A4 in MRJ which had a second motor to work the valve gear and I recall an open cab loco, possibly a Crampton type but certainly a very early one, on Ambergate many years ago. On the latter one, when you reversed the loco, the driver moved the reversing lever in the cab. 

[nick_bastable]

6 hours ago, drduncan said:

I

 

 My, albeit limited experience, of trying loco building in N at the behest of my son who wants his layout powered by smaller version of the kits he watches me build (or finds rooting through my stash), is that the supply of key n gauge components (rather than 2mm Fs) is much more problematic than in 4mm. In particular I have yet to find a source of n gauge loco wheels (and I’m sure a similar comment could be made regarding after market N etched chassis kits).

 

DrDuncan

One reason many move to 2mm from N although Finetrax removes another major problem in N

[5944]

6 hours ago, drduncan said:

I model in EM and N (or rather my 8 year old son has the N gauge in a failed effort to get a clear difference between his and Daddy’s trains).

 

I have no wish to fan flames as it seems things are already getting a bit fraught, but I have a degree of sympathy with the view that it is harder - for a given skill level - to work in n gauge.
 

And I’m not referring to individual skill levels! To my mind the key issue is component supply and the impact this has on model making in any scale/gauge combos rather than - to be deliberately provocative - ‘unboxing.’

[As a digression, this is not to attempt to create a fight between finescale and others, because we all enjoy this hobby in different ways, but to get us to think about model making and what makes this easy or harder. That this clearly is as possible in N as it is in 2mm, is demonstrated by the wonderful Totnes layout to name but one. It is also just as possible in OO as much as EM or P4 whether the builder considers themselves in the ‘ finescale’  camp or not. (My personal belief is that finescale is a mindset and approach rather than a scale/gauge combination; anything that makes pursuing such an approach is be be applauded. Anything that makes such an approach harder I would disparage.) Digression over.]
 

Anyway…One commentator mentioned the ‘Langley effect’ and the need for (very) expensive donor chassis to support building locos. This is indeed off putting. My, albeit limited experience, of trying loco building in N at the behest of my son who wants his layout powered by smaller version of the kits he watches me build (or finds rooting through my stash), is that the supply of key n gauge components (rather than 2mm Fs) is much more problematic than in 4mm. In particular I have yet to find a source of n gauge loco wheels (and I’m sure a similar comment could be made regarding after market N etched chassis kits). This prevents the appearance of the Great Bear or a Scott Atlantic on his layout, much to his dismay (and my relief as I can delay doing the CAD for 3D printing the loco superstructures for a bit longer…)

 

DrDuncan

Farish do some wheels now as spares, but they generally seem to have pre-fitted bearings which may make chassis construction difficult. You can source some Fleischmann ones from as well, but again, how difficult it'll be constructing a chassis is another matter. Worsley Works do a few kits that include chassis, and N Brass locos too, but they appear to require 2mm SA components to complete.

[298]

2mm is the only scale that has beaten me, and I am generally in awe of anyone who makes a successful attempt at it. Whether it be the delightful little light railway terminus that the builder carried out of a show under one arm or a large scenic masterpiece that really shows what is possible outside of an ill disguised oval. After finishing a well compromised Peco Peckett but with separate handrails and DG couplings that actually made it possible to shunt remotely I realised the next stage forward was to go to finescale, so joined the society and brought the books, but didn't get much further.

 

I'd also say that despite regular comments, N gauge is still healthy, looking at the well stocked fiddle yards of some exhibition layouts, and I can't remember the last time I saw Minitrix or Lima Mk1s or a significant number of the oversized 16 tonners. 

[Chris M]

I have scratchbuilt stock on G scale but would not consider this in N. I have built a fair number of N gauge wagon kits. All my N gauge locos and coaches are RTR simply because I know I can’t produce a finish that is up to modern factory produced standards. So RTR will always look better than home built unless you are an exceptional model maker and decorator. On the other hand I see N as being very constructional when it comes to scenery and buildings where there is room to do so much more than other scales. For me RTR stock with added weathering running through carefully constructed scenery with some scratchbuilt buildings represents N gauge at its best. Having said that I enjoy seeing wonderful works of art (layouts) in all scales and also enjoy the wide variety of different approaches that can be found.