I came directly from HO scale in 1990's when the MTH 611 J came out. I had been in HO for many many years. I still have 100% of my HO stuff....packed but not going anywhere.
You get 4 times more railroad in HO than O in the same area. My O benchwork is up and I have thought how much HO I could get in this area.....but then recall the dirty track issues and EZ derailments. I think after my O layout is up and running I may build a small HO so I can run some of that equipment.
I admire HO..variety,2 rail...but nothing like an O gauge 20.5 inch premiere Mac90 leading a 5 engine mu(that's over 7 feet of engines) pulling freight. But then again i have a G scale UP SD70mac almost 32 inches that sits on a powered shelf with several other diesels..it's all good
I enjoy 3 rail O and have a ton of equipment. I have a finished attic and my dilemma is to have a smaller O layout or have a larger HO layout. I like the larger 3 rail engines but for me the big curves are a must 080-090 etc in HO I could do 1/2 that or so.
My only compliant is personal I don't have a big enough room for the large curves I want in O. Then I did some reflection,and I said let me down size the layout.
Realistically I would never be able to finish a large layout in O or HO. Now I'm thinking more modesly with 3 rail. Maybe an around the walls layout and something that I can finish in my lifetime. With work, family and teenagers it's tough to find the time. So it's not the scale it's the time for me.
When I divorced HO, I did so to never take her back. I have put that girl behind me. Now that big girl Gee is looking pretty good too.
I had modeled in N Scale for a number of years since that is all I had room for when I lived at home. I moved to HO for then larger choice and amassed a decent set of locos and cars, but never managed to get a layout started.
Recently, last year, I took notice of the possibilities with O scale. The sound, the size, the smoke. It offers more of what I find fun. I’m now starting a collection of O gauge locos and cars and I’m not looking back.
- Carl
I modeled in HO scale for many years before I switched to O 3 rail scale. More track in the same space isn't necessarily better and many in the HO community are downswing their layouts. Do a web search for Lance Mindheim and take a look at some of the layouts he designs and builds, some with only one turnout! Granted, they're switching layouts but even on a large layout the "roundy round" thing gets boring pretty quickly, but it is nice when you just want to be in rail fan mode.
I have a 25'x15' around the walls 3 rail scale layout that I can run in a continuous loop when I want to. Most of the time it functions as a switching layout, pulling and shoving cars from the interchange to various industries. I do have a small HO shelf switching layout just to run some of my stuff. I do miss the wide assortment of parts and kits available to the HO crowd, the lack of which frustrates me to no end with O scale.
Joe
I got back in the hobby in 2011 and gave HO some thought at the time. For the same reasons mentioned, more stuff in a smaller space etc. I just couldn't go with it, too small and they just don't look like trains to me. O gauge scale sized trains just have something the the smaller scales don't have, at least for me anyway. As others have said I also like the ease of wiring in 3 rail and all of the other things you can do with O like operating accessories, cars, etc. that are also more entertaining for the kids and grand kids.
I will also add that in 2011 on my first visit to the local train store I could not believe the selection in O from what it was years ago. I am still a bit overwhelmed by the things we have available today on O. And then there is command control and now accessories with command control in addition to engines and cars. I am probably the odd man here, but I actually like the look of 3 rail track and I am a big fan of Atlas O track.
A longer track plan isn't the only benefit. Double (or half) LxW means you can fit four times the stuff in the same area. Said another way, you can fit equivalent structures and other features into one-quarter of the space. Every time I think about stuffing a turntable and roundhouse into my already cramped space I think about converting to HO. One of these days I might just do it.
Count me in as a decades long HO guy that has recently become an O convert. Lots of reasons for the switch and I'll highlight a few:
First, via the pages of OGR, I became aware of the Hi Rail concept that completely changed the way I enjoy the hobby. I no longer pursue scale perfection in either my models or the way I operate them. The Hi Rail philosophy of blending aspects of toy and model together is much more enjoyable way for me to partake in the hobby.
Second, I learned that the perception that O takes twice the space as HO is not true for Hi Rail modelers. I run semi-scale / traditional sized equipment (MTH Rail King) that looks right at home on O-54 curves. Scale models of the steam engines I run would require 30 inch radius curves in HO to look right. So I'm actually using less space now that I switched to O
Third, I learned that the HO does not cost less for Hi Rail modelers. Given the size of the equipment, I run fewer engines, own fewer pieces of rolling stock, and populate my layout with fewer buildings than what I was trying to accomplish with my previous grandiose scale pursuits in HO. I find I'm spending less money now than I was before.
Finally, like many others I enjoy the size and heft of O scale. All this to say, no - I have no inclination to return to HO!
I agree with others. When I got back in, I bought a new N scale set to go along with my N scale locos from an earlier time. It did not take me long to realize that N scale was too small for me as I approached the upper 60s. I thought about HO and looked at a lot of equipment and almost bought a set, but even when I ran HO back in the day, I longed for the large O scale from my youth. I considered a Bass Pro Shops' set, but when I checked out the only O scale shop in town, I was hooked by RailKing and DCS, so I ended up buying a Christmas steam passenger set. I figured I had little to lose because I could always set up a small Christmas layout during the holidays.
Now, I will admit I still don't have my layout up. I've been through numerous location changes and while I have a final track design, other things have needed my time, but I'm getting there. I will also admit that I do get a sense of envy when I see my brother's HO layout, such as it is, and all the fun he's having fiddling with it. Unfortunately, that envy doesn't last long because it just looks and feels too toy-like for me these days. I also go over to the railroad park in Scottsdale where they have 1,200 sf spaces for each of the 3 scales. While the N and HO layouts certainly get a lot more in their spaces, there is nothing like the O scale layout and that is where the majority of visitors congregate. In fact, very few kids even look at the other scales, they are entranced by the O scale trains and accessories.
I went from tinplate to HO when I entered teens, for it had more kits and models seeming much more, prototype rolling stock and structures. It still has more of all that, but l went back to O to recapture my youth, and am not converting again. I use HO kits to bash-build what l can't find in O. The big gaps are still there, just like in my teens.
Woulda coulda shoulda. At least then I could trade with neighbors. Always thought I would make an N scale layout covered in glass to double as a coffee table in the den.
What, me worry?
I have HO to fill in where O seems to be seriously Lacking...too many re-dos in O lately
Not yet done in O, maybe in 20 years we might see:
F45, GP40-2, GP40X, GP50, SD40-2 Snoot, SD45-2, SDF40, SDP45, U36C, B23-7, B30-7, B36-7, CF7
Scott R posted:Count me in as a decades long HO guy that has recently become an O convert. Lots of reasons for the switch and I'll highlight a few:
First, via the pages of OGR, I became aware of the Hi Rail concept that completely changed the way I enjoy the hobby. I no longer pursue scale perfection in either my models or the way I operate them. The Hi Rail philosophy of blending aspects of toy and model together is much more enjoyable way for me to partake in the hobby.
Second, I learned that the perception that O takes twice the space as HO is not true for Hi Rail modelers. I run semi-scale / traditional sized equipment (MTH Rail King) that looks right at home on O-54 curves. Scale models of the steam engines I run would require 30 inch radius curves in HO to look right. So I'm actually using less space now that I switched to O
Third, I learned that the HO does not cost less for Hi Rail modelers. Given the size of the equipment, I run fewer engines, own fewer pieces of rolling stock, and populate my layout with fewer buildings than what I was trying to accomplish with my previous grandiose scale pursuits in HO. I find I'm spending less money now than I was before.
Finally, like many others I enjoy the size and heft of O scale. All this to say, no - I have no inclination to return to HO!
Scott,
I agree about OGR introducing me to hi rail. I also learned of Mercer Junction Train Shoppe and Dave's hi rail store layout in OGR. Since he is only 45 minutes away, I visited his store and came out with a RailKing set. That was over 5 years ago, and I haven't even considered looking back!
NO.
Nope. I have had both. O gauge runs better than HO.
I started out in HO as a kid. It was a Christmas present when I was about 4 years old. I honestly enjoyed it, so I can appreciate those who consider it as an alternative to O.
But in college and living in a small apartment, I decided to get into N scale. I enjoyed that even more because I could do so much more in a small space. I never abandoned N scale. My original 2-by-8-foot layout has made five moves and still resides in my basement nearly 35 years later, though I run it very seldom now.
I switched to O gauge toy trains for two reasons. First, the steamers were all hefty diecast metal models. Second, this branch of the hobby was truly about fun, not pure scale modeling. I felt liberated to do things most hobbyists weren’t doing in N and HO. Over time, the size factor became important, too. Bigger is better as I have gotten older. (I can no longer read the fine small graphics on my N scale models, and my fingers feel too fat to pick up an N scale figure.)
There is no right or wrong here. It will vary with each person, but I am happier with O gauge now.
I like the o scale trains better than ho. At my age, o scale is a good fit for me. I had ho and would never go back to it.
No. Been there, done that. Ultimately unsatisfying. If you really must have an expansive model railroad, why not N, or even Z??
I don't see any issue with going to HO. It is a nice scale to run and the selections are almost limitless. A nice HO layout takes about as much space as an O layout as minimum recommended radius for HO used to be 36" (O72) equivalent. However in that same space you can run long consists of trains and they don't look out of place like they do on my layout. I enjoyed my HO days.
Good luck with whatever your decide!
Yes. Also considering N scale. Each step down give you exponentially more RR.
Nothing even comes close to the audio detail and quality that O scale provides (which is one of my favorite things about the hobby) , but visually I will give up layout space for a larger locomotive anytime.
Also, I can work on my O gauge engines with confidence, HO is too small for me.
Started with Dad's O, went to HO, (keeping the O) back to O, then back to HO to get more of the railroad line, but was difficult to work on with aging Boomer eyes. Finally settled on S, has the best of both worlds, Has the heft and feel of something large, can be seen and is alot better to work on.
No more changes though. I have a ton of HO that I has to be disposed.
Had HO for years. Got too frustrated with the way it runs. Too light, no heft, small sound. Tried my old Lionel and loved it. Then found all the new improvements and SOUND! Wow, I was hooked and haven't looked back.
I prefer the 0-Scale I got into recently in the past couple of years one due to easier wiring so I don't have to think to much about that much, where as my other hobby involves a lot of wires packed into a small area. As well as just the size of the O-Scale Products, that just look more like trains to me. If I could convince my wife to let me I would probably have a G-Scale or One Gauge (has MTH marks it) outside that I could park in the garage out of the weather during winter.
I do have an HO Size trainset from lifelike trains, but I really don't run that and I lost one of the cars that came with the set.
I also have my father-in-laws N-Scale Trains, that I keep on thinking I want to put those in a coffee table in the living room, just because it is something of my wife's father that he enjoyed, I just haven't decided what and how I am going to do that yet.
No, to old to change and to see HO. Besides I grew up with Lionel and O Gauge and enjoy that to much and now with a granddaughter that is into the trains need to keep encouraging her with what she can handle and rum with no issues. Besides all that got to dam much money and time in O Gauge and to old to start over. Besides more bells and whistles in O.
Like many before, My dad started me in HO when I was 8. Ironically my first set was a SantaFe Alco AB set with 5 streamlined coaches by Lionel. My dad had his tinplates still and I always loved the size of the O gauge stuff. When I got back into the hobby a few years ago I went with O even though I still have all of my HO stuff.
Yea- its easier to fit into a small area but I don't miss the constant de-rails and the dirt issues of DC.
Bob
GG1 4877 posted:I don't see any issue with going to HO. It is a nice scale to run and the selections are almost limitless. A nice HO layout takes about as much space as an O layout as minimum recommended radius for HO used to be 36" (O72) equivalent. However in that same space you can run long consists of trains and they don't look out of place like they do on my layout. I enjoyed my HO days.
Good luck with whatever your decide!
Is that something the more detailed modelers in HO use as a guideline?
I recall the standard sectional track with 18" radius (36" diameter) was considered the normal minimum (though there were 15" radius curves available too, and I recall 22" radius being for larger engines). I was never into a serious level of modeling though, mostly sectional track and some flextrack here and there to either fit odd situations or remove track joints with a longer run of continuous rail.
I never was involved with any clubs or had any truly large models (had Bachmann N&W J's and a Niagara though) where a 36 inch radius would have been helpful or required.
This thought actually crossed my mind before reading your post. All of the references to 4 times the space don't count for the curves. It's true for straight runs of track and structure sizes, but an O Gauge O-31 circle fits inside an 18" radius circle of HO track. (well, maybe it's very close, but an O-27 loop certainly fits inside)
To answer the original question, I still have lots of HO from when I was a kid. The lack of accessories and operating cars (same exact thing as Art Young stated!) is one of the big factors that drove me to O once I was an adult and had the ability to get into it.
While I won't say I won't ever dust off the HO, I won't do it just to get a bigger layout. The more frequent derailments and such are not as enjoyable to me. I am sure with serious effort of laying cleaner track joints, adding weights to cars and making sure every car is also Kadee equipped can help, but it's a lot of extra effort.
-Dave
NO !!
Every now and then I consider abandoning the current model railroad technology and detail arms race and building a 1970's era HO railroad on a good ol' 4x8, using old Athearn diesels and Mantua/Tyco steam locomotives.
Rusty
I would never consider going to HO gauge trains. I run the good ones-O gauge. HO trains are the cheap option and they are so small you can't even see them..... and only a jeweler can repair them.
Except for a under-the-tree Christmas layout for 2 seasons, was not "into" HO. Two main reasons: A friend had a large HO layout, but the trains never ran due to what he called "dirty track". My new HO steam engine refused to run for Christmas #2.
But that was in the mid-1980s. I'm guessing these problems no longer occur much with track and trains like Kato (to name a N brand I'm familiar with). But at 75, I'm not starting over.
Lol - never!
GG1 4877 posted:I don't see any issue with going to HO. It is a nice scale to run and the selections are almost limitless. A nice HO layout takes about as much space as an O layout as minimum recommended radius for HO used to be 36" (O72) equivalent. However in that same space you can run long consists of trains and they don't look out of place like they do on my layout. I enjoyed my HO days.
Good luck with whatever your decide!
Wellll.... My math sez that O72 in O3R parlence works out differently for HO equivalence than your math.
An O3R curve of O72 sections would have a diameter of 72". The equivalent HO would be a 36" diameter, or 18" radius.
THAT's why it has always been a puzzlement to me to accept the O72 curves as "wide" radius. I remember the equipment restrictions of an HO 18" radius trackwork. Full length passenger cars (85' prototypes) would typically carry a "24-inch minimum radius required" caveat on the box/instructions.
You're right, though, that scale-sized HO equipment looked much better on a 36" radius curve.....which would be the O3R equivalent of O144!!! Not your typical this-corner-of-the-basement-or-around-the-spare-bedroom layout choice for an O3R layout!
Little wonder those 21" O3R passenger cars look like a disjointed python when traversing O72 curves.
But, hey, they are after all just toy trains, aren't they??
KD
Technically, my layout is HO in regard to the gauge, but not the scale as I model On30.
But I'd never go back to HO for two primary reasons:
All this said, I badly envy HO folks for the fact that almost everything has been made in HO scale.
The only legitimate person who could switch to HO is Santa.
He can fly around on his sled, looking down on chimneys, while yelling:
HO HO HO
Alan
Nope, never, not gonna do it, and it wouldn't be prudent! O is more accessible and thus more fun!
You folks need to try changing brushes or adding lights to bi-level passenger cars if you think that HO is too small to work on, lol
70s Tyco left a bad taste. A modern Athern ho I had was VERY impressive though. I may dable with automating an ho 2 track switching shelf, but thats all.
Change? No way. The Lionels would be shelf queens, but no substitutions can scratch the 3r itch.
I had a small 2-rail O scale British effort going for a few years after leaving HO behind, and have always preferred the heftier, chunkier feel over HO. I've been known to associate with my local HO scale bunch, but my O gauge 3-rail collection (with a bias towards heavy electric) is slowly growing.
I couldn't go smaller scale again. If I had to downsize, I'd probably go back to the minimum space switching in British O, or maybe O traction. I also have a couple of G narrow gauge ideas on the back burner...........
Having given this more thought, I think S is probably the ideal scale for me if it came to starting over. It accomplishes a lot of what people say here about what they like or don’t like about HO and O. It’s big enough to track well, sport plenty of detail and good sound, and it’s still manageable (as opposed to HO) for more people with failing eyes or clumsy hands. On the other hand, the equipment isn’t so big that it overpowers the scene to the point of looking out of place on medium-to-smaller layouts. It’s just too bad there isn’t more offered in this scale.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
