Just a rant born of frustration with the on-going lack of scale standards in LS. I just read Rene's fine article "Garden Railways buyer's guide to large-scale structures" in the Feb. 2007 issue of GR. On page 94 is a chart showing the various manufacturers and the scales that their products are made to. The majority of the structures are made in 1:24 scale, while only a small handful is available in 1:29 or 1:32 scale. There are some in 1:22.5 and quite a few in 1:20.3. Here's the point: how many layouts are actually modeled in 1:24? .... very, very few. Most are 1:22.5 because most locos and cars are 1:22.5. The 1:20.3 boys can now get a nice scale building to go with their B'mann Connie or Annie but they still have to pull freight and passenger cars that are seriously out of scale (1:22.5). The 1:29 and 1:32 gang now have a plethora of choices in both locos and rolling stock but generally have to settle for buildings that are too big. I'm beginning to think that no one in the industry is paying any attention to what the other guys are doing or what the customers are buying ............ there, I feel much better now.
Couldn't agree with you more. While I am very new to this hobby I have been fustrated in trying to select various accessories to go with my construction plans. Seems like everying is either too big or too small to really look good with what I want to do.
Now I feel better too..............................
Age is only a state of mind, keep the mind active and enjoy life
Step 1: Get the manufacturers to consitently build to their advertised scale. Why Aristocraft builds trains to 1:29, but buildings to a larger but indeterminate scale boggles the mind. Aristocraft's people are even too large for their trains! Pola--the granddaddy of large scale buildings--seems to have somewhat of a rubber ruler as well. Though marked as 1:22, their US western buildings are well suited to 1:20.
Step 2: Get manufacturers to recognize that what 10 years ago was a fairly amalgamous group of "g-scalers" has started to specialize into more-or-less two separate camps; the narrow gauge folks who are increasingly become very particular to scale, and the 1:29/1:32 crowd that needs smaller buildings to go with their standard gauge trains. "Middle of the road" isn't going to cut it any more because the market simply has matured.
Step 3: Convince the average garden railroader that a 1:29 scale locomotive really looks out of place when sitting next to a 1:20 station. I don't know how many times I see photos where a small closet-sized station dwarfs a Big Boy. Okay, there is the "run what you like" aspect of the hobby, but that's like using S scale buildings on an HO scale railroad. It just looks funny.
Unfortunately, until all manufacturers recognize this diverging trend in large scale railroading, we're going to have to suffer off-scale products that accurately match nothing. I'm glad to see more 1:29 buildings entering the market, and I sincerely hope folks show their appreciation with their wallets. THAT's what's going to convince manufacturers to develop more offerings. Getting back to step 3, we as consumers have to stand up and say THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. It's happening with respect to our trains. Now, we need to take it to our accessories.
Later,
K
Which is exactly why I vote with my wallet and don't buy manufactured or kitted structures. They get zero dollars from me until a standard becomes standard, not just a selling point.
Funny, I don't feel better...............
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Gentlemen.... I don't have a great deal of experience here but what I do know that between the 1870's and the 1940's the average door frame increased in size over 4 inches so a house built in 1875 would have what today would be very short doors (5'6" to 5" 8" versus 6' 8" today) and in overall peak height would be two to five feet shorter than a house constructed to the same style in 1920. Only the very rich would have houses or buildings with expansive spaces and ceilings over 7-8 feet. Until electricity was widely distributed in rural America in the 30's-40's ther were not many center ceiling hung lights mostly wall sconces and table lanterns. So in reality a 1:24/1:29 construction would look like an 1880's home on a 1930's scene.
My two scents ....
mr
I loved what you said mate i didn't fully understand it but i roughly got the gist of it. Scale is a hard thing to understand and it is impossible to fully inplement.
Rgds Ian
I belong to the 'if it looks right then it is right' camp. I have to say that whichever scale of loco I run - and I have most of them - they all look daft against the scale tree that works out to be about 1000' high and the 100' wide flower. And as for them giant birds the size of a 747, well.............
Kim
imrnjr wrote:between the 1870's and the 1940's the average door frame increased in size over 4 inches so a house built in 1875 would have what today would be very short doors (5'6" to 5" 8" versus 6' 8" today) and in overall peak height would be two to five feet shorter than a house constructed to the same style in 1920.
between the 1870's and the 1940's the average door frame increased in size over 4 inches so a house built in 1875 would have what today would be very short doors (5'6" to 5" 8" versus 6' 8" today) and in overall peak height would be two to five feet shorter than a house constructed to the same style in 1920.
True for some buildings, but not others. Victorian era houses (1840 - 1900) are well known for tall ceilings and doors--often taller than contemporary doors. So while some buildings from that era may be smaller than "modern" houses, there are just as many that are larger. Such large houses weren't just for the wealthy. My ancestors come from modest means, and up until the 1930s always had 10' or higher ceilings in their houses. I've got photos of my nearly-200 year old grandfather clock taken around 1920 when it was still at it's full 10' height. Considering it was built in 1810, that's at least 120 years in 10' tall rooms.
Commercial buildings--especially those in developing downtowns--tended to have very high ceilings, at least on the first floor. Doorways were sized to match, often close to the 8' mark.
That's the primary reason it's important to be able to look at key architectural elements of a structure when determining whether it's suitable for your railroad. If a scale figure is staring face-to-face with the doorknob, then there's a good chance the building is too large for the trains. If a person has to duck to get through the door, then it may be too small.
If you're modeling 1:29, a 1:22.5 Pola station will be 30% larger in scale than the trains. What should be a 6' door scales out to nearly 9'! Even with the "smaller buildings" argument, that's just a huge difference in scale. The 1:29 crowd deserves to have properly scaled buildings. There are a few, but not many.
The 1:20.3 crowd has a bit of an easier time, because smaller buildings can be placed in the background as a kind of forced perspective. I can put a 1:20 station next to the track, but my main street behind the station can be 1:24 and still look acceptable. Still, some proper 1:20 generic buildings would be nice.
Now, in all fairness, there are kits that can be eaily adapted to work in multiple scales simply by varying the size of the architectural features. Making the doorway larger or smaller as you're building the kit can set the scale very easily. When I do a review, I try to point these opportinities out to the modeler--and sometimes take advantage of them myself when building. Again, it's a matter of knowing the details of the kit you're building to see if it will work in your desired scale.
One tip: remember the credit card rule. A 1:29 scale person is approximately the size of the short edge of a credit card. A 1:20.3 figure is approximately the size of the long edge. You can use that to judge the size of a structure to see how it will look next to your trains.
The 1:29 offerings in locos and rolling stock have multiplied significantly in the last five or so years. It seems like a logical extension to these manufacturers that they produce buildings (of a more modern nature, BTW) in the same scale.
Mark
Have fun with your trains
I have no ability whatsoever in this direction so i make my buildings out of concrete using the Jigstome system and they look pretty good (for me that is). What Kevin said has some sense to it, they do have slight variations to the design depending on the era and or what scale it is.
iandor wrote:I loved what you said mate i didn't fully understand it but i roughly got the gist of it. Scale is a hard thing to understand and it is impossible to fully inplement.Rgds Ian
Dear Ian,
Since we build models we find the following acceptable to define "Scale":
Ratio between the original and the model. The model can be larger or smaller than the original.
Easy to understand and implement.
Best regards
ER
The NMRA tried a few years ago, but most people in G don't really seem to care. So why should the manufacturers? This situation is very similar to 3 rail O gauge which continues to use several scales even though 1:48 has been dominate for years.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote:The NMRA tried a few years ago, but most people in G don't really seem to care. So why should the manufacturers? This situation is very similar to 3 rail O gauge which continues to use several scales even though 1:48 has been dominate for years. EnjoyPaul
Hello Paul,
The similarity goes even farther; 1:48 which runs on 32mm track to represent standard gauge is just as "odd" as 1:29 running on 45mm track.
1435mm (4ft8.5") :32mm = 44.84 1:45 for "O" scale would be the logical choice, but possibly "too European".
Regards
I was thinking something on the way home from work today that would solve all of this scale debate. If Eastern Mountain Models Ltd. of BC, Canada would produce an exact scale line of trains, say to 1/24 for example, market them at 1/3 the cost of the lowest price manufacturer in the industry with RCS from Tony Walsham already installed, then give everybody on the forum a complete line of trains to start with for free, then by default that would become the standard!
I think it's a grand idea and I volunteer to be the first to take delivery of the free train! Industry G scale standard here we come, WHOO HOOO!!!
tangerine-jack wrote:I was thinking something on the way home from work today that would solve all of this scale debate. If Eastern Mountain Models Ltd. of BC, Canada would produce an exact scale line of trains, say to 1/24 for example, market them at 1/3 the cost of the lowest price manufacturer in the industry with RCS from Tony Walsham already installed, then give everybody on the forum a complete line of trains to start with for free, then by default that would become the standard! I think it's a grand idea and I volunteer to be the first to take delivery of the free train! Industry G scale standard here we come, WHOO HOOO!!!
Dear Jack .
That would be a very good idea.
However, since there are already Standards (NEM-MOROP) which cover both 1:32 and 1:22.5 scale, we decided to follow those Standards and let the "10% up or down" crowd put up with a "slight error".
On that "free train"; from our perspective we offer real models and take real money in exchange.
As usual elizabeth i completely disagree with you. Scale id easy tounderstand but obviously you have no real hands on experience in this matter; as it is almost impossible to implement accurately most of the time.
I see many fine railways on the web and in the magazine, mine arrived yesterday and yet again some great railways. I have to say they look magnificent, dwarf trees planted next to scale buildings that are amazingly detailed etc etc. I can only suppose that the owners have a lot of time on their hands, retired etc and they live in a biosphere where nothing gets into their gardens or they have just spent 48 hours getting ready for the photo shoot. Now in my garden things are not so controlled, it is very bird friendly with feeders scattered about, the pond was designed for the birds and as a result I only have to turn my back for ten minutes and there's a twig accross the line, a sparrow perching on a building leaving its calling card etc etc. If I leave it for a couple of days the track starts to disappear under the gravel and leaves in one part and under soil elsewhere. What I'm saying is that I don't want a scale railway and I haven't got the time to maintain one anyway. I want a railway that I can get going in a half hour or so and is pleasing on the eye as it rattles around the garden, as said before, a railway in a garden, not a garden in a railway. And, at the end of the day, who really cares whether there's a mix of scales pulling a mix of scales and whether that one's narrow gauge and that one's standard gauge. I see the rivet counters approaching and that will be a sad day for the garden.
Cheers,
iandor wrote: As usual elizabeth i completely disagree with you. Scale id easy tounderstand but obviously you have no real hands on experience in this matter; as it is almost impossible to implement accurately most of the time.Rgds Ian Dear Ian,You may disagree as much as you like. Scale is a simple concept, the implementation is just as simple. If it wouldn't be, manufacturing around the world would have ground to a halt a very long time ago for lack of accurate models required in the manufacturing processes.As far as hands-on experience, I received my first Marx trainset back in the early fifties - still have it. That was unusual for a girl in Switzerland.But in the meantime I "graduated" to scale model railroads. Best regards, enjoy your trains!ER
iandor wrote: As usual elizabeth i completely disagree with you. Scale id easy tounderstand but obviously you have no real hands on experience in this matter; as it is almost impossible to implement accurately most of the time.Rgds Ian
You may disagree as much as you like. Scale is a simple concept, the implementation is just as simple.
If it wouldn't be, manufacturing around the world would have ground to a halt a very long time ago for lack of accurate models required in the manufacturing processes.
As far as hands-on experience, I received my first Marx trainset back in the early fifties - still have it. That was unusual for a girl in Switzerland.But in the meantime I "graduated" to scale model railroads.
Best regards, enjoy your trains!
Ray Dunakin wrote:BTW, whatever happened to 1:24 scale??
This is a rather thought provoking thread. It caused me to run outside in the rain, grab a few buildings, and a couple of cars and pile them up on the dinner table. Even though I have NEVER been a "rivet counter", the deviations I saw last night would have never been acceptable when I was working in the smaller scales. Passenger cars (with no track) taller than two story buildings. The Hallmark Haunted House (yes, I said Hallmark, as in the greeting card store) way way to tall! Then again, other than a few miniature dwarf trees that are trimmed down every three months, all of the other plants are way out of proportion. Not even talking about the line that runs under the grape arbor and rose bushes!
I guess that it is all our fault that everything is so "out of scale". As T.J. said "I vote with my wallet". If we were all to do the same maybe than they would listen. In reality though I think it is too late, the makers of the goods are dictating the market now and it would be near impossible for us to make them change now. Unless we ALL went to nothing but home made according to plans in the correct scales.
Tom Trigg
I do understand scale very well; i am a qualified engineer, but i do not believe you can make it stick in this hobby. lets start with the distance between stations?
Owning a train or not owning a train has nothing to do with it, what it is all about is building a railway out with mother nature to scale; even the grain of the dirt is against you.
Ian,
I guess the real point of this discussion is about the things in this hobby that we, users and manufacturers alike, CAN control. You're right, just about everything you're likely to find in the garden is going to be somewhat out-of-scale. Just as two real life stations 50 miles apart would have to be spaced about 13000 feet apart in the garden. There's not much we can do about those factors but we can at least try to have our trains and our buildings and our vehicles and our figures be in the correct scale proportion to each other. If we can achieve a sense of realism with our miniature replicas then those 1000 foot tall trees and B-29 sized birds will have less impact on the overall scene.
Also, more and more LS modelers are becoming aware of scale and proportion. Witness the increased popularity of 1:20.3 among the narrow gauge fraternity. It seems that the manufacturers would want to cater to the needs of this crowd. And doing so would not alienate or bother the diciples of "scale? who cares?" one bit.
I don't think any of this is about rivet counting or being too serious. It's more about wanting things to look and feel "right".
Walt
The Home of Articulated Ugliness
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month