Commercial N gauge models better than OO gauge?

[H]

I received the April (#167) issue of Model Rail yesterday, and noticed in it two references that new N gauge was better than OO;

Firstly, the editor Ben Jones wrote "these Mk 1 (new Farish Mk1 BGs) are arguably better than Bachmanns highly regarded equivalent".  He also mentioned in his editorial that "N gauge is arguably much more suited to multiple unit operation than OO or O". [He does seem to like his arguements  ]

Secondly, Ben Ando, BBC corrspondent and MRs N gauge reporter and modeller wrote "... the model (Dapol NMT HST) is even better than Hornby's recent OO power cars."

Quite some endorsement, eh?

H.

[michael]

i noticed those comments too, nice to see Model Rail talking about N gauge for once!

[Elvinley]

The datailing on N gauge models is pretty much up there with OO in most ways. Valve gear and rods on steam locos are generally still overscale and so are most wheels, but it is a compromise between looks and reliability and running qualities. Unfortunately the running of steam locos in British N doesn't begin to compare to newer OO models like Hornby's Railroad D49. Diesels on the other hand are often just as good runners as their OO equivalents.

[H]

Unfortunately the running of steam locos in British N doesn't begin to compare to newer OO models like Hornby's Railroad D49. Diesels on the other hand are often just as good runners as their OO equivalents.

So just like the prototype then - real steam locos didn't run particulalrly well, reliably or efficiently, that's why they got replaced by more efficient diesels and electrics. 

However, I'm sure that there are some who find their N gauge steamers run more than acceptably well. And there have been some steamy dogs in OO that have even been recalled.

H.

[Elvinley]

Unfortunately the running of steam locos in British N doesn't begin to compare to newer OO models like Hornby's Railroad D49. Diesels on the other hand are often just as good runners as their OO equivalents.

So just like the prototype then - real steam locos didn't run particulalrly well, reliably or efficiently, that's why they got replaced by more efficient diesels and electrics. 

However, I'm sure that there are some who find their N gauge steamers run more than acceptably well. And there have been some steamy dogs in OO that have even been recalled.

H.

I own or have previously owned all the N steam apart from the Dapol B1 and B17 and none of them run as well as the latest OO. Also N gauge steam is far too prone to QC and reliability issues. Most modern Hornby steam runs like a dream.

[Tank]

Thanks for posting H.  Certainly a great statement to put down for N Gauge. 

[edwin_m]

The second statement (N gauge arguably more suited to multiple unit operation than 00 or 0) may be a comment on the adequacy or otherwise of the Rapido coupling, suggesting that loco-hauled operation is made difficult by problems with running round etc.  Hopefully with the new Dapol coupling this N gauge problem will also be a thing of the past. 

[moogle]

Don't believe everything you read in the press! 

OO will always have an advantage over N: more contact space between wheel and track = better running.
That is of course until someone invents digital radio controlled N gauge locos! 

[edwin_m]

There are all sorts of laws-of-physics type reasons why the closer the model scale gets to the real thing, the more realistic will be its operation.  However I agree with the previous post, that for D+E models at least the difference in running quality between N and 00 is negligible. 

[H]

Don't believe everything you read in the press! 

OO will always have an advantage over N: more contact space between wheel and track = better running.

It pays to read carefully too    the press report didn't actually say that the running performance was better, but rather more referring to the fact that the particular new rolling stock was better looking, detailed, accurate, etc. 

And, of course there are advantages that N has over OO.

H.

[moogle]

Don't believe everything you read in the press! 

OO will always have an advantage over N: more contact space between wheel and track = better running.

It pays to read carefully too    the press report didn't actually say that the running performance was better, but rather more referring to the fact that the particular new rolling stock was better looking, detailed, accurate, etc. 

And, of course there are advantages that N has over OO.

H.

Well I was pointing out the only advantage that I can see! 
(others may see more)
Also, I was referring to the comments after the OP, not just that or the press release.
Sorry for not being clearer!   

[Elvinley]

For me, the space avantages and the impressive abilities of such small models has always been an attraction to N even before it started to look realistic in any way. I am eager to see how the new motored Farish will perform. The tender drives are generally good but it is not an ideal situation.

[Roy L S]

Unfortunately the running of steam locos in British N doesn't begin to compare to newer OO models like Hornby's Railroad D49. Diesels on the other hand are often just as good runners as their OO equivalents.

So just like the prototype then - real steam locos didn't run particulalrly well, reliably or efficiently, that's why they got replaced by more efficient diesels and electrics. 

However, I'm sure that there are some who find their N gauge steamers run more than acceptably well. And there have been some steamy dogs in OO that have even been recalled.

H.

Hi H

i suspect that the 00 models have just as many QC issues in the round, like the Bachmann A1 motor burnout issue ans disintegrating mazak chassis blocks of the Hornby 31 diesels to name just two.

I have found the performance of the majority of latest N steam locos to be more than acceptable. I wonder how many 00 B1s from either Hornby or Bachmann could walk away with over 20 coaches like my Farish ones can? I think I know the answer to that.

As to the loco drive versus tender drive debate, there will always be those that insist the loco wheels are driven. In my humble opinion it is horses for courses. There are sound reasons for using a tender-drive in order to avoid compromising the loco body to fit a motor and mechanism, coupled to issues of adhesive weight. It will be interesting to see how the Std 5 and WD perform by comparison. Even if capable of good feats of haulage there will be many prototypes where tender drive is the only solution because the loco body is too small to fit even this 7mm dia coreless motor.

Regards

Roy

[PLD]

Why do all discussions in this Hobby have to decend to "mines better than your's" arguments???

If it's not X guage is better than Y gauge, is Manufacturer A is better than B or Steam is better than Diesel....

Why can't we just accept the truth that there are some gems and also some lemons in every scale and in every manufacturers range, and be happy for each other to carry on doing what suits them...

The examples in the OP are probably correct; in those two instances N Gauge is probably ahead of 00 but that does not in any way extrapolate to a blanket favouring on one scale over the other!

Paul

[Sprintex]

Why do all discussions in this Hobby have to decend to "mines better than your's" arguments???

Get out of bed the wrong side this morning did we?   

It's only natural for fans of ANYTHING, railway or otherwise, to find ways that their particular interest is 'better' than someone else's. It's a human trait of self-justification, and I see nothing in the posts above to indicate that any real argument is going on  This being an exclusively N gauge forum we're bound to try to find ways that our scale is better than another, especially as N is normally seen as being the poor relation lurking in the shadow of the all-conquering 00. It's called healthy competition and it's nice to see some railway magazines noticing the vast imporvements in N gauge models 


Paul