[Axel Tillmann]

Posted By Steve Stockham on 29 Jul 2010 11:49 AM
....This same ratio when applied to standard gauge (4' 8 1/2") works out to 70.64mm. Standard gauge in 1:22.5 is really close to Scale II at 1:22.6


I don't know if your tried to say this or not. So for clarification, if you take 1435mm (that is standard gauge) and devide it by 22.5 you receive 63.7777777 mm hence the 64mm track width for gauge II (not 45mm).

 

[Steve Stockham]

AMEN!!! (I'n still not clear about using "F" for 1:22.5 even if 64mm is what the standard gauge would scale out to. How does that work? 45mm isn't even the correct gauge for 1:22.5!!) Better to leave what works alone and F Scale actually works! Vive la Fn3!!!

 

[Torby]

Once, at the Garden, an NMRA official was asking me, "Why don't you follow the suggested nomenclature?" I didn't want to admit I didn't understand it and get a half-hour lecture, so I just said, "Just thick-headed, I guess."

 

[Pete Chimney]

Actually when we use the term O scale (as in Oh scale) this is incorrect. Originally there were three scales of model trains with their own gause tracks, 1,2 & 3. #1 scale ad gauge has survived as our "garnden railroads, #2 and #3scales/ gauges have more or disappeared. The when manufacturers wanted to make something smaller than #1 they chose the next number down which was 0 (zero). So actually Lionel should be zero scale and not O scale.

Thus HO which is short for half O should really be H0 or half zero scale. But i guess HO roills off the tongue a bit easier.

 

[Dwayne]

I play with 1:17n30... or D(wayne)n30 if a letter designation is neede. Since I'm the only person playing with this scale/gauge I get to determine what it's going to be called! LOL

Seriously, the hangup to use a letter for every scale is ignorant. Use the scale followed by a 'n' (if modeling narrow gauge) and the full number of inches. Fn3 would simply be 13n36. So simply even a caveman can figure it out.

 

[Scottychaos]

Posted By Dwayne on 29 Jul 2010 07:22 PM
Use the scale followed by a 'n' (if modeling narrow gauge) and the full number of inches. Fn3 would simply be 13n36. So simply even a caveman can figure it out.



you mean Fn3 would be 20n36
7/8n2 would be 13n24..there isnt a 13n36..


Scot

 

[Steve Stockham]

F = 13? Ummm.......O kaaay. Uhh......hmmmm (*sigh) I give! It must be so simple that it's waaay beyond me!! How does F = 13?
Ah! After I posted I saw Scot's explanation. Okay, I can see that. F=20 (as in 1:20.3!) and n36 being the gauge of the prototype in inches. (Workable.)

 

[Dwayne]

You're correct Scotty and I confuzzled myself thinking of 7/8ths scale. Plus I've been enjoying a few beers this evening.
Fn3 equals 1:20.3n36 in my world.

 

[Axel Tillmann]

Wasn't that what was behind the 1/2" scale movement (as in 1/2" to the foot). Only problem that #1 track (as in 45mm) was actually not correct but already established

Because 45mm = 2" which is no equivalent to 4' which is a prototype rail that exists nowhere in the world. The rail problem goes back to the the horses I was told. The rail-width something to do with the original horse waggon width and it evolved from there?

The story seemed to make sense because neither the Brits nor the Europeans could have been so "stupid". Europeans would probably have made a 1500mm Standard Gauge and not 1435mm and the Brits would have gone for 4 or 5 foot standard gauge. (Oh by the way other gauges include 1520mm, 1524=5', 1600, 1668, 1676)

Point in case European narrow gauge is 750mm and 1000mm (and not 783mm and 1013mm

) and American narrow gauge is 2' and 3' - of course the latter one could have been avoided if we wouldn't insist ont he archaic foot and inches but would have adapted the metric system

Interesting enough 1:24 = Pola and Piko Houses, 1:24 lots of die-cast models........ so if we dream this would be the result:
Standard Gauge: 60mm (59.79916666 but who is counting micometers)
Meter gauge: 42mm (41.66666666)
3': 38mm (38.0833333)
2':25mm (25.4)

 

[Road Foreman]

45mm is not 2", I beleive it is closer to 1.77"..
Also the "Brits" were the ones that came up with the 4' 8.5" guage..
After the Civil War the congress of the USA set 4' 8.5" as the standard for the transcontinental railway..

BulletBob

 

[jgallaway81]

Hey guys, for my post, I may have messed up. I don't know enough about F to know what scale it is. When I said the scale, I was going with what I thought it was... I wasn't advocating changing the scale to letter relationship.

As for mentioning the other scales, I was just saying that the solution I suggested wouldn't HAVE to be a G-scale only solution, but that it COULD work for ALL scale combinations, IF people wanted to go that route and unify the entire system.


To me, (I freely & proudly admit that I am unique and have a much different viewpoint than many others), the most important thing in selecting a piece of rolling stock to add to my empire is "will it run on my rails?" Once I know that, then I can decide if i can live with the scale difference.


Hence, my suggestion: G29... I instantly know that it WILL run on my empire as is. I also know in this case that its the same scale as my current toys and therefore good to go. Because of this combination, I also know what the prototype's gauge was... granted, in this case, there wasn't a real prototype because of the scale/gauge relationship. Verily, G78 would be also easy to understand... G = 45mm gauge, 7/8 scale equipment.


People who care would know if the item was the scale they wanted, and those who don't care, would instantly know if they could run the car on their tracks.


I challenge you to find a scale/gauge combination that doesn't work with this system.

 

[Scottychaos]

Posted By jgallaway81 on 30 Jul 2010 10:47 AM tracks.

I challenge you to find a scale/gauge combination that doesn't work with this system.





Jason,
it is actually a good system! I like it..all the trains running on 45mm track would be:

G32
G29
G24
G22
G20
G13

(7/8n2 trains would have to be G13, not G78..because the scale is 1/13.7, not 1/78th)


It *does* make sense..

the nice thing about that system is that it easily explains the whole "different scales running on the same track" issue..
its easily explainable to a someone new to the hobby:
"The G means all these trains will run on G gauge track..the different numbers after the G indicate the different scales, 32 and 29 are standard gauge,
22 is meter gauge, 20 is 3 foot gauge, etc.."

the only problem is, I think its too late..
Fn3 is already widely accepted, and its probably the largest and most common of all the scales..
then there is the historic concept that "G scale = 1/22.5 only"..so you would have to make "G" apply to everything..
which could be done of course..there are no "scale police" to stop us..
also 7/8n2 is already accepted, except for the SE45 movement..now we would have to add a third contender into the mix, G13..
I think the masses would just revolt..
and who has the authority to actually make such a system "official" anyway??
there is really no group that can do it..

maybe if all the manufacturers got together and adopted a system on their own, it would have to become "official" by default,
and eventually all the hobbiests would just change their thinking, and Fn3 and 7/8n2 and the others would just slowly die off..
so it could be done..but I dont know exactly *how* it could be done..


Scot

 

[Axel Tillmann]

A pure G designation might be the easiest to understand for only 45mm enthusiasts but it truly is not a good general model. The main designator shouldn't be on what track it runs, but what scale it is.

In all scales poeple like to represent Main Lines, Narrow gauge lines, street cars, field railways, and mining operation all on the same layout. The all have to match in scale. Also the scales have been chosen in a way that the next lower scale's track fit the narrow gauge implementation. Here are a few examples:

II Standard Gauge 1:22.5 in II gauge track (Popular in Germany)
IIm Meter gauge 1:22.5 on I gauge track (Very Popular around the world - best know for two rail road lines HSB and RhB)
I Standard gauge 1:32 on I gauge track (Very Popular in Germany with DB rolling stock - MTH over here with limited penetration)
Im Meter Gauge 1:32 on O track (although this is theoretical because I have not found any evidence of Im products ever made)
O Standard gauge 1:48 on O gauge track (Mostly US)
Om Meter gauge 1:48 on S track (Very popular for outdoor layouts in Switzerland - RhB layouts)
S Standard Gauge on S track (a dying Artform)
Sm Meter Gauge 1:64 on HO track (there was only one major layout I know off that did this in Switzerland)
HO Standard Gauge 1:87 on HO track (Popular around the world)
HOm Meter Gauge 1:87 on TT track (Popular around the world among fans of Swiss railroads)

And yes once you figured out that O actually stood for 0 it almost makes sense:

II, I, 0, 1/2 0

Of course the abnormality is S, and the modern TT and Z scales.

In terms of O versus 0 (Zero) I remember when I was 16 and the first time in England on wanted to call home, I was asked for the phone number, so I said Zero Zero Four Nine.......

And the operator responded "Ok let me repeat - Oh, Oh, four nine.." and I said no you have that wrong its Zero, Zero ... there is no O in the number

 

[kormsen]

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 31 Jul 2010 06:18 AM
...
Im Meter Gauge 1:32 on O track (although this is theoretical because I have not found any evidence of Im products ever made)
...


one might add, there was something, that came near to "Im".
the german Faller company had for a couple of decades or so a line called "Toy-train" and "E-train".
0 scale track with rolling stock of 1:32/1:30 dimensions. they were selectively distorted to allow for higher doors and their playmobil-like 1:25 figures.
at least it come near enough, that i plan to incorporate some of this stuff as a plantation line for my 1:29 layout)

see the (some) pics from Mik's layout. he uses the stuff for his mine.
.

 

[Steve Stockham]

The system is workable! Granted that I believe is too little waaay too late but it does make sense! At least it is logical! From an aesthetic point of view though, I have to say that using "G" for everything from standard gauge trains in 1:32 scale to 2ft. gauge trains in 1:13.7 scale just leaves a bad taste in my mouth! The only thing they all have in common is 45mm gauge track!! Wouldn't the designation "LS" work better than "G"? I know this is all just a discussion with no real hope of any action ever being taken but it would be nice if we could at least point to this discussion and tell the NMRA that, "Thanks but we already figured it out!"

 

[tacfoley]

Post deleted.

 

[SteveC]

Why Steve, wouldn't the 'G' nicely dovetail with the fact that you're running all those various scales on 'Gauge 1' track (i.e. 45mm gauge)?

 

[kormsen]

but, Steve, our trains do NOT run on "Gauge 1" track.
Gauge 1 and G-Gauge have one thing in common, the distance between rails of 45 mm.
but does there exist a "G" scale producer, whose wheels can run on Gauge one, without rattling along the sleepers?

 

[East Broad Top]

A pure G designation might be the easiest to understand for only 45mm enthusiasts but it truly is not a good general model. The main designator shouldn't be on what track it runs, but what scale it is.
Axel, with the utmost respect, you're sounding exactly like the NMRA sounded when I started working on wheel and track standards with them a few years ago. They couldn't wrap their heads around the simple fact that in large scale, gauge is the common, unifying factor. They were looking for complete sets of standards (including -n3, -n30, etc.) for each of the scales we run in the garden. That was an absolutely ludicrous way to go about things. To look at large scale from that perspective completely ignores how large scale has evolved over the past 42 years in this country. It took a lot of work on our part, but the NMRA finally understood that you could have standards allowing trains of different scales to run on the same track without the known universe imploding. You didn't need to quantify every possible variant of gauge under a given scale when the gauge was the constant people cared about.

The reality is that it's this universal gauge that gives large scale it's strength and character. Almost every one of us posting on this forum run trains on the same track, despite widely varied interests. If any one of the members were in my neck of the woods, they could bring their latest creation over and run it on my railroad regardless of its scale. The various steam-ups and get-togethers we enjoy through the year would be impossible if the hobby were segregated on the basis of scale.

Model railroaders don't choose their trains based on specific scale. They don't choose to model HO because it's 1:87, or choose O because it's 1:48 (or 1:45 or 1:43 depending on where you are). They choose their trains based on their overall size and the room they have available for them. That they are a specific scale is secondary to the physical size and space requirements of the models themselves. The choice between standard and narrow gauge is based on personal preference. A small scale modeler wanting models of a given physical size could choose S scale for standard gauge if that's where there preferences lie, or if they were narrow gauge enthusiasts, fit On3 in the same physical space. The models themselves are similar in overall size and physical requirements. Large scale is really no different. People get into large scale because the overall size of the trains appeals to them, not because they're a specific scale. They choose standard gauge vs. narrow based on what personally appeals to them. The advantage of large scale is that a modeler can lay 300' of track in the back yard, run standard gauge on it one day then turn around and run narrow gauge the next.

We can sit and ponder how large scale should have evolved to better "fit the mold" for days and weeks on end, but it doesn't change the reality of what actually happened and the cards we hold in our hand today. Our only choice is to play that hand as it's been dealt and make it easier to navigate the waters within the large scale umbrella. The reality is that "the mold" is merely a matter of perspective. One need only to change that perspective to see the same things in a whole new light.

Later,

K

 

[East Broad Top]

but does there exist a "G" scale producer, whose wheels can run on Gauge one, without rattling along the sleepers?
Yes. Many, if not all of them. None of the standards (NMRA, G1MRA, MOROP) specify a height of the rails. The closest is that they specify flange/flangeway depth to varying degrees. The determining factor in whether your flanges hit the ties is the distance between the railhead and the top of the spike/bolt/whatever detail. It's important to note that said distance is not necessarily greater with the taller rail, either. You can make your rails as tall or short as you'd like. So long as your flanges are never deeper than your flangeways (which extends to the distance between the railhead and spike detail), your trains won't bounce on the ties. Most major manufacturers' trains will run on G1MRA track, which is why when we did track standards for the NMRA, we borrowed heavily from--if not outright copied--G1MRA standards.

Within certain organizations, there are "fine scale" and "normal" standards, and it doesn't necessarily follow that trains built to one will run smoothly on the other. There has never been a presumption that they would.

Later,

K