G Scale - Which one is it!

[TonyWalsham]

Hi HJ.

QUOTE: And I'm reasonably certain that isn't "end of story" yet and I'm waiting with bated breath what crazy scale it will be when they decide to enter the UK market in order to compete with the funky Class 66 that Aristo announced.

In order for LGB to compete with the Class 66 it will actually have to be made and marketed.

[Capt Bob Johnson]

Madam Moderator,

This whole subject of Scale & Gauge, the adherance of various manufacturers to standards of scale, and the posting of scale on boxes is one that has become painfully redundant to the longer term reader of the forum.

Notwithstanding the importance of the subject and the need for the newby to understand the matter, how much more is there to be said about it?

I would suggest that this and several past threads on the subject be edited and moved into either a sticky (which may be becoming overused), or a subject header of its own. Thus, Q&A of the sort could rapidly be moved over to that area by forum authorities, and reduce the clutter to those who are familiar with the subject or don't care to read any more about it!

[vsmith]

Chicken Egg Chicken Egg Chicken Egg Chicken Egg Chicken Egg

I say,,,,Omelet!

interesting discussion, I was at a train swap meet yesterday, when I was sorting thru a magazine pile, someone tried to take a back issue of the Gazette out my "buy" pile which forced me to show my teeth and s growl like a starved wolf looking at Bambi. It lead to a conversation which this person asked me what scale i was in, I said "large scale" blank look in responce..."G" I added. "Oh thats what were here looking for!" anyway, The term "G" (scale or gauge) is what most people in other scales consider large scale to be, its going to be with us forever, like it or not.

I always thought G stood for Gummi- and like a gummi-snack it could be stretched or compressed to fit the mouth of whoevers chewing it!

Actually NMRA tried to impose some sort of order onto this chaos...they came up with...

G = 1/22.5 LGB meter gauge on 45 mm track
F = 1/20.3 true scale 3' gauge on 45mm track
A = 1/29 scale, larger than scale standard gauge represented on 45mm track.
#1 = 1/32 scale, true scale standard gauge on 45 mm track
also
H = 1/24 scale, can be true scale for 3'6" gauge or 1/2" scale 3' narrow gauge models represented on 45mm track
1/13 = 7/8"=1'-0" scale I forget what the letter denomination was althought i beleive 7/8" has always been 7/8" scale, representing 2' gauge narrow gauge on 45mm track

NMRA didnt mess with the mostly British scales like 16mm as they were already well established in their own right.

All this kinda came to naught, because even though we complain and complain and complain ( see above posts ) about it, no one ( mfrs, modelers, editors ) seems to be even remotely interested in actually fixing it.

So I'll just keep refering to it as "Gummi"

[Tom The Brat]

Bet he didn't mean to start a fight[^]

[FJ and G]

Please allow me to further muddy the water.

I'm modeling O scale 1:48 on O gauge track.

I also occasionally model semi scale (1:50-1:60) on O gauge track.

I purchased a steam RR set that is approx. 1:24, which I will run on O gauge track.

Some model RRers in UK model 1:19 and even 1:13 on O gauge track, meaning 2 ft and smaller such as the slate mine trains of Wales or even the Maine 2 footers in the US or industrial Railroads.

Bottom line is that you can have fun with any gauge or scale and you even can find a prototype of just about anything you wish.

BTW, Trains mag in their last issue published an article about a narrow gauge RR in S.C. still using link and pin couplers.

[Anonymous]

I can only run 1:22.5, as this is what LGB invented back in the 60's and due to various circumstances that i have with my layout i can only run LGB.

But i regard myself as a fairly smart person and i have read much on this subject of scale and i just cannot see to much sense in the whole thing.


Rgds Ian

[markperr]

And still more mud. 150# rail in actual height is 7.75". That equates to .242" in 1/32 gauge. So technically, code 250 rail is too high, albeit near microscopically, and code 332 rail is outta the question completely. If you plan on modeling 130# rail, that's .211" in 1/32. Too tall for code 197, too short for code 250. Is there something in between?

My point? Many of us mix and match our rolling stock and locos. It's a hobby that denies all but the truly dedicated, the ability of total fidelity to scale. If that's what you want, I say "GO FOR IT"! My personal level of dedication is not that high, however, I do admire those who are, for their desire to recreate in the tiniest detail with total scale fidelity throughout.

Remember first and foremost, to have fun.

Mark

[Capt Bob Johnson]

If we get too picky about scale, we're rivet counters: If we are rather loose in our interpretation, we are Gummi Bears!

That poses a new slant or question on the subject, where is the laid back middle ground in all this?

If your rolling stock is 1:29, how divergent can you be before it starts looking grotesque?

I can see 1/32 as being somehow compatable, and you can get lots of vehicles in that scale, but don't 1/32 trucks look kinda stupid next to or close to a 1:25 sports car? and sitting outside of a 1:24 or 1:22.5 building? My eyes are immediately drawn to door sizes!

So, what are your limits, or how far do you bend it?

[vsmith]

Its all relative, scale wise...

I like to use 1:18 cars since they "look" better next to my narrow gauge stuff than 1/24 cars, yet I use 1/24 scale Piko structures as again they dont look bad next to the narrow gauge engines. If I was doing 1/32 scale standard guage I'd have to use custom buildings but I could use 1/32 cars, but at 1/29 scale 1/24 cars dont look out of place, but the 1/24 Piko buildings look too large.

So its all a question of what looks right to my eye.

[spodwo]

HighwayHenry -

Back slowly away.....just go to my website - look at the trains, the enjoyment, the fun I have with the Hobby and then start looking at trains that you like the looks of....Utimately, you will find locomotives that appeal to your "view" of the hobby. As you go along on your quest for your layout - continue to ask questions on this and other LS forums that are free for your perusal. You will get a myriad of answers and somewhere in the middle of all that is happiness.

http://lizardattitude.homestead.com

And once you get your layout done to your liking - enjoy it. Whether it is a highly detailed and accurate scale/gauge RR or toys traveling through tulips, you will know if it is right as it is your RR. Everyone else's opinion and historical refernce is offered up for the taking or the ignoring. I run all the "scales" on my 45 mm track. I don't go into convulsions when I do either! [:D]

Stephen Podwojski in the Land of Lincoln

[RhB_HJ]

Hey Pod,

There's a new organization taking shape in Europe, calling themselves the "Global Association of Garden Railroaders" (at least that's how I translate it!)



Anything goes on 45mm track!!!! I suggested to them that they should contact your org.
Wouldn't hurt if all the "G" orgs (G as in "Gee what scale is that??"[}:)][}:)]) get together. What do you think????? (Nothing to do with the "give us our daily laugh" thread)[:p][:p][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

Well said Pod . And now recently I understand your , O scale/gauge/size trains interest also .
Yes , I now have 2 LIONEL trains , Thomas of course , and another , and my 2 small grandchildren and I , are having a really good time on the floor with them , there is so much enjoyable train related fun to be had with trains of all sizes/gauges/scales .
[:p][:)][:D] for all trains !

[DannyS]

I don not really think that Lehman, use "G" to mean Garden (or Garten in Deutch), it means Gross (Large or Big in German). Lehman Gross Bahn = Lehman Big Trains.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DannyS

I don not really think that Lehman, use "G" to mean Garden (or Garten in Deutch), it means Gross (Large or Big in German). Lehman Gross Bahn = Lehman Big Trains.

DannyS,

You have a point there!

However my feeling is that LGB refers to "G" in any which way, that fits any which situation, at any which time.

Commonly that is referred to as "True Flexibility" and I freely admit that it fits very well with their approach to scale in general.

If all the stars are in alignment we will get the "definitive, authorative answer" any minute now. My money is on "G=45mm", but it is a very small amount, usually just in the [2c][2c] range. [;)][;)][;)][:D][:D]

[kstrong]

Hmmm, now I really want to find my old LGB catalog. I know I've seen "G" in reference to "Garten," but Danny's memory jog has merit. The "G" in LGB definitely stands for Gross. I'll buy his argument.

Incedentally, I found a blurb in a 1974 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman in which they describe LGB's "large scale" line of trains. So, within a mere 5 years of LGB's introduction, the scale already has an identity crisis. No wonder we can't make heads or tails now. [:)]

Later,

K

[RhB_HJ]

Hmmmm, now I really had to get out those old MR issues. Someone mentioned on one of the fora that LGB was at one time even advertised as "K".

I haven't found that ad yet, but I found a review of a LGB engine in the DEC '73 MR.



You'll need to click on the picture to get it up to size!

It would appear there is a tradition which continued with the recent 1:22.5 "Genesis"!

OK here goes:
the scale is referred to as "1:22.5 Gm";
the engine is described as a "German-prototype meter-gauge tank locomotive", in actual fact it is an "Austrian-prototype 760mm gauge tank engine" built by Krauss/Linz

Mentioned are:
Length 6.4m (6400mm); actual length 7182mm
Width 2.29m (2290mm); actual width ????
Height 3.4m (3400mm); actual height 3018mm
(trying to get the data from one of my Austrian buddies)
Wheel dia 838mm; actual 820mm
Yes, they mentioned that the dimensions were conversions from imperial measurements!
And just how speedy it is: 45 smph; the proto does a leisurely 35kmh (that's about half of the 45smph).

OK I'll get back to looking for that ad, if someone by chance has an early 70s LGB catalogue, please let us know how they defined "G" in the "Dark Ages". [;)][}:)][;)][:D][:D]

PS Slowly but surely the data is rolling in, I'm still looking for the width of the 298 Series "U" engine. [;)][:)][;)]

[Capt Bob Johnson]

Ah Hmmmm,
I'm beginning to note a trend. I read in several fora an awful lot of critisism of LGB for the "artistic license" it takes regarding the elusive and somewhat elastic scale to which it builds its offerings; what I'm not reading, however, is criticism of what I would call its operating engineering.

This would seem to indicate that if LGB were to pick an actual scale and adhere to it rather than to try to be everything to everybody, it would truly be the superior product line that it pretends to be!

Hidden in all this is another argument for the manufacturers to form some sort of standards association and get on track with standardizing on a scale, coupler design, coupler height, and the myriad of other details to truly make G become bigger, rather than the fragmented populace it is today!

For my money there should be one scale to represent standard main line operations and another for narrow guage --- scrap the rest or leave them to the scratchbuilders!
The idea of having 5 or 6 different scales is detrimental to the growth of the hobby because a manufacturer never knows where to go next!

[RhB_HJ]

And a little add-on....

Back in February 1972 LGB took out a full page ad in the MR, announcing that they're "back" (where had they been before that???)..............



.......of some historical significance is the .... "G" GAUGE... designation.
BTW I'm still looking for that "K" size ad, it must have been prior to 1972. From when they weren't back yet. [;)][:)][;)]

And yes my friends, I have obtained a whole bunch of fine drawings of that 298.14 engine in the 1973 ad. It just takes time to go over all the stuff and determine "a few things". [;)][:)][;)]

[kstrong]

HJ,

I believe the "K" scale ads are from '68 or '69--they were very early ads from when LGB was just coming on the market. Alas, I've since passed my old MR mags on to other modelers, but I'll keep my eyes out around the house for the odd stragler.

BTW, thanks for the review. The 2070 (virtually identical, except for a different stack) was our first loco. Cool to read about it.

Later,

K

[underworld]

I'm working with 1/32.....as my trains are Marklin pre war tinplate. There does seem to be a bit of variation in scale between different years of manufacture and different cars.

underworld

aka The Violet

[on30francisco]

I am a recent convert from On30 to Large Scale modeling. I had a hard time deciding what scale to build to. I debated between 1:20.3 and 1:22.5. I chose 1:20.3 but use detail parts and items from both scales. I approach LS modeling as a model railroader and try to make things as close as possible to 1:20.3 for critical dimensions such as the height of doors. For other things such as detail parts or rolling stock length and width - as long as they look plausible, are not critical dimensions, or are more convenient to use - I say "good enough!" I'm building a small indoor freelanced logging railroad that will use equipment that can negotiate the tight curves I must have in this small SF studio apartment.