Scale? & should that really measure that much

[Anonymous]

Hi wa1lbk
I can well uderstand where you are coming from where the coaches are concerned..
I saw one of the Bachmann coaches bashed into a more or less scale sized coach.
It would not have got round LGB R1 or R2 and might not have looked Right on R3
Not sure I like the new Extra shortie bogie coaches the LGB do in there US passanger sets
even though they would probably look OK on my track havent been able to get a second hand one to find out yet.
regards John

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by carpenter matt

I believe he's refering to a British 303 Enfield rifle![;)]

In other words keep you mouth shut or risk getting shot!

Hi Matt
Got it in one don't like people who spoil the hobby for others with negatve critsisam they are usualy the ones that haven't done a thing.and not interested in doing anything
regards John

[vsmith]

wa1blk

If your logged in, as the author of the relies you can delete the extra reply by clicking the "delete" trash can icon in the upper right corner of your extra reply, or to change use the "edit" icon.

I'm indoors too, with the smallest layout in this group, like to hear from anyone else nuts enough to but these big trains indoors. My layout can be read about under the heading of "the Saga of My Ever Shrinking Layout" Welcome and let us know how progress goes on the outdoor and tell us about the indoor, Later Vic

[wa1lbk]

Oops! Must've hit the "submit reply" button twice! [banghead] My bad! [oops]

[wa1lbk]

Bachmann's 1:20.3 geared locos tempted me back into the hobby after being on the sidelines for about 10 years; here, finally, were inexpensive large-scale geared steam locos which rivaled brass in detail, ran beautifully, & didn't look totally ridiculous on 2' radius LGB curves! [^] I am generally more forgiving of scale lapses on freight & passenger cars than I am on motive power; I have a string of Bachmann Jackson Sharp coaches for passnger service on my layout, while freight cars are a mix of Aristo-Craft "classic" series (the wooden hopper & gondola cars in particular) a couple of Delton reefers, LGB, Bachmann & Delton. I have been in the "rivet counting" school in the past, modeling PRR in O scale 2-rail & have gone slightly nuts trying to find out the "EXACT" detailing for a specific locomotive number - which also depends on a great deal as to the date! Check out PRR K4s 1120 in Al Stauffer's book "Pennsy Power", there are 2 pictures of it - the as built photo (circa 1915 or so) with an oil headlamp & slatted pilot, vs. a late-1930's photo of it with a streamlined "Jeffersonian" shroud! (Most people wouldn't recognize it as the same locomotive, the appearance is so different!). [%-)] I decided to take a slightly more "relaxed" approached when I got active in large scale, especially since my road is going to be a freelanced 3-ft. gauge logging / mining line; narrow-gauge equipment sometimes varied so wildy even within a given protoype roster that a figure a bit of "modeler's license is permissible! [;)] On the other hand, some of the stuff LGB has come out with recently makes me cringe!
It's obvious a LOT of their stuff is aimed strictly at the toy train / collector crowd, which is a HUGE market. [2c] I like their Unitah & Sumpter Valley Mallets; even though they're 1:22.5, the detail level on them is good enough that I'm considering adding them to my roster eventually (if I'm doing a freelance road, I could just replace the cabs with 1:20.3 ones! [;)]). I've also decided to make a concession on my indoor layout & live with truck mounted Kadees on most of the rolling stock to allow reliable operation on the tight curves (most of which aren't too obvious; I've tried to use wider radius curves wherever possible & hide the tigter curves in tunnels!). My new (now under construction) outdoor layout will have much broader curves (at least 4' radius, possibly 6' or wider) where I might decide to run equipment with mainly body-mounted couplers. In short, while I'd like to see a REASONABLE amount of standardization (1:20.3 for narrow gauge, 1:32 or 1:29 for standard gauge), let's take a step back, take a deep breath, & RELAX a bit! [swg]

[wa1lbk]

Bachmann's 1:20.3 geared locos tempted me back into the hobby after being on the sidelines for about 10 years; here, finally, were inexpensive large-scale geared steam locos which rivaled brass in detail, ran beautifully, & didn't look totally ridiculous on 2' radius LGB curves! [^] I am generally more forgiving of scale lapses on freight & passenger cars than I am on motive power; I have a string of Bachmann Jackson Sharp coaches for passnger service on my layout, while freight cars are a mix of Aristo-Craft "classic" series (the wooden hopper & gondola cars in particular) a couple of Delton reefers, LGB, Bachmann & Delton. I have been in the "rivet counting" school in the past, modeling PRR in O scale 2-rail & have gone slightly nuts trying to find out the "EXACT" detailing for a specific locomotive number - which also depends on a great deal as to the date! Check out PRR K4s 1120 in Al Stauffer's book "Pennsy Power", there are 2 pictures of it - the as built photo (circa 1915 or so) with an oil headlamp & slatted pilot, vs. a late-1930's photo of it with a streamlined "Jeffersonian" shroud! (Most people wouldn't recognize it as the same locomotive, the appearance is so different!). [%-)] I decided to take a slightly more "relaxed" approached when I got active in large scale, especially since my road is going to be a freelanced 3-ft. gauge logging / mining line; narrow-gauge equipment sometimes varied so wildy even within a given protoype roster that a figure a bit of "modeler's license is permissible! [;)] On the other hand, some of the stuff LGB has come out with recently makes me cringe!
It's obvious a LOT of their stuff is aimed strictly at the toy train / collector crowd, which is a HUGE market. [2c] I like their Unitah & Sumpter Valley Mallets; even though they're 1:22.5, the detail level on them is good enough that I'm considering adding them to my roster eventually (if I'm doing a freelance road, I could just replace the cabs with 1:20.3 ones! [;)]). I've also decided to make a concession on my indoor layout & live with truck mounted Kadees on most of the rolling stock to allow reliable operation on the tight curves (most of which aren't too obvious; I've tried to use wider radius curves wherever possible & hide the tigter curves in tunnels!). My new (now under construction) outdoor layout will have much broader curves (at least 4' radius, possibly 6' or wider) where I might decide to run equipment with mainly body-mounted couplers. In short, while I'd like to see a REASONABLE amount of standardization (1:20.3 for narrow gauge, 1:32 or 1:29 for standard gauge), let's take a step back, take a deep breath, & RELAX a bit! [swg]

[Anonymous]

I believe he's refering to a British 303 Enfield rifle![;)]

In other words keep you mouth shut or risk getting shot!

[vsmith]

I think he's refering to Catch 22

[Anonymous]

John,
Rule 303? I'm in the dark on this one.

Best, Larry

[Anonymous]

Hi Old Dad
I dont mind if the manufactures start producing scale models as long as they do the small types as well and tell us on the pack what scale it is suposed to be.
I just hope the scale mob realise in the garden some details are better left off the model just for the sake of ones sanity [%-)] .
Rule 303 will fix any one who wants to spoil nice social aspects of the hobbie with the it should have 1620 rivets exactly type carp[:D]
regards John

[Anonymous]

Sorry guys and gals, but I'm afraid that evolution of this hobby will bring it closer and closer to scale model railroading if we like it or not.
Look around, scale models are already on the market. And as more people come over from small scale they will drive the change in large scale.

Many people now in garden railroading were not only new to garden railroading but new to model railroading it self. Some didn't even realize there was a difference between narrow gauge and standard gauge. So now we have collections with both types mixed together. Yes, some did this on purpose and some did it because they didn't know the difference.
People coming from the small scales will be far more knowledgeable about trains and scale. They will want as much scale as this part of model railroading can provide.

We will not drive the changes, they will. It's going to take time but it will happen just as it did in all other scales.

I hope these new people don't spoil the friendly relaxed nature of garden railroading in the process.

Just my opinion based on the past......OLD DAD

[Anonymous]

A.N.U.T.S SAYS IT ALL IN ONE WORD. IF YOU LIKE IT RUN IT, IT'S YOURS
I AM A CHARTER OF ANUTS IT IS A NICE IDEA BUT LIKE THEY SAY IF YOU SCALE
RIVETS ON ROLLING STOCK YOU CAN FIND 3" RIVET HEADS. OR HAVE YOU
EVER SEEN A STEAM ENGINE RUN ON ELECT.
BOO-BOO

[Anonymous]

Hi Kim
rule one
its my railway I will do it my way
rule two
In the event of a despute refer to rule one
rule three
forget it there isnt a rule three refer to rule one.

Scale is fine as is if it looks right it is right but the thing to remember is a garden railway needs to be somewhere in between especialy if the owner does not have room for scale 60' coaches also fiddly bits that break are not a good idea in the garden.
regards John

[Anonymous]

Many of you have visited my N&MRR page, if you have you will see that mine is a mixture of reality (the ldeal) and fancy (based on what I might be able to scratch-build). I would say that I am a ubiquitous mixture of reality and suspension of said belief in reality.

Ideals are great as goals, but ideals can never be reached. Hence we move toward them, and must never be frustrated when we do not meet them.

I have a friend that has perfect pitch, the poor guy can't enjoy music becuase, at least to him, everything is out of tune! I can't understand how he can go on, I couldn't live in a world without music. Same goes for Large Scalers, you have to learn to live with what you have, or you will lose your mind counting rivets.

I know the "Lizard Attitude" guy talks down what he calls "whimsey," but we need a small element of that to understand and enjoy our hobby. Lest you are running real trains, it will all be fantasy!

Thus sayeth the Captain!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bluebonnet - 71

My major moan is the 8' radious the companys are going to!
Yeah if I get my RR built I can handle them big boys.

But what if you have a track laided and you have 3, 4, 5, 6, 7' curves?

Are these engines "correct" in size? Or have they streached them out[?][?][?]

Like if I go to TOCs, Matts or Vics house and try to run one that "requires" 8' radi, will I be able to run it? Answer is possiable no unless you have the area to run them.

I feel here at this house anyone running 45mm would be able to run them here when RR track is up unltill some company makes a engine that needs 13' radi!

That is my soap box

Well if you wanna bring your DASH 9 with an 8' curve requirement to my house[?]
the answers simple,

Dont...[:0]Remember I'm indoors wedged into a corner under a storage loft...[;)]

However if you wanna bring over your LGB Chloe, thats no problem. You can watch it run laps on my tiny layout like it was Christmas morning[(-D]

Yea, and if you come to mine can you bring the TRACK & the TRAIN? Unlike Vic I got room just no track or train, just three unfinished boxcars.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bluebonnet - 71

My major moan is the 8' radious the companys are going to!
Yeah if I get my RR built I can handle them big boys.

But what if you have a track laided and you have 3, 4, 5, 6, 7' curves?

Are these engines "correct" in size? Or have they streached them out[?][?][?]

Like if I go to TOCs, Matts or Vics house and try to run one that "requires" 8' radi, will I be able to run it? Answer is possiable no unless you have the area to run them.

I feel here at this house anyone running 45mm would be able to run them here when RR track is up unltill some company makes a engine that needs 13' radi!

That is my soap box

Well if you wanna bring your DASH 9 with an 8' curve requirement to my house[?]
the answers simple,

Dont...[:0]Remember I'm indoors wedged into a corner under a storage loft...[;)]

However if you wanna bring over your LGB Chloe, thats no problem. You can watch it run laps on my tiny layout like it was Christmas morning[(-D]

[Anonymous]

My major moan is the 8' radious the companys are going to!
Yeah if I get my RR built I can handle them big boys.

But what if you have a track laided and you have 3, 4, 5, 6, 7' curves?

Are these engines "correct" in size? Or have they streached them out[?][?][?]

Like if I go to TOCs, Matts or Vics house and try to run one that "requires" 8' radi, will I be able to run it? Answer is possiable no unless you have the area to run them.

I feel here at this house anyone running 45mm would be able to run them here when RR track is up unltill some company makes a engine that needs 13' radi!

That is my soap box

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor



Now on to my problem. My fun train is an LGB Stainz pulling 3 little box carriages plus a Dining Car and my Postal Van on the back. In past it worked just great, but now in my Area 3; which has 4 % grades and R3 curves, it will not handle it and loses traction sometimes. I am considering a number of options and I would like to hear what others think.

1) just put up with it and smile.
2) reduce the size of the train, it works well with a couple of carriiages removed.
3) Get another Stainz and run them double headed (LGB MTS controlled).
4) I can get an LGB tender, which has full sound and has a big engine in it. I thought to run this also as a double header (also LGB MTS controlled.
5) Any other suggestions

What you think huh.


Rgds Ian

Ian with 4% grades you have to either double head or reduce lenth. If you can afford it I would go for the powered tender, its powerfull. Otherwise a 2nd Stainz can be had on evil-bay for less than $100 US , sometimes a lot less. I dont use MTS so I dont know how far back it was offered on older Stainz engines. Maybe best to get a new one or the tender and not worry about it.

[kstrong]

A curious footnote,

The same 1987 issue of Garden Railways has the following from Marc Horovitz in response to a question on scale and gauge:
"It would be a help, however, if the advertisers would all specify the scale to which their products are built."

Yes. Yes it would. Even 17 years later, yes it would.

Later,

K

[Anonymous]

Jack you and I must secretely be related I agree with you, however a few things.

1/ I do not believe our hobby can ever be truly to scale, not just the rolling stock but everything else and what Walt says is the only right there can be "If it looks right is must be right". I have read a few things that i can't remember fully but the logic was inarguable when Iread it; we just can't do it to 100 % scale irrespective of any philosophy. What it is all about is doing what you want in your layout and everyone else can get stuffed; unless they are prepared to pay your bills. And even; there is no wrong or right way of doing anything, will forever hold true.

Another matter, steel wheels. I have a few luxury coaches and a Post office van with LGB steel wheels with ball bearings and electrical pick up and I cannot speak highly enough of them. You cannot sit them on even the slightest grade or they will roll away from you, as a matter of fact i have discovered some grades i didn't even know I had.
The lack of friction must be just so good and this must translate into improved apparent power and traction for your loco.

Now on to my problem. My fun train is an LGB Stainz pulling 3 little box carriages plus a Dining Car and my Postal Van on the back. In past it worked just great, but now in my Area 3; which has 4 % grades and R3 curves, it will not handle it and loses traction sometimes. I am considering a number of options and I would like to hear what others think.

1) just put up with it and smile.
2) reduce the size of the train, it works well with a couple of carriiages removed.
3) Get another Stainz and run them double headed (LGB MTS controlled).
4) I can get an LGB tender, which has full sound and has a big engine in it. I thought to run this also as a double header (also LGB MTS controlled.
5) Any other suggestions

What you think huh.


Rgds Ian

[grandpopswalt]

I don't think there wil be any great changes in the industry for a long, long time. Most of us have settled on a particular "scale" and/or manufacturer and invested thousands, and in some cases many thousands, of dollars in our equipment. We're not going to scrap that kind of investment to get on the "correct scale" bandwagon. However, we may aquire a piece or two over time and slowly migrate into a new standardized scale.

What I'd like to see is the creation of a "standard scale" for both NG and Standard gauge that also offers a complete line of readily available and reasonably priced accesories such as correctly proportioned vehicles, figures, structures, detail parts, etc. The defacto standard for indoor RR'ing is HO. Because of standardization the market has expanded and now you can buy really good quality stuff for a very small fraction of what you have to pay for a corresponding item in any of our many LS scales.

I model 1:24 because of the availabilty of 1/24 scale autos and trucks. Since I don't model any particular prototype, I kitbash and modifiy mainly B'mann stuff to get it down to what I call the "looks about the right size to me " proportion. I've put in a lot of work, and a few bucks too, to get what looks good to me and I'd be very reluctant to start over.
However, I really do wi***here had been a standard, universally accepted scale for NG and one for standard gauge equipment when I began. I think the hobby would have been even more enjoyable than it already is despite the hodge-podge that we now have.

Walt

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Curmudgeon

I talk to manufacturer's all the time, sometimes several times a week.

They really don't care what we think, unless it fits into what their marketing research has shown to be viable.

TOC

I'm curious, if Bachmann pays attention to "research" to develop a viable product? The please tell me which side of the Moon do they do this research on? I am a frequent visitor to the "Ask the Bach'man" site and have seen some of the wishing that is done very publicly there as to which products or type of products the consumer would like to see produced. They seam to have completely copped out for 2005! It doesnt take a Harvard MBA to determine that the Vulcan is a niche engine and would have limited appeal. Yet they decide to make it as a flagship product. It has gotten a rather sour reception from the LS coummunity and I really wonder how well it will sell. Unless I find one for blowout at $100 I wont get one, and if I did it would be kitbash fodder.

Please enlighten me into the mind set of these people. How do they decide this stuff? I'm very confused...[%-)]

[tangerine-jack]

This may come as a complete shock to some of the readers of this forum, but I have a problem with being "subltle". Too many years in the Field Artillery I guess. I like the direct, to the point, get it done approach. Just be sure to write your responses to me loudly so I can hear them[(-D]

I do like the idea of at least getting the wheel sets/ coupler hieght standardized. That could be done without much redesign of existing equipment and relieve a lot of stress on our part. Perhaps that can be the wedge to break some of the corporate design dead-lock.[oX)]

[Curmudgeon]

I talk to manufacturer's all the time, sometimes several times a week.
They really don't care what we think, unless it fits into what their marketing research has shown to be viable.
We can scream and holler for Bachmann 1:20 freight cars until we pass out, but until their own research shows the release to be viable, the prototypes sit.
Aristo isn't going to suddenly drop 1:29, and all them folks who swallowed the 1:29 pill don't want it to go away.
Warbonnet GP9's an NW2's sell, even if not prototypical, so why change?
CZ's in window arrangements not run sell, so why change?
As stated, LGB has their own market, and loyal followers, scale is not a concern, but the stuff looks good all plugged together.
The only real change needed is standards on track, switches and wheels, which have been approved, and are being implemented.
I cannot wait until reviews start in with 'this item does NOT meet nmra standards".

BTW, the Bach 1:20 (sic) cars are not of any moldings ever done before.
They re-lettered the boxes "20 foot" cars.
I use the low-side gons a lot. Fit my requirements.

Not one boxcar, tho, nor flatcar.
TOC

[kstrong]

Wait... are you asking the media to turn away advertising dollars?[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]
Sorry, that kind-of struck me as funny. (It's advertising dollars that pay my salary. As much as I hate commercials, without them I'd be broke.) I do agree that a little subtle pressure from Kalmbach, Walthers, and the NMRA would go a long way to get manufacturers to at least adhere to minimal standards such as wheel profile and track standards. There is a way to be subtle without affecting advertising revenue.

As for speaking to corporate reps, many of us do on a routine basis. There is a long discussion over on the Bachmann board as to why they chose the obscure loco they did in the face of the myriad pleas for a mainline narrow gauge rod loco such as a C-19 or similar. Believe me, we're asking, begging even. Heck, I've sent books, drawings and photos to some manufacturers in a lobbying effort. They may be listening, but boy is their hearing selective.

Later,

K

[Anonymous]

Well here is something for the retailer that Kalmbach Publishing
puts out.
http://www.modelretailer.com/mod/default.aspx?c=hp&id=1
[:-,]

[tangerine-jack]

On the subject of listening to consumers, I firmly believe that capitalistic competition will eventually equalize the standards. Just ask Triumph Motorcycles. Or maybe Harley in the early '70s or maybe Indian or AMC. Honda listened to the consumer and killed the competition or made it better. As consumers, we can buy what we want or not. I believe the press (ie Garden Railways Magazine) has the power to influence the manufactures by choosing not to run thier adverts if they make crap that is uncompatable with consumer desires. Perhaps that may be over the top and a little draconian, but it has to start somewhere. The only reason LGB, Aristocraft, Bachmann et al manufacture anything is to make money, period. If they make something we don't buy, they don't profit. Sooner or later they will figure it out.

On the other hand, in defense of the manufacturer, when was the last time any of us wrote/ emailed, or spoke to a corporate rep at a convention or show? Maybe the executive board sitting on Mt. Olympus are just misinformed to the consumer wants? Perhaps if they are reading this very forum, they may start to question thier products' marketability. It is in the manufactures best interest to all get together and decide once and for all on scale/guage standards

This is not a really huge pet peve of mine, but it would be nice to at least have two things of the same "scale" at least be the same size. Sorry to vent like that, thanks for letting me stir up a little controversy.... [oX)]

[kstrong]

A bit of pre-history:

The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a very close 1:22.5 model of the ET&WNC's narrrow gauge locos. (Lee Riley--Bachmann's product developer--is a big-time Tweetsie fan and active in the historical society.) I'll agree that this particular prototype has standard gauge proportions, but that was actually quite common to a number of more modern non-Colorado motive power. The mikados of the East Broad Top look like 3/4 scale USRA light mikes. It's just the way Baldwin built 'em. The Bachmann bobber caboose is spot on for 1:22.5 of the Tweetsie's caboose, except that it's a scale 6" too narrow. Most of Bachmann's rolling stock is based on Tweetsie or EBT prototypes, some more accurate than others.

As for the Aristo C-16, it's made from the old Delton molds, which was a 1:24 model of the C-16. Comparing my model to the plans in the current Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette, it's spot on except that the wheelbase is about a scale foot too short. The only thing that Aristo changed from the original Delton was to raise the boiler and cylinders a bit (unprototypically) to accomodate the new drive mechanism. They also added marker lamps to the front, but everything else is identical. Their "classics" line is a re-issue of the Delton cars from the mid-80s, which were 1:24 models of indeterminant or generic prototypes.

What Vic inadvertently alludes to is one of the odd side effects of this scale mess--prototypes in one scale working well in another with minimal modification. It's something I count on when researching and looking for available models to fill my roster. It's a legacy left by the development of the hobby, and something we should embrace.

Aristo isn't the only company using hand-me-down molds. Hartland's equipment is also based off of older molds. They bought the old Kalamazoo molds and the Delton passenger car molds which were all to 1:24. Both Delton and Kalamazoo began producing products in the early and mid 80s as a competitor to LGB. They chose 1:24 probably because the math was easy, and the equipment was visually compatible with LGB's offerings at the time. Certianly they offered far more in the way of American prototypes than LGB did, though Kalamazoo's offerings were noticably coarse in terms of details. (It was at this time that the LGB club decided to become just that--the "LGB club," exclusive of other manufacturers. Up unitl that time, LGB was the only game in town, so it was just like a big garden railway club.)

When USA Trains began producing equipment, it was virtually measure-for-measure identical to LGB's offerings. They had no presumption of scale at that time, just a line of box cars and billboard reefers that looked all the world identical to LGB. Expanding on this, they brought out their line of MOW equipment built to be likewise visually compatible with their LGB look-a-like box cars. They wouldn't commit to 1:29 for a few years to come--not until Aristocraft comitted to the scale and began a steadfast line of standard gauge equipment.

When Bachmann entered the game, they chose 1:22.5, as that's what LGB was doing. Kalamazoo and Delton by this time were both in relative limbo, though 1:24 had become the de-facto standard for narrow gauge modeling and lineside structures. Most brass models of narrow gauge equipment were done to 1:24. Northeast Narrow Gauge made all their kits to 1:24. Detail parts were availble in either 1:24 or "LGB" scale. (Little Railways was the lone supplier of 1:20 detail parts.)

Aristocraft (at that time going by the name "Railway Express Agency") entered the frey, "inventing" 1:29 scale. This scale worked on two fronts - first, it was easy to enlarge HO scale plans 300% to build models, and more importantly, the resulting models were virtually the same size as the existing LGB, Bachmann, USA, and other equipment commonly in use. Even then, their early models such as the Rogers 2-4-2 and passenger cars are of "dubious" scale. Regardless, they learned from others who had gone before--there had been a few stillborne efforts to popularize 1:32, but they never took off because the equipment was too small when compared to the rolling stock made by everyone else. (Anyone here remember the F-40PH made by Great Trains?) Aristo wasn't the first ones to do "goofy gauge," though. An advertisement in a 1987 issue of Garden Railways touts a brass Sante Fe Superchief set done to 7/16" scale, or 1:27.5--partly to be visually compatible with LGB, and also to be compatible with the Lionel Standard Gauge (three rail) equipment.

MDC was just getting into the game, also playing the "compatibility" card. Their hoppers, box cars, and reefers were built to 1:32, but on the "large side" of 1:32. They came with large wheels to make them compatible with LGB. Their caboose was 1:24 or thereabouts, as was their track speeder and industrial diesel. (Too bad their two-cylinder shay never made it to market. One has to wonder the effects on the evolution of large scale that little gem would have had.)

So, the scale quagmire in which we currently exist has a long, long history built on one sole purpose--to be visually compatible with LGB. From a scale purist's point of view, it's mind-boggling, but true scale models historically never did well. It's only within the past 4 or 5 years that we're beginning to see an emergence of two distinct scales - 1:29 for standard gauge (as innacurate as it may be) and 1:20.3 for narrow gauge. What's most curious to me is that through all this, LGB's role has completely changed. At first, they were the gold standard. Now, they make what they want to whatever scale they want, and no one else pays them much mind at all.

Along the way, we've had bumps and blunders, stillborne attempts at standardization in labeling, and outright mistakes on the parts of a number of manufacturers. We've had companies come and go, but their legacies live on, either in the form of new products coming from old molds, or old ideas reflected in new releases. I don't think we'll ever get rid of the middle ground, but as the two separate scales continue to develop, perhaps we'll see that it's easier to look at a model and tell if it "looks right" or not.

Later,

K

[Anonymous]

I use some Bachman coaches that look fine with my LGB locos but I've never seen a Bachman loco next to a Lgb one.I have a feeling that they will look oversized,so I hav'nt bought one.If anyone can post or send me a picture of a couple standing together I will be grateful.
Hey Kim.If I were you I'd stick some metal wheels on that USA wagon.It will go better
Troy