I remember someone mentioning this idea in one of my posts. I was working with some 28mm Roman figures and realized this was a nice size. The figure guys call them 1/56. I started thinking.The Bachmann On30 cars measure out better in 1/55 than they do in 1/48. The HO code 83 track looks better, still slightly undersize ties but works.The plastic Roman and Celts can be "modernized for the 1890's. The metal figures are typically wargame "dwarfish". There are 28mm wagons available from Dixon and others.and there is later equipment like cars and trucks, more than in 1/48The Mantua HO ten-wheeler becomes a viable narrow gauge loco in 1/55. You cannot make real three foot 1/48 locos from HO locos.Anybody up for this?Harold
The dreadfully undersized for 1/48 Bachmann 4-4-0 with a 1/55 roman:
Now it gives me a correct narrow gauge 3 foot 4-4-0 .
Harold
If I understand you, you're talking about 1/55 n3 using On30 equipment and 28mm figures. Since the figures are 13% smaller than O, do you plan to redo the locomotive cabs, ladders, grab irons, etc.? What about passenger cars? I don't know what parts are available in 28mm for structures or do you plan on a mix of 1/48 and 1/64 with scratchbuilt doors?
I guess my real question is what are you proposing here that can't be done in On3, On30, On2, Sn42, Sn3, or S?
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTERIf I understand you, you're talking about 1/55 n3 using On30 equipment and 28mm figures. Since the figures are 13% smaller than O, do you plan to redo the locomotive cabs, ladders, grab irons, etc.? What about passenger cars? I don't know what parts are available in 28mm for structures or do you plan on a mix of 1/48 and 1/64 with scratchbuilt doors?I guess my real question is what are you proposing here that can't be done in On3, On30, On2, Sn42, Sn3, or S?EnjoyPaul
The Bachmann On30 Cars being earlier protoypes are small O scale cars and scale out to more correct 1/55 cars of a later period. The grabs and ladders aren't well scaled for 1/48 anyway and don't need to be changed. The passenger cars need to be lowered by the extra window height in the double window arrangement as people have done in S scale. The length becomes "more" correct.
Since most modelers have to scratchbuild O scale buildings, no one is that rich, there is no problem there.
HO mechanisms can be utilized for the locos, they will look better than the On30 versions because they won't be too small.
This is the only way to model three foot narrow gauge on HO track cheaply. On30 doesn't do the job, and there are no american common carrier 30 inch railroads.
The only way a scale/gauge becomes viable is if there are convertible locos and rolling stock. There also has to be figures and vehicles.
There are probably more vehicles available in 28mm than there are in 1/48.
Harold,
I think it's a great idea. It's another example of a wonderful aspect about this hobby - you find something that works for you, tell some others, and they might think it's right for them. I personally find your thinking on this very interesting and imaginative. Maybe some day I'll give it a try!
George V.
georgevHarold, I think it's a great idea. It's another example of a wonderful aspect about this hobby - you find something that works for you, tell some others, and they might think it's right for them. I personally find your thinking on this very interesting and imaginative. Maybe some day I'll give it a try! George V.
Actually I was inspired by the October 1962 MR article by Harry Gill about using 1/5 scale on HO for three foot narrow gauge. Until now there were no viable cars, locomotives, figures and vehicles. It has been on my mind since that article.
Sounds as if you've found scratchbuilder/kitbasher heaven. Everything will have to be kitbashed/modified (or built from the foundation up) - with the exception of the figures representing the cast of the Little Theater rendition of Julius Caesar.
OTOH, that can be a good thing if the subject is a bucolic little Class 3 with few turnouts running through largely undeveloped countryside. No unit trains, no six-locomotive lashups, no need for the model brakemen to walk a mile of cars to perform a brake check... Just a couple of teakettles, enough cars to (barely) move the traffic, and just enough buildings to suggest the presence of a lot more just over (or around) the hill. Could be a lot of fun.
Certainly a lot less frenetic than trying to operate 142 timetable-mandated trains in a scale-time day...
Chuck (Modeling a heavy-traffic secondary mainline in Central Japan in September, 1964)
The Mantua HO ten-wheeler as compared to a Pacific Coast Railway Mogul:
5.5n3 has possibilities.
Ever have one of those D-oh!!! moments. Looking through my photos from the old On30 site I found this one. I took this picture while whining, yes I whined, about the On30 4-4-0 was too small for O scale narrow gauge. Why didn't I see the light then? Now that looks like three foot narrow gauge. That was my handlaid On30 track that looked so very "sucky" looks perfect if you project those locos as three foot in Scale 55. Oh so very dumb!!!!!!!!!!
Ted Hawkins had a couple of 55n3 layouts:Visit:http://lillines.ted-hawkins.com/possibles.htmlHarold
Back in the 1960's MR featured an article on a narrow gauge layout located in St Louis(?); the brass hat of this pike was using 16.5mm HO-Scale track to represent Rio Grande Southern's narrow gauge trackage over Dallas Divide. This gauge rendered a 1:55.42 ratio; this was just a mite smaller than double TT-Scale--1:120--and someone at MR ask--I was relatively new to the hobby at this time and didn't realize that the question was tongue-in-cheek-rhetorical--if perhaps this scale should be called T-Scale.
If I remember correctly the modeler was using HO-Scale mechanisms for power but with this scale not commercially supported everything above the running gear would have had to be scratchbuilt and that not only included the boiler and cab but also all of the boiler's appurtances. The scale was not really too far off of S-Scale--about plus 13.5%--but I don't recall anything being mentioned in this article about what he was using for trucks under his tenders and rolling stock. The article was primarily oriented around the pike's operation.
Unless perchance he had had his equipment commercially built he appeared to be an accomplished metal worker; his equipment was quite impressive. Unfortunately no track plan accompanied the article but it appeared as if the layout was built on a relatively narrow shelf structure. I don't recall ever having seen anything else from this author about this layout. Perhaps someone from the St Louis area--or wherever--can offer some enlightenment.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Harry Gill used .2/foot in the October 1962 issue MR. One of my long time inspirations of using HO track. Gill used HO parts.
Like OO, Sn3.5, and any of a number of scale/gauge accidental combinations that have been investigated, this seems to have a lot of promise as a way to procrastinate from building anything in any scale.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyamaLike OO, Sn3.5, and any of a number of scale/gauge accidental combinations that have been investigated, this seems to have a lot of promise as a way to procrastinate from building anything in any scale.
So, what is your problem? Do I think outside of your thought little box.
What I do in my hobby is what I find fun, I have done many things. I had six articles in RMC. My old On30 website had over 500,000 visitors. I brought new ideas to the hobby. I have built many things as chronicled in the old website.
What have you done for the hobby, bunky?
Sorry you couldn't stand a little ribbing. Carry on.
Putting a smiley with a wink doesn't make that statement funny