# Cost/Ease of Getting Products in HO vs N Scale?



## newcitysam (Oct 13, 2016)

I'm debating going with either N scale or HO scale! I have room for both (N scale would fit more in the same space) but my main thoughts are which is cheaper? Which has a better base of products? My local hobby shop has aisles of HO and only a small corner of N! Prices online for locomotives seem to be about the same though (confusing considering half the size)!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I think you have already answered your own question.......


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

Did a search of two categories on eBay; locomotives and buildings. 
The number of HO listings is roughly 3 times more than N in the identical category. 
And you're right, prices are pretty much the same.


----------



## slammin (Mar 25, 2016)

There may be more equipment available in HO, but you need to consider your goals. Do you like lots of detail, or enjoy scratch building? Do you like operation? HO may be the best for you. If you are into long trains dwarfed by surrounding scenery, N scale is the answer. While some modelers say it doesn't matter, age eyesight and dexterity do come into play. I have always modeled in HO, but being in my late 60's, the old fingers and eyes ain't what they use to be! My optivisor has been my best friend for the last 20 years.


----------



## newcitysam (Oct 13, 2016)

I am strongly leaning towards HO for several reasons and have been looking at an old layout from Model Railroader called the Oakville Central. Has anyone built this layout or have any thoughts on it? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Better base -- HO, although N is catching up.
Cheaper -- pretty much a wash (although, as you observed, N is more expensive per unit of volume or mass).

Relevance of these two factors: near zero. You can spread the cost out of acquisition out over a fairly long period, and you can always scratch build or modify things that you can't buy outright.

The real question you need to ask yourself is whether you can deal with the size difference (personally, I find N too small for my terrible eyes, and my fat fingers are rapidly losing their ability to handle anything that small). And you have to decide where your interests are. If primarily operations, you might find the larger HO easier to deal with. If you like the relative scale of tiny trains moving through imposing scenery, or just running trains that approach the prototype in length, then N gives you a much better opportunity to do this in a limited space.

Ultimately, though, you have to do what is right for you.


----------



## mjrfd99 (Jan 5, 2016)

How good is your eyesight?
I can't see good enough to enjoy N 
HO can be challenging now also


----------



## isoc (Jan 23, 2017)

Another thought: Because N is "smaller" you actually will need much "more stuff" to fill the same space. So the cost per layout, not just per item, is something to consider. But if you want more stuff, can afford it, and don't mind it being quite so tiny, N is great. 

I had N for many years, but eventually went back to HO, partly because I liked the variety and cost, and mainly because in N gauge, everything always seemed so far away.

- Ted


----------



## Deane Johnson (Sep 19, 2016)

I think the big question is what you're going to do with it. If building scenes and creating detail realism is your goal, HO will be much better to work with. If your primary goal is operations and long trains headed with 4 or 5 units of motive power, N scale will give you much more capability in that regard no matter what your layout space is.

HO and N each have their place in the hobby, the main difference is the result each can achieve best. You started off the thread with a focus on which is cheapest. IMO, that's one of the worst criteria you could apply, within reason, of course.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

newcitysam said:


> I am strongly leaning towards HO for several reasons and have been looking at an old layout from Model Railroader called the Oakville Central. Has anyone built this layout or have any thoughts on it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't see any plan with this title in their online database. There is an Oakville sub, a large, single track N scale basement empire from the July 2012 edition. Is that what you're looking at (I doubt it, based on your questions)?


----------



## newcitysam (Oct 13, 2016)

It's a real old one! Back in the 70's I think, not sure on the exact issue! It's also in the walk around layouts plan book! I'll try and put up a photo later this evening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Fit more stuff?*



newcitysam said:


> It's a real old one! Back in the 70's I think, not sure on the exact issue! It's also in the walk around layouts plan book! I'll try and put up a photo later this evening.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


newcitysam;

The prior replies have covered the HO/N-scale issue quite well. Either of these scales (or any of the other scales for that matter) can produce a fine layout. Which is best for you can only be decided by you. Personally, having modeled in HO-scale, and later N-scale, I prefer N-scale. This is not because it's possible to cram more track, structures, etc. into a given space. That is one school of thought when considering a smaller scale. It's not one I agree with. Model railroaders often try to cram more "stuff", particularly way too much track, onto their layouts.
For me, the opposite approach is more pleasing. I try to copy the prototype as much as space will allow. Looking at real railroads, you won't see much more than one track over most of their length. You certainly won't see them running round-and-round in pointless loops, or figure-eights, for no reason.
In the real world, every home does not have a railroad track, (or two, or six!) running across the back yard.
So instead of looking at N-scale as a way to cram more stuff into the available space, you might want to consider keeping the track plan as simple, and realistic, as possible. Then you will gain the attributes others have pointed out, long trains running through realistically train-dwarfing scenery.
At one time I belonged to an N-scale club with a huge (90' x 30' space) available. One of the most frequently asked questions from visitors was, "Why did you make it N gauge; you could have built it in HO." The answer(beyond the obvious that a group of avid N-scalers would be rather unlikely to want to build in a different scale!) could be seen when running trains. Wide open spaces. Lots of them. A train did not have its locomotive in one town, and the caboose in the previous town! Mind you some trains were 50+ cars long.
As for product selection, yes, since HO-scale is the most popular scale,there is more available. However, the second most popular scale, N-scale, has more products available than anyone could afford to buy.
So it comes back to you. Which scale do you like best? 

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

This is in response to the title of this thread “Cost/Ease of Getting Products in HO vs N Scale?”

Most of the new direct wireless train control and battery technology will not be suitable or available in N scale for a long time. So if you are interested in things like avoiding complex wiring and track cleaning, or in simpler/lower-cost layout automation…
Bob


----------



## newcitysam (Oct 13, 2016)

Here is the layout in question, it is from the December 1978 issue of Model Railroader.









I know its small, but my plan is to use it as one of a few modules in a larger layout when I have more room.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Honestly, not thrilled with it. Not only are the sidings very short, but there is almost no ability to run around a cut of any length.

OTOH, if it works for you, go with it, and who cares what I think.


----------



## isoc (Jan 23, 2017)

If YOU like it, then go for it in HO. But, I think that plan would be better on a 4'X8'. It would be even better in 4'X8' (or if you have only room for the size on the plan) in N. Things would not be so jammed together, the sidings would be relatively longer, your trains could be longer, and you might be able to add a passing siding somewhere.

That's my 2 cents - perhaps non-sense. - Ted


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

newcitysam said:


> Here is the layout in question, it is from the December 1978 issue of Model Railroader.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In that same issue was the start of "Model Railroader's" Clinchfield RR N scale project railroad. Go look at that track plan, and you should be able to get a great deal of what you can do in N vs. HO. 

I'm not thrilled with the Oakville Central track plan either. If you are looking to have a "module" that you can add on to, I'd suggest reading about TOMA (The One Module Approach) over at the "Model Railroad Hobbiest". That would be the way I would be going in either scale if I was starting out. Gives you a better growth path. 

This link can get you started:

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2015-10-oct/publishers-musings

Here is a nice video segment showing what is possible with TOMA.






BTW, "Model Railroad Hobbiest" is a free on-line magazine. There is also an on-line track file database, lots of great ideas.

Regards, 
Jerry


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

The Oakville Sub drawing says 37" (3' - 1") by 5' 10", which is pretty small, but it could be built to fit on 4' x 8'.....you'd have to add more track than it shows, but.....


----------

