If they would build it, would we buy???

[RhB_HJ]

Hi all,

Since I've been harping for the last "Oh So Many Years" that a "to scale" model doesn't need to cost more in development and production, here's one more kick at the can.

I'm especially interested in what the "Toy" crowd lists as "No" reasons if all other things - fit for Outdoors, reasonable price etc. etc. - are equal.

[Curmudgeon]

But, what does 1:29 have to do in the same sentence as "to scale"?

[TonyWalsham]

Dave,
about the same relevance 1:22.5 has when applied to modelling USA 3' gauge.

I desire, nay, DEMAND the main stream manufactueres to make equipment in my scale of choice.

7/8n2.

[Curmudgeon]

PROTO 485

[tangerine-jack]

Sure, why not? It's a much needed improvement in the hobby just to put a true scale on the box so we would know for sure at time of purchase. If the cost is reasonable, the product decent, then scale doesn't become the burden it is now. Simply match your stuff. But then we aren't talking G scale anymore. We are talking "G", "H", "I", and "J" scale. At least it would be true to form.


[oX)]

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Curmudgeon

But, what does 1:29 have to do in the same sentence as "to scale"?

Hi Dave,

I meant to add "de facto" - similar to the G1MRA track gauge being "de facto" . [;)][:)][;)]
BTW 1:29 is still a lot closer than 1:27.

[Curmudgeon]

"BTW 1:29 is still a lot closer than 1:27."


to what?

[John Busby]

Hi Tony
I personaly would not complain 1:22.5 scale 3' gauge on gauge one
its a lot more acurate than OO on 16.5 mm gauge
being only 3" over gauge as apposed to 6or7 inches under gauge[:D]
Good grief it cannot be that hard for the manufactures to make a wagon
24' long and 9' wide (based on 3 x gauge ) that measures with a scale rule
at you guessed it 9' wide by 24' long thats just as easy as a product
thats dimensions are all over the place.
But at the moment my number one gripe is none of them put the nominal
(extremely in some cases) scale they claim to use on the product box[V]
regards John

[Anonymous]

I would accept a new "Standard," if it were to scale and ran on current track.

All I would to conform to that scale would be to sell off my old stuff via E-bay or the like and work on buying in that new scale.

But, what we have now promotes individuality and offers a choice that people might clamour for if the Standard Scale was the Status Quo. Thus a conundrum ensues!

[Kiwi Down Under]

I'm going to be the odd one out! I like a choice.
Does not matter what scale they produce you will want it to be your scale, and resemble the width etc of the trains you have .

I suppose it all depends where you are, what you model.

Apart from the general height ( to clear the numerous tunnels) all locos here, and most rolling stock was a diffferent size so its a mix and match to look like a narrow guage railway, so I buy the locos to suit what models I am building. Large loco for main line, smaller loco for branch or works lines.

Tony.

[TonyWalsham]

Hi John.

I must respectfully disagree with you.
Personally I don't give a fig about scale.
Because I fancy 7/8n2 I will have to build most of what I want.
However, I believe it is historically accurate to say that commercially made models built in scale proportions are always better received in the overall 2 rail market than non scale items. For a start I don't know see too many brass models being built in 1:29 scale compared to say 1:32.
Now why is that do you think?
I contend that ultimately it has to do with collectability.
If you build it to scale you have a pretty fair chance of adding the brass collectors to your available market.
Nowadays if isn't scale the collectors will not buy it.

I am well aware the 00 scale on 16.5 mm gauge track is wrong. I guess you could say it is the British equivalent of 1:29 in accuracy.
If the scale - gauge relationship is not correct. It is not correct and no amount of "spin", "WOW" factor or Corporate BS by any manufacturer is ever going to convince that it is correct, no matter how good the model might be.
Just because something is grossly wrong it does not mean that something else that is less wrong, is right. It is still wrong.
I too would like some truth in advertising so newcomers understand what they need to do.

However, I do acknowledge that some compromises must be made so our models can run reliably on uneven track outdoors.
I do not require absolute fidelity to scale detail.
As long as the proportions are correct I can add details to my hearts desire.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Curmudgeon

"BTW 1:29 is still a lot closer than 1:27."


to what?

1:32; as in "to scale" for the track gauge representing 1435mm Standard Gauge.

[Anonymous]

Makes no real difference to me one way or the other. There's plenty out there to choose from now, and counting rivets or measuring items with a scale rule just isn't my thing. I buy and operate what I like, and what appeals to me for any of a number of reasons. I'm content to leave the fretting over precise scale and such to others.

[John Busby]

Hi Tony W
I can live with inacurate gauge.
But got real hissed off when I dicovered my favorite suposedly
1:22.5 locomotive was in fact one 16mm scale inch off of being correct for 16mm scale
Had I at that time built a loco shed for it the chances are it would not have fitted through the door.
It should be noted the loco is claimed to be 1:22. 5 by the manufacturer[V].
It is going to converted to something closer to what the scale really is as it only entails a change of driver and buffers
It is this kind of carp that gets up my nose as it makes it hard to build anything that looks right because once you know something is that wrong.
It spoils it because it is not what it was claimed to be and only continues the confusion for the new chums.
Which is why I now want to see a stated scale on the boxes or the words Toy Train so I know what I am getting
Things look a lot better if they are at least close to a nominal scale, gauge conciderations aside and making bits and pieces becomes a lot easier
because you know it will be within Kooee of being right at least
I don't see how everything can be in proportion if its not all the same nominal scale but maybe thats just me
Which is probably why I think my line is such a mess and am slowly correcting what I can to get at least some sort of uniformity through it.
It keeps me out of trouble I supose so that must be a good thing
[2c]
We might have to agree to disagree[:D]
Oh must phone you re mag when it is a more reasonable hour probably on the weekend.
regards John

[TonyWalsham]

Hi John.
No need to agree to disagree.
I agree with you re proper scale labelling.
I class wrong labelling as part of the "SPIN", "WOW" factor and Corporate BS problem most of LS is plagued by.
The only way to stop it is to complain loudly and often and call the offenders to task at every opportunity.
I think you know to which manufacturers I refer.
If you don't I will tell you on the blower.
Hang em I say. Hang em.

Re the mag. Call me at any time. I was going to send a reminder..

[tangerine-jack]

All I'm saying is that some friggin' body decide on what "G" scale is, make it a standard so we all know. If it's 1:22.5 then good, if it's 1:32 or 1:29 or 1:33.5674 then fine, but only call one scale "G", call the other ones something else. I'll buy what is "G" scale on the box (without rivet counting), that's all I want to see.

Maybe in the long term Bachmann will make their proto series a defacto standard, since it's good stuff and affordable, more people will buy it and in the world of retail, sales figures are the standard. After a while, B'mann's sales will cause other manufacturers to follow suit in order to compete. Then everybody will, after time, look back on the multitude of scales called "G" and wonder what all the fuss was about.


[oX)]

[van buren s l]

HJ
I voted "no" since you didn't have a "probably not" option. I make some pretty obscure stuff . Any manufacturer crazy enough to make such items would go broke due to the lack of sales.
Bob

[John Busby]

Hi TJ
Going out on a limb here "put that chain saw down!!"I can fall quite well on my own thanks[B)]
I would say "G" is 1:22.5 and the others are technicaly something else.
I base that statement on the following
LGB where to my knowledge the first to use "G" to describe their trains
and they use an increadably elastic Nominal scale of 1:22.5
So that being the case all the others cannot possably be "G" scale they
have to be something else.
NMRA (I think that's the right monica) have in their infinate stupidety tried to lump all the garden scales together further adding to the confusion with
reference to scale[V]:[:p][}:)]
(I read their NON standard on the net somewhere)
Well I think that makes some sort of sence Err maybe[?]
regards John

[tangerine-jack]

John, I like my chain saw! I use it at work for all the red tape![}:)][:-,]

I agree, since LGB was the first, then 1:22.5 should be the G standard. Somebody with more influence than me in the model RR world needs to step forward and establi***hat as a fact. If it's elastic, then so be it, I'm not that big on true-scale anyway, but please don't call 1:29 or 1:32 G when they are not. THAT is where all this confusion comes from.

I'm all for a line of low cost, good quality locos and cars in an agreed upon scale, once the dust settles, I might worry more about it more than I do now.


[oX)]

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what you are asking. If I say yes does that mean I would never buy anything that is not to scale?

There isn't enough product out there for me to be scale-exclusive. I'll buy anything that looks good to me no matter what the scale.

Bill

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tangerine-jack

John, I like my chain saw! I use it at work for all the red tape![}:)][:-,]

I agree, since LGB was the first, then 1:22.5 should be the G standard. Somebody with more influence than me in the model RR world needs to step forward and establi***hat as a fact. If it's elastic, then so be it, I'm not that big on true-scale anyway, but please don't call 1:29 or 1:32 G when they are not. THAT is where all this confusion comes from.

I'm all for a line of low cost, good quality locos and cars in an agreed upon scale, once the dust settles, I might worry more about it more than I do now.


[oX)]

Hi TJ,

Welllllllll actually the 1:22.5 scale has been around since long before EPL (Lehmann) decided to build toy trains. The credit goes to Märklin at the turn of the prvious century.
Believe it or not there are Standards which include 1:22.5 as a scale for standard gauge track they specify 64mm and for Meter Gauge 45mm. (MOROP-NEM Standards)

If LGB knew about those standards back in the late sixties is anyone's guess. The interesting part is that their "precious Stainz" was made for 45mm track (the stuff used by the 1:32 fraternity). This despite the prototype Stainz running on 760mm track; but since it was/is a toy nobody gave a fig.

@ Allan M

The only reason the scale factor from different mfgs has improved / is improving: Accurate reviews which call things like three (and more) different scales in the same model to task!
We don't need all the detail parts added - good modelers can correct/add those - but consistent, accurate scale is no luxury. Since the "Toy Brigade" doesn't measure and compare [;)][}:)][:D], they won't notice and hence would be just as happy.

BTW the new RhB items from BRAWA are clearly marked as 1:22.5

[tangerine-jack]

Ok, cool HJ. I sit corrected.[:D] The invention credit goes to Marklin, but the marketing coup goes to LGB. [;)]



[oX)]

[Anonymous]

I voted no.If they did build it they would make it too expensive over here for what it was.
Also I get more satisfaction from building things myself.Instead of moaning about things-do better-or attempt.
I've got a Christmas LGB single deck car that plays seasonal songs currently sitting in my dining room waiting to be repainted and gagged.Even the children never want to see it run again as it is.Can someone please explain who,or what,this model is made for?
As for toys.They are all toys.
People that are that passionate about things join a relevant museum and deal with the real thing.

[Anonymous]

I would be very pleased to see 1:22.5/IIm models at Aristo prices - their FAs retail for less than half the price of LGB's RhB locos. There's clearly no reason we can't have them. Brawa are to be welcomed for making some excellent models but I can't afford them - they're more expensive than LGB. A Deh 4/4 motor luggage van (as used by several Swiss metre gauge lines) priced at around £250 (not fussed about frills like sound, etc - just working lights and DCC friendly would be great) would be very popular here!

[TonyWalsham]

Troy,
Whilst I agree they are all toy trains, there are different types of toy trains.

1. Toy Train Toy Trains.

2. Scale Model Toy Trains.

As the fans of the former don't seem to care whether or not their playthings are made to scale proportions I believe they will buy LS stuff no matter what the scale as long as they have teh "WOW" factor.

On the other hand fans of the latter are less likely to buy the former.

Logic should tell the manufacturers that if they made the latter they would expand their potential market.

The NMRA has already designated 1:22.5 as being "G" scale.
I cannot comment on whether or not all the models claimed to be "G" scale are actually all 1:22.5.
Those manufacturers that label their products "G" scale when in fact they are not, should be exposed and shamed into correctly labelling their offerings with the correct scale and gauge.
It is called truth in marketting. Correct labelling should be forced on recalcitrant manufacturers who remain quite happy to obfuscate the issue in their attempts to maximise their potential market.
If I was in the market for anything other than 7/8n2 scale I would buy accurately proportioned Scale Model Toy Trains rather than Toy Train Toy Trains.

[tangerine-jack]

Why is it everybody says what I am thinking better than I can? Yes, Tony, that is exactly my thought process, truth in advertising, not rivet counting. Make it G scale and then adhere to whatever standard G is. That way I don't have to think about my toys, I can just play with them.[swg]


[oX)]

[GP-9_Man11786]

As far as I'm concerned, if it runs on 45mm track, it's G-Scale. After all, aren't jazz, classical, rock and country all considered music?

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP-9_Man11786

As far as I'm concerned, if it runs on 45mm track, it's G-Scale. After all, aren't jazz, classical, rock and country all considered music?

Hi GP-9, [:D][:D][:D]

Have you ever played in a rock or country band, orchestra or jazz combo?? [;)][:)]
Having played in a few bands - from Blues to Country - I can attest that it's all music, but that's where the analogy ends.[;)][:)][;)]

[Marty Cozad]

Scale,,,scale,,,scale.
If it looks believable in a photo and most folks can't tell if its real or just outside,,,WHO CARES????????
No wonder the baby scales call us strange!!!!![:I][;)]

[RhB_HJ]

Hey Tony,

What NMRA designated in the LS department is more or less "Alphabet Soup" i.e. quite "thick" (whichever definition you'll apply will be OK), less than transparent (no surprise) and plenty to chew on!

Well, as we know LGB started promoting the "G" logo in a big way - matter of fact they even issued an "official definition" out of Nürnberg. I stored it somewhere, have to have a look see if I can find it. [:)][:)]

Now that logo was very tempting and I just couldn't resist....





"G just like rubber"

BTW if you wonder why the slogan doesn't quite line up ........ hmmmm I applied a few different ratios and that's what I got.[;)][}:)][:)][:D]