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. [}:)][}:)][}:)][;)][;)]

[s51flyer]

I'm relatively new to G-scale, LS, Gauge 1 [%-)] or whatever it's called (I originally thought Gauge 1 was 1" gauge)[B)]. As a newbie, I agree with the posts regarding the confusion introduced by the manufacturers desire to set themselves apart. I feel products should be clearly labeled. When first looking at G scale equipment, I had the same question many are struggling with regarding scale. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but if I had a choice and labeling was clear, I might stick with one scale vs. mixing.

From my vantage point, I don't know that a european standard scale in "mm's" or a U.S. scale in inches would make all that much difference to me. What I would like to see, however is a clearer definition of standard vs narrow gauge for G scale, with the narrow gauge running on appropriately sized rails (i.e. narrower then standard). [2c]

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 to 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....

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

As another has said; these threads tend to mutate along the way so a certain amount of nudging is needed from time to time to keep us on the subject.

I believe Mr. v-smith was correct in his obsevation that 1:29 is SLOWLY becoming the accepted "standard" for standard gauge models and 1:20 for narrow gauge models. I also believe that all other scales will continue to exist but will eventually become small fish in the "Large Scale" pond.

My personal opinion would be that anyone wanting esthetic compatability (over the long haul) would do well to adopt one of the two apparent front running scales. These two scales seem to be what most new offerings are using. So down the road I expect that more and more will be offered in these two scales with less and less in all other scales within the "Large Scale" camp.

As far as couplers and wheels go...your on your own....sorry I can't offer any advice there.

OLD DAD

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by OLD DAD

THIS IS FUN, now we have a good debate going.

Just a quick word; debate is good while argument is bad. Hopefully some company executive will peruse our debates and some good will come of it.

The crux of the matter is simple, keeping a modicum of consistency in what is available. OLD DAD has a good point, however I am trying to acquire materials that will work together in my layout without having to gamble as to if what I am getting will be pleasing to the eye for the dollar spent.

Yes, there have been various track gauges used in real railroading, however the world remains on the same set of measurements. Pro exemplum, I could ride on the narrow gauge Denver & Rio Grande (narrow gauge) then ride on the Southern Pacific (standard gauge) and have no “scale issues in real life, yet in the “G” scale world I could not do that because the Southern Pacific (standard gauge) would be too cramped.

I venture to say that if I populate my layout with figures, then the matter become quite clear.

Brothers, I do not seek the elimination of the status quo as a whole, but rather a set of standards that would allow me to buy materials that would work together in scale, gauge and aesthetics. This should have been evident in my earlier post where I proposed a solution, major manufacturers could develop a line that conformed to a standard, and those that wished to partake of this standardization could do so while any others could continue. [2c][4:-)]

[Anonymous]

THIS IS FUN, now we have a good debate going.
Allow me to inject yet another scale into this fracas......7/8" scale. This scale also runs on 45mm track and represents a 24" gauge railway. Yes, there are railways built to this gauge; some are in the U.S.
Gauge has NOTHING to do with SCALE. If I were to build an HO scale train that ran on 45mm track it would NOT be large scale...it would still be HO scale albeit a wide gauge of 13'. Don't forget some countries such as Russia and India consider 5' gauge to be standard and consider 4'8 1/2" to be narrow gauge.

To the best of my knowledge real work-a-day railroads were built to gauges as narrow as 12" and as wide as 7' gauge. Scale models of any one of these railroads could be built to run on 45mm track. As I said TRACK GAUGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCALE.

So; where does this leave us?
Even if standards are adopted for "G" scale or "Large Scale" or what ever you prefer to call it, no one is forcing us to follow them. We can still run HO trains with "G" scale wheel sets if we want to; the scale police will not come banging on our garden gates.

OLD argumentative DAD

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by toenailridgesl

I couldn't tick any of the options because none of them are applicable. You are using "G Scale" as if that encompassed all LargeScale combinations. It doesn't. G Scale is 1:22.5. Specifically. Only...............................

Nonsense!

G isn't 1:22.5! 1:22.5 is IIm (Roman numerals for two) if it runs on 45mm track!
BTW there's also standard gauge in 1:22.5, that stuff runs on 64mm trackgauge.

How did they arrive at 22.5? Very easy, twice the size of European O scale (1:45).
Anyone interested to have a look at some logical standards NEM-MOROP fits the bill! http://www.morop.org/de/normes/nem010_d.pdf .

The other good resource for 1:22.5 is Spur II http://www.spur-ii.de/

[RhB_HJ]

Hi all,

I've been supporting a movement that has decent standards since I started in 2m (1:22.5). The standards are established by NEM-MOROP, are more accurate than what NMRA proposes for "Fine Scale" and have none of the leagcy nonsense the G1MRA and NMRA propose.
Being as the track gauge should be 45.00mm I invite one and all to have a look at the G1MRA and the NMRA standards. Please tell me what kind of nonsense these guys are cooking.
While we're on the track gauge. The Gauge was established by Märklin many, many years ago (in the early 1900s!) when G1MRA wasn't even thought of.

BTW what is G scale?
IMHO opinion a stupid designation that means diddly-squat, but then again why get confused with scale ratios if you can fit the whole shebang in one category "G", eh!? [}:)][}:)][:D][:D]

OK I'll get off the soapbox now, afterall I had my say about "G - wie Gummi" with my op-ed column in issue 6/2003 of GARTENBAHNprofi.

[TonyWalsham]

First of all please let me correct the statement by V Smith that Large Scale (LS) has been around for 20 years.
Although Large scale as we know it (ala LGB and derivatives) has been on sale since 1968 the concept of Large Scale has been with us for over 100 years. There have even been standards of sorts for 100 years too.

Currently the debate is whether or not to accept the 50 year old G1MRA standard for wheel and track measurements.
I strongly urge all caring modellers to press for the G1MRA standards that the NMRA is now proposing for LS.
Unfortunately some LS manufacturers do not want to adopt these sensible operating standards. But they should.

BTW it is about time we forced the manufacturers to stop generalising and calling their products "compatible with G scale" even if they are not 1:22.5.
The consumer has every right not to be confused with hyperbole. Just as in the debate over the labelling of Genetically Modified (GM) foods the consumer should be able to see exactly what it is they are being sold. For any manufacturer to do otherwise only leads me to think they have something to hide.

Personally I don't care about scale but I do accept that there are many who do and they will ultimately be in the ascendency. To my way of thinking it would be to a LS manufacturers benefit to make all their products to the correct scale and then advertise that fact.
You never know, with the success in the market place of the MTH range of LS products 1:32 might even become the pre-eminent scale on 45 mm gauge track for mainline USA prototype.
One can but live in hope.

[Anonymous]

Hello All-
Thanks for not keelhauling me regarding my comments. I agree with all of your replys. One thing that we must remember is that a large scale modeler cares about scale and gauge. A large scale modeler can have a garden railroad. A garden railroad modeler in my opinion probably doesn't really get too wrapped up in the scale issue. That person is not a large scale modeler. They are comfortable with the train running around the garden with birdhouses and such. Thats fine. On the otherhand, a garden railroader may have a HO layout in the basement with every detail to scale. I am not sure if the outdoor/garden railway was ever intended to be a dead accurate scale thing. It can be if you want it to but its nobodys business if its not. I guess it boils down to how "serious" a hobbyist you want to be. Just think of it this way. You can build/buy a dead accurate 1:20.5 narrow gauge layout in your backyard and it will still be out of scale if you keep one thing growing in the ground, all that work...and your still out of scale. Perhaps the NMRA can convince mother nature to grow 1:20.5 maple trees.
Peter

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandpopswalt

VSmith,

You're right. 1:29 for standard gauge and 1:20.5 for narrow gauge do seem to be coming up the winners in the 'scale wars'. However, judging by the comments regarding this subject, it seems that most folks would rather leave things as they are.
So maybe this segment of the the hobby is off limits to standardization. But I'd still like to be able to mix standard and narrow gauge on the same layout at the same time, as you can in HO. There's HO standard gauge and HOn3(3 foot gauge using correctly gauged track), HOn2 1/2 (using N track to represent 30" gauge), etc. Put them all together and it looks right because IT"S THE SAME SCALE. So maybe we can ask the mfg's of 1:29 standard gauge equipment to come out with a line of narrow gauge stuff running on 1 1/4" track (or even O gauge track - since everything in this gauge is a compromise anyway). Another possibility is a line of standard gauge equipment running on 2 3/4" track produced by the 1:20.5 boys.

One writer suggested that a true modeler should be able to manufacture a lot of his own equipment to get what he wants. Not everyone has the time or talent or even the tools (lathes, drill presses, etc) to make their own stuff. I don't think we should be forced to become master model builders to get what we need. If enough people show that they want something, the suppliers will probably respond. And the way to get that message to them is through discussion groups like this one, the N.M.R.A., garden RR clubs, and other groups of likeminded GR/LS modelers.

Walt

Well said as well as wisely.

[grandpopswalt]

VSmith,

You're right. 1:29 for standard gauge and 1:20.5 for narrow gauge do seem to be coming up the winners in the 'scale wars'. However, judging by the comments regarding this subject, it seems that most folks would rather leave things as they are.
So maybe this segment of the the hobby is off limits to standardization. But I'd still like to be able to mix standard and narrow gauge on the same layout at the same time, as you can in HO. There's HO standard gauge and HOn3(3 foot gauge using correctly gauged track), HOn2 1/2 (using N track to represent 30" gauge), etc. Put them all together and it looks right because IT"S THE SAME SCALE. So maybe we can ask the mfg's of 1:29 standard gauge equipment to come out with a line of narrow gauge stuff running on 1 1/4" track (or even O gauge track - since everything in this gauge is a compromise anyway). Another possibility is a line of standard gauge equipment running on 2 3/4" track produced by the 1:20.5 boys.

One writer suggested that a true modeler should be able to manufacture a lot of his own equipment to get what he wants. Not everyone has the time or talent or even the tools (lathes, drill presses, etc) to make their own stuff. I don't think we should be forced to become master model builders to get what we need. If enough people show that they want something, the suppliers will probably respond. And the way to get that message to them is through discussion groups like this one, the N.M.R.A., garden RR clubs, and other groups of likeminded GR/LS modelers.

Walt

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfd586


No one has come out and demanded that we follow any one particular scale so why is there talk of trying to take away the liberty to do that. If something is not available for the scale you model in then become a real hobbyist and produce it yourself. People do it all the time. Not everything is available on the store shelves. The tools and materials are.

P.S. The gnomes made me write this!! They are holding my cat hostage!!

Ah, I see that good old “New England” spirit of Independence and Liberty is still alive and well! I, however, didn’t want to start another “Lexington and Concord” in the G Scale world.

I concede that there needs to be a certain amount personal manufacturing in any of the scale, however, not everyone comes gifted with the same talent. I, for example, will require at least two years of trail and error before I will run any scratch built personally constructed “monstrosities” in my garden. It is at this stage that standardization is a paramount concern. Maybe my current position in the hobby taints my perspective, for this I beg your understanding.

Aside from this, I feel it is an obligation of the manufacturers to at least attempt standards. I must, however, echo your revolutionary sprit when it comes to liberty… “NO STANDARDIZATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!”

As for the Gnomes, “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes!”

[vsmith]

It already is heading towards a standardization now, that being 1/29 for standard gauge even if it isnt "scale " standard guage, and to 1/20.3 scale for the narrow guage, but it will take another 20 years to get there. Major makers are not going to retool thier lines just because the NMRA sets forth a set of standards, they missed the boat on this one by 10 years. Large Scale has been around for 20 years now and only recently when they found out how popular the scale was becoming did the NMRA decide that we were doing everything wrong and impose "standards".

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by OLD DAD

The small scales also had this type of mis-match confusion in the early days that is why the N.M.R.A. was started. Through their long and hard work standards were eventually established. And I think the N.M.R.A. is working on large scale standards even as we write about it on this forum.
OLD DAD

If your truly interested in establishing standards for "G" scale join the N.M.R.A. and volunteer to be on the "G" scale standards committee. As far as I can see this is the one and only group working on standards for "G" scale.
Why start a new movement when one is already going?
OLD DAD

[Anonymous]

All-
I voted NO. Why you might ask?! Well its just that the 45mm rail gives alot of different people the ability to go from one end of the spectrum to the other. Some like to use it as a narrow gauge base and others like to use it as a standard gauge. Some others really don't follow any particular scheme.

No one has come out and demanded that we follow any one particular scale so why is there talk of trying to take away the liberty to do that. If something is not available for the scale you model in then become a real hobbyist and produce it yourself. People do it all the time. Not everything is available on the store shelves. The tools and materials are.

To model an accurately scaled N or HO layout a considerable amount of modeling skill is required. Therefore, to do the same in G you must try even harder. Its up to you. Do you want to be able to go to the local hobby shop or mail order house and buy everything you want?. Isn't this a hobby?? What is the definition of hobby?? Model Railroading of any scale requires you to manufacture a certain amount of scale items to get what you want. Not everything is in a bag on a peg board at the hobby shop.

This subject rears its ugly head every few months around here and it usually turns into someone commenting about the drive motors on some LGB trolley not being able to pass thru an Aristo Switch which changes the whole thing to talking about ballasting.
I hope thats where this is all heading, its much more interesting than reading about things that are never going to happen!!!

Peter

P.S. The gnomes made me write this!! They are holding my cat hostage!!

[Anonymous]

And I was just starting to understand it all[:D] I think it would be great to be able to have dual track and the scale look right sitting next to each other.

[Anonymous]

Hi
As far as i am concerned in reality it is too late to convince me of anything where "G"
is concerned.
The manufacturers are squarly in the frame for that one haveing jumped on LGB's
band wagon with non matching scales all on the same gauge.
So "G" as a scale doesn't exsist you are modeling in what ever your chosen scale is
hand me a flack jacket please now wheres that Kevlar helmet[:)]
If "G" is a scale sorry but it has to be the 1:22.5 scale of the first modern manufactures
product.
#### INCOMING!!!!![xx(]
That will probably start a contraversy but keep it friendly after all it is only a hobbie
regards John
PS GnM is 45mm so whats standard gauge?[swg]

[Anonymous]

I must say that I support Phil, us Aussies rarely stick together so this may be a special moment in time. Whatever is done it should be a world wide thing, not just to suit a few individualists. "G" scale means 22.5 : 1 and it means 45 mm gauge railway lines.

On to other things about standardisation, I would like to see everything to do with the reticulation of power to our layouts be of the same material; ie brass rails, brass rail joiners, brass connectors, brass wire or some other derivitive of copper; everything that conducts electricity in a static situation (rolling stock is another matter) particularly DC (Direct Current) should be of the same material.

My reason is this I am concerned about the long term effects of electrolysis; I feel that people are doing a lot of long term damage to their much loved equipment and not know about it. The problems are cumulative and insideous (mother in law like) and they occur when electricty passes between two dissimilar metals particularly DC and it is made worse if water or moisture is evident. If you are near the ocean triple the effect if salty moisture is present.

More to worry about. Ian; Kawana Island Tropical railwway.

[grandpopswalt]

To our Worldwide brethren,

I agree that we should all model in whatever scale we wish. I don't believe anyone was suggesting that any one standard be imposed on everyone. However, since each geographical region seems to have it's own dominent narrow gauge rail spacing, for that matter maybe even standard gauge, perhaps the mfg's should be encouraged to offer equipment representing the predominent local prototypes in each market. For example, here in the US, probably 90% of the equipment sold today is of US prototypes (I'm referring to NG trains). So it seems to me that we should be able to standarize on a gauge and scale which suits us best but may be unique to the US market. I believe that our market is large enough to cause most suppliers to shift gears to accomodate us (as long as retooling doesn't dilute profits too much or cause too large an increase in price). Witness the fact that LGB has been continually offering more and more US prototype products here in recent years.

If meter gauge or 3 1/2' gauge and 4 wheel cars are your dominent prototype then you should standardize on whatever scale/gauge suits YOU best and insist that the mfg's find ways to accomadate YOUR market. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to buy from several suppliers and know that when you put their stuff on your tracks it will look and work well with all the other stuff you already have? However, if I choose to model a German prototype and my German counterpart likes the Rio Grand Southern, then we should each reasonably expect some major differences from what we are used to, and that's O.K..

Someone stated that the only obligation a supplier has is to clearly state and label his product as to scale. That may be true but there are a lot of folks out there who still won't be able to make an informed choice. I've been at this for almost 20 years and I still sometimes get confused trying to figure out if a particular car will work with what I already have at home. When I buy an auto I depend on standard terms like horsepower, MPG, headroom, legroom, etc. How else can I make a comparison? It seems reasonable to expect the same when buying a model train.

And finally, I don't expect any of the above to happen anytime soon because garden railroading is still largely about watching pretty trains running through the flower patch and maybe that's as it should be..

Walt

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MICH CAL

no, not at all, the track is standardized, everything else is gravy

I think this is the best part. Standard track is paramount to us all, I am thankful I do not have to worry 'bout that, although the type of material it is made out of is varied each alloy having its own plus/ minus factors.

[Anonymous]

no, not at all, the track is standardized, everything else is gravy

[Anonymous]

The small scales also had this type of mis-match confusion in the early days that is why the N.M.R.A. was started. Through their long and hard work standards were eventually established. And I think the N.M.R.A. is working on large scale standards even as we write about it on this forum.
OLD DAD

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TonyWalsham


The ONLY thing we can ask for and legitimately expect form the manufacturers is that they clearly and boldly label what the scale is on the packaging and any advertising.

Another far more important topic is that of interoperability of equipment from various LS manufacturers. eg back to back measurements of wheel sets etc.

I am willing to accept your premise that we can ask for and expect the manufacturers to clearly and boldly label what the scale is on the packaging and any advertising. This would serve to create “mini Markets” and true scales with the Large Scale.

I accept your compromise as a viable solution, but…alas…who will listen.

The number of Australians who are in the hobby impresses me, God bless you and please put up with us Americans. We are a cheerful lot..really… [:D]…see!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by toenailridgesl

You are using "G Scale" as if that encompassed all LargeScale combinations. It doesn't. G Scale is 1:22.5. Specifically. Only.
I can also see a problem running into a 'my country right or wrong' mentality.

Flame suit donned

Thank you for your comments. I am somewhat new to the “G scale.” You see, I assumed that the “G” in G Scale was for “garden,” and that the “Large Scale” was a place of compatibility. I apologize for my improper use of semantics.

Still, this distinction you identify is not common knowledge to all and serves as a determent to large scale. The existence of various scales amid the “Garden/Large Scale” gauges results in the clear lack of variety of available and interchangeable parts, accessories and the like. When operating in N Scale, most items (aside from “Micro” brand couplers) were interchangeable. I could run Bachmann, Model Power, Lifelike and other rolling stock together without fear of a “scale” conflict. This allowed a great variety of rolling stock. If I wanted an N scale “Union Pacific” covered hopper and Bachmann did not produce one, I could shop from other companies. If I needed a “maintenance of way” car set and Lifelike did not produce it, I could seek out Bachmann. Structures were also standard.

Because of the variety of scale in the Large Scale, the variety is not as diverse. One has to remain limited to one company and swallow the discrepancies caused by differing scales.

Now, before you tell me to return to N Scale or worse; I am speaking of the American Market. Europe, Asia, Australia et al are subject to their own manufacturers and an “American” standard would not be a world standard. (there need not be a “UN Scale”)

I am an American (Texan by Birth), but I don’t expect the world to conform to American standards. I would just like to see some continuity in the product.

[TonyWalsham]

I agree with Phil. There were no options in the poll that I could tick.

Given that we are talking about multiple scales on one (45mm) common gauge track (well two gauges as 32mm gauge is also common in the UK and elsewhere) this is a question that can never be answered.
The ONLY thing we can ask for and legitimately expect form the manufacturers is that they clearly and boldly label what the scale is on the packaging and any advertising.
Model railroad customers in the smaller scales have to know the difference between scales,. So why is it so hard for them to learn what the differences are in Large Scale (LS)? After all no one would attempt to run H0n3" equipment on H0 track.

Another far more important topic is that of interoperability of equipment from various LS manufacturers. eg back to back measurements of wheel sets etc.

[toenailridgesl]

I couldn't tick any of the options because none of them are applicable. You are using "G Scale" as if that encompassed all LargeScale combinations. It doesn't. G Scale is 1:22.5. Specifically. Only.
I can also see a problem running into a 'my country right or wrong' mentality.
If you scrap any of the current scales you are going to alienate lots of other modellers who aren't neccessarily in your little part of the world.
Mention was made of using 1:24 scale on correct gauge track. NG in Australia, Sth America, Sth Africa and New Zealand ALREADY have this comnbination because their narrow gauge is 3'6" gauge, not 3 ft. You going to alienate them by scrapping their combination?
European ng modellers are real happy with 1:22.5 because that represents accurately their metre gauge.
You Yanks and those of us o/seas who model US are satisfied with 1:20.3 to correctly model Nth American 3ft gauge.
I'm not going to touch on the shemozzle that is 1:29 except to say that there are some nice toys out there but they ain't SCALE models, not while they are running on 4'3" gauge.
I'm one of the coots of this hobby (see my URL) and can't understand the confusion. If you want to be a rivet-counter then only buy or build what you know is accurate gauge/scale/detail combinations.
If you're happy running what looks good together within reasonable limits then do your thing but don't impose either attitude on other modellers. They have the same right as you do to do THEIR own thing.

Mention was made of using postal order and uncertainty re the scale of the ordered item. There is so much information on products available, especially through GR product reviews and specific LS site such as http://wwwmylargescale.com & http://www.largescalecentral.com Newbie questions are welcomed and receive huge responses to their queries.

Flame suit donned

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandpopswalt

Hey Cappy,

Here we are again. I just read an interesting article in the April 5 issue of Time about a discussion group movement called Socrates Caf'e that's apparently sweeping the country. They meet in Coffee houses, libraries, etc. Sounds as though it might be right up your alley.

Regarding the standardization of G gauge scale, it would be the right thing to do but it will probably be many years, if ever, before it happens. There are too many mfg's who have already taken their own road. They've each got a major investment in tooling that would be too expensive to redo or replace. Besides, there are now brand loyal hobbyists who have also invested heavily in a particular brand and feel that their scale is the "right one". I think reaching concensus would be very difficult.

I've felt for a long time that we should start a new 'American' standard and that it should be 1/24 scale for narrow gauge (1/2" = 1') using true 3' gauge track. Our current G gauge track is 45 MM between-the-rails, obviously a european standard whose genesis was probably in Germany or England (I'm not a big fan of metrification). Perhaps some gutsy manufacturer would take a chance and bring us a whole new line of true 3' gauge (in 1/24) equipment including track (1 1/2" between-the-rails), locos, cars, etc. As I've stated before, there is already a huge supply of auto and truck models offered in 1/24 scale in both diecast and plastic. They would be properly scaled to go along with this new line of trains. Most of the existing rolling stock could probably be used on the new gauge track simply by changing the trucks. LGB and Bachmann cars are 1/22.5 and would look so much better running on the narrower gauge track (code 250 or 215). Now imagine, if we did indeed standarize on 1/24 and that same manufacturer came out with a new line of standard gauge trains which run on 2 3/8" gauge track (4' - 8 1/2"). We'd now be able to run mainline trains and narrow gauge together. The possiblilities are very exciting. However, I realize that many modellers who have large and well established layouts would not embrace this idea. But it might be appealing to folks who are just getting started or the guys who only have a small loop of track on the ground. What the heck, there's nothing standard about this hobby now, why not throw yet another variable into the mess.

Walt

Walt,

Thanks for the kind words; I’ll look into that Socrates Café movement. There are a few coffee clubs and roundtables that meet in Corpus Christi, Texas, but I live in Premont (a 70 mile drive). Plus I teach the 8th Grade, I do look forward to a time when I can indulge in free and open debate in the Aristotelian and Socratic Method. But for now I will have to settle for “Aristo-Craft” tracks and the relative anonymity of the Internet Debate forum.

I’ve given some thought about how companies could move slowly to a standard scale gauge. It would have benefits for all those involved.

Stage 1: All the major manufacturers could agree to develop a set of standards and begin a special line (small at first) for these standards and continue their other lines. This would allow retooling of factories in a gradual manner.

Stage 2: Current “multi-scale” lines would slowly be discontinued and automatically attain some sort of “antique” status. This would raise the price of these rapidly disappearing scale items and allow new people to begin in the hobby.

In the Civil Air Patrol we were faced with a change in our radio frequencies to a narrow band, we were given seven years to update and modify equipment. This gradual change was resisted at first, however people yielded to the change since time was allotted for said change.

This is what would happen in this case, and as I have stated, people who model out of the standard will have instant collectors items with the respect of all.

Stage 3: “Old timer”s to the hobby would not be left in the cold. I am sure that companies will develop or current companies would continue to produce materials for this group. It seems as if this would not be such an inconvenience, since currently there is no standardization and many people fabricate a lot of their structures.

I am confident that, after a transition period for “settling in,” this would attract new people to the hobby and make a vast improvement to the current debacle when it comes to sales.

Just a few suggestions…have at it my fine associates! I await the first salvo!

Again, thank you.

[IRONROOSTER]

If there were a standard on say 1:24, I'd probably get into G. Have standard gauge track and narrow gauge track in 3' and 2' widths. Problem is, it will take a major manufacturer who can take losses for a few years while it starts up.
Enjoy
Paul

[grandpopswalt]

Hey Cappy,

Here we are again. I just read an interesting article in the April 5 issue of Time about a discussion group movement called Socrates Caf'e that's apparently sweeping the country. They meet in Coffee houses, libraries, etc. Sounds as though it might be right up your alley.

Regarding the standardization of G gauge scale, it would be the right thing to do but it will probably be many years, if ever, before it happens. There are too many mfg's who have already taken their own road. They've each got a major investment in tooling that would be too expensive to redo or replace. Besides, there are now brand loyal hobbyists who have also invested heavily in a particular brand and feel that their scale is the "right one". I think reaching concensus would be very difficult.

I've felt for a long time that we should start a new 'American' standard and that it should be 1/24 scale for narrow gauge (1/2" = 1') using true 3' gauge track. Our current G gauge track is 45 MM between-the-rails, obviously a european standard whose genesis was probably in Germany or England (I'm not a big fan of metrification). Perhaps some gutsy manufacturer would take a chance and bring us a whole new line of true 3' gauge (in 1/24) equipment including track (1 1/2" between-the-rails), locos, cars, etc. As I've stated before, there is already a huge supply of auto and truck models offered in 1/24 scale in both diecast and plastic. They would be properly scaled to go along with this new line of trains. Most of the existing rolling stock could probably be used on the new gauge track simply by changing the trucks. LGB and Bachmann cars are 1/22.5 and would look so much better running on the narrower gauge track (code 250 or 215). Now imagine, if we did indeed standarize on 1/24 and that same manufacturer came out with a new line of standard gauge trains which run on 2 3/8" gauge track (4' - 8 1/2"). We'd now be able to run mainline trains and narrow gauge together. The possiblilities are very exciting. However, I realize that many modellers who have large and well established layouts would not embrace this idea. But it might be appealing to folks who are just getting started or the guys who only have a small loop of track on the ground. What the heck, there's nothing standard about this hobby now, why not throw yet another variable into the mess.

I've considered handlaying my track in 1 1/2" gauge and regauging the wheels on the cars. A lot of work, but doable. However, regauging the locos would be a daunting task that I'm not willing to undertake. If someone came out with a new line of trains as described above, I'd be the first in line.

Walt