Why Don't Builders Choose 2-rail Scale?

I will say Chris, you are imminently qualified to speak on layout building in O scale.

 

Your "pike" avoids the spaghetti bowl syndrome that plagues most model railroads in all scales. 

 

That philosophy shows off what O scale has best to offer - realistic sized, well detailed, scale models. 

This thing went off the rails - maybe because there is nothing else interesting going on.  I don't think Ed was being condescending.  Maybe I was, suggesting that Alan may never find the definitive coupler in O Scale, because the rest of us are not interested.

 

Who cares whether O Scale is more or less of a craftsman's gauge, and if anybody really does care, let them do the research.  Certainly will not affect the way I proceed.

Absolutely.  And maybe the direction of this thread is a reason why more builders don't choose 2 rail scale?  I sometimes you guys are your own worst enemies.

 

Getting back to the OPs question...you're asking the wrong group.  You need to login to a HO forum and ask them why they do what they do.

 

Now for my opinion:

 

Everyone I know (maybe 1/2 dozen people) who models in HO, have told me they don't like the 3rd rail in O scale and they're STILL not aware of what's available in 2-rail O scale.

 

Go to any of the large train shows, what you see is HO, N, S, or O 3-rail.  If O 2-rail is present at any of these types of shows (Greenbergs and the like), it's hidden very well or not displayed well enough to distinguish it from 3-rail.  Seeing tables full of 50-60 year old 3-rail Lionel trains, some in pieces or piled together in crates, is the picture that represents O scale in general at these shows.

 

Go to the same show every time it comes to town, what you see is the same old crates and boxes full of old O scale trains, or newer copies of the same old stuff (I would quickly tire of having to drag the same stuff out only to pack it up and take it back home).

This plagues 2 rail O scale meets too.  Box after box of things from the 40's thru the 60's.  And lots of other stuff, including brass models, at fantasy world prices.  Net result:  The same things that the seller dragged to the show goes home with them.

 

Most of us can't tell why HO (or N) scalers choose their scales.

 

We as O scalers can only presume what pluses or minuses O scale presents as compared to other scales. 

Difficult to maintain truly dynamic scenery w/o delving into animation but good illusionary techniques and skills you possess will help to achieve that goal.

 

BTW, this thread is great - some of the funniest stuff I've read on OGR in years!

Rule 292 wrote:

 

This plagues 2 rail O scale meets too.  Box after box of things from the 40's thru the 60's.  And lots of other stuff, including brass models, at fantasy world prices.  Net result:  The same things that the seller dragged to the show goes home with them.

 

So true.  How many times have we seen this:

 

"Why don't they make XXXX"

 

and the replies state "So-and-so made them back in the middle of the last century".

 

It does a person no good if you can't find that model made back then.  The only 2-rail event/show I can recall being nearby where I live in the past 10 years was during a weekend I worked (or could have been when my wife was in the hospital).  I could go to events farther away, but I'm always thinking of past shows I drove to where I ended up coming home empty-handed.  This area (Norfolk, Va Beach) is at the end of everything (interstate, rail).  You have to be coming here for a purpose, it's not like it's "on the way to or passes by" somewhere else.

 

I have my 1st 2-rail engine, a Weaver RS3 (insert applause here) converted from 3-rail to 2-rail and I'll probably build some sort of small switching layout for it, very little track or rolling stock, and maybe battery powered/controlled.

 

From what I've seen/read on this forum, most 2-railers are folks who like to do things with their hands (when I was a kid I made my own golf clubs out of scrap lumber my dad had) besides open a box and pull out a RTR boxcar.

 

I don't think it's entirely out of necessity, but also the thrill and challenge of the build that does it for them.

 

My "necessity" comes from the railroad (SAL) I chose to model.  When I was in HO there was very little offered for SAL (if you look now you'll see all sorts of stuff at the shows, just my luck ) and I had the same issues then in HO as I do now in O.

Oh, you can expand those dates a bit - say 30's through mid-90's but keep those fantasy land prices part.  I particularly enjoy the few that show up toting tubs of stuff that you actually smell the mold before even seeing the stuff, 

Hit the nail on the head...at train shows it's younger fellows operating manning the N and HO modules and booths of new shiny boxed equipment of modern prototype and capability. Go to the next room there's a bunch of old men, some of questionable hygiene, hawking stuff akin from a flea market running antique designs, run super fast flash and glam, in an attempt to dazzle the little kids, and recreate the kid faces and excitement of THEIR childhood. And NO O 2-rail.  The public image of O scale, let alone invisible 2-rail, is that of a dinosaur and holdover from the Eisenhower Administration. In a supposedly "scale" model train show the old 3-rail and antiquated designs send one's mind into a time warp.  The Future of O Scale...really.

To all,

 

I realize,especially to the older modelers I can be a "pain," though not meaning to be.

When I was born steam was on it's way out,(1957),& when I got into railroads,diesels were it.

I read all about the railroads from the very start when regarded as a rich man's toy,to modern day. I have the VERY HIGHEST admiration for all eras of railroads. I'm just into the more modern eras of railroads & like everyone else here,like what I like & that includes trying to get products underway that I & yes others want. Modelers want different types of steam engines as proved by the recent post asking what type locomotives were wanted. I want modern couplers. Because 1 guy models the era before the Janey couplers came along,doesn't mean the rest of the modelers in eras after those days should restrict their coupler interests to the Link & Pin days. Well I & others want more to date safety couplers for 1 thing. So that's my want & I'm trying to get this as well as other products such as working ground throws with moving targets produced.  The ground throws fit the steam era very well,but seem to be ignored by veteran O scale modelers.  If we want O scale to grow,you can't expect new modelers looking to choose a scale to model, to pay more to get into a scale that has less to offer in the product lines. I've contacted all manufacturers I know of about these products of interest to get them developed for my enjoyment,as well as others like me,plus I've continued looking at ways to make & add safety shelfs to existing couplers. A friend of mine & well known modeler has done this but it's almost impossible. So we're not just "cursing the darkness".

 If O scale doesn't become more competitive with other scales in new products,it will continue to gain less attention. If you don't like my posts,that's ok,I know many don't care for my interests & that's great,no problem. Getting along,(living),is all about having respect for others.

Perhaps this forum should be renamed to include modelers from early steam to early diesel era? I'm NOT meaning to in the slightest be sarcastic,but serious. I think modelers from the 70s to today would be a bit more tolerant of each other.

 

In my "laments," I'm asking questions, seeking avenues that might exist that I'm unaware of in O scale to try to help me get into O scale for less money. I'm evaluating the "big picture" in my quest for O scale.

Respectfully,

Al Hummel

 

What concerns me with some of the posts is that some seem to take the responses on why people might not model in O 2 rail as an attack on it, or that it isn't valid or something. Some of the posts came off to me as 'well, if 2 rail O doesn't have a lot of out of the box stuff, if people use that as an excuse not to get into it, they are obviously people lacking skills and patience", when maybe it is they don't have the time to build switches or scratchbuild engines or repaint them or kitbash another style to get the one they want. With HO there is so much offered pretty much RTR that unless you are dealing with relatively obscure prototype stuff, there is likely to be something out there. You can build a pretty nice layout and do it with out of the box, and for someone with limited time, that can be a lifesaver. I realize the original post was talking bigger layout spaces, but the same thing applies, even assuming you use let's say a lot less switches in O, if you do as someone suggested, hand build them, it takes time to do that....I also will add that in the world of 2 rail O scale, many if not most of the people you see in the hobby are older, either near retirement or in retirement, and they have the time. N and HO have a much younger demographic, and knowing younger folks into those scales, they tend to use a lot of RTR equipment and track, pre built structures, between the demands of long work hours (now quite common, sadly), kids with everything they do, work around the house, it is what they can do and have a layout at all..and what I have seen (which is just that, my experience), once they get past the age where they have young kids, when their careers are established, and so forth, then they tend to get more into doing things, scratchbuilding, etc..and they will stay with HO because that is what they know (or N, obviously). 

 

I think there is a point to be made that these days that may be less of an argument, with MTH for example building convertible engines that can go from 3 rail to 2 rail scale, with Atlas making 2 rail O equipment and track, and with the other smaller firms out there making scale stuff, there are a lot more choices than there once were. 

 

And to be honest, it is unlikely that there will be enough people in 2 rail O ever to make it much more than that. MTH is building convertible engines because quite frankly the engineering involved isn't all that great, and their business model is around leveraging technology to get a number of markets (for example, they determinedly went to make their DCS boards as small as possible, and also integrated DCC into them, so they could get into HO scale offerings, something for example Lionel didn't bother doing), they build european prototypes because they design the chasis to be easily re-usable across the product line, and so forth. Atlas has made 2 rail O for a long time, and went the other way with 3 rail. 

 

The real reason O will be limited? Because most people, outside the fortunate few, have space to build a layout that would appeal to them given the sizes required for O 2 rail scale. What runs on 36" diameter 3 rail (or 18" radius HO scale) takes 36" radius curves in O 2 rail scale, and in a given space that can limit an O 2 rail layout compared to what you could do in HO. HO can give you more layout for a given space, and for many people choosing between let's say an HO layout where they can run passenger equipment, versus 2 rail O where they would be limited to smaller engines and rolling stock and not running passenger service, they will choose HO. Also, there is a self fulfilling element here, 2 rail O is limited in part because people don't know about it, yet the market is so small that no one makes the effort to broaden offerings and promote it. 

 

After all, all you have to do is look at the magazine that supports this site, when I started reading the occassional issue of this magazine, it was dedicated pretty much to scale O, with a smattering of 3 rail, and it evolved into being about mostly 3 rail because that is where the numbers are, enough to help keep the magazine going. 

 

If I had the space, I would be torn, because 2 rail for me does hold a lot of charm, as much as I admittedly love three rail (for a variety of reasons, including liking to be reminded of 'playing with trains', I like both trying to make things look realistic and at the same time, something I am playing with). One of the biggest advantages for 2 rail O, thanks to the popularity of HO, is that DCC is an open standard, which means that if a DCC board ever goes south, I have a lot of options (and is easy to replace, thanks to the NMRA connector standard), and if down the line it blows out, DCC is backwardly compatible so a newer generation board will still support existing functions, something you cannot say in 3 rail for example.I have seen some beautiful 2 rail layouts, and I wish I had the time and space to build something like that, but I don't at this stage of life.

 

 

How many times have we seen this:

"Why don't they make XXXX"

and the replies state "So-and-so made them back in the middle of the last century".

A very true statement.  But it overlooks the fact that by today's standards, models built 50 years ago or more are largely just plain crap, needing a massive amount of detailing and rebuilding to make them run and look reasonable, to which I add:

 

Comment: "So and so just came out with a new model of XXXX"

Response: "I don't model that era/railroad/variant (take your pick)"

 

This is a common comment.  The variant I get as a brass producer is "Beautiful trains  but I don't model that period".  In other words, "I'll never be a customer, no matter what you do."

 

This carries over to more modern models (you don't have to just look at my 19th Century offerings).  I've heard many a comment from hobbyists who reject an offering by a builder because they "only did the X version, and the road I model never had any of those"

 

There is a reason behind this thinking and it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Over specialization results in reduced availability.  Low production numbers, the result of the refusal to look to other horizons, has the result of ever higher prices.  High prices cause modelers to be very careful about what they buy.  And so the circle of model railroading continues.

 

Take a look at the recent runs of various 2-rail models.  Almost none exceed 100 pieces, in fact many do not exceed 50 pieces or less if you consider each variant to be a different engine.  At those production levels the prices are forced higher.

 

Its just good old supply and demand.  2-rail 0-scale is a subset of a subset.  Most people do not know it exists.  There has never been a mass marketing effort to make them aware that 0-scale does not mean 3-rail Lionel of the 1950s.  Outside the hobby, there is hardly any recognition that Lionel is still in business, let alone 2-rail offerings of small firms like myself.

 

I agree with the writer that suggests this question be posted on an HO board.  I think you will be surprised by the responses - if they bother to respond.

 

Dave

 

" even assuming you use let's say a lot less switches in O, if you do as someone suggested, hand build them, it takes time to do that...."

 

    The point was it doesn't take any longer to handlay O turnouts than it does to glue down more numerous HO or N turnouts. The greatest amount of time will be spent ballasting, wiring, weathering, detailing the right of way, etc. The time spent building one turnout from scratch is minimal in the overall scheme of building a layout. Beginners need to learn this before going out and spending a lot in the false assumption that they are saving time. O scale modeling existed long before Atlas O so don't think those expensive switches are a necessity or even desirable compared to the ability to build any configuration if one spends a couple of days learning how to build their own. If one wants to model in O scale bad enough there's ways to make it happen at no greater cost than modeling in any other scale, and if other considerations are more important than the scale then they should take precedence for that person.......DaveB 

It is tempting to shift gears and help Andy.  He wants to be an O Scaler, but apparently will wait until shelf couplers and targeted ground throws are produced.  My impression is that he is the only one who wants these items, and that Protocraft has tired of his demands.

 

So let him know - if there is a pent-up demand for these items, a giant tsunami of requests ought to get the ball rolling, and Alan can then become a card-carrying 2-railer, assuming that the correct hopper cars can be found to go with these couplers.

 

I cannot help beyond that - I am still using a lot of Monarchs, and don't care about switch throws.  But surely we as a group can let him know if his quest is reasonable?

I think this answers part of the reason that a number of builders don't choose O scale right here, though some guys here won't admit it:

 

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/atlas-o-scale-news

 

O scale can offer more realism value due to it's size and the ability to offer accurate sized details. 

 

Then the stuck in the 30's-50's mentality takes over. 

 

Little wonder why the scale can't attract young blood.

Dave,

 

You forget one very important point:

 

Many model railroaders don't want to hand lay track, let alone turnouts.  I surely don't, especially nowadays. That's not an enjoyable part of the hobby for many folks.

 

A manufactured turnout takes what, 30-45 seconds installed from box to roadbed.  How long does it take an experienced person to build a turnout?  How about an inexperienced person?

 

The closest I've gotten to hand laying was using some Old Pullman #5 kits (when they used to offer S Scale products) on my S scale railroad.

 

After cutting stripwood for ties, staining, locating the ties, gluing, gauging (they were a tad wide) spiking rail and tweaking the point rails, I knew I didn't want to have to do it again.

 

The only reason I bought them was they fit the situation where I needed them at the time. (And I was feeling more adventurous 30 years ago)  If they wouldn't have been available, I would adjusted my plan requirements and used the Shinohora #6's in their place.

 

Building and hand laying you own good looking turnouts (judging by your earlier photo) may be right up your alley, but I don't think folks should be excluded from their favorite modeling scale because it's not up their alley.

 

Rusty

Back to the original question:

"I am wondering why people choose to build in HO when they have more than enough space for a O scale layout.  This layout was built as a display.  In my opinion, an O scale layout with its larger trains and buildings would be much easier for the public to see."

There are many reasons people choose the scale (and gauge) they do – certainly one size doesn't fit all.

 

In the case of that very fine HO Colorado Rockies theme railroad I expect neither cost nor knowledge of what's available in O 2 rail was a factor in choosing HO.   I believe the smaller size of HO scale enabled the builder to better capture how the terrain of the Rockies dwarfs the  railroads traversing them.  On these pages we've seen videos of very nice O scale railroads set in the west, but to my eye none of them has captured the feel of mainline railroading in the Rockies better than the HO display layout that gave rise to this thread.  One would need 4 times the square footage (and possibly a taller building) to get the same effect in O scale.  I’m adding that Colorado HO display to my bucket list of must see model railroads, right along with the HO display in Hamburg, Germany.

 

I converted to O scale (1971) from HO after visiting John Armstrong’s O scale railroad.  Prior to that time my only exposure to O scale was seeing a few tarnished brass Max Gray locomotives in Chicago’s All Nation Hobby shop.  Seeing O scale on a shelf didn’t do anything for me – seeing it in operation was another matter.  The mass of O scale was a deciding factor for me (8 times that of HO), and viewed up close I could appreciate the many small details on steam locomotives and rolling stock.  As a model builder I’ve found working in a larger scale has many advantages – particularly as one ages.  It’s no coincidence that many of the grey heads at O scale2 rail shows first started in smaller scales when family resources were tight, time was scarce, and eyesight better.  In my case the decision regarding choice of scale wasn't terrain dominating the trains, but the trains being the prominent player.

 

 If I had Alan Hummel’s focus on contemporary railroading I would go HO for two reasons - wider selection of rolling stock, and a scale which better accommodates large cars and long train.  That said, for transition era modelers O scale 2 rail has more to offer than ever before.  As far as turnouts, Lou Cross’s Right-O-Way turnout castings provide an easy to build, low cost, great looking, and better performing alternative to the Chinese made commercial ones.

 

Two rail O scale model railroading isn’t for everyone, but hopefully exposure to it on this fairly active forum will encourage some to consider it.

 

Ed Rappe

"Many model railroaders don't want to hand lay track, let alone turnouts.  I surely don't, especially nowadays. That's not an enjoyable part of the hobby for many folks.

 A manufactured turnout takes what, 30-45 seconds installed from box to roadbed.  How long does it take an experienced person to build a turnout?  How about an inexperienced person?"

 

   It's not just 30-45 seconds per turnout, you have to consider the whole process. Layout design,ordering the parts,building the bench, roadbed, installing the turnouts,wiring the rails, the switch machines, ballasting, weathering, final detailing, foliage, etc. So a couple of hours per turnout is a minimal addition and might even be a wash after we take into account the time spent searching for appropriate factory built turnouts and ordering them versus just building what you need at home when the mood strikes. I don't see much difference in the attractiveness of spending time on handlaying a turnout compared to all the other layout tasks we must do? One still as to cut and fit track even when buying "ready to run" turnouts. I think it's more of a perception that's it's hard to build a turnout so folks pay a high price to not build them when it's really not any harder than anything else we do once one gets into the process? In this respect Fast Tracks has gone a long way toward educating folks about hand laid track which is great and usually they advance beyond needing a jig for every turnout after some practice......DaveB

Good point, and it applies to any aspect of this (or any other) hobby.
For example, a pal of mine pretty much did all the wiring on my layout with a mutual friend because:

• I'd never done serious wiring before
• Never worked with DCC before
• Wanted it to work

So, it went that way. And why? Because I'm clueless of such things and they come easy for the two of them. I don't regret it at all because wiring doesn't spin my spurs.

Now, one of the same guys who feels wiring is easy, wouldn't dream of taking on my conversions of rolling stock, creating decals by hand and all the weathering I've done. Also, scratch building structures isn't something that spins his spurs.

These things are easy (and relatively enjoyable) to me. But it'd be crazy for me to think the same should apply to him or anyone reading this.

Right you are, Rusty. I hand laid track on two medium layouts, and on one large layout. NEVER AGAIN.

 

Besides the tedium I don't enjoy, it's a time issue: Where do I want to invest my very limited (at this point) hobby time?

 

No "plop n' play" S "scale" switches was one of the factors in my decision to leave S scale.

I wonder if you could take Atlas 3-rail number 5 and larger switches and just take the center rail out?  Paint and ballast could cover where the center rail location.  The jumpers on the bottom of the turnout could be cut to insulate the outside rails.  Of course, at code 250 the 3 rail turnout might be too large for most modelers and the frogs might need to be reworked to get smaller flange equipment to run through it. 

 

I do run 2-rail passenger and freight cars on my 3-rail layout.  I have had to make some minor modifications to the guard rails to make it reliable.

 

Joe

We'll stop at installing switch machines (manual or motors) for now for now, because some don't get to the point of ballasting, painting rails, final detailing or it happens at a much later date.  (My 30 year old railroad is only 1/3 scenicked.)

 

All that stuff has to happen regardless whether your building a switching layout or laying down a loop of track.  I'm isolating the turnouts from the overall layout construction time.  That's the time I'm talking about.

 

As I mentioned earlier, my railroad uses manufactured and pre-fabbed turnouts.  All that was already planned for, so the actual installation time for the turnouts ran from a minute or so for the manufactured turnouts.  The pre-fabs took probably an 45 minutes-hour waiting for drying times and then fiddling about tuning them up.

 

I probably could build my own turnouts with some practice.  I don't want to.  It's that simple.  Myself and other folks shouldn't be looked down upon because of it.

 

I spend 40 hours a week looking through a magnifier at a workbench repairing sophisticated electronics.  Coming home, sitting at a workbench, looking through a magnifier isn't exactly what I call enjoyment right now.  That and other current responsibilities also have a dampening effect on my model building.

 

I also don't do my own oil changes on my car like some other folks I know, that's what places like Jiffy-Lube are for.  Does that mean I really shouldn't be driving?  Jiffy-Lube replaces a task I have no interest in doing and allows me to enjoy my car more, much like manufactured turnouts do for my chosen hobby.

 

Rusty

If I can, anybody can....although I am perplexed as to any need for a magnifier, even with my rather lousy vision.  And, the converse is equally true.

 

And, I built mine not really because I wanted to, but because it let me do what I wanted to do.

 

Nno one made switches that conformed to my track plans. I want my track to go where I decided - not where a commercial switch makes that decision for me.  Could get custom switches made now, but not then, but that's also not cheap.

 

It saved a lot of money.  A bundle of code 125 rail is relatively cheap.

 

And instead of folks going on the internet bemoaning that the supply of track and switches from Atlas or whoever is making it impossible to finish a layout or to lay track, being free from that constraint lets one continue building.

 

Being able to exercise a little independence can be useful at times,

 

 

 

 

 

Well, obviously this thread is drifting off into a thread of those involved in 0 scale 2 rail feeling the need to justify themselves for their decision, when no justification is needed.

 

The original poster asked "why?".  In response, some of us that are NOT doing O scale 2 rail politely posted replies saying why we weren't. 

 

However, apparently, our reasons are not "correct".  So, we've been told why our reasons are not satisfactory or acceptable, and how that if we really were modelers we'd overcome any obstacle as well as being exhorted to "be independent/creative/fill-in-the-blank".

 

Jerry, aka "gnnpnut" made a post that, once again, hit the nail on the head for many of us that chose a different path than O scale 2 rail, but for some reason his post in this thread no longer appears.

 

I can't seem to change my preferences.  O scale 2 rail is really nice to look at, and all that jazz. (I can even overlook the odd appearance of equipment sitting on the 5' gauge track for the advantage of the size/heft.)  But the bottom line is that my preferences caused HO to win out.  Sure sorry it turned out that way, and I certainly didn't mean to fuel the fires of avid O scalers, but the question was asked.  Reckon' I'll know better that to share personal experiences next time!

 

Anyway, you all have a great time with your model trains, and I hope to do likewise, even if they are "itsy bitsy teeny weeny little trains just like a wienie". (Sung to the tune of "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny, Yellow Polka-dot Bikini".)

Than you,Rusty you made my point,that it is a matter of tradeoffs and what
we like to do and have time for.I grew up a gearhead,repairing cars
(re:Italian sports cars),these days I don't have time to do much or the
energy.I have found that people who do tech work often find enjoyment in
non tech,some conventional operators do so out of cost or fear of command
control engines breaking,others cause they enjoy a break from hi tech.

2 rail O is a classic example of opportunity cost, for some the costs of
that choice whether it be the money cost,having to scratchbuild some
things,space tradeoffs,lack of selection,the benefits are worth it,for
others no so much.I do agree that I think some people don't even look at 2
rail O who might otherwise try it ,but it all comes down to tradeoffs.
On Apr 4, 2015 8:07 AM, "O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum" <alerts@hoop.la>
wrote:

I've built turnouts in O scale. My first one was a bit rough, but it worked just fine (I started a thread on it). I've since built a few in HO scale.

 

I'd rather buy a turnout than build one, but building a turnout if I need one to fit a special situation is no big deal. 

 

Right now HO scale is the best choice for me, but I intend to keep my O scale equipment.

 

Jeff C

People posting reasons of "why not" certainly bears response from those who are making the "why" case. I don't see them as justifications as laming puts it. I see them as providing real life, working alternatives. They may not be beneficial to YOU but they may be beneficial to someone else. I don't see a problem with people posting one way or the other.

"I probably could build my own turnouts with some practice.  I don't want to.  It's that simple.  Myself and other folks shouldn't be looked down upon because of it."

 

  Not wanting to build your own turnouts is not the same as not knowing that it's possible. My comments are aimed at the guys who think they can't model in O scale because turnouts are too expensive or not available in the configuration they need. It's not looking down on folks to try and answer their problems, it's education and support. When you look at the big picture of building a layout it seems very unimportant that one might need to spend a couple of hours building each turnout to be able to model in their first choice of scales. If the scale is most attractive there's ways to make it work....DaveB  

quote:

 I don't see them as justifications as laming puts it.

 

 

Perhaps if you'll carefully reread the some of the posts, you'll see where I'm coming from. However, I really didn't want to also have to defend/debate my last post, either.

 

Bottom line: It's all toy trains. Some of us have preferences that cause us to choose O/S/HO/N/Whatever.  My mistake was answering the question and posting some of the reasons why I chose HO. I'll know better than to make that mistake again.

 

As for me, I see things to like and admire about each scale, including the narrow gauges and really large scales. I like them all.  However, I'm not trying to convince others that their choice, based on their preferences, is "incorrect".

 

I'm really trying to play nice here, so I probably need to just say "let's all have fun with our trains, regardless of our scale choices", and quietly slip out the door.

 

 

 "My mistake was answering the question and posting some of the reasons why I chose HO. I'll know better than to make that mistake again."

 

   I don't see that as a mistake I see it as valuable information for folks trying to figure out how to proceed. The more information the better the final choice will be....DaveB

True.

[  With apologies to Ira and Bunny  ]

 

I've been around the US by train,

have model railroads on the brain,

but I'm broken hearted,

' cause I can't get started -- in 0.

 

I scratchbuild all my passenger cars

my HO pikes in MR's

my Gauge One's in a showcase,

but I get no place -- in 0

 

It's so supreme, the plans I have for 0,

Daydream, dream, day and night of 0

Travel miles, just for the sight of 0

But what good does that do ?

 

I've designed Heritage units for Wick,

Dispatched the Corridor first trick

But I'm suffering burn out

'cause I can't find a turnout -- in 0

 

For couplers I designed the Type G

and I sit on the Board of KD

But with all of my self-hype

I can't buy a shelf type -- in 0

 

I've got an airplane hanger to fill,

You'd think 0 would fit the bill

But there's all of these goblins,

"Unsolvable problems" -- in 0.......     [ Insert appropriate 'Smiley thing' here ]

 

SZ