I'm going to make myself unpopular and say that I much prefer to have masts but no wires. In most of the photos and videos I've seen I think the wires are far too visible, and if they wobble about as a loco passes it looks even worse.

Another forum member has

https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=54494.0


Trinity Road

@OneTrackMind

I don't like to see electric locos running without some representation of catenary, even if it's just the masts.

My European N layouts since the mid 1980s have always had catenary masts and wires, using the old Vollmer system (also sold by Minitrix).  It's overscale but robust enough for exhibition use and can withstand being pushed slightly aside for track cleaning etc.  The pantographs "ride the wire" but don't pick up power, hence there's no need for "knitting" in tunnels or over the fiddleyard., just lead-in and lead-out slopes at the end of the wire runs. 









Apparently it was seeing my layout running this way at an N Gauge Society show in 2002 which prompted the German N-Club International guys to invite it over to Stuttgart for 2003   Since then it's been to the European N Scale Convention three times and has participated in modular layouts NCI have brought over to the UK for TINGS and The Chatham Show.

The only compromise I have to accept is when participating in modular systems which have a mix of modules with and without catenary it's inevitable that electric locos have to run with pantos down to avoid problems with wire height (or lack of).   

If you have a fiddle yard then you don't need the OHLE there, and that's where you place/remove stock

This is a good question I grapple with too.  I have both at the moment, I've always loved layouts with catenary.  There are a couple of considerations for me.

1. How much do you take stock on and off the rails where there is catenary as it is awkward (its a pain on Bad Katsberg .. my little test layout)

2. Can you put up with the overscale nature of most (I can, I'm more a coarse modeller than a fine one)

3. Cost, I find the cost eye-watering for the continental stuff, luckily for me I managed to score hundreds of old veissmann masts and wires for $10CDN

4. Cleaning the track is a pain in the butt, but is possible, just be aware

5. Do you want the pantographs riding the wire or not?  I know a lot of people with wires don't have pantos up, as stringing wire Vs stringing wire that works are two totally different skills (I've done both, haven't quite got it working on bad Katsberg, but damn does is look amazing when it does!!)

For me as I go forward with my new layout, I think I will have wires for part of it, but not worry about the panto's riding it.  I thought stringing them would be a nightmare, but I found it surprisingly relaxing and I enjoyed it a lot. 

Don't forget you have the option of very reasonable Japanese (Kato and Tomix etc) masts, the won't easily take wires but they look great and are actually affordable

Graham

Here's a short video of my tests off Bad Katsberg with an E18 riding the wires

But the point of using knuckles was for auto uncoupling, so the Kato ones (or the Dapol "NEMCOUP" dummy knuckles) aren't really suitable.

If you want plug and play compatibility with Easi-Shunts then yes, you need NEM pockets on wagons.

No,

If you want knuckle couplers, you can use Easi-Shunts into NEM pockets, OR you can use Katos into the Rapido pockets of older wagons. There may be other options too.

Ok so consensus seems just to make sure I get wagons with NEM pockets, if I don't want to retrofit pockets to old wagons.

Kinlet Wharf and Maid's Morton both did as well, and (IMO) look immeasurably better for it. Our own ntpntpntp has them fitted too, to excellent effect.

Drem and Dallam Sidings spring to mind as superb layouts that only have the portals, with no wires.

Personally I prefer having wires, I do accept that at X distance they tend not to be visible on the real thing, but for me they add to the scene.

Yes, track cleaning and come to that, placing stock on rails would be problematic, I suspect.