Still confused with scales.

[Anonymous]

Take a look at the   LargeScaleWiki

Even they can't get it right. They list Gauges under the heading Scales

Per

 

 

Dear Per,

That's the nature of the beast with a Wiki. I happen to know the person who started that particular Wiki topic rather well. The part with the "Gauge 1" etc. was added by someone else, however since the scales in question i.e. 1:32; 1:22.5(6)  are referred to as "Gauge 1" in English and "Spur 1" in German, respectively "Gauge3" in English and "Spur2" in German that is an old carry-over and considerably less confusing than some of the "explanations" one can read in other places.

What governs the scale is still what is quoted on that page:

Definition

The ratio of the prototype (master) to the model i.e 1:xx (xx=any number) The integer "1" stands for the prototype (master). If it leads e.g. 1:20.3; it designates the model as being smaller than the prototype (master). If it follows e.g. 4:1; it designates the model as being larger than the prototype (master).

All the rest follows from there, quite simple.

 

Hope that helps.Best regards

 

ER  

[dwbeckett]

DW

[Capt Bob Johnson]

I guess its all a matter of what flips your skirt!  I sure ain't looking down my nose at anybody who does a creditable job of modeling in any scale or guage; they probably are doing better at it than I can!

[GearDrivenSteam]

What kills me is the On3 crowd. They model O scale (1/48) to represent 3' gauge, handlay all their track, but there's only 1/8" difference in the gauge from their On3 to On30. THEN, they have the nads to look down their noses at the On30 crowd. Figure THAT one out.

[SNOWSHOE]

Wow, I never realized I was opening a can of worms with this question.  It is very intresting hearing everyones thoughts.  I do have a better undertanding now but at the same time a little more confused.  No doubt an intresting topic. 

[Anonymous]

Yes, scales can make a heck of a thread!

Toad

[cabbage]

Hoofe,

You may find this useful, I know it is mainly UK and Colonial stuff -but it will give you some idea of how things developed.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/index.htm#stock

regards

ralph

[cabbage]

The size used by most Edwardian Colonial frieght wagons was 3 feet 3 inches. This is because of mechanics. Large wheels roll easier and smoother than small wheels and the wear on the bearings is lower because of the reduced axle rotation speed. Most axle boxes of the period where plain metal bearing i.e. chunks of white metal with an oil wick beside them...

Coach disc wheels of this period had holes cut in the discs to increase the resonance point and lighten them for higher speed running and were around 4 feet 9 inches.

The wheel hubs of this era could be made of either gun metal or wood, (the latter was normally found in coach wheels -it gave quieter running).

The rims would be painted with either white lead or black bitumen.

My late father was fanatical on the subject of wheels, as he should have been -he was in charge of designing and making them both at Bulawayo and Derby. The most difficult wheels he ever did were for a rebuild of a Midland Counties Railway "Spinner" -they were 8 feet in diameter. The machine had to be stripped down and set for the lowest possible rotation speed (I think they had to make some of the gears too), and the cutters had to be ordered for the highest possible cutting speed. He always said it was the most dangerous thing he had ever done in his life -this from an ex-Chindit...

regards

ralph

[Semper Vaporo]

Also, I have read that On30 is the use of "O-gauge" track to represent 30-inch gauge in the 1/24 scale world. 32mm(gauge) * 24(scale) = 768mm = 30 inches(real world gauge).  Maybe what I read was wrong?  Maybe I misunderstood it?

Almost, On30 is still O scale, 1/48 scale not 1/24 scale. Its not O gauge track but HO track used in O scale to represent 30 inch gauge track.

Now to further confusicate things, there are guys using O guage track in large scale to represent 24" gauge track in G scale, I've seen that referred to as Gn24 in 1/22.5 scale.

And to completely discombobulate things, theres that whole subversive group using HO track in large scale to represent 15 inch gauge track or Gn15 in 1/22.5 scale

Okay, I'll accept that I am wrong in my understanding of what On30 is supposed to mean. I hope that others that have read my prior comments will read further and see your correction so they will not be mislead by my words.

But, it leads to my point as to why I wish the lettered scales had never been promulgated.  Someday in the future someone will say they have an On30 layout and someone else, who is new to this realm will have to ask, "What is On30?"  That will require a full explanation of:

"On30 is O scale, which is 1:48, but using HO scale track (which is 16-mm gauge) to represent a 30-inch gauge track."

Then someone will ask how that is figured and that will get discussed and cussed and someone will get frustrated and award another cat award to the thread.

Then it will happen again a few months later, and again a few more months later, ad nauseum.

Wouldn't it have been simpler for the original statement to be, "I model 30" gauge in 1/48 scale."

Yes, that would require more words for the original statement, but a great savings in frustration on the part of all the newbies for years to come, and a great reduction to the number of repeat threads asking what the non-intuitive letter of the alphabet means.

And there will be no more need for poor obese cats to be dressed in frillies and awarded to threads that some folk wanted and needed to be a serious discussion to understand the subject of "scales".

 

Confusilating aint it?

We did have letter designations, it just  hasnt caught on...

F = 1/20.3 on 64mm track for standard gauge

Fn3 = 1/20.3 on 45mm track for 3' narrow guage

G = 1/22.5 on 45mm track for 1 meter gauge track~or~3' suido-scale narrow guage

H = 1/24 on 45 mm track for 3'6" gauge track

A = 1/29 on 45mm track for 4'-something guage suido-standard gauge

#1 = 1/32 on 45mm track for scale standard gauge

How many of you have ever heard of these in polite conversation?

A part of that cornfuzion is that "number one" is not a "Letter" so it appears to be out of place and to not be a part of the continuum of letter designations.  I have seen a few advertisers express it as the letter "I" apparently because "1" doesn't seem to be right, so it must be an "I".  To combat this some people started to include the pound sign ("#") in front of it.

Of course, in reality, the letter "O" is not supposed to be a "letter" at all, but the number ZERO.  The gauges started at ZERO and progressed up-wards to 1, 2, 3, etc.

When "HO" came along it was supposed to be Half the size of "O", the "H" representing "Half", and thus should be pronounced as "Aitch Zero", (not "Aitch Oh"), (but it is not half of "O" since if it were half of 1:48 it would be 1:96, not 1:87).

This is otherwise known as "designed by a committee", wherein (as per usual) there was no committee and thus made no communication with the other members!  I think synonym is "anarchy".

At least today, we have this forum where we can learn what others have done and are doing and can MAYBE get a bit closer to being on the same page, besotted felines not withstanding.

 

[vsmith]

"ToadFrog&WhiteLightn" wrote:

Yepo, had to give this thread the great RR cat!

Now he has size!

Toad

I think that pic constitutes animal cruelty, just look at how humiliated that poor cat is...even the mice are laughing

Nah, that cat's not humiliated, he's drunker 'n a skunk.

Les W. (7 degrees on the south bank of Ol' MO)

That explains the bottle in the background....

[vsmith]

Also, I have read that On30 is the use of "O-gauge" track to represent 30-inch gauge in the 1/24 scale world. 32mm(gauge) * 24(scale) = 768mm = 30 inches(real world gauge).  Maybe what I read was wrong?  Maybe I misunderstood it?

Almost, On30 is still O scale, 1/48 scale not 1/24 scale. Its not O gauge track but HO track used in O scale to represent 30 inch gauge track.

Now to further confusicate things, there are guys using O guage track in large scale to represent 24" gauge track in G scale, I've seen that referred to as Gn24 in 1/22.5 scale.

And to completely discombobulate things, theres that whole subversive group using HO track in large scale to represent 15 inch gauge track or Gn15 in 1/22.5 scale

Okay, I'll accept that I am wrong in my understanding of what On30 is supposed to mean. I hope that others that have read my prior comments will read further and see your correction so they will not be mislead by my words.

But, it leads to my point as to why I wish the lettered scales had never been promulgated.  Someday in the future someone will say they have an On30 layout and someone else, who is new to this realm will have to ask, "What is On30?"  That will require a full explanation of:

"On30 is O scale, which is 1:48, but using HO scale track (which is 16-mm gauge) to represent a 30-inch gauge track."

Then someone will ask how that is figured and that will get discussed and cussed and someone will get frustrated and award another cat award to the thread.

Then it will happen again a few months later, and again a few more months later, ad nauseum.

Wouldn't it have been simpler for the original statement to be, "I model 30" gauge in 1/48 scale."

Yes, that would require more words for the original statement, but a great savings in frustration on the part of all the newbies for years to come, and a great reduction to the number of repeat threads asking what the non-intuitive letter of the alphabet means.

And there will be no more need for poor obese cats to be dressed in frillies and awarded to threads that some folk wanted and needed to be a serious discussion to understand the subject of "scales".

 

Confusilating aint it?

We did have letter designations, it just  hasnt caught on...

F = 1/20.3 on 64mm track for standard gauge

Fn3 = 1/20.3 on 45mm track for 3' narrow guage

G = 1/22.5 on 45mm track for 1 meter gauge track~or~3' suido-scale narrow guage

H = 1/24 on 45 mm track for 3'6" gauge track

A = 1/29 on 45mm track for 4'-something guage suido-standard gauge

#1 = 1/32 on 45mm track for scale standard gauge

How many of you have ever heard of these in polite conversation?

[hoofe116]

"ToadFrog&WhiteLightn" wrote:

Yepo, had to give this thread the great RR cat!

Now he has size!

Toad

I think that pic constitutes animal cruelty, just look at how humiliated that poor cat is...even the mice are laughing

Nah, that cat's not humiliated, he's drunker 'n a skunk.

Les W. (7 degrees on the south bank of Ol' MO)

[altterrain]

Now to further confusicate things, there are guys using O guage track in large scale to represent 24" gauge track in G scale, I've seen that referred to as Gn24 in 1/22.5 scale.

And to completely discombobulate things, theres that whole subversive group using HO track in large scale to represent 15 inch gauge track or Gn15 in 1/22.5 scale

Not to be too much of a stickler but G scale running on O gauge 32mm track is Gn30.

-Brian 

[Semper Vaporo]

Also, I have read that On30 is the use of "O-gauge" track to represent 30-inch gauge in the 1/24 scale world. 32mm(gauge) * 24(scale) = 768mm = 30 inches(real world gauge).  Maybe what I read was wrong?  Maybe I misunderstood it?

Almost, On30 is still O scale, 1/48 scale not 1/24 scale. Its not O gauge track but HO track used in O scale to represent 30 inch gauge track.

Now to further confusicate things, there are guys using O guage track in large scale to represent 24" gauge track in G scale, I've seen that referred to as Gn24 in 1/22.5 scale.

And to completely discombobulate things, theres that whole subversive group using HO track in large scale to represent 15 inch gauge track or Gn15 in 1/22.5 scale

Okay, I'll accept that I am wrong in my understanding of what On30 is supposed to mean. I hope that others that have read my prior comments will read further and see your correction so they will not be mislead by my words.

But, it leads to my point as to why I wish the lettered scales had never been promulgated.  Someday in the future someone will say they have an On30 layout and someone else, who is new to this realm will have to ask, "What is On30?"  That will require a full explanation of:

"On30 is O scale, which is 1:48, but using HO scale track (which is 16-mm gauge) to represent a 30-inch gauge track."

Then someone will ask how that is figured and that will get discussed and cussed and someone will get frustrated and award another cat award to the thread.

Then it will happen again a few months later, and again a few more months later, ad nauseum.

Wouldn't it have been simpler for the original statement to be, "I model 30" gauge in 1/48 scale."

Yes, that would require more words for the original statement, but a great savings in frustration on the part of all the newbies for years to come, and a great reduction to the number of repeat threads asking what the non-intuitive letter of the alphabet means.

And there will be no more need for poor obese cats to be dressed in frillies and awarded to threads that some folk wanted and needed to be a serious discussion to understand the subject of "scales".

 

[vsmith]

"ToadFrog&WhiteLightn" wrote:

Yepo, had to give this thread the great RR cat!

Now he has size!

Toad

I think that pic constitutes animal cruelty, just look at how humiliated that poor cat is...even the mice are laughing

[vsmith]

Also, I have read that On30 is the use of "O-gauge" track to represent 30-inch gauge in the 1/24 scale world. 32mm(gauge) * 24(scale) = 768mm = 30 inches(real world gauge).  Maybe what I read was wrong?  Maybe I misunderstood it?

Almost, On30 is still O scale, 1/48 scale not 1/24 scale. Its not O gauge track but HO track used in O scale to represent 30 inch gauge track.

Now to further confusicate things, there are guys using O guage track in large scale to represent 24" gauge track in G scale, I've seen that referred to as Gn24 in 1/22.5 scale.

And to completely discombobulate things, theres that whole subversive group using HO track in large scale to represent 15 inch gauge track or Gn15 in 1/22.5 scale

[hoofe116]

TF:

Okay, he's a big 'un. But what scale is he?

Les W (who is freezing even more on the Ol Missouri)

[hoofe116]

Cabbage:

Well, I'm going to assume I must have the conversion factor right, as Semper didn't correct me. What a relief!

Thanks for the Brandbright gif; I think I now have a better understanding of some of your terminology. To develop that subject (terminology) a little more: for me, as a rank newcomer, the designation 'G' is fine. It serves to differentiate from the other major gauges. However, as a retired tool & die maker, it's just too difficult for me to set out to work to an arbitrary or perhaps 'self-designated' --though realistic--size. I need parameters within which to confine my thinking. The plethora of 'scales' in G size is regrettable but no more than that, once one has determined upon which scale one finds most congenial. And I personally don't mind seeing mixed scales on the same layout. It just doesn't bother me. But when I build something, I want to approximate 1/20.3 as nearly as I can without undue strain.

But, you may wonder, what of those undersized gondolas you have? Nothing. They don't worry me at all because as my modelling skills develop, I'll replace them, and in the meantime they serve as approximations for other issues involved in building a layout.

By the way, what is the standard freight wheel diameter in 1/1? Do you happen to know what it was in the last cent--er, in the 19th century? With my newfound scale, I notice the wheels on those gondolas are remarkably large.

To me, this has been a very illuminating thread, and I want to thank all who've taken a moment to participate.

Les W.

[Anonymous]

Yepo, had to give this thread the great RR cat!

Now he has size!

Toad

[cabbage]

David,

I had to learn "Imperial" measurements when we came to England when I was 14 -having grown up in "Metric" country. So, it was not me who abandoned you!!! I would prefer to use the measurements I grew up with -however the English Metrication Board has imposed others. I measure everything in Centimetres ie 1 inch is 2.54cm, I think of pressure in Pascals not Bar... ETC! I grew up in a Centimetre Gramme Second environment and now use SI in my day to day living.

I am currently building European Early Electric Locomotives for my Gauge 3 system. This has been a dream as all the measurements for the loco are already in metric, just divide by 22.6, then once over with GIMP, replace the figures -"Et Voila" a perfect working drawing!!!

regards

ralph

PS When I first stepped off the plane at Gatwick in mid June, the temperature was in the low 20's Centigrade. My first words were "My GOD aren't the winters in England COLD". My mother then politely informed me that in the Northern Hemisphere the seasons are reversed and that this was SUMMER.

The Horror of the Realisation of that moment has never quite left me....

[Semper Vaporo]

Charles, or Semper Vaporo,

I am sorry to say, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem! 

Well...if I am not a part of the solution, but instead I'm a part of the problem... at least I'm a part of the situation and I don't feel left out!

 

The Scale is the letter, the gauge is just a measurement between the rails.  In O scale or 1:48, 32 mm between the rails is standard gauge, while 16.5 mm track is a narrow gauge known as On30, where 30 is the number of scale inches between the rails.  An O scale person is the same size/height in standard gauge or narrow gauge.  He is still 1:48.

I could agree with your assessment, but only in the O and smaller scales, mainly because the multitude of manufacturers are in agreement as to the relationship of the Scale and Gauge and the letter of the alphabet. NO such tacit agreement exists in the "G" world. And the retail world compounds it even further by calling everything "G-SCALE".

Also, I have read that On30 is the use of "O-gauge" track to represent 30-inch gauge in the 1/24 scale world. 32mm(gauge) * 24(scale) = 768mm = 30 inches(real world gauge).  Maybe what I read was wrong?  Maybe I misunderstood it?

Just to verify if I am not a total dork, I looked up the word "SCALE" in my old (really old) Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. WOW, I didn't realize how overloaded that word is... seven MAJOR entries for "scale" and each has multiple definitions!

My use in this discussion is from the 5th definition of the 5th entry (my dictionary, anyway); "a proportion between two sets of dimensions". Thus, for ME, it is the relationship of the linear dimensions of the original and the model.

I wonder if your use is from one of the other definitions?  Please, I'm not trying to be facetious here, I don't think you use the word in this discussion to mean to climb over a wall or the pan of a balance beam, nor a graduated series of musical tones.   I have a "Scale" in my pocket too (3 as a matter of fact; a Starrett machinist's rule, one from PM Research and another of "hardware store" ancestry) and a "Scale" on my desk to weigh parcels to be mailed.  I wonder if your use is more akin to the 3rd definition of the 5th entry; "something graduated esp. when used as a measure or rule", or maybe the 4th definition: "a graduated series or scheme of rank or order".

Those are all valid definitions and in the realm of model trains and the random attempt to standardize sizes so one manufacturers products will fit with other manufacturers products, your and my definitions are somewhat in conflict.

In Large Scale the principal track used is 45mm guage, but a number of different scales are using that track to run their trains.    In 1:32 scale or No. 1 scale they are standard gauge (although for some unknown reason, American modellers accept 1:29 as standard gauge)  In half inch scale (1:24) the tracks are 42 inches apart, or 3' 6". In 1:22.5 (LGB or the first G scale) the tracks are one metre or 39.39 inches apart.  In 1:20.3 the tracks are 3 feet apart. This has become known as F Scale, because it is the letter before G. 

Mick

Mt Beenak, Down Under

Mt Beenak or Mick,

I wish that the LETTER designations had NEVER been put forth. They just confuse matters for those that have not used the letters to the extent where they have immediate meaning when they are encountered.  That and the fact that the manufacturers and retail advertisers have not jumped on the bandwagon of "proper" use of them in the world of "Large Scale trains".

Read any magazine or web site or even the box a "model" train comes in and you see "G-SCALE"; but if one is set next to another they can plainly be seen as different "SCALES"... uh, "PROPORTIONS"!!!; i.e.: one will be considerably larger than the other even if they are purportedly "models" of the exact same real-world item.

Now, that doesn't bother some folk; they don't care if the boxcar is twice as big as the locomotive.  Others are bothered if the engineer in the locomotive cab would have to crawl through the door if he tried to enter the caboose.  "I" am bothered when I see a photo of something I think I'd like to have and the only indication of "size" is that it says it is "G-scale". I have purchased items like that and been BURNED badly because the item was 1:24, or 1:20.3 and I wanted 1:32.

Granted, things are getting better with some manufacturers now stating the scale and the gauge in numerical (unambiguous) values. But many, especially retailers, are still believing that EVERYBODY does not care about size relationships in their model trains.

I do take issue with one of your statements!  This business of "American modellers accept 1:29 as standard gauge".  I was born in America and have always lived in America and to most folk of the world that makes me an American, so you need to know that "I", representing at least one "American modeler", DO NOT "accept" 1:29 at all.  I will admit that most if not all of the 1:29 products have excellent detailing of the bits and bobs on them to produce very nice looking "toy" trains (did you catch my little indignant taunt there?), but having a 10-percent error in length, width and height, they have a 30-percent error in volume and that, "TO ME", makes 1:29 just plain STUPID.  I guess if you had said "most Americans..." I would have just had to sigh and accept that you are right (sadly).

 

[FJ and G]

Ralph,

 

nice illustrations; I took a 7/8 ruler and pasted it on a normal ruler. Same you can do with 16mm or whatever scale. I'm not good at math and it makes life simple. Just ensure a 5' 5" engineer fits in the cab. Don't know what that translates to metric. I'm disappointed the US didn't go metric back in the 1960s when the push was on and the Brits, who invented feet and inches, abandoned us

[cabbage]

Hoofe,

In the example above I have some "5 sheet" NG wagons which work out at 20cm long by 10cm wide in 16mm scale. This is also the same "rough size" as Standard gauge PO wagons in 13.5mm scale and the "right size" for slate wagons on the 25mm NG scale.

This is the famous comparison GIF from the Brandbright web site which shows 16mm (1:19.1), "G" (1:22.5), and Gauge 3 (1:22.6) -side by side:



I believe Mr K Strong has something similar using his wife as the subject, (if I tried anything like that I would be on the business end of her "under and over" Purdey....)

The way I operate is to ignore the "real" world or "scale" world sizes. I take the drawing, transfer the dimensions to millimetres and that is that. At 16mm scale the distance between the axles is not 5 feet 6 inches, either in "real" or "scale" -it is 88mm.

Once you have ditched the idea that you are building something in scale then, (for me), the process is easy.

regards

ralph

[hoofe116]

Semper/Charles

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. Regrettably, in posting at that hour I failed to make it clear that I am starting with 'real world' measurements, in this case the common Echo gondola, which is 4" wide x 8.5" long. (I neglected to add the .5 to keep things simple).

My purpose is to understand the scale size of this undersized, no-scale gondola in terms of scale feet in a 20.3 world. Or, 1/20, which, by using, I agree is much clearer to illustrate. I came up with numbers very close to yours by measuring with my 1:1 pocket tape, namely 8", then dividing that by .6, (though .591 is accurate) and arriving at 13.3 scale feet in length. Note that I did not use 20.3 or .591 and still came up with a close approximation of your numbers.

But that is the hidden Jewel of The Quest: by what number does one divide to determine roughly the scale size of a given object in the 1/20 world? That number is .6 divided into the actual, realworld number. Right? Our numbers certainly correlate rather closely.

If I am correct--and if I'm not I hope you'll be kind enough to try again--I can now take my steel 6" machinist's pocket scale, calibrated in .01, measure perhaps a wheel diameter, mentally divide by .6 and conclude, lo, this is about a 30" dia wheel in the 1/20 world where I model.

Of course, when final layout and construction begin, the decimals will have to creep back in.

Thank you very much for taking time to illustrate your explanation: "Divide to go to the scale world and multiply to go to the real world." Admirably lucid. Would that I was a stonemason and had a flat rock handy.

Les W (freezing on the s. bank of the Missouri)

[FJ and G]

Snowshoe,

 

First, I'm glad you are considering 7/8 scale; 2nd, you can use just about any size rail with 7/8n2 or 7/8n18 because the poundage (pounds per yard) of rail varies so much on each line and each country.

I have a table somewhere but off the top of my head, if you are using say code 148, that might represent 20 lb rail, used for very light operations. Code 330 might represent 90 lb rail at the other end. So you'd be dead on. That covers most of the rail codes (in between those figures); although 148 is hard to work with as ballast issues arise (although I've developed 2 methods to alleviate that issue).

 

Code 250 seems to be the most popular among 7/8 enthusiasts as an excellent compromise. Tie spacing is usually twice as far and wide as your normal G gauge ready to run track so you'd need to relay ties for it to look halfway decent, with wood the preferred material. 

 

I sent you an email 

[Mt Beenak]

Charles, or Semper Vaporo,

I am sorry to say, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem! 

The Scale is the letter, the gauge is just a measurement between the rails.  In O scale or 1:48, 32 mm between the rails is standard gauge, while 16.5 mm track is a narrow gauge known as On30, where 30 is the number of scale inches between the rails.  An O scale person is the same size/height in standard gauge or narrow gauge.  He is still 1:48.

 

In Large Scale the principal track used is 45mm guage, but a number of different scales are using that track to run their trains.    In 1:32 scale or No. 1 scale they are standard gauge (although for some unknown reason, American modellers accept 1:29 as standard gauge)  In half inch scale (1:24) the tracks are 42 inches apart, or 3' 6". In 1:22.5 (LGB or the first G scale) the tracks are one metre or 39.39 inches apart.  In 1:20.3 the tracks are 3 feet apart. This has become known as F Scale, because it is the letter before G. 

 

Mick

Mt Beenak, Down Under

 

 

 

[Semper Vaporo]

It is unfortuate that the scale designation is done with a colon (":") instead of the division sign ("/") because if the scale were shown with the division sign it would be a lot more obvious what to do.

1:20.3 is the same as 1/20.3

Like you I am oft loath the work with fractions at all, so let's, just for the sake of aleviating the mental gymnastics, drop the ".3" and just call it 1/20.

Thus the scale world is one twentheth of the real world (well, in this instance anyway).

I assume from the measurements you provided that you are starting from the scale world and not the real world.  If the body is just 4-inches wide AND we assume it is a 1:20 scale model then the real world body is 20 times wider (the scale world is 1/20 of the real world, or the real world is 20 times the scale world)... divide to go to the scale world and multiply to return to the real world... so the original would be 20 times 4-inches which is, uh, wait till I get my calculator... okay, 80 inches and that reduces to 6-feet 8-inches.

Do the same with the 8-inch length and you get 13-feet 4-inches.

Now, throw that point three back into it and re-calculate the numbers.

 

 

 

Okay, okay, while I got the calculator out...

4-inches at 1:20.3 scale is 6' 9.2" in the real world.

8-inches at 1:20.3 scale is 13' 6.4" in the real world.

 

YOU ARE NOT ALONE in the confusion... just look back through the postings on this, or any other model site, and you will see your question in one form or another many times over.

[hoofe116]

Semper V:

That was quite a tour of numbers. I bet you could answer a pretty basic question for me. Hope you can, at any rate.

Let us suppose I desire to model in G gauge (45mm) at 1:20.3 scale. Let us now suppose I measure a gondola, and it is 4" wide and 8" long. (Body only). What 'scale' length would that be in 20.3, and how do I determine that? Since in Ozark Minature's catalog, on the back page conversion chart, 12" in 20.3 is given as 0.591. (Presumably, inches).

Let's round up to 0.6, as I'm disinclined to work to less than a hundreth of an inch. Thus, the length of the gon would be 8 divided by .6, or 13.3 scale feet long. Right? And by the same math, it would be 4/.6 or 6.6 scale feet wide? Am I doing this right?

Anyone else can dive right in, because I've sure managed to confuse myself.

Thanks,

Les W.

[marthastrainyard]

Possibly the manufacturers should do a better job of differentiating between scale and guage when they do the box design and catalog ads; but one needs that mental disconnect between the two!

Captain, I couldn't agree with you more. A year ago I went to a trainshow to buy one of those cardboard train storage boxes. "What gauge?" asked the salesman and I quickly said "Standard". He immediately started to pick out an S-scale box for me! "No, I model H0 scale" I said. And the confusion was total on his side.