Jeff, I agree with Dave. There was a shock on my part when I started looking at the prices of S-scale engines (and rolling stock) as compared to N-scale (which I had been modeling before). However, the amount of S-scale "stuff" you can squeeze into the same space for N-scale was substantially less. I did have to scale down my modeling. It had always been my goal in N-scale to model the PRR's 4-track mainline, which is an impossibility for me in S. However, I am now modeling a branchline, which requires less equipment. I am, actually, using the *exact same space* I had set aside for my N-scale layouts in the previous 4 years before switching to S.
My point is, I needed 20+ engines (and a matching amount of rolling stock) to model a convincing section of the PRR 4-track mainline, but I only need two engines to model the branchline effectively in S. I have looked into O-scale a few times when I got frustrated with S, but, I had just as hard a time finding things that I wanted in O as I did in S. I am, therefore, now firmly planted in S. HO doesn't appeal to me at all; the proportions don't feel right (HO-scale has always had a "toy"-like feeling to me). And now that I have adjusted my visual "norm" to S, HO-scale seems very small. All I can say is that I am very happy that I switched from N to S. I have a much greater sense of accomplishment and happiness in the modeling railroading hobby with S than I ever had in N. Do what makes you feel happy; it's a hobby! - Peter. On 05/30/2011 10:26 am, ctxmf74 wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Jeff Ngowe"<chocolatte777@...> wrote: >> Going online to buy supplies led me across ebay, where i found>rollingstock >> much cheaper than its MSRP. This (and looking at>pictures of David Stewart's >> A&O) got me thinking that perhaps S>scale>was more financially viable (I am >> always thwarted by O scale's>high>entry cost) than I had previously >> ascertained and that i>should look>into the "street price" of S >> rollingstock. > If you look into it more you'll find O scale doesn't have as high an > entry cost as S scale does. There's a lot more used O stuff floating around > out there than there is S stuff. This coupled with O's huge size thus the > need for less stuff to fill up the space makes O quite affordable but it > still doesn't over-ride it's huge size disadvantage when one is trying to get > an interesting realistic looking track plan and scenery into a reasonably > sized space. If you are only thinking in cost per square foot then O ranks > right up there with HO scale in affordability.....dave -- Peter Vanvliet ([email protected], or [email protected]) Houston, Texas "It is easy to give up; anyone can do that..." http://pmrr.org/ (my model railroad - RSS feed <http://pmrr.org/rss.xml>) http://fourthray.com/ (my company) http://houstonsgaugers.org/ (model railroad club) -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
