Lack of realism in "N" Gauge Locos

[ste234]

A relative of mine has just got his hands on Dapols new Britannia, and comparing it against his old Lima (I think) model, the difference is simply amazing. Yes the couplers do spoil the look, but OO's are not much better .

 

 

IMO, there will always have to be some sacrifice to realism in N, but the standard is getting higher, and to echo a comment I read on another thread, when young jimmy wants a train-set for his birthday, his parents, chances are, think "Hornby" and OO, and have probably never heard of N.

Cheers,

Ste

[craigwelsh]

Good quality 4mm has had about 10 years headstart on the revival of British N gauge so its unsurprising there is still a bit of a gap and N is still a much smaller market to splash out development on too (im sure the recent crop of models has people looking more at it though).

 

Valve gear, wheels and couplings could still do with a bit of work (the Britannia showed those aspects up) but its certainly something that can be fixed as Dapol and Farish continue to tweak what is now a much better basis.

 

Some of the diesels are spot on, I do love that DP1 trainset .

 

2mm finescale guys have some nice bases to work from now even if the scale is slightly out.

[mercig studios]

Seems an odd thread.... 5+ years ago then yes I would agree with the OP.

 

people who model in OO and larger often look at N gauge models with their 00/0 glasses on and do not realise just how tiny an N Gauge loco actually is.... the average modeller would not give the shape of crank-pin screw on an N Gauge loco a second glance. Yes N Gauge has to make certain compromises but equally 00 and 0, to my eyes, have a very plastic toy like appearance and feel, so I guess it's horses for courses.

 

Yes there are examples in the Farish range (particularly steam) that are awful but if I was to use those as examples of 'Lack of Realism' then I could equally do a similar thread about 00 using models from 30 years ago.

 

N Gauge models in the last 5 years have gone through a metamorphosis with each new release seemingly to get better and better and to use one recent example the class 86 from Dapol was given far better reviews in the model press than the Heljan model both of which were released at more or less the same time.

[James]

Yes it does look good-for N gauge! I'm looking at the wheels, the motion and valve gear, the hideous coupling and especially the screws/rivets fixing the rods to the wheels.

Are you looking at photos of them (net or magazines) or actually looking at them first hand?

 

In isolation in larger than life photos any overscale parts will look awful (same with other scales too!) but in the context of a layout or even in a display case in a shop the new generation N gauge stuff is pretty good.

[m0rris]

Personally I can sympathise with the intentions of the OP however... I think that N gauge is coming on leaps and bounds, and in many areas has caught up with 00.

 

The old N gauge, i.e. the farish/minitrix era, was fairly poor and the kits that went with them were very much the same. About 5 years ago my little brother was given an n gauge "train set", containing a grafar 57xx, this was added to with a Grafar Hall, Prairie, and GWR Railcar and... a Dapol 14xx. Of these, I would only rate the 14xx and the GWR Railcar as passable representations of the prototypes, most importantly, these were the more recent introductions. The past of N gauge was filled with bloated models of popular prototypes, dealing little with the fine details, let alone the basic proportions.

 

However, the advent of Dapol has either coincided or helped drive on the progress towards high quality models. Of the recent models, IMHO, many if not all have accurately represented the prototypes, in some cases better than their 00 siblings (which seem to have almost become too fiddly). However, as has already been raised, N gauge is based upon many fundamental compromises in terms of the quality of the code 55 track and the gauge of the track itself. Personally, I would be tempted to model a british freight terminal using continental emd 66 models and some of the wagons provided as well, but that is my silly opinion!

 

In conclusion, N gauge was highly compromised and the dinosaurs in rtr cupboard are still there but they are on the way out and the problems mentioned in the OP I believe are out now no longer a long term issue.

 

Morris

[spamcan61]

I agree with the OP, indeed I made a comparison with 60s Triang some time back, at least for many of the older models; yes the latest N is in a different league by and large.

[Anglian]

I sympathise with the intent of the OP which I read as a plea for the standards to continue to improve. My own feeling that I've expressed before is that I can't help but feel the N models to some degree are still in the realm of experimentation. Its a size I'm hugely drawn to and I really want N/2mm to be a big commercial success but I'm not yet convinced we are there yet as the quality of models seems to fluctuate somewhat if the reports I read are accurate (I've no reason to suspect they aren't) .

 

However, two things spring to mind:

 

1) Close up photography is very cruel when it comes to such small models and IMHO there is a great deal of difference in seeing the actual model in the flesh. To my eyes the recent Farish offerings have been lovely little models.

 

2) If there is room for improvement in my eyes it has to be below the footplate as I'm still not convinced the models are really as good as they could be made to be.

[Dave777]

...maybe more people would have switched to the smaller scale if the models were better.

 

... there are some very good models around...

 

 

Would it be fair to say that there are some good models available, but that you have to pick and choose carefully, and that if the current rate of improvement that we've seen over the last 5 years continues then eventually your concerns will be addressed?

 

I tend to view N gauge as about where OO was when Hornby came out with the Merchant Navy. Exciting times ahead.

[Chinahand]

Well, if the OP was hoping to stir up a hornet's nest of criticism for N Gauge he seems to have failed spectacularly.

 

Personally, as a former 00 modeller who has converted to N Gauge, I can only applaud the leaps and bounds by which N Gauge locos and rolling stock have improved over the past 5 or so years, particularly when N Gauge was in danger of sinking without trace until Bachman stepped in and took over Graham Farish. Since then Dapol have arrived on the scene to provide the competition that was previously missing from N Gauge and, in consequence, Bachman/GF have been compelled to up their game. It will, undoubtedly, take time to bring the back catalogue up to present day standards though, judging by the standard of new models, they will be worth waiting for.

 

In addition, we now have new locos from the likes of Ixion (notwithstanding their original scaling faux pas) and the secondary market for kits and add-ons is expanding every day. I think I read somewhere that the N Gauge market now accounts for almost 20% of all model railway sales which, when you think it was probably less than 2% only 5 years ago, is a spectacular 10 fold increase in popularity. That would not be happening unless the manufacturers were doing something right.

 

Finally, having down-sized and embraced the new, and very different challeges of modelling in the smaller scale, I have no regrets whatsoever, since it has allowed me to model scenarios which, given the space I have available, would have been impossible in 00. To achieve this I have been prepared to accept a degree of compromise in the level of loco detailing though frankly, from any reasonable viewing distance, such details would hardly be visible anyway. Once the ugly Rapido couplers have been eliminated I believe your average modeller would be hard pressed to identify, from photographs, which loco is 00 and which is N Gauge.

[James]

I think I read somewhere that the N Gauge market now accounts for almost 20% of all model railway sales which, when you think it was probably less than 2% only 5 years ago, is a spectacular 10 fold increase in popularity. That would not be happening unless the manufacturers were doing something right.

I think that's spot on - RTR N gauge is improving all the time. Not so long ago very people built convincing N gauge layouts, people like the late Andy Calvert were very much the exception. But now the new RTR seems to have pushed people to 'raise their game' and modellers who have been in other scales are pushing things even more. Waton in the 2010 Challenge is a wonderful example of this trend.

[Dave777]

I was pondering on your post last night Ed and felt that I hadn’t struck the right tone.

 

As I see it, I think N gauge modellers accept that there are some pretty poor models out there while also acknowledging that many of these are relics from what could be called a different era. Stuff like the Farish A4 for example has been around for… 25 years or so now? The Battle of Britain and Hall must be at least as old as that, and even at the time of release I can remember the BoB being considered not that good. I would agree with you that these older models really do look past it these days. Why do Bachmann keep churning them out? Because they sell, and if it provides income then that for me means more new models, so while I don’t buy them if Bachmann want to keep producing them then fair enough.

 

Recently both Farish and Dapol have produced a series of models that have upped the stakes considerably. The 9F, the Black 5, the Jubilee, The Britannia – models that are really starting to push the detail and fidelity limits. Yes there have been a few problems along the way, but I don’t agree that we have a ‘droolfest’ every time a new release is made. This suggests that N gauge modellers are accepting any old tat and not speaking up when things are wrong. Personally, threads on RMWeb such as that for the Dapol Britannia have actually been pretty vocal I thought, and in the same way that OO releases get a serious critique, I believe that N gauge has now moved to that level as well (and others can decide if that’s a good or bad move). Whereas before we might well have accepted whatever we were given, I really do think that today that isn’t the case. The original Farish 47 release with the big body/bogie gap, the high running plate on the Dapol B17, the crosshead screw on the Britannia… leaving aside if people consider these unnecessary or perfectly valid comments, the important thing to note is that N gauge modellers are speaking up and pointing out when things aren’t good enough in their opinion.

 

This is really the big problem in N at present and to which I alluded to. You’ve steered away from naming specific models, and admitted that you’ve made a generalisation about the state of N gauge steam locos, but it’s that very old/new split in the current range which means generalisations are difficult to justify. Are we talking about the decades old Farish steamers or the more modern releases from the past couple of years? If it’s the former, then I agree with you – not good enough for today’s market. If it’s the latter, then I’m not so sure.

 

OO isn’t exactly a panacea of permanently quality releases. If I generalise across the available models I find 30 year old Lima releases, some ‘challenging’ Class 37 and 47s, and Class 86s that were only released in the past 12 months that, according to some, don’t look like the real thing. And releases such as the O gauge Class 37 by Skytrex were commented on as not being up to the standards we now expect. In any of the popular scales there are good releases and bad, older models and newer ones. The Hornby Merchant Navy represented a step change (IMHO) in OO gauge steam releases, and that’s been continued and improved upon. Releases in N gauge such as the Jubilee are the same landmark models I feel, and I suspect in another 5 or 10 years we’ll look back and remember them as the turning point for N gauge.

 

 

That’s the real problem I have with this thread – without naming the specific problems we’re then generalising, and with a RTR range that spans some 30 years of releases we’re lumping some excellent models in with some ropey ones. If the thread was about ‘missed opportunities’ then, as I said before, we need to identify where the issues are and how or if these can be fixed, while keeping within the context of mass production. I think certain things are ‘off limits’ – the track, the couplings – as we accept these in other scales and we can’t really single out N gauge as being solely ‘guilty’ in this regard. It’s very difficult to take the discussion forward without naming specific models and issues I’m afraid, and while I appreciate your reluctance to do that it does make discussion of where the specific problems are very tricky! Effectively I’m sitting here thinking ‘Is Ed talking about stuff like the Farish Battle of Britain? If so, then yes he’s spot on. Or is he talking about the modern stuff such as the Black 5? In which case, tell me more about where you want to improve it – I’m interested’.

[Revolution Mike]

The old N gauge, i.e. the farish/minitrix era, was fairly poor and the kits that went with them were very much the same.

 

The past of N gauge was filled with bloated models of popular prototypes, dealing little with the fine details, let alone the basic proportions.

 

However, as has already been raised, N gauge is based upon many fundamental compromises in terms of the quality of the code 55 track and the gauge of the track itself.

 

The past of OO gauge was hardly littered with shining examples of accuracy - you can pick any number of OO models from 10 - 20 years ago and find serious faults (under length Mk3 anyone)! I think it is an unfair comparison to compare "old" Farish with modern OO, just as it would be unfair to compare old Hornby/Lima/Mainline etc with modern Farish/Dapol. There were howlers in all scales and nice models in all scales.

 

On the track - yes, there are compromises, but the same is true of OO (in fact many of the same compromises on sleeper spacing and size being wrong), but N is still closer to scale track than OO!

 

My own feeling that I've expressed before is that I can't help but feel the N models to some degree are still in the realm of experimentation. Its a size I'm hugely drawn to and I really want N/2mm to be a big commercial success but I'm not yet convinced we are there yet as the quality of models seems to fluctuate somewhat if the reports I read are accurate (I've no reason to suspect they aren't) .

 

You say experimentation, I say improvement! I would take reports about quality with a pinch of salt in all scales - people report faults (in either accuracy or quality) much more than they report accuracy and good running. I can't comment on the steam side, but I have seen complaints about some of the diesel models in N, but my own experiences have been somewhat different (ie no failures to date!).

 

I think I read somewhere that the N Gauge market now accounts for almost 20% of all model railway sales which, when you think it was probably less than 2% only 5 years ago, is a spectacular 10 fold increase in popularity.

 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that N is growing (and anecdotal reports from traders support the 20% figure), I tihnk that the 2% estimate is probably an underestimate and also a reflection that following the sale of Farish to Bachmann there was a considerable hiatus as production was moved from Poole to China which artificially deflated the amount of N sales.

 

A lot of the comments on this thread are not unique to N and could equally be levelled at OO...

 

Cheers, Mike

[TomE]

I just feel that an opportunity to improve the hobby has been missed here, and that maybe more people would have switched to the smaller scale if the models were better.

 

What?!!!! Get ye to Specsavers!

 

The improvement in N since Bachmann bought out Farish and Dapol entered the Market has been nothing short of astronomical! Not just in the quality of the models but the range available. Just look at the recent Farish 3MT and the new MK1s. A whole universe away from the crude approximations we had just a few years ago. I'm not saying that N is a modellers utopia, that's still a little way off, but I just can't see how you can justify a statement like that above!

 

And to highlight how far N has actually come:

 

Old Class 101:

 

 

New Class 101:

 

 

Tom.

[spamcan61]

 

Would it be fair to say that there are some good models available, but that you have to pick and choose carefully, and that if the current rate of improvement that we've seen over the last 5 years continues then eventually your concerns will be addressed?

 

I tend to view N gauge as about where OO was when Hornby came out with the Merchant Navy. Exciting times ahead.

 

Yes, spot on in my opinion.

[Sir Madog]

I think that detail and looks has come a long way in N scale, but still I have to agree, that the locos appear to look "wrong". It is all in the wheels and the Rapido coupler. Add a fine scale wheel set and Kadee N couplers and you will see the difference!

[grahame]

the locos appear to look "wrong". It is all in the wheels and the Rapido coupler. Add a fine scale wheel set and Kadee N couplers and you will see the difference!

 

Again, this type of comment equally applies to OO gauge; add P4 wheels and get rid of that tension lock coupler thingy and they will look better. So does that mean OO models also don't look realistic and are "wrong"?

 

G.

[spamcan61]

It means the compromises necessary to make a viable RtR product in OO are generally less noticeable than those in N, e.g. wheel width and flange depth.

 

Production manufacturing tolerances don't scale.

[Karhedron]

Is it me? I look at most of the new releases in n gauge steam locos and they just look wrong to me. There are some notable exceptions, but mostly they remind me of the ancient offerings from Tri-ang and Hornby Doublo(sp?) with wheels too small, enormous flanges etc. Worse than that though are the ones whose fundamental shape is wrong.

I don't think the above is true of anything introduced in the last 10 years.

 

Granted there are some of the old Poole-era models still in production that this applies to (the GWR in particular springs to mind). But these models are based on 30-year old toolings. Look at anything introduced more recently and you will models that are not far off 00 in terms of fidelity. Sure there are discrpenacies and compromises (oversized couplers and coupling distances spring to mind) but the current generation of models are really very good indeed. In fact N gauge even can claim to be more accurate in one regard since the scale/gauge discrepancy is actually smaller for N than 00.

[spamcan61]

I don't think the above is true of anything introduced in the last 10 years.

 

When was the Bachmann N V2 introduced? That's the loco that originally made me think of 60s Triang, particularly the lined LNER green version.

[edcayton]

OK, let me try again.

When OO rtr came out (first HD then Tri-ang) it was more than a quantum leap from the rtr affordable O gauge, most of which was toy-like 4 wheeled vehicles and track with 3 sleepers per piece.

 

Even the more expensive rtr O gauge was fairly poor in realism terms, and the new OO stuff knocked it into a cocked hat. It was so good that even the skilled modellers couldn't do much better.

 

Clearly the standards have improved greatly since to the stunning and cheap (yes-I do think it's cheap) stuff we have now.

 

What I am saying is that the N gaugers of today KNOW the quality of rtr that is available. It seems to me that they are not pushing the standards up, but a pace or two back. Of course the standards have moved on, but none the less the older characature(sp?) models are still marketed, and are not cheap. Look what Hornby have done with the Railroad range-there are some real bargains there and (apart from the 08!)some pretty good models.

 

Yes, my point is about steam loco's, and the faults are mainly in the wheels and motion area. Diesels and electrics have the former hidden and do without the latter. I still think that there are recent models where the shape is fundamentally wrong, but I do accept that there are those in OO which divide opinions. (btw, I can't see much difference between the Metro-Cammel dmu's, if anything the green one looks better because the windows look flusher)

 

On a slightly different note; I gather some of the newer N gauge loco's use tender drive mechanisms? Why don't they learn from the diversionary route OO went down before realising that was a mistake?

 

Anyway, I'm off to get me flak jacket and asbestos underwear.

 

Ed

[spamcan61]

Hornby haven't been that quick to move the older models to the Railroad range though, I seem to recall the old, chunky Patriot was still in the mainstream range, and not particularly cheap either (at least at list price), until recently.

 

Personally I think the tender versus loco drive decision is not so clear cut in N as it is in OO.

[woodenhead]

Personally I think the tender versus loco drive decision is not so clear cut in N as it is in OO.

 

Agreed, tender drive allows a more accurate body, open space below a boiler where required, much finer detail. Due to the lack of space the older Farish loco drive steam models have metal bodies to give weight as there was no space left after shoving in the motor. Using the tender there is space for weight and a decoder.

[Edwin_m]

Someone asked about the V2. This was launched around 2006, to fairly widespread derision as I recall, as the first of the new steam toolings from BachFar. It illustrates perfectly the sort of compromise that has to be made to achieve loco drive in N. As an alternative Dapol have put the motor in the tender driving a cardan shaft through the cab. Needless to say there are plenty of people who don't like that either...

[Kris]

Someone asked about the V2. This was launched around 2006, to fairly widespread derision as I recall, as the first of the new steam toolings from BachFar. It illustrates perfectly the sort of compromise that has to be made to achieve loco drive in N. As an alternative Dapol have put the motor in the tender driving a cardan shaft through the cab. Needless to say there are plenty of people who don't like that either...

 

Was the V2 not a model that Farish had developed but that Bachmann released? I have a feeling that it was earlier than 2006 but can't find any evidence to back this up (2003?)

 

 

 

[Flying Pig]

When OO rtr came out (first HD then Tri-ang) it was more than a quantum leap from the rtr affordable O gauge, most of which was toy-like 4 wheeled vehicles and track with 3 sleepers per piece.

 

Even the more expensive rtr O gauge was fairly poor in realism terms, and the new OO stuff knocked it into a cocked hat. It was so good that even the skilled modellers couldn't do much better.

This is simply untrue. Skilled modellers could and routinely did do much better than the Tri-ang and Dublo rtr of the 1950s and 60s.

 

What I am saying is that the N gaugers of today KNOW the quality of rtr that is available. It seems to me that they are not pushing the standards up, but a pace or two back.

The standard of British N gauge is improving. What standard is it that is being pushed back? Doesn't the same criticism apply to 00 gaugers who KNOW that what they're buying isn't up to the standards of the best European rtr? Where does this stop?

 

When am I allowed to buy N gauge models without it being suggested that I am somehow not trying hard enough?