I still like O-gauge 2-rail, and I'm going to stick with it for many of the reasons already given. An added bonus of 1:48 scale is that I can still enjoy building an old Athearn/All Nation-style boxcar kit, when a more-detailed project would be frustrating because of age-related changes in eyesight and dexterity. However, I agree that S may actually be the "ideal" scale. I remember my American Flyer S-scale trains from years ago with genuine affection.
At this stage of life I do not even buy green bananas, change scales? Forget it.
S Scale/Gauge is evolving and growing every so slowly. With the new FlyerChief system, Berkshires and other improved reworked products, it could become the scale of the future.
There are two keys - The demand has to grow and the offerings.
Enough Marketing 101.
Francine
Had O-Gauge (O-27) as a youngster, but after I got married, I started in HO.
Altogether I had five HO layouts, the largest of which was 12 x 22 feet, and one was 100% computer controlled. After almost 30 years in HO, I got away from model trains, and started in RC airplanes. I built giant scale RC airplanes as a business, and flew competitively. After 15 years, I let go of that as well, and then I found the new-to-me O-Gauge trains - wow!
My first O-Gauge layout was 7 x 20 feet, an my second and current layout is 33 x 38 feet. When my guests, most of whom have seen HO model trains, first see my layout, they are foremost impressed by the size of the trains.
HO is better to achieve scale details; however, the only way to really appreciate these details is through photography, close up videos, or with a magnifying glass. With O-Gauge, the details are readily seen and easy to appreciate.
About the only reason I would have to go back to HO is to be able to use DCC and the many products that are compatible with it, such as Freiwald's TrainController.
Alex
"Everyone knows it's O gauge or no gauge!" - Dr. Sheldon Cooper
And yet in one episode, Sheldon actually unpacked and set up an MTH HO set he had purchased, then actually ran the diesel freight. No continuity! They need a hobby consultant on that show. The episode on the Napa Wine Train also had some glaring errors regarding technical jargon! The overall effect is to portray rail and train hobby buffs as goobers! :-(
Then again, sometimes that is actually the case! :-)
The whole show is a bunch of goobers.....so I wouldn't count on them to show Train "enthusiasts" in a positive light.
Rod Stewart or Michael Gross are better representatives of train "enthusiasts".
I'm a 'tweener', I am building an ON30 layout, HO sized track with O scale narrow gauge engines and rolling stock and O scale structures and 'see-able' details! 
Another benefit is that I am modeling 1940 on D&RGW and the speed limit was 15 mph and shorter trains, etc. Makes the layout even bigger that way! Russ
Gooberrs??? Humm....read the book Blink then go to a train show.
Tinplate Art posted:The overall effect is to portray rail and train hobby buffs as goobers! :-(
Hey, if the shoe fits...
I always chuckle at how easily offended model and 1:1 scale train fans are when they're collectively depicted as, well, goobers. or the most part, that's very accurate. I've bene going model train and R collectible shows since I was a teenager, over 30 years now, and I fully believe that collectively, we do very much come across as goobers.
It's a spectrum, of course, and the majority fit in the middle. Many have zero social skills or familiarity with exercise and personal hygiene. How others in the hobby can't accept this is so, must not be going to events or shows as it's impossible to ignore. My wife refuses to go to model train shows with me as she can't stand the smell when she walks into the building.
The guy from the "Big bang theory" Napa wine train episode? I have met many just like him. I heard several train fans imitating locomotive noises just two days after that first aired, exactly as depicted on the show!
ChiloquinRuss posted:
I'm a 'tweener', I am building an ON30 layout, HO sized track with O scale narrow gauge engines and rolling stock and O scale structures and 'see-able' details!
Yep, same here, in regard to narrow gauge. Nothing runs fast. My mainlines run is just shy of 30 feet and it actually takes a few minutes to do that if I run at scale speeds and stop to 'OS' at each depot along the way.
I once read in a model magazine that generally speaking, layouts have trains run at the same speed and have structures that are the same size, regardless of scale. So the smaller the scale, the faster the scale speed. The larger the scale, the smaller the structures are proportionately to scale.
I find that O works for me for scale as the details can meet my expectations, but the trains are still small enough to get things done with them on a small layout.
In my case, it was never a conscious choice, as I always wanted to model a specific RR and the locomotives are affordable in G and On30 only (both by Bachmann). Someone did make brass ET&WNC 4-6-0s in HOn3, and I did look into that, but they were insanely expensive (and long ago sold out for the limited run), and I recently confirmed with a modeler of the ET&WNC in HOn3 who bought at least one and said it runs terribly so he made to model the RR before the era I wanted to model so he could kitbash earlier locos...
No, not at this point. I modeled for 32 years in HO scale, and I thought long and hard before switching back to 3-rail O. That was 17 years ago, and I've never looked back. If I were to entertain going back to HO, it would be for the greater scenic possibilities in the same space, but for me that advantage doesn't outweigh the ones I enjoy with 3-rail O. And, I'd have the hassle of selling all of my trains again.
As an aside, I find it curious that as a kid I really disliked the third rail, but now it doesn't bother me at all.
Ran across this thread again, and the title all of a sudden brought an old thought of mine to mind:
Why is S scale constantly the bridesmaid and seldom the bride? It is, according to some (maybe even me) the "perfect scale". It is more substantial than HO in so many ways, as well as being more visually "present", yet it can fit in a substantially smaller space than O scale. But this thread is named "...consider going to HO...", not "...to S...", as usual.
Certainly part of it is math: S is less space-hungry than O, but still more so than HO, and so on. But then why not N? Because it's not just about square footage. I said somewhere that it's about the equipment, and S is as small as model RR equipment gets before it becomes too small to impress (the heft/size - not the workmanship).
Not to mention that 3RO is made to fit in smaller spaces (even if it looks pretty silly doing it, at the extremes), and then there is the sub-O world of RK and Traditional that preserves 2/3 of the appeal of O in a stupidly small footprint. It will go where S will go, even if the S certainly looks better.
S - the perfect scale. But there's little "room" for it, I suppose.
D500 posted:Why is S scale constantly the bridesmaid and seldom the bride?
Hardly anything is made in that scale other than lots of diecast cars. But that might be a 'chicken or the egg' issue in that regard, though...
D500 posted:Ran across this thread again, and the title all of a sudden brought an old thought of mine to mind:
Why is S scale constantly the bridesmaid and seldom the bride? It is, according to some (maybe even me) the "perfect scale". It is more substantial than HO in so many ways, as well as being more visually "present", yet it can fit in a substantially smaller space than O scale. But this thread is named "...consider going to HO...", not "...to S...", as usual.
Certainly part of it is math: S is less space-hungry than O, but still more so than HO, and so on. But then why not N? Because it's not just about square footage. I said somewhere that it's about the equipment, and S is as small as model RR equipment gets before it becomes too small to impress (the heft/size - not the workmanship).
Not to mention that 3RO is made to fit in smaller spaces (even if it looks pretty silly doing it, at the extremes), and then there is the sub-O world of RK and Traditional that preserves 2/3 of the appeal of O in a stupidly small footprint. It will go where S will go, even if the S certainly looks better.
S - the perfect scale. But there's little "room" for it, I suppose.
I haven't read this entire post, but I agree with D500. My first set many, many years ago was American Flyer S with the link couplers. That got changed to Lionel with the next set. Don't know why Dad did that. But whenever I look at S gauge, I can't help thinking how nice it is.
Gerry
I agree with S being the perfect scale and I also wonder why it is not more popular and never really took off? And it is 2 rail too. It's a mystery to me?
When I got back in the hobby in 2011 I considered S gauge. The overwhelming amount of items available in O gauge compared to the extremely limited offerings in S gauge quickly changed my mind and I went with O gauge. I probably really wanted O gauge anyway, it is my favorite.
Another vote for S. MTH S scale seems to have fell off the map after their acquisition. American models has a great line up.
That said the pickings are slim for products and lately it seems like the orphan scale.
No. Although HO scale is probably the best size to model, taking up less space, and more products to choose from, it’s just not me. I am simply very happy with Lionel’s simple Legacy System. Two rail wiring is not as easy for me to do as the three rail system. I like to see HO layouts, and there are many many beautiful masterpieces, Example, Howard Zane’s, near Columbia Md. Happy Railroading.
To put it simply, no way!
At my age I need to see it to enjoy it! 
I did. Was in HO from 1974 to 2001, went to 3 rail from 2001 to 2013 then went to 2 rail until 2016.
I have six 3 rail engines left, 3 of them I still need to sell. I bought mostly weaver freight cars, so switching to 2 rail was just taking the 3 rail trucks back to weaver and switching them to 2 rail.
I have five 2 rail engines left, 4 of them I still need to sell. Along with weaver freight cars and 11 golden gate heavyweight passenger cars that need to go.
Do I regret leaving O, not at all. Cost is too hi to buy, even used prices are getting up there. I can buy a brand new Broadway Limited steam engine with rolling thunder sound with DCC and smoke for between $150 to $350. Brand new DCC ready or DCC sound diesels for $40 to $250, mix and match. No different control systems to buy, one and done. MRC 10 amp system for $300, I can run 9,999 DCC engines from this and add 10 more hand held remotes. Accurail freight cars in kit form cost $9.99 to $24.99 each, I got some for $5.99 and they are made in the USA.
I wasn't having fun in O anymore, now I buy what I like in HO because of the price.
I rejoined the train hobby in 1989 by digging out my childhood 0-27 set and running it on a carpet loop set up on the floor of a spare bedroom. I never even considered digging out my old HO stuff and running it.
The majority of the layouts on the annual Piedmont Pilgrimage here in the Atlanta area are HO and I very much enjoy seeing these layouts. In fact; many of the scenery techniques I've used on my O gauge layout were learned from visiting HO layouts and talking with their owners.
That said; I personally would never consider modeling in HO. Like so many other earlier posters; I prefer the size and heft of O gauge and the fact I can actually see details on an engine or freight car.
So far as operations are concerned; my day job brings me into constant interaction with real railroad operations. When I retreat to the basement in the evening; it's to put the day behind me not relive it. While I enjoy assembling structure kits; building mountains and tunnels and adding details; my greatest enjoyment comes from simply watching my trains run. O gauge nicely fulfills my requirements in that regard.
Curt
Even though my Lionel setup is miniscule by modern standards I occasionally fantasize about going HO to build and run a smaller layout, but the action accessories keep me in O 3-rail.
Pete
I asked myself this same question back in 1969 when I was 17, about going to HO from O Gauge. After putting it to paper I found out it wasn't worth it. I couldn't fit that much more in the same space because HO was quite a bit more to scale than postwar O. So I went to N Scale and never looked back! Until Legacy steam, that is. Now I have O-72 minimum curves for all my scale Legacy O gauge, with all the bells and whistles and smoke and quilling!
My N, which is 6 x 23 feet, is for my 12 to 15 car passenger trains made up of full length 85 footers powered by 80" drivered 4-8-4s, double headed Pacifics, and three unit E-6s and DL-109s running off the miles at a steady scale 105 MPH like the PRR did through Indiana, the IC over its Champaign District, Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities, Santa Fe over their automatic train control territory and the Atlantic Coast line along tidewater. That's how I model the railroad industry when it was a well oiled transportation machine! I do have 'slow to 90' signs posted at Roundout Interlocking. I am 65 now, and surprisingly to me I can handle the smallness of it all just fine with increasingly strong eyeglasses from Walmart.
Rick
MineRun posted:I asked myself this same question back in 1969 when I was 17, about going to HO from O Gauge. After putting it to paper I found out it wasn't worth it. I couldn't fit that much more in the same space because HO was quite a bit more to scale than postwar O. So I went to N Scale and never looked back! Until Legacy steam, that is. Now I have O-72 minimum curves for all my scale Legacy O gauge, with all the bells and whistles and smoke and quilling!
My N, which is 6 x 23 feet, is for my 12 to 15 car passenger trains made up of full length 85 footers powered by 80" drivered 4-8-4s, double headed Pacifics, and three unit E-6s and DL-109s running off the miles at a steady scale 105 MPH like the PRR did through Indiana, the IC over its Champaign District, Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities, Santa Fe over their automatic train control territory and the Atlantic Coast line along tidewater. That's how I model the railroad industry when it was a well oiled transportation machine! I do have 'slow to 90' signs posted at Roundout Interlocking. I am 65 now, and surprisingly to me I can handle the smallness of it all just fine with increasingly strong eyeglasses from Walmart.
Rick
Great story- sort of the same trip I took re: N scale. Kato, Atlas engines with sound and DCC are geat they run like swiss watches. You have 2 layouts. How large is the O?
Hi George,
My N takes up the only open space available in the basement, so my O HAS TO GO IN MY LIVING ROOM. I only have one loop with a siding, on the floor, around my lazy boy loveseat recliner but it is appx. 12-14 feet in diameter. Various structures and railroad facilities are lit up with glowing light bulbs with only about 6 volts to replicate the glow of kerosene lamps and I do a lot of night running (covering the Cab 2 lit up displays with a red filter so as not to compromise my night vision). The atmosphere is awesome. Oh, did I forget to mention, through the bay windows of my house I have a 'box seat' view of the CB&Q's three track raceway through Chicago's western suburbs?
Rick
Although O gauge and Standard gauge are my main interests. I have a lot of HO. I have a nice representative of 1950-70's Marklin and Fleischmann. Also 1950's - early 60's Mantua-Tyco,Athearn,Lionel,Gilbert,Varney including a really nice collection of HO by Marx! Rounding it out is a dozen or so very recent Athearn Genesis and BLI steam locomotives that I run on a local modular HO layout.
Would I construct a large layout in HO? At this point,no. I don't think I'd ever complete it as I've been working on my present 20' X 40' O gauge layout for nearly two years and it's only 5% to 10% complete.
I'm currently making the switch to O from HO. The size of the O scale engines and rolling stock is nice and I honestly prefer O scale steam engines over HO but if you are going for the scale side of things it takes up a lot of space. For me O scale is becoming too expensive and there isn't as much of a selection as HO. I personally like DCC better than DCS even though DCS is pretty good. I've never used Lionel's system so I can't say but at least DCC works with any manufacturer. I think it's what's best for me now but who knows as time goes on. I would consider 2 rail O scale but it requires a lot of space and money and would still have to convert everything I have so I might as well just make the switch.
No.
I am going the other way. Dismantling my N and HO layouts and moving to O scale. I get more action from O scale and my eyes prefer the larger scale. The 3rd center rail used to really annoy me but now I do not seem to care. I use Neolube to darken the center rail. The cost of Locomotives and Lionel Fastrack switches is a real pitfall (for me). Now with wifi to control DCS and Command Control. I also like the smell of fake smoke since I quit smoking.
I just need to get motivated to sell my HO & N scale stock to afford the O scale.
Boomer posted:Although O gauge and Standard gauge are my main interests. I have a lot of HO. I have a nice representative of 1950-70's Marklin and Fleischmann. Also 1950's - early 60's Mantua-Tyco,Athearn,Lionel,Gilbert,Varney including a really nice collection of HO by Marx! Rounding it out is a dozen or so very recent Athearn Genesis and BLI steam locomotives that I run on a local modular HO layout.
Would I construct a large layout in HO? At this point,no. I don't think I'd ever complete it as I've been working on my present 20' X 40' O gauge layout for nearly two years and it's only 5% to 10% complete.
I've changed my mind since posting. With ANOTHER move on the horizon (Work related), I will most likely build my next layout in HO. I've started to disassemble the bench work and as per the modular design,most of the layout (99%) will be reused.
NOPE
Size does matter.
D500 posted:Ran across this thread again, and the title all of a sudden brought an old thought of mine to mind:
Why is S scale constantly the bridesmaid and seldom the bride? It is, according to some (maybe even me) the "perfect scale". It is more substantial than HO in so many ways, as well as being more visually "present", yet it can fit in a substantially smaller space than O scale. But this thread is named "...consider going to HO...", not "...to S...", as usual.
Certainly part of it is math: S is less space-hungry than O, but still more so than HO, and so on. But then why not N? Because it's not just about square footage. I said somewhere that it's about the equipment, and S is as small as model RR equipment gets before it becomes too small to impress (the heft/size - not the workmanship).
Not to mention that 3RO is made to fit in smaller spaces (even if it looks pretty silly doing it, at the extremes), and then there is the sub-O world of RK and Traditional that preserves 2/3 of the appeal of O in a stupidly small footprint. It will go where S will go, even if the S certainly looks better.
S - the perfect scale. But there's little "room" for it, I suppose.
S is the perfect size for me as well. Unfortunately, not enough people seem to agree with us.
I'm really torn as to what to build next. You really need to WANT to be in S. Although I prefer it, I also like other scales for different reasons. I like 3RS, but at that point you might as well just go full 2R. Traditional 3R has lost it's appeal to me over the past 20 years. HO has everything I'm looking for on paper, but I find it really difficult to get excited about HO. I don't understand why, but N scale has more appeal to me. I have a 34ft wide basement... That equals 1632 ft in O scale, but 5440 ft in N scale. I've come to want longer runs with more operational potential over the traditional roundy round 3R layout so N has a lot of appeal to me right now. It's the only scale that would let me build the layout in my head in the space I actually have.
But I have a good sized 3R investment, and I still think S is the perfect size. Decisions...Decisions...
Hi Jonathan,
I agree, S Scale is the best size - it's the Goldilocks scale - not to big, not to small. The problem is availability - fasttrack wide radius track and switches and engines.
If you can kit bash, it's not bad but for those who can't or are afraid, there isn't much selection.
Hopefully that will change in the future as more people see the desirability of the scale.
Francine
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving
Doug Murphy posted:I used to work in HO and N gauge when first getting into model railroading. While I appreciate how much improved everything is in those sizes, I decided years ago to 'move up' to O - I prefer the size of the engines and rolling stock, and (for me) the simplicity of conventional wiring. Haven't looked back...
That pretty much sums it up for me, too. Although I started with Lionel 027 back in 1951 at age three, by the time I hit my twenties, I was dabbling in HO, N and even HOn30. They all had their attractions, but the size and mass of O appeal to me more. Not to mention the fact that when I began having to wear glasses, it became harder and harder to do detail work in the smaller scales. These days, it's 3rs exclusively, for me.
No.
Though I do have a number of European HO trains (German-French-British-Czech) that I bought while living in France ~50 years ago. Great trains. But there's no HO layout in the future as I work on my 4th major O-Gauge layout since the early '70s.
B SMITH,
Not me sir, I am O/027/Standard Gauge type of Tin Plate Runner. No need for an HO layout here.
PCRR/Dave
Blasphemy!!! This is the O gauge forum!!! Take those HO thoughts someplace else.
Never would I go HO. Don't think about downsizing, think about rightsizing so you have the space.
Now I must get back to writing the re-education manual for the O to HO deserters internment camp I'm opening soon.
I just started with O gauge, so I'm not going anywhere. Plus at this point, I'm starting to become "optically mature" and making out fine detail without my bifocals (which I hate to wear) is nigh impossible. If my kids grow up and show an interest in HO, N or Z ... I'll support it, but while I think it'd be an awesome thing to see run, I'm not undertaking that sort of adventure.
I agree with others above that S is the 'Almost Perfect' scale. It has always baffled me (and still does) as to why it is not more popular and has never become the 'Chosen' scale? One of the world's many mysteries??
