Scale (or lack thereof)

[kstrong]

My guess that it was started by modelers trying to scratchbuild narrow gauge to true scale, and after it caught on, the manufactureres jumped on board.

Hard to say. There weren't a whole lot of resources available to scratchbuilders in 1:20.3, save for Tony "10 years ahead of his time" Ferraro's Little Railways details. As you look through the pages of GR prior to the late 90s, 1:20 was virtually non-existent. All the "serious" modelers were working in 1:24 or 1:22.5. Sierra Valley Enterprises produced the first "1:20" equipment advertised in GR, though they were industrial 4-wheel cars which could hardly be classified to any one particular scale. Hartford Products' 1:20.3 Quincy & Torch Lake wood hopper car (their first foray into 1:20) and the Bachmann 1:20.3 Shay were both announced for the first time in the same issue (April 96). A later review of Hartford's hopper car would describe the 1:20.3 movement as "growing." With two prominent manufacturers now making what I'll call "full size" narrow gauge equipment in1:20.3, the detail parts folks began to add more 1:20 parts to their product lists.

I'd hesitate to call the 1:20 movement to have been started by modelers, though. The prototype for Hartford's Q&TL car was a very small car--only 22' 6" long. At that size, it would also fit in very well with the smaller 1:22 and 1:24 equipment. (Curiously, this same cross-scale play is what I used when modifying a 1:24 Delton/Aristo hopper--loosely based on the same Q&TL car--to 1:20.3.) One would have to ask Bob Hartford if that played into his decision to use that car to test the waters of 1:20.3. All of his future offerings would be built to that scale.

Personally, I credit Bachmann for popularizing the scale. It--literally--would have gone nowhere without an affordable locomotive with which to pull the equipment. Even then, Bachmann's next offerings--the Climax, 4-4-0, and 2-6-0 were small locos, visually compatible with the 1:22/1:24 equipment. During that time, however, other manufacturers entered with larger 1:20 equipment, giving the scale a decent foothold.

But there's also "regular" narrow gauge, such as HOn3. There's plenty of product available for HOn3. How did that get started, if manufacturers weren't willing to make models and the track to fit them?

They were willing--that's the thing. Unlike large scale, HO (and O, N, etc) already existed. The narrow gauge was an outgrowth of that. There were already plenty of buildings, people, scenery, etc. to support it--the only thing needed was equipment--as there was also already a strong tradition of handlaying track. Even then, it didn't take long for ready-made track to be introduced.

For instance, someone modeling standard gauge in 1:29 will decide they want a narrow gauge branch, and will scratchbuilt it. If it catches on, manufacturers will start making 1:29 scale narrow guage products. Same with 1:20.3 -- people may end up scratchbuilding some 1:20.3 standard gauge stuff .

Already happening on both fronts. Curiously, O gauge (32mm) track scales out almost exactly for 3' gauge track in 1:29. There's not any RTR equipment built for it, but folks are scratchbuilding equipment. Bachmann's really small inaccurately named "1:20.3" equipment--not their new, accurate stuff--scales out fairly well for 1:29 narrow gauge, you just need to regauge the trucks.

There's a growing group of people doing 1:20.3 standard gauge, as well. Many are using Bachmann's 45-ton loco and widening the gauge to the correct gauge. There was a photo in the "Letters" section of a recent GR showing one such conversion. Don Niday's Iron Creek Shops offers standard gauge and dual-gauge plastic tie strips for those wanting 1:20.3 standard gauge.

I don't see either of these two pursuits gaining much steam. 1:20 standard gauge takes up a TON of space, and if I'm interested in standard gauge, I'll simply go with 1:29 for use in the garden. Likewise, 1:29 narrow gauge models are rather diminutive, and tend to get lost in the outdoors. If I'm after narrow gauge, I'll do 1:20 instead. The only time I see these coming into play is where the modeler specifically wants to show an interchange between standard and narrow gauge.

Later,

K

[Capt Bob Johnson]

All this multiplicity of scales within the community (G) is exactly what keeps the manufacturer from knowing whether to fart or go blind!

Set a standard for narrow gauge and let those modelers adhere to it.  Set another standard to represent standard gauge for that community. 

Once that happens, you will see more auxilliary stuff being made!

[Anonymous]

A hard way to look at it is there needs to be groups in all the scales.

NMRA and G Scale had it out. G scale needs there own boat. Every scale does.

[Ray Dunakin]

Kstrong wrote: "We already had the track. If my customers already have 500' of 45mm track in the back yard, why would I--as a manufacturer--even think that I'd expect them to rip that all out just to run my "accurately gauged" product on my new 1.5" track?
Also, larger scales using smaller scales' track is nothing new in the model railroading world. 1:20.3 using #1 gauge track is no different than On30 using HO gauge track, or Nn3 using Z gauge track. (Or 16mm using O gauge track). It's how narrow gauge has been done in model railroading for a good long while." --
--
Yes, I know that there are narrow gauges in other scales, using track from a smaller scale. But there's also "regular" narrow gauge, such as HOn3. There's plenty of product available for HOn3. How did that get started, if manufacturers weren't willing to make models and the track to fit them? --

---
My guess that it was started by modelers trying to scratchbuild narrow gauge to true scale, and after it caught on, the manufactureres jumped on board. Perhaps this will happen someday with the various garden scales. For instance, someone modeling standard gauge in 1:29 will decide they want a narrow gauge branch, and will scratchbuilt it. If it catches on, manufacturers will start making 1:29 scale narrow guage products. Same with 1:20.3 -- people may end up scratchbuilding some 1:20.3 standard gauge stuff .

[Anonymous]

Irrespective; understanding scale is easy, implementing it is nearly impossible, but as Bob and Walt and others have said, we should all at least make an effort to get things looking somewhere near correct.

When a train pulls into a local station, the top of the carriage roof is about the same height as the bottom of the roof of the station and if you havent go that, well you are as has been said, looking pretty silly.

Rgds Ian

[Anonymous]

Also, larger scales using smaller scales' track is nothing new in the model railroading world. 1:20.3 using #1 gauge track is no different than On30 using HO gauge track, or Nn3 using Z gauge track. (Or 16mm using O gauge track). It's how narrow gauge has been done in model railroading for a good long while.

Later,

K

 

Kevin,

 

You're right, turning back the clock won't work, there is too much out there for that.

What would work is the different mfgs at least letting the consumer know what scale the item is.

As far as the reference to the  other NG scales; our techie did some quick checking and found the following:

On30: Track gauge 16.5mm; Scale 1:48; Proto gauge should in that case be 792mm; however 30" equal 762mm ; which means a 4% error

Nn3: Track gauge 6.5mm; Scale 1:160; proto gauge should be 1040mm; 36" equal 914mm; error is 13.8%

Just for interest's sake our techie calculated On30 if the scale is  1:45; the proto gauge should be 742mm; error is 2.7%

Nm: Track gauge 6.5mm; Scale 1:160; proto gauge should be 1040; 1000mm equals 39.37"; error is 4%.

Sure looks like the errors are larger when applying imperial based measures and using a scale which has a built-in error.

But apart from the gauge error at least the mfgs tell the consumer that the scale is 1:48 or 1:160. The wild array of scales - which are not necessarily noted on the packaging - appears to be a "G" exclusive.

Regards

ER 

PS As a sales manager I sometimes wonder how others answer when a customer inquires regarding the specific scale.

 

 

 

[kstrong]

There was no need to change scales to get the "narrow gauge look", just change the track! I don't know why this was such a difficult concept for the manufacturers to grasp.

We already had the track. If my customers already have 500' of 45mm track in the back yard, why would I--as a manufacturer--even think that I'd expect them to rip that all out just to run my "accurately gauged" product on my new 1.5" track?

Also, larger scales using smaller scales' track is nothing new in the model railroading world. 1:20.3 using #1 gauge track is no different than On30 using HO gauge track, or Nn3 using Z gauge track. (Or 16mm using O gauge track). It's how narrow gauge has been done in model railroading for a good long while.

Later,

K

[cabbage]

You can of course "opt out" of the commercial rat race and this is what (to me) 16mm scale is all about. 3,500 plus members of the 16mmNGM association seem to agree with me... There is very little commercially made stuff and it has become a de facto scratch builders scale. The track is 32mm, 45mm, 63mm, or the new "underground" gauge of 115mm (yes there are 7 foot Broad Gauge 16mm locos!!!). No one that I know who models in this scale is anything like a rivet counter (they are too useful to make coupling with -either that or paper clips)...

I remember an incident when a friend who had built a working de Bousquet locomotive was berated by a someone with a magnifying glass (YES REALLY!) for using 10BA nuts and bolts not metric ones. When told that 10BA was the smallest that could be obtained the magnifying glass person still persisted in the fact that the steam chests did not have 9 bolts on then but 8. At this point he was told to "get a life"...

regards

ralph

[Ray Dunakin]

There was no need to change scales to get the "narrow gauge look", just change the track! I don't know why this was such a difficult concept for the manufacturers to grasp.

Of course, it's now a moot point, as there is too much invested on all sides. Modelers aren't going to dump their existing track, locos and rolling stock in order to conform to a unified scale; and the manufacturers aren't going to say "oops, we goofed, let's start over."

[Capt Bob Johnson]

And I'm still not going to buy any station that has doors twice as tall as the doors on the passenger car that stops in front of that station; It just plain looks stupid!

[grandpopswalt]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

Rgds Ian

[ttrigg]

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.

[kstrong]

BTW, whatever happened to 1:24 scale??

It got trumped by 1:20.3. Hartford, Accucraft, Precision Scale--many "scale" manufacturers started out doing 1:24, and it did appear as if that was going to catch on as "the" scale for narrow gauge. But I think the aesthetic sense of narrow gauge never was there with 1:24. It still looked similar to standard gauge--devoid of that "oversize" look that fans of narrow gauge love so much. When Bachmann introduced the Shay, I think it was a wake-up call to narrow gauge fans, and they realized what was missing. At least, that's how it was with me. Finally, the rails were where they were supposed to be relative to the models.

I agree--the availability of 1:24 cars, dollhouse furniture/accessories, etc., makes infinite sense as to having trains to the same scale. But I also think the rapid growth of 1:29 I think is leaving narrow gauge to be what it is in every other scale--a niche pursuit. As such, I think those left modeling narrow gauge do so not because they just want trains in the garden, but because they specifically want to model narrow gauge--and the aesthetic sense that gives it its appeal.

Later,

K

[Anonymous]

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 

 

[kimbrit]

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,

Kim 

[Anonymous]

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

[Ray Dunakin]

What's really annoying is that there are all these different scales using the same gauge of track. If you want dual guage trains, you end up with two (or more) different scales, instead of two different gauges of track. "G scale" is the only place in model railroading where gauge determines the scale rather than vice versa.

BTW, whatever happened to 1:24 scale?? Lately I've been reading my old issues of Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette from the 80's, and at that time it sure looked like "G scale" was going to be 1:24. All the fine-scale modelers seemed to be working in 1:24 back then, and manufacturers such as Delton were producing 1:24 models. It made a lot more sense than any of the current scales, because there was (and still is) a large variety of vehicles and structural products available in 1:24.

[Anonymous]

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.  

Best regards 

ER 

[tangerine-jack]

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!!!

[Anonymous]

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 

 

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

 

ER 

 

 

 

[IRONROOSTER]

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 

[Anonymous]

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 

 

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Rgds Ian 

[vsmith]

Aristo is the logical choice to provide structures at 1/29 as they are the leader in that scale and already have a line of structures....however the marketplace dictates selling to the widest possible spectrum. this is why the standard gauge trains are geared towards the 1/29 crowd, but the buildings are 1/24, so that those modeling narrow gauge might be tempted to buy them as well.

- 

What I dont get is that with all the aftermarket building kits avalable no one has offered to fill that niche with 1/29 (or 1/30.5? to appeal to 1/32 scalers as well) scale buildings or kits. It would just be part of the natural progression occuring in large scale between the standard gaugers and the narrow gaugers. This split is inevitable, why not start marketing towards it instead of splitting the diffeence and producing a product that increasingly appeals to less and less on each side.

[GearDrivenSteam]

I have to wholeheartedly agree with your post. With buildings though, I have found that I enjoy scratch building structures. I can build them to whatever size I want, and detail them as much or as little as I want to. I've always felt that pre built or kits lacked that little something extra anyway.

[Anonymous]

I for one DO model in 1/24...And yes it is partly because that's what scale the affordable cars and buildings are. It also makes the math easy. The fact that the track is now 42" gauge instead of 3 foot doesn't bother me in the least.

[markperr]

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

[kstrong]

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.

Later,

K