GR Mag's Garden Railway Basics Part 1 Scale

[markn]

Not to offend/embarass anyone but do the 3 (as of this posting) people that voted "no" understand it now? I hope they will see the principle is simple but the application is the stuff online forums are made of.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandpopswalt


I propose we scrap the hodge-podge of scales we now have and adopt two universally used scales: CE-SG (Close Enough Standard Gauge) and CE-NG (Close Enough Narrow Gauge). Now all manufacturers could produce stuff +/- 5% off scale and it would still all #8220;look right#8221; except to the few diehard nitpickers among us.

Walt

[#ditto] Here Here!
Wait a minute I am one of those nit pickers![:p]

[powlee]

[:-,] Alright, this thread has run a bit. I have tried to understand some of the explanations and failed at some which means I am not very bright. But I have to admire the people who try to get it right. I have not the patience.
At the risk of offending some and having to retreat and sulk in a small County in England, when sitting in one`s own garden and watching different scales go by and they look right in my eye, I have to say

`Who ***** cares!! [}:)][;)]

Ian P

[kstrong]

George,

I have to agree. The bottom line is that there are no standards set for large scale. The scales have just kind-of evolved over time to where they are now. They defy classification in any of the existing sets, and many in this hobby are just as happy to see the "big guys" keep their noses out from under our tent.

The scale war will never be won. The best we can hope for is for manufacturers to clearly state their scales on the boxes and in the ads, and to adopt at least some rudimentary standard for wheel specs. We are at the very least geting closer in those regards. (with a caveat to one particular mfr... simply changing the label doesn't change the scale.)

So long as we, as hobbyists, know what is meant by 1:29, etc., and how it translates to the real world, we should be able to navigate the rest of the way.

Later,

K

[ghelman]

There is a phrase that we use in the US nuclear Navy. This is being "Nuked" out. No offense is meant to anyone. Have a great day.

[grandpopswalt]

All this talk of scales, ratios, proportions, and standards has given me a terrible headache. In most cases we run our trains in an uncontrolled environment, the great outdoors, where ratios and scales have no relevance. No matter how hard we may try, that blade of grass next to the track still looks like real grass and not a correctly scaled palm tree. I’m with T-J on this one, if the proportions of the models are fairly close and personally pleasing, then it’s good enough.

I propose we scrap the hodge-podge of scales we now have and adopt two universally used scales: CE-SG (Close Enough Standard Gauge) and CE-NG (Close Enough Narrow Gauge). Now all manufacturers could produce stuff +/- 5% off scale and it would still all “look right” except to the few diehard nitpickers among us.

Walt

[Tom The Brat]

I'll just plead the 5th ammendment.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cabbage

Herr Meuller,

As I have complained before on another forum and to other people. If you are going to play alphabet soup with specifications then be sure to include the very widely used -but still very much ignored by others BRITISH based standards... You as a resident of Canada and I as a former resident of Rhodesia HAVE come across them...

Nowhere in your list or one from the NMRA does any of the British standard scales exist
viz:
OO 4mm 1:76 on 16.5mm track
N 1:148 on 9mm track
O 7mm 1:43.5 on 32mm track
EM 4mm on 18.2mm track
P4 4mm on 18.83mm track
Let us not forget the larger scales either....
SM32 1:19.1 on32mm track
SM45 1:19.1 on 45mm track
G64 1:22.5 on 64mm track
G3 1:22.6 on 64mm track

When I sent an e--mail to the head of the NMRA about 16mm scale his reply was 'I have never heard of this scale'. I am sure that the nearly 3000 members of the 16mmngm society are delighted with it!!! As are the manufacturers and associated companies who make quite a nice living supplying parts and such like to this non existant scale....

regards

ralph

Hi Ralph [;)][;)][:)]

Welllllllllll if you wi***o be that formal, the name is Mueller; anglicized version of Müller for the "Umlaut" challenged.[;)][:)]

OK, so MOROP-NEM and NMRA make little mention of British standards... hmmm... let me think [:0][:0][:0]. It is still early (before 6 AM) but here are two guesses.

a) perhaps they thought it best not to disturb the cherished insularity (that's the facetious version)

b) they did the math:

00: 16.5mm x 76 = 1254mm

N: 9mm x 148 = 1332mm

0: 32mm x 43.5 = 1392

All above presumably represent 1435mm standard gauge.

Of course the other mentioned British scales are "spot on" as can be seen by the decimal places required.
And yes, MOROP-NEM gives a nod to accurate scales as can be read in NEM 010, footnote 3.6 (German version).

[tangerine-jack]

Matt,
Sorry I used the "N" word; I will immediately wash my keyboard out with soap.

I was thinking that this whole debate is not so much which scale or how many, but how true to scale (whichever that may be) a product is. I agree that if something is 1:64 the all proportions of the item should be at that ratio (plus or minus a reasonable variance), not the box car body at 1:64 and the trucks at 1:58. What actual scale is used seems to be irrelevant to the argument.

Again, I will state that scale to me is a non-issue in the garden. I just don't care as long as the proportions look "right" to me. As Kim stated, my environment (ie the scenery) will always be 1:1 so a relative true scale will always be impossible. I am a little pickier on my indoor HO and insist that things are to scale. Anyway, that is my opinion for what it's worth.

[oX)]

[cabbage]

Herr Meuller,

As I have complained before on another forum and to other people. If you are going to play alphabet soup with specifications then be sure to include the very widely used -but still very much ignored by others BRITISH based standards... You as a resident of Canada and I as a former resident of Rhodesia HAVE come across them...

Nowhere in your list or one from the NMRA does any of the British standard scales exist
viz:
OO 4mm 1:76 on 16.5mm track
N 1:148 on 9mm track
O 7mm 1:43.5 on 32mm track
EM 4mm on 18.2mm track
P4 4mm on 18.83mm track
Let us not forget the larger scales either....
SM32 1:19.1 on32mm track
SM45 1:19.1 on 45mm track
G64 1:22.5 on 64mm track
G3 1:22.6 on 64mm track

When I sent an e--mail to the head of the NMRA about 16mm scale his reply was 'I have never heard of this scale'. I am sure that the nearly 3000 members of the 16mmngm society are delighted with it!!! As are the manufacturers and associated companies who make quite a nice living supplying parts and such like to this non existant scale....

regards

ralph

[RhB_HJ]

Kevin S et al (that's whoever else is interested in obscure standards [;)] )

Many of us agree that the LS standards - and quite a few of the others - are a "quagmire". Many also don't really care if we have standards or not - that's OK,just don't complain that you can't make neither head nor tail when it comes to matching one mfgs goodies to the next one's.

Alright, I'm the devil's advocate and here goes.

The reason I find the NEM-Morop Standards logical is most easily explained by the following chart:


Please note the above chart is excerpted from the NEM010 Standard

1 - Any of the listed scales has four gauges assigned to it namely Standard Gauge (no auxiliary letter); Meter Gauge (auxiliary letter m); 750/762mm (english) Gauge (auxiliary letter e; industrial and FRR gauge (auxiliary letter i (for industrial) or f (for field railway))

2 - If you look at the chart you will notice that with each step in the scale the gauge for the previous scale becomes the narrow gauge for the next one i.e. start with Zstandard gauge(6.5mm); move to N and the same 6.5mm are now the Nm ; move to TT and the 6.5mm become the TTe ; to be followed by H0 where the same 6.5mm are the H0i or H0f. BTW the i is generally used, the f is mostly used in German (Feldbahn=FRR).

3 - The ranges that are specified i.e. 850 to <1250 as a rule cover only one prototype gauge that is in common use. In the example that would be 1000mm (Meter Gauge). The 650 to <850 covers two, namely 750mm and 762 (or 765)mm. The 762mm is of course 30".

To my thinking this is a logical manner to tabulate a standard. Each component has a given relation to the other components. Of course the same can be said for the scale sizes when you start at 1:64. Skip one in between scale and you'll end up with a factor of two.

Anyway hope you're still reading and I didn't bore you too much.

Note to Kevin: I deserved the "sic" after the "mangeled" [;)][:)], wrong expression (and lousy spelling)! I should have just used my favourite phrase: "there has to be a better way!".
OTOH good thing I don't use "sic" when I quote in the fora, it would be a "sic"ing mess[:o)][;)][:)]

[Anonymous]

Who here listens to the NMRA? I don't believe someone brought up that dirty word! As their rules just simply don't apply to us![:D][}:)]

[kstrong]

QUOTE: The point I'm trying to make is: the Scale standards as stated by NMRA and by implication your article in GR are a hotch-potch.

You won't get any arguement from me there. It's not my place, however, to suggest alternative standards, just to try to explain the ones that do exist, as wacky as they may be. I didn't invent the scales or their names. I just try to give folks the tools they need to navigate the waters themselves.

Personally, I am still a big supporter of the ill-fated "LS##" standard proposed around 8 years ago, where the "##" was the scale ratio, such as LS20 for 1:20.3, or LS29 for 1:29. That, to me, has been the most clear-cut, simple to understand system ever introduced. (No wonder it didn't catch on...)

QUOTE: a) the prototype is value "1" ; the model is a fraction or multiple there of.

Yep. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. I described all the various methods of describing a scale because all are used interchangably, and it's important for the modeler to know that 1:32 is also known as 3/8" scale, and how the "3/8" part of that relates to the prototype.

QUOTE: b) When a ratio is applied it applies to the model as a whole i.e. if the model is 1:29 scale and represents a standard gauge item running on 1435mm track gauge then it follows. 1435:29= 49.5mm That's not the same as 45mm. Not anymore than 1435:48=32mm

Hey, blame Lewis Polk for that one. He pioneered 1:29, and it has done very well for him. There were a few ill-fated attempts to popularize 1:32 over here in the years prior to his launching 1:29, so offhand I'd say he played that hand quite well. I don't see it going away, as "inaccurate" as it may be.

As you state, O scale and even HO scale are also "a bit off" in terms of the scale relative to the gauge of the track. There are "purist" camps in both O scale (Proto:48) and HO scale (Proto:87) which narrow the gauge of the tracks to exactly 4' 8.5" in the respective scales. There was once talk of Aristo introducing 49mm gauge track, so the 1:29 trains could run on appropriately gauged track for the scale. Will it ever happen? Who knows?

QUOTE: c) Yes, the Morop Standards are practically unknown in NA. I well remember a time when the same applied to ISO Standards.

Remember, though, that these standards allow for a discrepency between the prototype's gauge and the model's gauge. Under these standards you can have a model of a 5' gauge loco built to 1:32 running on #1 gauge track and be perfectly in line, though the wheels would be a scale 3.5" too close together. (And Aristo's 1:29 would fall easily within those tolerances, in terms of percentages.)

So long as the NMRA is around, MOROP standards will stay on the east side of the pond. Remember, we still do inches and feet down here... One step at a time, please.[:)] The NMRA has, at least, generally adopted the G1MRA standards for wheels, which is probably as close to standards as we're going to get in large scale.

QUOTE: Sorry if I offended!

Not a problem. I appreciate the response.

As others have stated (and as has been demonstrated in surveys and other threads), many large scale railroaders really don't care about scale or gauge. So long as the trains look good and stay on the track, they're quite happy. I also think that as time progresses, and the manufacturers drift into either the 1:29 camp or the 1:20.3 camp, many of these scale/gauge issues will fade away. Many folks who run "what looks good" don't buy the large AMS 1:20.3 rolling stock because it's too large to look good in a train with a string of 1:29 box cars. (or if they do buy them, they don't run them together.) The grey area will always be the "between" scales--the 1:22.5 and 1:24 LGB, Hartland, Bachmann, etc., equipment that provided the foundation for the development of large scale. This equipment is unlikely to simply fade into the distance.

The good news is that there's a great deal of freedom in this grey area, even for the scale purist. You get read about that in part 2. (In your mailboxes shortly.)

Later,

K

[cabbage]

Yes,

On my railway everything is at a scale of 16mm to the foot.

regards

ralph

[bman36]

Hey there,
SCALE: The very thing we truck drivers try to avoid when a) Overweight b) Out of hours c) Equipment does not quite meet DOT standards d) All the above. Oh.....trains? Yeah I think I got it. [:D] [:D] [:D] Later eh...Brian. [:o)]

[TheJoat]

An interesting topic, but one that won't win any converts. I run in the garden, but I do like 1:20 scale. I try to make things "look right". My "looks right" may be way different than your "looks right". (Though I do think accuracy and scale go hand in hand.)

I do prefer metric over imperial, but I really prefer keeping one hand colder than another - so I'm more than willing to open up a cold one and running trains in the garden.

[ghelman]

A lot of info here and for some it seems very important. But, as I thought about scale in this particular hobby (Garden RR) the importance comes into play at least for me was when I first started. I, probably like a good many others started with a smaller scale. For me it was HO and everything I bought HO was all the same "scale". (I think). Anyway it wasn't until I bought a couple of different G scale train cars and locos that I noticed a very big difference in size. I then read more about this greart hobby and discoveed this scale thing for G isn't the same for all manufacturers, But, I like T. Jack, don't really get into that fine part of this hobby that demands a perfect scale look-alike. I am not saying that that is bad, just that I don't care to get that percise. I like to run my trains and anything I build is 1/24 scale. I might buy any scale that looks good in the garden. Happy RRing.

[tangerine-jack]

I'm confused, does the word "scale" even apply in the garden? I don't see where it is of any value to have your rivets on the box car scale out to 1435:29 when the weeds are 1:1 as are the twigs and bugs. I moved outdoors because "scale" was killing me. Outside I can have a train, running on track, through some nice flowers. That's it, nothing more to think about. My 1435:29 loco would look no better than an "about" 1:20.3 one when chugging past my full size foot bridge. As Kim said, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

I see HJ's point, he is interested perhaps more with "accuracy" than "scale"? I can understand that view. Perhaps if the NMRA even recognized G as a legitimate model train hobby we wouldn't be having this issue at all. Until then, and maybe even then, I'll continue to run my trains around hotch-potch with a 1:1 smile on my face.

For anybody that wants to nit-pick my layout, come on over. I'll throw a steak on the grill and crack a cold one. I have a bumper crop of nits this year and when you are done picking them we can fry them up with the steaks and pig out. I LOVE G SCALE!!!
[:D]




[oX)]

[RhB_HJ]

Hi all,

Addendum:

Occasionally I write reviews for magazines and as part of the reviews I add a comparison chart (prototype to model dimensions) of the items.

To illustrate where I'm coming from (other than North of the Border[;)][;)][;)]) here are the values which are applied to the determined dimensions:

+/- 1.0% or better : Excellent
+/- 1.1 to 4% : Very Good
+/- 4.1 to 7% : Good
+/- 7.1 to 10% : Passable
+/- 10.1% and above : Questionable

Of course this is simply my subjective standard, however it is more precise than "quite close".
For those interested in RhB rolling stock some of the comparison charts can be found at http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/E/html/rolling_stock.html

[RhB_HJ]

Kevin,

The point I'm trying to make is: the Scale standards as stated by NMRA and by implication your article in GR are a hotch-potch.

The Basics are:

a) the prototype is value "1" ; the model is a fraction or multiple there of.

b) When a ratio is applied it applies to the model as a whole i.e. if the model is 1:29 scale and represents a standard gauge item running on 1435mm track gauge then it follows. 1435:29= 49.5mm That's not the same as 45mm. Not anymore than 1435:48=32mm

c) Yes, the Morop Standards are practically unknown in NA. I well remember a time when the same applied to ISO Standards.

Sorry if I offended!
Having spent 45 years concerning myself with technical matters, part of it QC and Standards, I find it hard to stomach some of the stuff that is being passed along to confuse yet another batch of novices.
OTOH I have the perfect excuse; I grew up with the decimal system and learned the archaic stuff later. [;)][:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

Hi Kevin,

What can one say? Very well put and quite sweeping and I still use imperial rather than metric but there's nothing wrong with 16mm to the foot, is there? It comes down, as most things do, to personal choice. If someone wants to model 1:20.3 and everything they do equates to the old 3' guage and is scaled accordingly then I applaud them and admire them for all the scratch buidling/kit bashing they must do. Similarily if a UK modeller decided to build the old GWR broad guage then I would treat them equally, perhaps I would think them a bit nutty, but whose to say whose sane! To do both properly then they would really have to be in an enclosed area where everything therein is to that scale.I can only basically reiterate what I said earlier, it's a garden railroad set in the easiest scale imaginable, 12" to 1', my house is in this scale as I am, the whole world around me is. My railway isn't, it's mine, it does what I want it too and goes were I put tracks for it. It's G and is everything that that denominator stands for. If my 1:20.3 connie is pulling Bachmann freight at 1:22.5 then I really think that's Bachmanns fault, but I don't care. Similarily when my 1:29 diesel is pulling Bachmann freight then that's my fault but I think USA/Aristo freight cars are very overpriced and at the end of the garden who the heck can tell anyway. To all of you scale guru's out there, I applaud you. To all of you none scale, the devil may care brigade, I applaud you. Actually, we are all right.
Cheers,
Kim
[tup][2c]

[kstrong]

I can't help but to be a bit confused myself, not by the scale/gauge thing, but by the points raised within this thread...

First, the first sentence in the second paragraph of my April column states "'Scale' is merely the relationship between a model and its prototype." How is that different from HJ's "Scale is the ratio between prototype and model?" I don't see the difference, beyond the words "ratio" and "relationship." To my mind, the two are synonymous in this context. Perhaps I'm blinded by familiarity, but if I were to read both sentences separately, I'd get the same message.

As for whether a prototype is "29 times larger" than the model or vice versa, that's a matter of semantics. I'll agree that usually sizes are expressed in terms of the prototype, but the context was pertaining to the model, so I expressed it in those terms. Whether Tommy has 29 more apples than Billy, or Billy has 29 times fewer apples than Tommy, the end result is that Billy's gonna get hungry a lot faster.

As far as combining metric and imperial units in terms of describing size, I don't see what the big deal is. Sorry, HJ, most folks I know--even here in the metrically challenged US--know what a millimeter is, and even if they can't say exactly how many millimeters there are in an inch, know that one edge of the ruler is the metric, the other is imperial, and can look across to make the conversion. We're all very used to expressing size in terms of "1/4-inch to the foot," etc., so it's really not a stretch to use an equally identifiable unit to represent one foot.

If we converted 15mm into imperial units, we get 19.592/32". You tell the average person that a model is built to 19.592/32-inch to the foot, they'll have as little clue as to what you're talking about as if you told them the ratio expressed in picas. Tell them "15mm to the foot," they can at least fake understanding long enough to consult a ruler. To the completely unwashed masses, you can fudge and say "roughly 5/8-inch to the foot," but since it's not 100% accurate, we can't use that as a true definition of the scale. It's merely converting between units. It makes no difference if it's inches, millimeters, picas, or fathoms. You need only know how many of one particular unit are in the other to figure it out. They're all units of measurement--equally unrelated to one another except in terms of how many of one fit within another. The UK has had "10mm to the foot" and "16mm to the foot" for quite a long time--far longer than we've had "15mm to the foot" on this side of the pond. Most folks seem to understand those sizes without difficulty.

I'll agree, I didn't mention "Scale 2", as it doesn't enjoy any serious following here in North America--the target market for GR, and also because almost no one outside of mainland Europe knows what the heck it is. Adding yet another previously unknown scale name to the mix certainly wouldn't clarify a darned thing. Historically, LGB labeled their trains "G" for Garten, the german word for garden. They coined it to set their trains apart as being built specifically to run outdoors. They never referred to their trains as "2m,"at least in the early literature that I've seen. (Nor has "G" ever meant "Gummi," except perhaps euphomistically amongst modelers, as we now call it "Generic" scale.) Curiously, early (c. 1969) ads for LGB trains that ran in Model Railroader list the scale as "K", for "King size." I don't know who originated that designtion, but it didn't last long. Catalogs and ads from the early 70s univerally refer to LGB trains as "G" scale, with that scale being identified as 1:22.5. Since LGB was the first kid on the block on this side of the pond in terms of mainstream outdoor railroading, their choice of scale name stuck. Remember, on this side of the pond, O scale was as large as we comprehended. (And we certainly didn't recognize that the "O" was actually "zero", as in 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., the smallest of the historic European scales.)

When you look at the charts HJ points to, you notice a few things. First, the chart is based on European standards--which we don't follow here in the US. (For instance, O scale over here is 1:48) It also does not include the British scales of 10mm (1:30.5) or 16mm (1:19), let alone the US scales of 1:29 or 1:20.3. You can get anything to line up neatly when you exclude the ones that don't fit. In the US, we've got lots of things that don't fit.

More importantly, look to the right side of the table, where they express the various gauges as they relate to standard and narrow gauge prototypes. Each recognized model gauge covers a range of gauges on the prototype, so the "standard" #1 gauge of 45mm covers prototypes with gauges from 47.3" to 67" (North American and European standard gauge is 56.5") Each single recognized "narrow" gauges covers a similarly broad spectrum of prototype gauges. This table showcases that in Europe, modelers compromise on track gauge for a given scale and prototype. This isn't surprising, since each individual country in Europe had its own "standard" gauge for a while, and the narrow gauge spectrum is significantly more varied than it is over here. There has to be a degree of compromise, lest there be 7 different track gauges just for "standard gauge" models.

Over here, we've got far fewer common track gauges, so we're far more inclined to settle on one or two different scales. The entire 1:20.3 movement is based on the premise that we as modelers are unwilling to accept a compromise in track gauge, so we "invented" a scale for which the common #1 track gauge of 45mm measures out to exactly three feet. Conversely, the 1:29 standard is based on the premise that a compromise in track gauge is perfectly acceptable.

(Also note that the European standards recognize and accept the practice of representing scales in terms of "mm per foot.")

I hate to sound like I'm coming down on HJ for expressing his views. He's absolutely correct that the terminology in large scale is very "relaxed." That's what's led to this quagmire of jumbled scales all running on the same gauge track, representing narrow and standard gauges, models of the same size, etc. and so forth. It's very difficult for the novice to sort out. If it weren't, I wouldn't be spending three pages on it. I'm also not saying this column is the definitive word on the subject. It is what it is--an attempt to sort out a messy system. Some people will understand perfectly, some will leave just as confused as before.

I certainly welcome comment and criticism on my writings. It's great to see that folks are reading and understanding (or not) what I have to say, and I'm always willing to clarify my points. I would respectfully ask, however, that such issues be raised politely, not implying in an open forum that I "mangeled [sic]" the basics.

Later,

K

[tangerine-jack]

So what would a grasshopper scale out to? Would that make a bird 5,000:1? My goodness, a leaf would be astronomical! I agree with Kim, scale to me is meaningless outside, I just make sure my stuff "looks" right and I'm totaly satisfied.

This scale debate has been going on for some time. It seems that "G" scale is anything larger than "O". Don't really want to get into all that right now, but it is puzzling at times how readily the word "scale" is thrown around when some manufacturers don't even know what the word means.

Just my [2c]


[oX)]

[Anonymous]

Something about scale Marty, I think!! I know all about it but I choose to ignore it, it's a garden railway and the plants are 12" to the 1', so it doesn't matter what the scale of the RR is really if it's running through a bush 4' high. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers,
Kim
[tup]

[Marty Cozad]

What was the Q again?

[cacole]

I model in several different scales, so I can explain the ratio for N, HO, S, O, and some G-scale; however, what is loosely bantered about as "G-scale" has too many actual scales involved to explain to a newcomer.

[Anonymous]

Scale is the ratio between a full sized prototype and a model that respects detail and proportion.

That's my very simplistic try!!!

Capt Carrales

[RhB_HJ]

Hi all,

Here's another "nit" to pick: ".......the prototype is 29 times larger than the model".

Well in any scale equation the prototype is taken as representing "1"; so the model is 29 times smaller than the prototype i.e. 1:29.

Anyone who has ever looked at engineering drawings most likely will have encountered details on such drawings. In order to show all the detail one enlarges them, this results in the scale being 2:1; 10:1 or whatever is required. "1" still refers to the prototype.
A practical application are models which are larger than the prototype (finished product), for instance models used on pantograph engraving machines.

And yes, scale in models is applied in all three planes at the same ratio, be it 1:20.3 or 1:32 it should apply in the same ratio to length, width and height. The "models" which "discount" that principle quite often end up being caricatures

BTW I'm always puzzled by how "relaxed" the terminology and definition of scale gets when applied to garden railways, compared to the other modeling scales.

[ghelman]

A scale is something I stay away from these days. It announces I have been eating too much. [:)][:D] Just kidding. I agree with RhB_HJ "ratio between prototype and model".