Would you support a movement in G Scale to standardize?

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by John Busby

Hi
It looks like a lot of people want things to stay the way they are I do however think the manufacturers should be forced to put the scale on the package..
I just looked at an Aristocraft box it said gauge one "so what who cares" I know that but what scale is it I bet it's not 10mm = 1' which is traditionaly acsepted for gauge one
standard gauge.
LGB packaging has nothing indicating scale nor does Hartland
No wonder the beginer finds he walked into a mine field when the manufacturers cannot even be botherd to tell you what they are making and I think it showes utter contempt for the people who's hard earned money they are taking
We are happy to take your money but we don't care if it is not the scale you want and we are not going to tell you so you can make an informed desision.
By the way we are also going to charge you ro buy our advertising brochure as well so you can find out at your cost not ours.
regards John

John,

Precisely!

Not only that, most reviews in most mags are loath to touch the " is it to scale?" question, let alone compare the proto measurements to the "model" measurements!

On the "pay for the brochure", I guess that's up to us to decide. I for one haven't bought a LS catalogue for several years. No need to, most of the stuff is on the Internet.
Why does LGB not list a scale on their boxes? Wellllllllllll, with few exceptions (getting more numerous) they'd have to list three scales: one for the length, another one for the width and a third one for the height. [}:)][}:)][}:)][;)][;)]

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by s51flyer


Lastly, I believe that standardization may help drive better price competition, maybe even forcing prices to decline a little. That may be wishfull thinking. However, If you choose a scale today that's specific to a manufacturer and prefer to stay with a certain scale, you are stuck with their limited product line and a certain pricing that exclusivity in scale allows. Sure, you can always mix scales, but I feel more "forced" to mix because of product availability. If you didn't have too mix because prices appeared competitive and products in the same G "scale" were available from multiple manufacturers in the varieties we've come to expect in N, HO, etc., would you mix [?]

Bob....

Bob,

It's all a matter of deciding what you want to model.
Modelling NorthAmerican NG (as in 3ft) is quite possible with more and more reasonably priced equipment on the market.

OTOH modelling NA standard gauge certainly is a "dog's breakfast".

[grandpopswalt]

My contribution to this thread concerns itself with Large Scale, Narrow Gauge in the American market. As I've stated before in this thread, I'm in favor of adopting 1:24 scale and 1 1/2" track gauge as the standard. Obviously this is not going to happen. So, if we're stuck with the 45mm track gauge then our standardized scale should be 1:20.5 to accurately represent prototype 3 foot track spacing. In my opinion the shortcoming of this scale (1:20.5) is the complete lack of automotive models as well as moderately priced structures. My guess is that the majority of folks who have an operating layout have or would like to have at least a few autos and trucks to enhance their scences. Putting a 1:24 auto next to a 1:20.5 train sitting on what amounts to 3 1/2' gauge track just does not look right. Even next to 1:22.5 trains the auto looks 'off".

So here's a great opportunity for some of you entrepreneurs to create a line of vintage cars and trucks in 1:20 scale and make a fortune (but please don't get greedy and try to sell them for $50 a piece). Finding such cars and structures would make my life a lot easier and make this awful headache go away.

Walt

[Anonymous]

Having brought to light a similiar thread about gauging issues on another forum I will reply to the question further in another post. My issue is not about scale. It is about track gauge and wheel back to back settings. I could not tick any of the boxes so indicated as I found it wrong. I will also make my reason's for that in the next post. I just need to sit down and formulate that post so others can understand exactly where I am coming from and not see it as a platform for a bash against any one manufacturer but a broadside at the whole lot of them. Get the mechanics of wheel and track issues right first and then move on to scale next.

[Anonymous]

Here we go. Again! Another controversial poll. I can hear guys bawlin', no matter
what scale and/ or guage will become standard.

Gentlemen, I have 12,000 three gallon buckets to catch your tears and boys, you ought not to cuss if your guage/scale isn't made standard. The buckets are a bargain, 10 cents each, 12 for a dollar.

If standardization waits 20 years, it's very doubtful I'll be here to listen to all the
negative comments and naughty words. fishwagon

[Anonymous]

Walt; I agree with you regarding scale vehicles I use the 1:24th cars on my 1:22.5 / 1:20.3 layout and they do look out of scale. I try to keep them away from the trains and buildings so the scale difference isn't so noticeable.

There is a small group of indoor large scale modelers building to 1:24 scale..... give this link a look-see. http://gn15.info/index.php?id=3

[Anonymous]

Someone needs to say this;
Except for Accucraft & a couple of small mom and pop companys plus the Bachmann Shay, Climax, 2-8-0 and now their Heisler; large scale manufacturers have never produced "SCALE" models of any train. I realize my statements may ruffle a few feathers but its time that someone raised the shades and allow the light of reality to shine into the garden.

I see people on this thread using words like "force" and "demand" that the manufacturers lable their products with a scale designation. Would you expect Disney to lable Mickey Mouse and Goofy figures with a scale designation?; of course not! These figures are not scale models any more than the trains we run on our layouts. TRUE; our trains are closer to scale than Mickey & Goofy but they are not "scale" models. So; why "should" a manufacturer place a scale designation on their train toys?

LGB is a toy co. and their trains are toys not scale models. The same is true of all other manufacturers they are not producing scale models these are toys. If you don't believe me place any LGB locomotive next to a Bachmann 2-8-0 or Shay and see which one looks like a scale model and which one looks like a toy. The LGB toy is a good starting point to bash into a scale model to be sure. The basic outline of the LGB loco will be very close to this or that full size locomotive.

As long as we keep buying these toys and as long as the tooling holds out these so called "out of scale" toys will continue to be produced.

We need to encourage NOT force these companys to produce scale models when it's time to retool for their next offering.

May all your weeds be wild flowers ..... OLD DAD

[Anonymous]

Hi Old Dad
No good Encouraging manufactures in large scale they don't listen and if they are not going to they have to be forced.
All other sizes of train even the toys have a nominal some times very nominal scale printed on the box why not the large scale ones?
I know LGB is not very scale on most things funny though the little Stainze that every one
who starts with an LGB starter set has is so close to 1:20 as makes no diference I was going to rebuild one of mine too 1:19 but I am not making a cab for the sake of 1.5mm
so it just ended up with new buffer couplings.
anyway that still doesnt alter my argument that the manufacturers cant be botherd too
mark thier boxes properly.
And thier notion of compatabilaty doesn't work for me either.
I do not feel the Manufactures are being totaly honest with me.
regards John

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandpopswalt

My contribution to this thread concerns itself with Large Scale, Narrow Gauge in the American market. As I've stated before in this thread, I'm in favor of adopting 1:24 scale and 1 1/2" track gauge as the standard. Obviously this is not going to happen. So, if we're stuck with the 45mm track gauge then our standardized scale should be 1:20.5 to accurately represent prototype 3 foot track spacing. In my opinion the shortcoming of this scale (1:20.5) is the complete lack of automotive models as well as moderately priced structures. My guess is that the majority of folks who have an operating layout have or would like to have at least a few autos and trucks to enhance their scences. Putting a 1:24 auto next to a 1:20.5 train sitting on what amounts to 3 1/2' gauge track just does not look right. Even next to 1:22.5 trains the auto looks 'off".

So here's a great opportunity for some of you entrepreneurs to create a line of vintage cars and trucks in 1:20 scale and make a fortune (but please don't get greedy and try to sell them for $50 a piece). Finding such cars and structures would make my life a lot easier and make this awful headache go away.

Walt

Hi Walt

I've been using 1/18 scale die cast autos and they look fine next to 1/20.3 scale locos. Theres a huge selection of 1/18 cars out there and they are very close scale wise. For a good laugh, see my thread on scale and insanity and chewing on the doors in frustration i had over a 1/24 figure and a 1/24 auto and how NIETHER were to scale. I know over on the Toenail Ridge Line Phil's scratchbuilt quite a few 1/20 scale Model T's so it is possible to do older boxier type cars But my layout is set in the 50's and there is NO WAY I'm going to scratch a 51 ford sedan!

[grandpopswalt]

OLD DAD,

My son and daughter-in-law recently transferred from the Bay Area to Minneapolis (Brrrrrr). We're going to be visting them in late April. Are you located anywhere near Minneapolis and are you in a position to welcome visitors to your railroad?

Walt

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SoundGK

Having brought to light a similiar thread about gauging issues on another forum I will reply to the question further in another post. My issue is not about scale. It is about track gauge and wheel back to back settings. I could not tick any of the boxes so indicated as I found it wrong. I will also make my reason's for that in the next post. I just need to sit down and formulate that post so others can understand exactly where I am coming from and not see it as a platform for a bash against any one manufacturer but a broadside at the whole lot of them. Get the mechanics of wheel and track issues right first and then move on to scale next.

I look forward to your reply!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fishwagon

Here we go. Again! Another controversial poll. I can hear guys bawlin', no matter
what scale and/ or guage will become standard.

Gentlemen, I have 12,000 three gallon buckets to catch your tears and boys, you ought not to cuss if your guage/scale isn't made standard. The buckets are a bargain, 10 cents each, 12 for a dollar.

If standardization waits 20 years, it's very doubtful I'll be here to listen to all the
negative comments and naughty words. fishwagon

Fishwagon,

I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for some standards in the scale, however, as I await my latest train set in the mail, I plan find that scale should be secondary to the railroading itself.

I do want a layout that I can justify in my mind due to a lack of skill or talent due to my position as a novice in the scale, but I do not want to waste money on equipment that is not functionally attractive with other materials I own.

I could, for example, operate only items of like scale at once, which would produce trains of uniform appearance.

We must all recall that standardization is the question, not necessarily the answer.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by OLD DAD

Walt; I agree with you regarding scale vehicles I use the 1:24th cars on my 1:22.5 / 1:20.3 layout and they do look out of scale. I try to keep them away from the trains and buildings so the scale difference isn't so noticeable.

There is a small group of indoor large scale modelers building to 1:24 scale..... give this link a look-see. http://gn15.info/index.php?id=3

This has lead me to an interesting question, if I use a Bachmann locomotive and cars should I use 1/18 or 1/24 scale automobiles?

Questions like this one only serve to exasperate the scale question even further. Could not there be degrees of “G scale” in the future reflecting different scales?

[grandpopswalt]

Cappy,

Until this 'scale' issue is resolved, if ever, you need to be careful to purchase only equipment that you know is compatible and doesn't offend your sense of proportion. An alternative, as you mentioned, is to run two or more entirely different scale sets of trains at different times (talk about playing into the hands of the manufacturers).

I'm toying with the idea of building a loco and a few cars in 1:13.7 scale. This scales out to 2 feet between the rails using 45mm track. The prototypes for this kind of equipment were widely used in the state of Maine in the late 1800's/early 1900's. If I wanted to run the really BIG stuff (1:13.7) , I would remove all the 1:24 scale autos, structures, etc from the layout and replace them with 7/8" scale stuff that would be compatible with the much larger trains. If you carry this thought even further, you could then remove the 1:13.7 stuff and replace it with 1:29 accouterments and run your standard gauge scale trains. The only problem with this whole scheme is the tie spacing and dimensions (2' tie spacing in 1:13.7 is roughly equivelent to 4' spacing in 1:24). Anyone have any ideas how to get around that?.

Walt

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Capt Carrales

QUOTE: Originally posted by OLD DAD

Walt; I agree with you regarding scale vehicles I use the 1:24th cars on my 1:22.5 / 1:20.3 layout and they do look out of scale. I try to keep them away from the trains and buildings so the scale difference isn't so noticeable.

There is a small group of indoor large scale modelers building to 1:24 scale..... give this link a look-see. http://gn15.info/index.php?id=3

This has lead me to an interesting question, if I use a Bachmann locomotive and cars should I use 1/18 or 1/24 scale automobiles?

Questions like this one only serve to exasperate the scale question even further. Could not there be degrees of “G scale” in the future reflecting different scales?

It really depends on what final scale you are aiming for...

Example...Bachmann's 4-6-0 is really a 1/24 scale loco, there is no way in the universe it is 1/20.3 like there 2-8-0 Consolidated. They claim that now but a few years ago it was said to be 1/22.5 narrow guage but if you scale it its way closer to being 1/24. If this is going to be your prime engine than I would use 1/24 autos. If you are planning though to upgrade to a 2-8-0 or similar scale 1/20.3 engine then I would go with 1/18 autos which are far closer in scale.

Please remember that B'mann 4-6-0 was designed to be used as EITHER a narrow guage engine OR a standard guage engine...the narrow gauge prototypyes were truely shrunken down versions of the bigger prototypes, I have seen this same design used by Baldwin for BOTH standard AND narrow gauge. It was a VERY common design. Hence Bachmanns Colorado Southern, EBT, & D&RGW versions AND , Southern, B&O, Santa Fe, and Union Pacific versions of the SAME engine.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by John Busby

Hi Old Dad
No good Encouraging manufactures in large scale they don't listen and if they are not going to they have to be forced.

Hi John;
If someone came along and tried to force you to do something you wern't ready for would you....A...give in and do as they demand....or ...B...hunker down and resist their demands....be honest when you answer this question.

And thier notion of compatabilaty doesn't work for me either.
I do not feel the Manufactures are being totaly honest with me.
regards John

John; I realy don't think the manufactures gave compatibility much thought in the begining; now there locked into what ever they started with.
Bachmann took a huge gamble when they made the jump from toys to "scale" 1:20.3 models.

Thirty years ago I heard a figure of $100,000 for the tooling to produce a 1:24 plastic model of a scale auto. Add in a motor, electronics, and running gear plus thirty years of inflation and you have some idea of the cost to get ready for production of a locomotive. Then you have to worry about whether or not the thing will sell well enough to recover your set-up costs and hopefully produce a profit.

This is not a hobby for LGB, Bachmann etc. it's a buisness and as a business they must show a profit or go out of business. So backing them into a corner with force isn't going to yield the results your looking for.
As the old saying goes; "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

OLD DAD

[cacole]

Same thing with me -- no choice that I would check off. My only gripe is the lack of standardization on couplers. The only way to get things to work together is to put Kadee couplers on everything, and even then a lot of cutting or shimming is required to get the coupler height near where it should be.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

Same thing with me -- no choice that I would check off. My only gripe is the lack of standardization on couplers. The only way to get things to work together is to put Kadee couplers on everything, and even then a lot of cutting or shimming is required to get the coupler height near where it should be.

Same here with the couplers, I went with Bachmann mostly because they mount in place of a standard LGB hook and loop with a minimum of fuss, just trim some plastic, add a brass L bracket to hold the coupler center and use the same screw to mount it. At least by doing this, all my couplers are same type and same height.

[Anonymous]

Ah - that's the great thing about standards.

There are so many to choose from.

[Anonymous]

I really don't care about scales; as someone said I am just someone who likes to watch them go round but I do not have an aviary I hate birds.

However I do believe that people can think what they like, but unless it is financially feasible; the menufacturers will not do much to satisfy even the most gifted and knowlegable hobbyist.

LGB is easily the oldest, largest, most advanced and diversified manufacturer of G railway stuff and they say they invented 1 : 22.5 sacle and re invented garden railways. I'm sure it was just to be different as I have seen many manufacturers do, that are smart marketers.

So unless you can produce a good marketable reason for producing anything, along with a good business case; I would be surprised if any manufacturer will do anything.

I have heard a lot about what people think and what they consider about some shortcomings but has anyone any idea as to how many other people feel the same way (I for one do not) and how much it would cost to satisfy their desires and or requirements.

Ian (The business man and marketer;( retired)) Kawana Island Tropical.
Railway.

PS I bet I haven't made too many friends by these comments.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fishwagon

Here we go. Again! Another controversial poll. I can hear guys bawlin', no matter
what scale and/ or guage will become standard.

Gentlemen, I have 12,000 three gallon buckets to catch your tears and boys, you ought not to cuss if your guage/scale isn't made standard. The buckets are a bargain, 10 cents each, 12 for a dollar.

If standardization waits 20 years, it's very doubtful I'll be here to listen to all the
negative comments and naughty words. fishwagon

Hey fishwagon,

No problem!
I have a proto to work to, I have a scale to work to and I use a Standard that's established.

And being as my proto is Swiss NG I don't need to worry about Aristo, Bachmann or USA Trains making it through the tight tolerance of my scratchbuilt switches. If I use any of their wares to kitbash I know how to gauge the wheels.

So I for one need no bucket, except perhaps to carry cement and ballast.[;)][:)][:)][:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor

I really don't care about scales; as someone said I am just someone who likes to watch them go round but I do not have an aviary I hate birds.

However I do believe that people can think what they like, but unless it is financially feasible; the menufacturers will not do much to satisfy even the most gifted and knowlegable hobbyist.

LGB is easily the oldest, largest, most advanced and diversified manufacturer of G railway stuff and they say they invented 1 : 22.5 sacle and re invented garden railways. I'm sure it was just to be different as I have seen many manufacturers do, that are smart marketers.

So unless you can produce a good marketable reason for producing anything, along with a good business case; I would be surprised if any manufacturer will do anything.

I have heard a lot about what people think and what they consider about some shortcomings but has anyone any idea as to how many other people feel the same way (I for one do not) and how much it would cost to satisfy their desires and or requirements.

Ian (The business man and marketer;( retired)) Kawana Island Tropical.
Railway.

PS I bet I haven't made too many friends by these comments.

Don't worry mate (if I may use your lingo, or if you prefer the more Texan "pardner"), your opinion is valued and of paramount importance especially in this topic. Never measure your opinions and beliefs on how popular others think they are, being true to one’s self will make one infinitely more contented.

Ian, many best wishes on your "purple star," it's no Victoria Cross, but enjoy the accolade.

[wallyworld]

I recently got my garden railroad stuff out of the attic and out into the yard. That's why I dropped into this forum. I'll just use what I have and be happy. I got out of this end of the hobby five years ago and this same discussion just went on ad infintum. I wasnt surprised to see this poll. I am sure the same scale debate still smolders as well somewhere. If they would have agreed upon a standard coupler, I would have been happy. Nice thought but it will never happen.

[OS2Dude]

I'm not sure why a large percentage of folks in LargeScale see to think some form of Standardization is going to kill the 'Free Spirit' of Large Scale. (See the LSOL articales on the subject.) Like it or not, we have standards now. We just have too many of them and need a 'standard Standard'. Standards would help alliviate the issues of couplers not working together, trains derailing in switches, wheelsets working on one manufactures rail and not on anothers, etc.

I, for one, like my motive power and rolling-stock to be of the same scale. (I'm more of a 2.5' rule person.) Haveing standards will allow me to do that easier. For those 10' rule folks out there, it does not stop you from mixing and matching or running anything you want. I see no problem with having 1:24 represented as well. While not as big as n3, n36 has a niche in HO and other scales as well. While having Standard & Narrow dual tracked lines would be nice, I also like being able to have my friends who prefer the 'other size' to run on my track. Frankly, I'm not sure how many folks could run a larger track guage. Pretty soon you'd be getting into the ride-on scales. Talk about your standards body, Say hello to the Federal Railroad Administration. (At least if your open to the public.)


I would think manufactures would be driffting into 1:32 for standard guage. It would satisfy the rivit-counters among us, and the 10' folks could continue using their 1:29 stock. (The difference in size would be slightly less between 1:32 - 1:29 (3) than 1:29 - 1:24. (5). ) Standards don't prohibit the use or even manufacturing of 'non-standard' equiptment, it should just be labeled as such.

8< - - -
Thus Sprach Ich . . .
Chris Wolcott
http://www.geocities.com/OS2Dude

[vsmith]

OS2dude

Sorry but 1/32 will never be the predominant scale for standard guage trains in large scale unless some new manufacturers spring up and start offering stuff comperable to Aristo's, LGB's, and USA's 1/29 scale stuff.

1/32 has always been the domain of the finescale megabucks items. and probably will be forever. 1/32 also doesn't have the UMPH that the slightly larger 1/29 has with buyers.
Sad but true. Aristo and USA have thrown in their card for 1/29 following LGB's lead for standard guage items that have more visual appeal and less scale concerns. These thre would face 100's of 1000's of dollars of retooling to switch to 1/32, that wil not happen.

In narrow guage 1/20.3 will eventually win out over 1/22.5 because even today there is a relativly small number of narrow gauge products avalible so theres plenty of room for new stuff to fill the gaps.

[TonyWalsham]

QUOTE: Sorry but 1/32 will never be the predominant scale for standard guage trains in large scale unless some new manufacturers spring up and start offering stuff comperable to Aristo's, LGB's, and USA's 1/29 scale stuff.

I take it you have never heard of MTH®?

Even though some 1:32 does cost mega bucks MTH® seems to be not of that ilk.

From a situation where the naysayers said it will never happen, Mike Wolfe has now delivered 3 x 1:32 locos and a bunch of rolling stock to match.
The roll out of 1:32 MTH® equipment seems to be occurring at a faster rate than either Aristocraft® or USA Trains® managed when they first started.
Mike is not stupid. He noticed that there is a market for correctly proportioned standard gauge equipment and went after it. There are plenty of mainline modellers in the smaller scales that will not jump to LS because the stuff on offer was and still is, an incorrect scale.
Well now they have something to get enthused about.
Especially as Accucraft have announced a reasonably priced very accurate 1:32 reefer.

The debate is by no means over in favour of 1:29.

BTW. I have no axe to grind one way or the other over the scale of LS mainline trains as I am a fan of (very) narrow gauge.

Best wishes,

Tony Walsham (RCS).

[bman36]

Tony,
Funny how all the chat here is about standards yet we all seem to have our favorite equipment and/or scale. For me I have been sitting quiet just watching this thread grow and grow. I too have a heart for the Narrow Gauge stuff yet being able to run Aristo and LGB on the same track is great. Ironically I like the fact that we have such a variety available for us to run. On my outdoor line I constructed my buildings at 1:24 scale so that running 1:20.3 or 1:29 could be done. Either one does not look bad with the buildings. As I have already said on other threads I find trying to match people to my equipment a little frustrating. All it ever does is take me back to matching by "eye" if you will. Will this ever end??? Chances are no. Oh well at least this sure has made for an interesting discussion. Bout' all I can say for now. Later eh....Brian.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TonyWalsham

QUOTE: Sorry but 1/32 will never be the predominant scale for standard guage trains in large scale unless some new manufacturers spring up and start offering stuff comperable to Aristo's, LGB's, and USA's 1/29 scale stuff.

I take it you have never heard of MTH®?

Even though some 1:32 does cost mega bucks MTH® seems to be not of that ilk.

From a situation where the naysayers said it will never happen, Mike Wolfe has now delivered 3 x 1:32 locos and a bunch of rolling stock to match.
The roll out of 1:32 MTH® equipment seems to be occurring at a faster rate than either Aristocraft® or USA Trains® managed when they first started.
Mike is not stupid. He noticed that there is a market for correctly proportioned standard gauge equipment and went after it. There are plenty of mainline modellers in the smaller scales that will not jump to LS because the stuff on offer was and still is, an incorrect scale.
Well now they have something to get enthused about.
Especially as Accucraft have announced a reasonably priced very accurate 1:32 reefer.

The debate is by no means over in favour of 1:29.

BTW. I have no axe to grind one way or the other over the scale of LS mainline trains as I am a fan of (very) narrow gauge.

Best wishes,

Tony Walsham (RCS).

Yes Tony I'm aware of MTH but they have always been a smaller player compared to LGB, A/C or USA , also I do narrow guage and as a result thats where my bias lies.

The standard guage 1/32 vs 1/29 issue is something I view from the outside and do not want to dip too far into. I have enough "issues" with 1/20.3 vs 1/22.5[;)]

But it seams to me that 1/29 LGB, A/C, and USA is winning out over 1/32 MTH, Accucraft and Marklin in both popularity, number of products, and availiblity, hence my viewpoint that I dont see 1/32 being anything more than "just another scale" in an already scale crowded large scale universe.

[Anonymous]

Just to stir things up a bit, wasn't there a proposed large scales color coded labeling system already proposed by the manufactures? I have never seen it. And doesn't On3 run on HO track?

Remembering back when I was new, I went nuts with this "scale" , "guage" stuff. Who knew that 1:20.3 and 1:29 were so different? After all wasn't it "G"? After all it ran on the same track.

[vsmith]

Scale On3 is wider than HO track, what your probably thinking off is On30 like that bachmann is offering. That DOES run on HO track, they are offering 36" guage Colorado D&RG type narrow guage but in 30 inch guage format but it is technially out of scale as Colorado D&RG never had 30 inch guage equipment. They did this so one can do narrow guage without having to use the higher price On30 track and equipment. HO track and drivetrains are much more common.