# Almost Thou Persuadest Me To Convert to N Scale



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm just a simple O scale operator with a rather small 88 square foot layout. Or at least small, by O scale standards.

I've been waiting years for O scale manufacturers to produce a Union Pacific 4-6-2 Pacific steam locomotive with a Vanderbilt tender. The prototypes used to pass through my home town in the 1950s pulling UP freight and passenger trains.

But the O scale manufacturers continue to disappoint. Then I'm messing around a few days ago on eBay and decide to look at the offerings in N scale just for the heckcovit. Lo and behold, there was a Model Power UP Pacific with Vandy Tender and a Centralia CA-3 UP caboose! Just what I'd been looking for in O scale for years. 

So I snatched them up on eBay all for under $200.00. You certainly couldn't find these items in O scale for that amount. Anyway, they're above my man cave desk on more prototypical-looking 2-rail track. 

But I just don't know if I could convert to N scale. An N scale layout would take up far less room than O and could have much more on it, but N is so dog-gone tiny!


----------



## 89Suburban (Jan 4, 2017)

Looks good.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

I model N scale and I understand your worries about the small size.However,before you decide to jump in,you might search HO scale...I'd bet you probably can find the same engine in this scale.


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

Brakeman Jake said:


> I model N scale and I understand your worries about the small size.However,before you decide to jump in,you might search HO scale...I'd bet you probably can find the same engine in this scale.


Good point Jake. But for some reason, HO has just never appealed to me, even thought it's the largest faction in model railroading. HO track radii take up almost as much room as Lionel 036 Fastrack, which is on my current layout.

Maybe I'll chew on it awhile.


----------



## dieselfan1 (Sep 14, 2013)

Yellowstone, 
I went from HO to N about 12 years ago and never looked back. Instead of more track less scenery, it's more scenery less track.My layout is around the walls with a duckunder 20'x17' with two separate mainlines.
With your space you would have a large layout in N


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

Thanks dieselfan. Nice photos! :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2017)

I was in N scale for many years. After you get used to the size it no longer looks small. I would have stayed with N but I have an inherited condition called tension tremors. My hands shake and I found working with N difficult and frustrating. 

N scale can be very reliable and fun but you must work to much closer tolerances. A slight misalignment in track that O gauge won't even notice can derail N scale. N scale parts are small so you must work carefully when building kits. It certainly can be done but it requires more care than O.

If you have the room, I suggest building a small N layout, say 2x4 or slightly larger. Just enough to give it a try. You already have a loco and caboose so you almost have enough to give it a try.


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

dieselfan1 said:


> Yellowstone,
> I went from HO to N about 12 years ago and never looked back. Instead of more track less scenery, it's more scenery less track.My layout is around the walls with a duckunder 20'x17' with two separate mainlines.
> With your space you would have a large layout in N


Dieselfan1, your scenery is beautiful! That train is no dog either...very nice. Thanks for the pics!


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

Very interesting, Joe. I can see where O scale is much more forgiving than N scale would be. In my case, I wouldn't be constructing kits or anything that involved, since I'm just more of an operator and like to see trains run.

But I'm taken aback by how much is available in N nowadays along with how relatively less expensive everything is compared to O. Kato has caught my eye and I could purchase a Union Pacific AB lashup, both powered, along with 10 passenger cars which look great for under $400. From this I could assemble UP's Yellowstone Special passenger train. If I were to do the same thing in O, the cost would be close to $2000.00, if I could find everything, and that's a big "if."

I have a J-shaped layout and could easily shorten the existing O scale section, crowd more buildings together, discontinue the freight operation and run only the Polar Express on the O part, since it's a winter-themed layout anyway. That would give me about a 4' x 6' section to create a whole new N scale layout. I'm running it through my head and may go that route, or may not. I guess time will tell.

Thank you for your input, Joe. :thumbsup:


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Getting used to a new scale*



Yellowstone Special said:


> Very interesting, Joe. I can see where O scale is much more forgiving than N scale would be. In my case, I wouldn't be constructing kits or anything that involved, since I'm just more of an operator and like to see trains run.
> 
> But I'm taken aback by how much is available in N nowadays along with how relatively less expensive everything is compared to O. Kato has caught my eye and I could purchase a Union Pacific AB lashup, both powered, along with 10 passenger cars which look great for under $400. From this I could assemble UP's Yellowstone Special passenger train. If I were to do the same thing in O, the cost would be close to $2000.00, if I could find everything, and that's a big "if."
> 
> ...


Yellowstone special;

Like most American boys, I started with O-27. As a teen, I switched to HO-scale, and as an adult, discovered N-scale. Soon found I loved what could be done in the same space, with a smaller scale, and have been happily modeling in N-scale for many years. Each change in scale brought a new learning curve. When I first had to put the smaller, N-scale wheel-sets back in their trucks, I figured this is just too small! Fast forward a bit and dealing with the smaller parts became easier, and my new normal. Recently I worked on some HO-scale turnouts, and the things looked HUGE! your perspective changes. Only trying N-scale, and sticking with it awhile, will show you whether it's the scale for you. By the way, Bachman makes a 2-8-8-4 "Yellowstone" steam locomotive in N-scale, if that interests you. (Yes, I realize your favorite, "Yellowstone Special" passenger train was diesel powered!) I had the opportunity to see, and climb up into the cab of, the real Yellowstone 2-8-8-4 steam locomotive at the Duluth Min. train museum. What a magnificent monster!
That brings up another advantage of a smaller scale. You hit on it yourself when comparing curve radii in HO-scale to what you now use in O-scale. The smaller scales allow you to operate really big equipment, like "Big Boys", "Challengers" , DD-40AX "Centennial" diesels, and all the other UP giants, on 19"+ radius curves. The big engines and 85' passenger cars look great on this size curve too.
I agree with Dieselfan1, that the "less track, and more scenery", approach , is much better than seeing how much track you can cram in a given space. His photo shows an advantage to this approach in a small scale. The trains "fit better" in their model world, when the scenery dwarfs the train, as in the real world. Trying to reproduce the same effect in a large scale would require some mighty large rock formations, in more space than most of us have.
If your a Union Pacific fan, you might like a Kato offering. They make a beautiful model of Union Pacific's present day steam excursion/publicity train. Northern 844 and a, long, beautiful, string of yellow& grey passenger cars.

Go ahead. Give N-scale a good try!

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## dieselfan1 (Sep 14, 2013)

Yellowstone, 
I love the F units . Especially when they have a passenger train behind them. My favorite is the Empire Builder . Not far behind is the California Zephyr. 
Here's a few more pics to get you going.


----------



## cramden (Oct 13, 2015)

That's outstanding, great ratio of scenery to trains.:appl:


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

traction fan: Thank you for your input. I agree that operating an N scale layout would be much more visually realistic with the scenery as the main backdrop as the trains run through it. Dieselfan's photos are good examples. They look like real trains passing though real country.

dieselfan: Thanks again for those superb photos!

I can see where modeling in N scale would require some learning and proficiency in making scenery. Something I'd be willing to try. You guys are persuasive in causing me to take a serious look at N scale and trying it out on my existing layout.

I'm going to continue gathering information on N scale modeling and may start working on it in the fall.

Many thanks to all of you in this thread for your input and contributions.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Scenery*



Yellowstone Special said:


> traction fan: Thank you for your input. I agree that operating an N scale layout would be much more visually realistic with the scenery as the main backdrop as the trains run through it. Dieselfan's photos are good examples. They look like real trains passing though real country.
> 
> dieselfan: Thanks again for those superb photos!
> 
> ...


 Yellowstone Special;

You are quite welcome! Scenery making methods/skills are pretty much the same in any scale. The big difference is just the ratio of trains to the scene. You can also fit some fairly deep-looking scenes into some pretty small spaces with N-scale. The steel trestle scene below is 16" deep at the top, and only 5" deep at the bottom. While 16" is the standard depth on my shelf layout; this one had to be cut down to accommodate the lid on a chest freezer. Some other sections can be much deeper. The river scene goes back about 6 feet.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

Awesome and nicely done! :thumbsup:


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

cramden said:


> That's outstanding, great ratio of scenery to trains.:appl:


Hey Ralph, is that you again?


----------



## cramden (Oct 13, 2015)

Yellowstone Special said:


> Hey Ralph, is that you again?


Yes it is, still alive and kicking.  They're just great pics...great backdrop for long passenger sets.


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

cramden said:


> Yes it is, still alive and kicking.  They're just great pics...great backdrop for long passenger sets.


Fantastic!!


----------



## dieselfan1 (Sep 14, 2013)

Yellowstone 
Scenery is not difficult at all if you take your time . I've been doing a little here and a little there and it comes together before you know it.
I also run modern on my layout . There is literally tons of modern stuff available in N.The third picture is my money shot.


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

dieselfan1 said:


> Yellowstone
> Scenery is not difficult at all if you take your time . I've been doing a little here and a little there and it comes together before you know it.
> I also run modern on my layout . There is literally tons of modern stuff available in N.The third picture is my money shot.


Beautiful work, dieselfan. The reflection of the train off the water looks great! I like the modern trains, too.

Since it looks like BNSF country, just east of the Rockies in Montana (?), that must be Amtrak's Empire Builder.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Great photography especially, as was said, the reflections in the water. :thumbsup:


----------

