# The "best" scale to model



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

I know this may cause some fights, but I have wondered, if you had unlimited space, time and money which scale would be the best to model in? Why?


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

swimmer_spe said:


> I know this may cause some fights, but I have wondered, if you had unlimited space, time and money which scale would be the best to model in? Why?


I would say HO. The size is small enough to fit lots, but large enough to see. It seems to be the scale with the most things available in.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Ford or Chevy? 9mm or 45ACP? Mary Ann or Ginger?


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> I know this may cause some fights, but I have wondered, if you had unlimited space, time and money which scale would be the best to model in? Why?


There is no answer, even when you have the "unlimited space, time, and money." It depends on many factors, mostly, what you like.

A very good, perceptive, smart friend once observed that the difference between N and O was: "N gauge seems all about the layout, O is all about the locomotives." Having done both I agree. In N gauge, the locos are so small that "detail" is really not a primary issue, but the layout can be extensive as far as number of buildings, track loops, scenery, etc., even in a confined space. With O-gauge, the locos can be up to over 30 inches long, and details such as "they got the rivets on the side of the inspection plates perfect as to number and placement," and "they even had the knurling on the throttle done well," matter, but you have about a tenth as many buildings and over half as few track loops, roads, etc. This was my experience, going from N to O. 

So its all about what you like and what you like to do to do.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

Your age or eye sight might help decide the scale best for you. If you are 70 some and eye sight has lessened you will struggle with N or maybe HO. I was with HO for many years. Lately I find S and O scale easier to work with.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

_Unlimited_ space?
1:1


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2019)

For me, if I had unlimited space and money, it would be either O or G. I find big trains much more fun than little trains. It may seem odd but I wouldn't want full size trains. I wouldn't even want unlimited space. Approximately 50'x100' would seem right but might possibly be too big.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

I'd personally go with HO if time/money/space were no concern, but that comes with no assertion that it's the "best". 

I simply like the look of the scale. I don't quite have the terminology but I like what comfortably fits in the scene when a layout isviewed relatively closely from a fixed location.


----------



## mholiver (Feb 12, 2019)

If I had a heated & cooled gymnasium all to my own and money to hire a carpenter to build my own designed bench work, I'd go all out with the rest and have top of the line LGB in G scale in a mega fun way.

I have thousands of dollars of LGB "Toy Train" in boxes in my addition sun room that my kids and I filled up the floor of the 15x20 room. Now that they are in their 20's and pretty much since high school, they lost interest and health issues had me put them away. But I got my money's worth in pleasure running them all through the house.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

MichaelE said:


> Ford or Chevy? 9mm or 45ACP? Mary Ann or Ginger?


Ford, 9mm, and of course Mary Ann.

I appreciate all the comments. I could see how O or G can be appealing for the train detail. I even see what a 1:1 would be appealing to.


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

Mrs Howell....😍 (with her money I could indulge in every scale)


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

swimmer_spe said:


> I know this may cause some fights, but I have wondered, if you had unlimited space, time and money which scale would be the best to model in? Why?



As you can see from the previous responses, there are factors to consider, and even to assign weight to them so that you get the 'correct' results in your decision matrix.


Even with a decision matrix, there's a lot of lost 'weighting' from the next best and third best options. IOW, the hobby is all about compromises, givens vs. druthers, etc.


A 95 year old who realistically expects to live only another 18 months would probably be very happy with an out 'n back 10' long of O Scale with a nice quality steamer on it. It will be easily lit in that configuration, easily seen at that size, and most easily handled by aging hands. Would a 40 year old male be happy with that? Probably not. A nice N Scale layout in the same space would be very much appreciated.


Relative costs, availability of desired models, support, community of like-minded players, how the body works bending and reaching...so many things to consider. But when it comes down to outright enjoyment, you have to be able to see, hear, and manipulate the items, AND to be able to maintain their operations and state of repair as well. It's not a simple hobby.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Country Joe said:


> For me, if I had unlimited space and money, it would be either O or G. I find big trains much more fun than little trains. It may seem odd but I wouldn't want full size trains. I wouldn't even want unlimited space. Approximately 50'x100' would seem right but might possibly be too big.


I was in G for a number of years and would not go back. It is a mixed bag of sizes unlike the other scales. There is 1:22, 1:24, 1:29 and 1:32. There is no standard coupler, each manufacturer has their own type. USA and Aristocraft track is compatible but won't match LGB. Bachmann track was useless outdoors. All these problems can be worked around but I don't feel it's worth the effort. My advice to someone interested in G is to stick with one manufacturer.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I'd have to say that no matter what, there is no "perfect" scale. There are tradeoffs for each, and we all like what we like.

If time, money, and space were no object, I actually wouldn't do much more than I already am in HO... I'd just do it faster, and I wouldn't be dodging obstacles in the train area.


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

"Knowing what I know now (about my health); if I could do it over again what scale would I choose?"; it wouldn't be N. Maybe something like 1960's Lionel O-27 with the tubular steel rails, with kid-friendly (meaning virtually indestructible) rolling stock. I'd prefer "covered wagons" as my locomotives: no linkages to get misaligned (as with steam) and no railings to break (as with hood units).


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2019)

Gramps said:


> I was in G for a number of years and would not go back. It is a mixed bag of sizes unlike the other scales. There is 1:22, 1:24, 1:29 and 1:32. There is no standard coupler, each manufacturer has their own type. USA and Aristocraft track is compatible but won't match LGB. Bachmann track was useless outdoors. All these problems can be worked around but I don't feel it's worth the effort. My advice to someone interested in G is to stick with one manufacturer.


Gramps, you make good points. I had a fairly small G layout in my basement about 20 years ago and a garden railway 15 years ago. If I had unlimited money and space I would build a very large LGB layout if I decided to go with G rather than O. I would use 1:22.5 buildings and 1:24 vehicles, LGB track and hook and loop couplers, etc. 

I don't know what is available from LGB now and would probably go with 3 rail O Gauge. I love O, there's lots of great trains, track, accessories, details and more available, all I would need to build my dream layout. Heck, if I had unlimited money and space I would have both, and maybe HO and N layouts for variety. They are all different and all fun. But if I could only have one it would be the one I have now, O Gauge, just bigger.


----------



## Darrenmb (Nov 13, 2018)

I say model in oo just so you can feel my pain of paying more for shipping than the object bought! 🙂


----------



## CV-62 (Dec 9, 2018)

Ford, 45ACP and at my age Ginger or MaryAnn is a non issue.

For me I love N Scale. As for the eyes, for me, proper eye wear and magnifiers make all the difference in the word. The only thing I struggle with and just cannot seem to master is putting together those MT couplers. Man, those bad boys are a bear to work with.


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

MichaelE said:


> Ford or Chevy? 9mm or 45ACP? Mary Ann or Ginger?


Michael;
You forgot Coke or Pepsi.


I would model large outside ride-able layout.

Dan


----------



## Murv2 (Nov 5, 2017)

MichaelE said:


> Ford or Chevy? 9mm or 45ACP? Mary Ann or Ginger?


Which 9mm are you talking about, Largo, Luger, Steyr, Glisenti, Makarov, Browning? Chevy and Mary Ann are easy answers. Scale for me is HO simply because that's what I know.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Country Joe said:


> Gramps, you make good points. I had a fairly small G layout in my basement about 20 years ago and a garden railway 15 years ago. If I had unlimited money and space I would build a very large LGB layout if I decided to go with G rather than O. I would use 1:22.5 buildings and 1:24 vehicles, LGB track and hook and loop couplers, etc.
> 
> I don't know what is available from LGB now and would probably go with 3 rail O Gauge. I love O, there's lots of great trains, track, accessories, details and more available, all I would need to build my dream layout. Heck, if I had unlimited money and space I would have both, and maybe HO and N layouts for variety. They are all different and all fun. But if I could only have one it would be the one I have now, O Gauge, just bigger.


I had a nice outdoor layout which was almost all Aristocraft and I enjoyed it but as time passed it became more work than hobby. I enjoy your photos of your layout.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2019)

Gramps said:


> I had a nice outdoor layout which was almost all Aristocraft and I enjoyed it but as time passed it became more work than hobby. I enjoy your photos of your layout.


Thanks Gramps. I had the same experience with my garden railway. I loved it at first but lost interest in time because it was more work than fun. Too much gardening and too little railroading.


----------



## Oldnewchoo (Aug 31, 2018)

Currently I am running n, who, s and o. I have a wabash brass from ajin. Hallmark (not sure of scale. It fits ho but rumbles on the ties while it runs. I like 'em all!


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Murv2 said:


> Which 9mm are you talking about, Largo, Luger, Steyr, Glisenti, Makarov, Browning? Chevy and Mary Ann are easy answers. Scale for me is HO simply because that's what I know.


You left out Police and Ultra. But I meant Parabellum.


----------



## jfeet28 (Apr 13, 2019)

uh-oh. I'm 59 and just starting to build my railroad, I want lots of scenery, not necessarily very long trains, and I very much enjoy switching and passenger service. I like that purpose thing. I had to skip N scale though because I was afraid in a few years it would be difficult. So that first big question we always answer, for me, was HO. You're starting to scare me1  just kidding...


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

What scale did Walt Disney choose?


----------



## JKP (Jan 19, 2019)

I do O gauge but I dont have enough space to do all the scenery I would like to. I wouldn't mind HO but I like sounds and smoke of O gauge and the Lionel legacy engines I like a lot. If I had unlimited space I would do G, in trains bigger is better in my opinion. That is one reason I like UP, they always tried the bigger and more powerful engines .


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Dennis461 said:


> What scale did Walt Disney choose?


He started with Lionel in 1947, then ended up with The Carolwood Pacific Railroad (CPRR), which was a ​7 1⁄4-inch (184 mm) gauge ridable miniature railroad that was built in his yard.....


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Old_Hobo said:


> _z_
> 
> He started with Lionel in 1947, then ended up with The Carolwood Pacific Railroad (CPRR), which was a ​7 1⁄4-inch (184 mm) gauge ridable miniature railroad that was built in his yard.....


And then...?


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Google it.....


----------



## Midnight Goat (Dec 19, 2017)

JKP said:


> I do O gauge but I dont have enough space to do all the scenery I would like to. I wouldn't mind HO but I like sounds and smoke of O gauge and the Lionel legacy engines I like a lot. If I had unlimited space I would do G, in trains bigger is better in my opinion. That is one reason I like UP, they always tried the bigger and more powerful engines .


Agree! I'm in the same boat with O. Only have room for a 4x8 right now but if a sacrifice needs to be made it's going to be the scenery and not the locos. 

My dad always thought about switching over to HO but with the modern lionchief / legacy stuff I think he would have put that idea to bed if he got to experience it.


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Old_Hobo said:


> Google it.....


OldHobo, no need to Google it.
I listened to Michael Broggie speak at a train show this past winter.

Walt Disney did have "unlimited space, time and money " as the OP asked. So he moved up to 1:1 modeling with steam locomotives and Disneyland.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

No need to ask then......hwell:


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

Dennis461 said:


> OldHobo, no need to Google it.
> I listened to Michael Broggie speak at a train show this past winter.
> 
> Walt Disney did have "unlimited space, time and money " as the OP asked. So he moved up to 1:1 modeling with steam locomotives and Disneyland.
> ...


Which to be fair would be the mos reasonable answer. He even modeled a Monorail.....


----------



## jimben (Jun 27, 2018)

I like the size of O gauge. I also like On30 that is size of O gauge, but uses narrow HO track. On30 does not have much selection on cars & engines though.


----------

