I keep getting the Kernow Model updates on my facebook feed...and so many great deals in 00. They have so many more options as well. 00 must have 4-5 times as many "things" across all the spectrum of Model Railroading.
I already know the answer to my own question...all the ones we've stated before...but sometimes I wonder...
Because we like a challenge and dont play wth toys .
Only joking
I chose N gauge because I just love to watch the trains running through the countryside with reasonable length rakes of coaches or freightwagons .
Most of my passenger trains are too long for my platforms so just run round a couple of times ,not very prototypical but never mind Im happy.
Thats my idea of the hobby to enjoy myself.
Bob Tidbury
And that is one of my main reasons. I'm a roundy-rounder, and I love that long(er) consists that snake through the scenery.
:NGaugersRule:
Quote from: Bob Tidbury on April 25, 2017, 04:02:46 PM
Most of my passenger trains are too long for my platforms so just run round a couple of times ,not very prototypical but never mind Im happy.
Bob Tidbury
Actually that is prototypical where I live in Scotland, on some trains they announce that the
platforms at the next stop are too short so move to coach A or whatever, so feel free to
stop your trains at the short platform, :)
One of the many reasons I chose N Gauge was because the tremendous choice of locos and rolling stock available to me in the larger gauge would have led to bankruptcy and divorce.
Only kidding.
I think. :hmmm:
Real reason ;) was the lack of choice in Z. :D
My choice to go to N was lack of space, but we do suffer because it's not as popular as OO, there are far more discounts to be had in OO than there in N, OO is a much more cutthroat market, if you think we have it tough you want to look at the prices O Gaugers pay!
N is getting there though, Metcalfe for one are starting to produce as much in N as they do in OO, in the shop we promote N as much as possible, and when people compare they prefer the space saving of N, and usually take it as the option.
I would have to agree with Graham. I stuck with N because of the space advantage over 00. The visible viewing section of my layout is barely 30 inches across, which would need about double that for double O. Not to mention the length of trains! It would have reduced my ambition considerably in the larger scale. I would definitely say hang on in N :NGaugersRule:
Andy
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180215.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51317)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180419.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51318)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180509.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51319)
Quote from: Graham Walters on April 25, 2017, 05:48:16 PM
if you think we have it tough you want to look at the prices O Gaugers pay!
Actually, the way I see O at the moment, it looks more like ready-to-run locos and rolling stock is becoming cheaper. At the very least, Dapol have blown the market right open with their £200 locos and £50 wagons.
Quote from: Graham Walters on April 25, 2017, 05:48:16 PM
N is getting there though, Metcalfe for one are starting to produce as much in N as they do in OO, in the shop we promote N as much as possible, and when people compare they prefer the space saving of N, and usually take it as the option.
This is pretty much what happens in Japan, where smaller homes encouraged the development of a vigorous N scale hobby. I believe it's actually the preferred scale.
If people were less snobbish about Kato Unitrack, I think it'd be a lot easier to sell N gauge as a viable scale for casual railroaders. Traditional set-track is, I think, less attractive in N than 00 because it doesn't have the weight necessary to stay put when clipped together. But Unitrack-type set-track systems are much more resilient, and there's nothing to stop a relatively young modeller choosing N on Unitrack as a starting point.
But while that's what happens in Japan, over here anyone who uses Unitrack has to fight against a certain degree of snobbery that it isn't 'proper modelling'. That may or may not be true, but either way it could scare people off N as a starting point, and towards 00 instead.
Cheers, NeMo
I'm not sure people rebel against Unitrack because it's not proper modelling, rather it just looks a bit toy like out of the box.
That said... if you're buying set track it should be a very viable alternative.
I do love N for the 'long trains in the landscape' thing, even if you have the space in OO the extra size means the trains dominate more.
Quote from: njee20 on April 25, 2017, 07:15:47 PM
I'm not sure people rebel against Unitrack because it's not proper modelling, rather it just looks a bit toy like out of the box.
That said... if you're buying set track it should be a very viable alternative.
I do love N for the 'long trains in the landscape' thing, even if you have the space in OO the extra size means the trains dominate more.
We find that if you stock Kato on the shelf and expect it to sell you will disappointed, you have to engage with people and point out the benefits of it in todays smaller homes, we point out thing like it can be set up and dismantled without any problems, replacement joiners, it can be laid on short pile carpet without too many problems, explain that once show anyone from about the age of 7 can set it up, the ease of wiring the points etc. Altogether since we opened I expect we have sold about six M1 sets and loads of track pieces, the biggest problem we have with it, is the catalogue being in Japanese !
As a kid I grew up with a Hornby Orient Express set with class 47 and a second engine was a class 73 (broadlands I think) in OO, model trains fell by the wayside as I started buying rovers and riding the real thing was more fun, then I found myself going backwards and complaining the new train were all junk and no character, the model bug bit hard and I found N has made huge strides forward in detail and reliability.
I started buying a few locos and wagons, but never had a dedicated place to build a layout, fast forward a few more years and a huge move across the pond, now I had been introduced to really big trains and I knew OO simply wasn't going to succeed if I wanted something on a layout that look remotely like what I had seen thundering past me earlier that day, the Computer and EBay (what a curse) and my American collection started to build up, a couple work colleagues (many railroaders are modelers even if they won't openly admit it) showed me the Kato stuff and the bank balance started dropping.
Fast forward again to today, I found farish has improved ten fold and Dapol have some really nice stuff (if you can match it) and the bank balance is once again going down the drain.
I still don't have the layout started but a million ideas swirling around in my head, and that's why I'm a 'N'ormal gauger and not Horredously Obese as they say here
Scott
Why not? OO is a great gauge and HO scale is even better as its body widths scale properly with the track gauge. Comes down to personal choice just as does the choice of Peco or Atlas versus Unitrack. In N scale, I like the long trains as do others here on this thread. And, I don't care for tight curves relative to rolling stock lengths and this is the real clincher for me. If I had a whole basement available to fill with trains, I might go with HO, but maybe not as I could run even longer trains if I stick with N.
Admission: I have an OO/HO circuit built around the room at a higher level than my N layout (the main game) so I have access to the worlds of both N and OO/HO.
Webbo
I'm Not in OO.... I'm Modelling in EM :D, However If I had realised the size of shed I'd need to get my chosen Station in, It would have been 2mm. The Shed size... 63ft by up to 16ft, still building the layout supports....
I'm here because less than a month ago, I inherited an N gauge Layout :(, Even though it's not doing anything as specialised as my EM layout, I find the availability of stock limited in N, especially in the secondhand market.
On the EM layout most stock is secondhand since I need to convert it and I wish to improve it.
I decided The N gauge layout will be my Exhibition layout, It, will be a lot smaller than a section of the EM layout.. it's taking time to adjust... :dunce:
THe Economics :worried: of such a large shed and now two layouts mean the shed itself was 10 years+ in the building, due to waiting for money and time to build it.
I too originally modeled in EM gauge. I spent around 20 years purchasing mostly kits for locos, rolling sock, scenery and track in readiness for my retirement. I spent many happy hours building some of the kits and planning my layout 'in rough!!!'
Every time I adjusted the plan it got a bit smaller and a bit less complex. When it got to the stage of my retirement I eventually came to the conclusion (which I probably knew all along) that my proposed EM gauge layout was still too big for the room available and would not allow me to run 'proper' length trains etc.
So... I sold my collections of 4mm stuff, at incredible loss, and started up in N gauge.
Its taking me a long time to get my layout running let alone complete (do you ever complete a layout??) but I wouldn't go back to EM gauge.
Funny thing is, whenever I go to my model shop to look for N gauge stuff now, OO (4mm) scale stuff always looks SO BIG!! I wonder why I ever considered using it.
N gauge is great for all the reasons that people have posted before. I won't bore you with repeating all the good things about it.
:beers:
Started off with the usual Triang stuff in the 60's found N in the 70's and went on to model the Woodhead route in N! with Parkwood Springs and Brookside, with N at the time you could get away with a representation of locos such as the class 76 and 77 and others quite well. Most built from plastic card and oddments, and then there was the range of loco's that could be produced from the Peco Jubilee including an 8F! , also modelled Ryde Eplanade with tube stock in N. I have built EM stock including the layout Trafalgar Yard set in Newcastle, all having been in the Railway Modeller at some time and have now been sold on. Idleford Town layout of the BNNRS provided a chance to try O gauge mostly with stock provision, currently I have a small G.W. Region layout Exe Halt and a Lone Star layout, so I sill keep returning to N gauge, and with a forthcoming house move its easier to box up.
Steve.
At the risk of being lynched, I suspect if big kettles were my thing, I'd go with OO, all those long metal poles what turn the wheels seem terribly fragile in N, though if I really wanted to dabble in one these humungous scales I'd go straight to O. For my preferred period/region (BR blue, Midlands-ish) I'm pretty well served in N, and occasional glimpses over the Orribly Oversized fence indicate the grass isn't much bluer on the other side.
Quote from: The Q on April 27, 2017, 08:22:00 AM
I'm Not in OO.... I'm Modelling in EM :D, However If I had realised the size of shed I'd need to get my chosen Station in, It would have been 2mm. The Shed size... 63ft by up to 16ft, still building the layout supports....
Is that a typo, 63'x16' shed?! That's not a shed that's a barn, and a big one at that! :goggleeyes:
I love the idea of O, but it doesn't get away from the fact I like decent length trains etc, so I'd need that 63x16' space, and some millions, to build it all. Then I lack the skill to do any of the kits justice too. So I'd spend loads of money and it would be terrible. Better I do that in N where mistakes are small!
Quote from: njee20 on April 27, 2017, 05:24:06 PM
Then I lack the skill to do any of the kits justice too. So I'd spend loads of money and it would be terrible. Better I do that in N where mistakes are small!
And the mistakes don't come in kits! :D
They do come in kits from B H E especially if I have packed them.
Bob Tidbury
Maybe because you can do more with N Gauge in a given area than OO.
This is one example.
Quote from: AndyRA on April 25, 2017, 06:08:55 PM
I would have to agree with Graham. I stuck with N because of the space advantage over 00. The visible viewing section of my layout is barely 30 inches across, which would need about double that for double O. Not to mention the length of trains! It would have reduced my ambition considerably in the larger scale. I would definitely say hang on in N :NGaugersRule:
Andy
Great layout Andy. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180215.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51317)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180419.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51318)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180509.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51319)
Quote from: AndyRA on April 25, 2017, 06:08:55 PM
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-250417180419.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51318)
:greatpicturessign:
Sorry, off topic but I just saw this picture and was struck by how good the river/canal is in your model. I'd be really interested to see more pictures and see the method that you used. Do you have a layout thread?
It's in Andy's signature:
QuoteLayout :- West Coast (Southern Section)
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;su=user;cat=2531;u=5731 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;su=user;cat=2531;u=5731)
Full story and pics at:-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8888017@N08/albums/72157673002148172 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/8888017@N08/albums/72157673002148172)
It is a stunning bit of modelling!
Thank you for the kind comments. The Canal ended up the way it did by accident rather than design. The one thing that I did get right was to make sure the canal was level from end to end to avoid 'pooling'. The canal was started by cutting out a section of 5mm plywood, and recessing the canal bed below the baseboard level. The canal sides were made up from Balsa wood planks cut and shaped. The canal bed was made up of coarse granite ballast glued in place. This was then painted in various mixtures of blue to represent varying depths. (As my sky was clear blue this would be okay, I would've 'greened' it down a bit otherwise)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417092337.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51453)
The bank sides were eventually given several coats of various green paint (leftover DMU and Loco colours!) before being covered in scatter and static grasses. I decided to try Woodlands Realistic Water, which was poured gently into the canal to a recommended depth of about 2mm, which covered the ballast. However, I hadn't reckoned with how the water was absorbed into the stones and sides. The water level went down overnight to leave an uneven ripple where the chippings were. I then used a second and third fill of about 1mm and found the ripple effect showed through. I went from being concerned to reasonably happy with the end result. Finally added a few Noch scenic 'clumps' at the sides of the towpath, and a few 'Blu-tack' swans.
Once again thank you for the comments :thumbsup:
Andy.
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417093505.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51454)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417093602.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51455)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417093946.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51456)
Quote from: njee20 on April 27, 2017, 05:24:06 PM
Quote from: The Q on April 27, 2017, 08:22:00 AM
I'm Not in OO.... I'm Modelling in EM :D, However If I had realised the size of shed I'd need to get my chosen Station in, It would have been 2mm. The Shed size... 63ft by up to 16ft, still building the layout supports....
Is that a typo, 63'x16' shed?! That's not a shed that's a barn, and a big one at that! :goggleeyes:
I love the idea of O, but it doesn't get away from the fact I like decent length trains etc, so I'd need that 63x16' space, and some millions, to build it all. Then I lack the skill to do any of the kits justice too. So I'd spend loads of money and it would be terrible. Better I do that in N where mistakes are small!
Unfortunately it's not a Typo, many years ago I started collecting stock and making the odd building for the station, my family has the most connections with. Then just over 10 years ago I got Planning Permission from SWMBO to build a shed for a model railway as the house didn't have anywhere suitable, providing one end became her art studio....
I had a couple of times built the civilian station and had great difficulty scaling it down ( in memory) to a reasonable appearance.
With the Advent of the internet and several books becoming available on the MSWJR Then I scaled the plans properly.....
The Station works out to be roughly 34ft long at 4mm to the ft
Civilian side of the station long siding, + 800ft platforms to the bridge,
Military side / goods yard of the station, from the bridge, railway junction, nearly 900ft platforms, goods yard mostly between the two arms of the junction.
I then need to get the track back to the other end (I like watching trains go by) So add a 12ft radius one end and some thing similar the other you get 34+12 + 10ft becomes a 54ft railway shed, this had been progressing for 10 years.
As I earn well below the national average pay, waiting for money has been one of the biggest delays, Unfortunately / fortunately, we never had any children or I would never have afforded it.
We had always intended building a small other shed for spraying, railways / SWMBOs art and for her grinding wheel for her stained glass and other "dirty" hobby work. This came to a head this year because she started moving her art Equipment in to the semi circular end of the shed before I had finished the other leaving little room for me to work in construction .
After much thought a 10ft by 9ft shed was attached this winter at 90degrees to the main shed with a corridor / alternative entrance way between the doors. This gives 63ft long. Currently the additional shed stores all the wood and tools to build the rest of the shed internals. it's future use as the dirty shed will have to wait until the main shed internals are finished.
Her art stuff is stored under the layout framing, her art books above the windows on a shelf. She currently has filled 1/2 the shed and will probably get 2/3rds of the available storage. I had luckily always planned to have all the electrics on the front /back of the layout I've spent to much time lying underneath layouts doing wiring in the past...
Most of the shed is hand built by me using 14 sash windows removed from the house as glazing.
Luckily we have 1.5 Acres of
garden Jungle so it doesn't dominate the space. There are plans for the line to go for a wander outside, on top of a wall I'm slowly building to divide the garden up, this coincidentally gives roughly a scale 3 miles between the main station on the layout and the next station up the line which is near where my mother was born. There is a model of that station already under construction on the other side of the shed luckily that station is long and thin. 2ft wide and 18ft long does it quite nicely..
Quote from: AndyRA on April 28, 2017, 09:50:25 AM
Thank you for the kind comments. The Canal ended up the way it did by accident rather than design. The one thing that I did get right was to make sure the canal was level from end to end to avoid 'pooling'. The canal was started by cutting out a section of 5mm plywood, and recessing the canal bed below the baseboard level. The canal sides were made up from Balsa wood planks cut and shaped. The canal bed was made up of coarse granite ballast glued in place. This was then painted in various mixtures of blue to represent varying depths. (As my sky was clear blue this would be okay, I would've 'greened' it down a bit otherwise)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417092337.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51453)
The bank sides were eventually given several coats of various green paint (leftover DMU and Loco colours!) before being covered in scatter and static grasses. I decided to try Woodlands Realistic Water, which was poured gently into the canal to a recommended depth of about 2mm, which covered the ballast. However, I hadn't reckoned with how the water was absorbed into the stones and sides. The water level went down overnight to leave an uneven ripple where the chippings were. I then used a second and third fill of about 1mm and found the ripple effect showed through. I went from being concerned to reasonably happy with the end result. Finally added a few Noch scenic 'clumps' at the sides of the towpath, and a few 'Blu-tack' swans.
Once again thank you for the comments :thumbsup:
Andy.
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417093505.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51454)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417093602.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51455)
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/51/5731-280417093946.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=51456)
Thank you Andy, that's a great bit of modelling and well thought out. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Indeed, thank you. Two things jump out as particularly good. First, as you noted, the colour of the water is right for the sky colour and second that the reflection of the narrowboat is just right. It's not a perfect mirror but it's not a muddy blur either, just nicely broken up by the ripples. It's very convincing.
Has the woodland scenics water been manageable to keep dust free? That's always been the Achilles' heel of water when I've modelled it before with gloss varnish.
Dust hasn't been a problem so far. I did use a one inch soft paintbrush to clear off some of the scatter and grass material when I had finished. The water was hard enough not to have been marked or sticky enough to keep the leftovers from adhering to the surface.
Andy.
Andy, I agree, that is an excellent water effect you have achieved there. :thumbsup:
You mention the water level dropped overnight as it was setting. Would you think there would be any merit in coating any substrate I use on a stream I have in mind for my layout with a sealant, such as PVA, to minimise the soaking effect? It seems from your description that the soaking process has enhanced the finished result, but I wonder if the Woodlands product dries in this fashion, i.e. with ripples, anyway. If not, it's an interesting insight.
Any advices welcomed.
Daffy
I think that Realistic Water shrinks as it sets hence the lowering of level. I have used it to make my lake and wound up with long ripples across the surface that I have assumed to be associated with the grain of the plywood forming the lake bed. I like it as it looks like the ripples you might see on a fairly calm day with a light wind.
The biggest problem I faced in pouring my RW were 4 ants that decided to walk out on the surface as it was setting. Removing them the following morning left holes which I filled with more RW. But, even though I'd filled the holes to above their brims I was always left with a bit of a crater and depression due to the shrinkage. Even this turned out to be OK as the surface imperfections I now imagine to be ripples left by fish rising to the surface. In one case I'll be floating a small group of Canada Geese to hide the problem.
A problem with Realistic Water is that it has a high surface tension which causes it to creep up along the sides including rocks and bridge abutments.
Over all though, I'm very happy with the stuff. Dust just needs to be wiped off every now and again.
Webbo
Some of the initial loss was the fact I hadn't sealed the ends as well as I thought. Second attempt was more successful using some electrical tape and Blu-tack. Fortunately I had placed some old tubs at the ends just in case of leaks. Realistic Water is also supposed to be not so good when put over PVA glue. I didn't find this to be so, but it could be because I used several coats of paint to try and seal the canal bed. The water did soak its way into the balsa wood banks, but not too much. It didn't show once the scenery was finished off. The initial 'pour' did a good job of sealing the rest for the next two 'fills' of water. I couldn't comment on how it might match up to things like bridges as my canal stretch only had the balsa wood banks. I did use a small wooden tooth pick to gently push the water into a few small gaps.
Andy.
Curiously I and my fellow club members all agree that if we weren't modelling in 2mm we'd be doing it in 7mm.
Many thanks to both Webbo and Andy for the excellent advice :thumbsup: - I shall watch carefully for surface tension problems in particular around the stream rocks I will be including. Also make sure I don't have the stuff running away from me - may have to tilt the baseboard to stop it all flowing away to the bottom of the stream run. :o
Anyway, to help return this thread to its theme, I'm not in OO Gauge cos I can't afford that much Woodland Scenics Real Water! :no:
:D
One more water feature post, and then I'll shut up on this subject.
As Andy suggests, Realistic Water is capable of creeping through tiny crevices so it is important to get the basin sealed properly before you pour it. Looking at application experiences on the web, it also seems that RW can react badly with some substances including PVA as pointed out by Andy. I filled the screw depressions in my lake bed with some sort of wood filler that I then sanded flat and painted the whole lot. After the RW had set, the fill areas began to turn whiteish much to my horror. After a couple of months the whiteishness disappeared, luckily. Apparently, RW turns white on contact with water so I'm thinking that a small amount of water had leached out of my wood filler and that this eventually evaporated. Woodland Scenics makes some stuff called Flex Paste recommended for use under water features amongst other uses. Also, pretty $$$ and I found it doesn't take my acrylic paint very well.
Following on from longbow's comment, I was wondering what 7 mm scale was and found the following statement: "7 mm scale, also known as British 0 scale is a model railway scale of 1:43.5 The scale is thus different from American 0 scale (1:48) and European 0 scale (1:45)". That makes it double the size of HO. British O has a gauge of 32 mm, whereas standard gauge scaled to 7 mm scale has gauge of 33 mm - so pretty good.
Webbo
Space is the main reason why we model n gauge but I also think that it looks more realistic than oo
I do in a weird perverse kind of way like N Gauge. OK, the prices for some things are stupidly high, the choice of locos, as others have said is more limited, but because of the intricacies, it does make you think. Its no so "plug and play" as OO.
The space saving factor for me is the real benefit and by only having a layout 6'6" x 2' enables me to have far more useable space than I would ever have had in OO.