Z or N scale for newb

Thanks Z'ss

I am going to go with N no doubt, just easier all around for a newb. The selection of hardware in N makes me go this way and the ol eyes are not what they used to be. I think I can make a nice N layout in 24x48 or so, nothing out of this world but nice. I am looking foward to detailing and weathering the trains themselves and building the buildings. have not decided on Mine or City type layout yet though this will be my biggest decision to make.

Tony

 

I have an N-scale layout with 24"x48". It looks nice, but you may get the feeling that you should have either done z-scale or had a bigger n-scale layout.

 

Yes, I can see doing a Z in the future maybe. I want to break into model RRing with N, way easier for the beginner. Z would be the scale for my limited space but I'm gonna give N a shot anyway.
Ralph, that is the space I have unfortuately , but my focus is on building a accurate to scale train related diorama with a running train, detail is my focus in all things trackwork, groundwork, detailed Loco's and rolling stock etc. I agree if I wanted to run trains akll the time a larger layout would be the way to go.

Thanks Tony

 

Z scale looks like the ticket based on your size issues.

Hope you have small hands.

 

No kid big hands but N is it for me for now anyway, We'll see what the future brings as far as Z goes. I am used to working small though think I can handle it.

Thanks Tony

 

At the WGH show in Long Beach, I heard the usual complaint that the trains too small and the person's hands too big. I asked the guy to hold his hand up, palm out and I put my hand up. My thumb to pinky length was about three inches more than his. Then you get the "it's too small to see geting the cars back on the track." excuse. I have found that by looking at the coupler (on truck mounted couplers) and which way it is pointing, I can easily put cars back on the track. Demonstrating this to people at shows helps to allay their fear of not being able to work with Z.

 

Good and valid points Robert,

Years ago, (1975 to be exact) I began a N scale layout. It was my first serious layout attempt and I was as green and inexperienced in every aspect of model railroading as Tony says he is. What I did have was a glorious dream of a magnificient layout that would not only please me visually and operationally, but dazzle anyone else viewing it.
It was going to be very unique as it was on a wide enough book shelf to actually make a decent radius curve and other qualities about it that would have made it stand out. I got track laid and began the wiring and then for some reason lost to me now, set it aside and finally ripped it all out and restored the book shelf to original conditon, (I think much to the pleasure of my then wife).

In thinking back on that experience, I can now imagine that it could have been a very beautifully scenicked layout, but it would have had one potentially horrorendous flaw.......the trackage went through a partition and behind the fireplace flu. It was one of those fireplace insert jobs where the flu is insulated and you can almost touch it when the fire is going. The flu was hidden behind a portion of the book case and the trackage would have been impossible to clean and access.......

Back to the future and Tony, this is for you. I agree with Robert that N scale offers everything you could possibly want in beginning a new layout for the first time. It is much easier to see and work with, the choices are almost beyond scope and the prices are cheap compared to Z scale.

With that said I must honestly tell you that you aren't going to get much railroading in the size you say you have to work with. True, you can make a small circle and detail it beautifully, but if you are after any operation at all, you will find that 'round and round' soon gets very boring.

If you do the same layout in Z scale, you will still have the 'roundy roundy' to contend with, with maybe a little more track due to smaller size, (maybe a passing siding or spur), but you will have a much more realistic looking scene because you will have more space to fill up.

In real life railroading, you most often have little little track compared to lots of scenery, be it rural, city, industrial, or country.

You look in magazines and you will often see complicated track plans with way too much track with a few or little in the way of structures, features, and scenery. I call it spaghetti railroading.

Folks often try to get as much railroading in a small space as they can, thinking they are really making something 'cool looking'. Now, maybe it is cool looking to them, but in reality, is sure isn't 'real looking'.

A wise sage told me years ago when I started in Z scale to make my railroad look as real as possible, and folks after viewing your layout would walk away saying to themselves....'there's something about that model railroad that looks familiar."
That 'familiar' would be the fact that the scene they just viewed reminded them of real life scenes they have seen. It all somehow looked familiar even though what they viewed wasn't necessarily something they had seen in real life, but never the less, it did look realistic in many ways.

What I'm being long winded about and need to make simpler, is that with Z scale, you can take your limited space and make your model railroad look much more true to life than if you went to a larger scale in the same alloted space.

Taking all things into consideration; eyesight, good hands, space to work with, money, time, challenge, etc. you will find Z scale to actually offer you the biggest bang for your time and buck spent.

That's about 35 cents worth I believe )

 

Depends what a person wants really. If you want a lot of rolling stock and different loco's than do N scale. You want to model and on scencery where a piece of ballast out of place can change a whole scene, then try Z. I do both and will always claim to be Z first. But there are times I want to run a daylight, a 2-8-8-2, an american and so forth. So I run N. I am much more happy with Z perhaps because I can't just buy what I want.

 

Confused now to say the least but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Thanks for the knowledgeable replies guys, love to hear opinions from veterans to the hobby.
Yes I agree with all the comments made, but is N or Z for me ,,,,,,

I do notice that many Z 'ers do Z and N for some reason??

Joe yes I know I am going to be a Loco and rolling stock hound, love the engines and cars, even if I don;t run them. Being a modeler for many years I will definately get into car kits, detailing etc. This is what I love, just want to try the RR aspect of it now.

Pray, I agree with all that you say, but am now really up in the air thats for sure.

Loren, you're enough to make a guy really think ! thank you but I just don't really know yet which way to go.
.
I like N as I can buy what I want when I want it, this is huge for me,, one thing I hate is shopping for things online or at shops, just never did enjoy that part of modeling. If I need it I want to be able to order it and get it Now. I do however Love research more than actual modeling sometimes, in my armor and ship modeling I would research a unit for months before building the model. So research is a good time killer for me while mulling over my next move.

After looking at Z and seeing all the constant work on trackage, Loco's, turnouts that is involved just to keep it up and running, It seems to have alot of negatives, for me anyway. I don't want to do alot of mechanical work on my trains, I did mechanical work in 1/1 scale for too long, I just want to build a great looking layout. I do have to consider your comment about spagetti RR'ing, having looked at many plans I see what you mean.

Layout plans are another thing I am studying alot and do not want the classic oval at all. A Point to Point, maybe with a loop may be better for me with switching possible. It all depends on whether I go with the Mill City or Mining RR plan.
I agree though that in my small space Z would be the way to go as far as trackage and realism goes. No doubt about it. Just the thought of 1/4 " between rails ?? just don't know if I can deal with that. I do know that if and when done it would be impressive.

This layout is a first endeavor into the unknown for me, I have the patients, I know I have the modeling skills, and scenic skills, I just have no room, I could adapt this tiny closet like room to a larger layout where I could have side shelf trackage off the letf side of the layout for a yard or whatever but I don't really know how much longer I''ll be in this house so portability is key also. Money is at a very minimal level to spend, I do have time though to work on what I can fit in this area. So...........

I have not bought not even a piece of track yet so, I am still mulling this over as we speak.

Thanks much, Tony

 

Tony,
I feel led to respond once again to your valid concerns.

I freely admit that I am trying to coax you to Z scale and for that I am not ashamed. With the exception of very few, those who venture into Z scale find a challenge unlike any other scale offers.

There is something rather magical about Z that is not easily defined, rather more or less enjoyed in a special sense.

Z offers challanges that no other scale can present and therein lies the fun of it. To mimic in Z what most do in N turns into a "ta da, I did it" feeling when all is said and done.

You mention liking to research thoroughly before beginning a project.......well this is certainly true in Z also.

Since there is less to choose from, there is more hunting and adapting, scratch building, and kit bashing and the sense of accomplishment when finished is quite honestly "chest expanding" when folks marvel that something so beautiful and yes, "charming" has been made.

As a shining example for all to witness, you must examine David Smith's fantastic work in Z scale. Most of his accomplishments and masterpiece layouts are constructed with scratch building a major component. The results are beyond criticism and an inspiration to all who view them.

This is not to say there are not others who do remarkable work in Z also, it's just that David's work is a cut above almost everyone and many aspire to reach some level of craftsmanship that approaches what David so beautifully articulates.

You say you have the talents to achieve some fine work, well, I say go for it and give it a try.

And I'll stick by my guns when saying that you get so much more in the given space in Z than in any other scale.

BTW, David is now working on some Z narrow gauge and a mixed scale I believe, so the limits have not yet been met.

Ok, I'm done pushing and shoving. You choose your main course and chew it thoroughly.

All the best in your train adventure,
Loren

 

P.S. Tony.

You won't find a more friendly, helpful, passionate bunch of fellow modelers than in Z scale. True, we do get in tiffs occasionally, but for the most part, we are a real brotherhood.......AND sisterhood.

Icing on the cake,

 

I'll agree with Loren about Z being magical. I do not know what it is, but when those little things move and move well, it is kinda entrancing to say the least!

 

I am an N-scaler but I have a few comments.

N scale has more RTR stuff available, but some junk, too.

Z scale has less RTR stuff, but I have yet to see RTR junk in Z.

There are lots of N scale modelers, probably more than Z scale modelers, but Z seems to be the fastest growing scale.

The Z scalers I have met (including those I have "virtually" met here) are almost universally very adventurous modelers. Some of that may be by necessity, since there are, as has been mentioned, few building kits in Z scale and there aren't as many different types of locos available RTR. What I have noticed is that, nearly universally in the Z scale world, there are good modelers and lots of eager modelers constantly sharpening their skills. In the N scale world, by contrast, some people can get all bent out of shape if a manufacturer releases a model of a loco, for example, without sunshades when very clearly the loco prototype had sunshades, etc., etc.

If fine detail modeling is your thing, you can do that in N or Z scale. Since space is at a premium, you'll get more in your 2'x4' space in Z scale, or course.

I come over to the Z scale forum and lurk a bit when I want some encouragement that my kitbash and customization projects (in N) are going to turn out okay.

Enjoy!

Adam

 

Thanks Adam,

We'll never chase you away and you are always welcome to comment and submit and ask questions.

 

Of course it works.

However, myself running away from tight curves, I planned to size down by only 1/4 a 4'x6' track plan made originally for HO (coming from "101 track plans for model railroaders", Kalmbach ed.), sporting ultra tight curves (~18" radius). The result is a layout that is roughly 3' x 4'8", and showing rather broad 14" radius curves for Z scale...

Dom

 

All depends on what you're ready to accept. If you accept tight curves you can set nearly any track plan shape. If you want to stick to broader curves you're committed to anything that looks like a simple ovale or derivative. Or if you prefer a point to point, a "S" shaped layout. For example under that shape you could plan an Appalachian branchline serving a coal mine. The rolling stock is available: various hoppers or coal porters, and GP7s, GP9s, GP35s, SD40-2s or SD70s are convenient locomotives for that.

You only have to keep in mind that if you prefer medium / broad curves you'll have to work with flextrack as manufacturers only release tight curves (195 and 220 mm). Yet there is 490 mm radius curve sectional track but as every section is 13° angled, you can't build any 180° or 360° curves (and whatever you plan, not on the available size you told us about).

Dom

 

Thanks

Thanks everyone, After mulling it over and a long time I think I am going to start in N and if I keep up with the hobby ( I have too many interests) I can then go to Z anytime I want to get my feet wet first. Its all up in the air if we might be moving or not in the near future alot up in the air so no rush on my part. I still have to finish what will be my last ship for some time too !!!

Thanks so much Tony