[tcwave]

Hi Guys,

   I am just starting out in G-scale.   I am intersted in modelling an old logging railroad and want to start off in the right G-scale for me, one which allows for growth and options.   I have done a lot of research on the various scales but still don't know what would work best in practice.    I would like to grow into whatever scale I go with and not mix the different scales if possible.  Could you please provide your thoughts on what I should consider.  Below are some of my thoughts.

 1:20.3:   I like the idea of big trains.  I am not sure if they are going to be too big especially if down the road I buy something in another scale like 1:29.   I understand that it will be more difficult to find structures & figures   It sounds like this scale is growing fast.  I also like the fact that there are a lot of logging engines i could choose from (Bachmann & Accucraft.  

1:22.5  I like some of the LGB stock, but i am not sure how difficult it will be to continue to get and service this stock in the future.  My perception is that this scale is dominated by LGB, whereas 1:20.3 has more players.  

1:24   I don't know too much about this scale, but i understand makes for easier building since 1/2" to the foot.

1:29:   i like the Accucraft-American Mainline engines, but there doesn't appear to be much rolling stock available from AMR or Accucraft in 1:29.   I know that this is Aristo's primary scale

1:32   I don't know too much about this either, but understand a lot fo musem qaulity peices (not my interest at this time) come in this scale.

Thanks for your feedback and help

-tcwave

 

[Gary Armitstead]

If you want to model an old logging railroad, then I would choose 1:20.3. There seems to be quite a few Accucraft and Bachmann models to satisfy your needs. Accucraft can be pricey, but they are beautiful. Bachmann engines can run in the low to mid hundreds and can be bashed to make a very impressive model for the money. Look in Garden Railways magazine and you'll find many structure kits available in 1:20.3 or you can scratch build what you need. I have been in garden railroading for about 25 years and modeled in 1:29. About 18 months ago, I GOT the 1:20.3 "bug" and I love the stuff! The equipment IS LARGE, but with a logging operation, you can get away with sharp radius trackwork. Good luck with your decision.

 

[Scottychaos]

Wave,
the choice of scale comes from what types of trains you want to model..
what kind of trains you are most interested in.
you should make that choice first, then pick the scale to match that choice.

1:20.3: - also known as Fn3, correct scale for 3-foot gauge prototypes on 45mm track.
Bachmann spectrum engines are in this scale, and others.
If you like 3-foot gauge narrow gauge, Colorado narrow gauge, 3-foot gauge logging lines, East Broad Top, then this is the scale for you.
everything in this scale is 3-foot gauge.

1:22.5 - correct scale for meter gauge on 45mm track.
best choice if you are interested in European meter gauge trains.

1:24 - "generic narrow gauge scale"..most people model 3-foot gauge prototypes in this scale, although the scale doesnt match the track.
not one of the better choices IMO...not a lot available in this scale, and probably nothing new coming out.

1:29: - best scale if you are interested in Standard Gauge diesels, or standard gauge "late steam"..
but..its not the correct scale for standard gauge on 45mm track..the gauge is slightly off.

1:32 - The correct scale for Standard Gauge on 45mm track.
not as much available as in 1/29 scale, (except for live steam, where 1/32 dominates) but it is the correct scale for the gauge..
there is a never-ending debate on the merits of 1/29 vs. 1/32..personally, I think the war was lost ages ago, and 1/29 won.
choose 1/32 if you are a purist and need the gauge to perfectly match the scale, otherwise go with 1/29 for Standard Gauge trains..
there is more available in 1/29 than in 1/32.

The two largest "sub-groups" in the large scale world, with the most model choices, and the most likely future growth,
are 1/20.3, for 3-foot gauge narrow gauge.
and 1/29 for standard gauge diesels and standard gauge steam.

with less activity in the other scales. (in the US anyway..meter gauge modeling is obviously more common in Europe)

Scot

 

[Mik]

I use what purists somewhat snidely refer to as G(ummi) scale.... Why? simple economics.... The little people are most plentiful in 1/22.5, inexpensive diecast cars in 1/24, the budget Piko buildings are who knows what scale, but look OK with both... my rolling stock is nearly all bashed Lehmann Toytrain stuff.

Despite what many may say, at least to my eye, it all works pretty well together. But then I'm more concerned with aesthetics than scale or prototypical correctness.  Then again, my other choice would be no large scale trains at all because I couldn't afford it. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crying.gif

 

[East Broad Top]

The best way for you to answer that question for yourself is to figure out which kinds of railroading operation you are most drawn to. If it's modern mainline railroading (by "modern" I mean 1940s forward) or branchline/wayfreight operations, then 1:29 is probably the best way for you to go. It's the de facto scale for standard gauge railroading in the US, despite it being slightly "oversized" for the width of the rails. Just the way history worked out... There's a good selection of early and modern diesels, and while steam loco choices are thin, there are enough to keep trains moving. Early steam (c. 1900s) is virtually non-existant in this scale, but equipment from that era is similarly non-existant as well.

If you're more interested in "homespun" railroading--short trains, simple "stop and pick up the day's load" operations, then perhaps 1:20.3 is going to be more your liking. As far as locomotives go, this pursuit seems to be the opposite of the 1:29 world. There are lots of steam locos to choose from from the smallest 0-4-0 Porters to the mammoth K-37, but virtually nothing for the diesel enthusiast. Most of the equipment available in this scale wouldn't be found (or at least built) after 1940. If "modern" is your thing, 1:20 probably isn't for you.

I don't see 1:22 or 1:24 remotely growing in the years to come. What's on the market now is largely what willl be there 10 years from now. With the exception of Hartland, none of the players in that scale have introduced anything new in nearly a decade beyond new paint schemes (so far as US prototypes go. The scale is still very active with European prototypes). Many of the folks still active in that scale are so because they've been at it so long that they've already got a significant investment that they don't want to change, or they've got physical space limitations that keep them from "expanding" to the other scales.

Later,

K

 

[MarkLewis]

Posted By Scottychaos on 03/22/2008 5:05 PM

choose 1/32 if you are a purist and need the gauge to perfectly match the scale, otherwise go with 1/29 for Standard Gauge trains..
there is more available in 1/29 than in 1/32.
-----------
There are more mainline RR models in 1:29 than in 1:32, at least that's how they're labeled. 1:29 is a rubber scale that requires the models be warped to fit on 45-mm track, which makes making anything in 1:29 less a matter of modeling than adapting. If you look beyond rolling stock, then you will find many more vehicles, figures, and other items in 1:32 than in 1:29. If you're into modern RRing and enjoy intermodal, for example,, than you will find 1:29 RR cars and containters, but almost no trailers to carry them offline. 1:29 containers are too large for 1:32 trailers and too small for 1:24 trailers, both of which are available in quantity.

Purity has nothing to do with it.

Mark

 

[Allan W. Miller]

"The two largest "sub-groups" in the large scale world, with the most model choices, and the most likely future growth,
are 1/20.3, for 3-foot gauge narrow gauge.
and 1/29 for standard gauge diesels and standard gauge steam."
------------------------

I think Scot is probably right, although it would have been nice if 1:32 for standard gauge had caught on sooner.

Personally, I like all of the scales and don't worry much about which is considered to be more popular. I tend to mostly go for 1:20.3 these days (Accucraft and Bachmann) since I like logging and mining operations as well as the interesting narrow gauge locomotives that existed in narrow gauge, but I also have some 1:22.5 (LGB) and 1:24 (Hartland/traction) models, as well as a fair number of 1:32 items (Marklin MAXI). At the present time, I don't own any 1:29 scale models, but that's only because I'm not all that interested in modeling more modern standard gauge in Large Scale, and don't have the space to do it justice in any case.

My advice is to decide on the type of railroading you like best and then go for the scale that offers the best selection in what you want. There is no "best" scale from among the various choices available; it's simply a matter of personal preference and the availability of items that you like.

 

[vsmith]

It really boils down to "what do YOU want to model?" once you decide that scale usually falls into place

Now it seams that narrow gauge logging has the strongest draw on you, then opting for 1/20 would be the way to go. The line of affordable stuff avalable in 1/20 today is really good compared to even just a few years ago, and an impessive roster can be had without the need for a trust Fund. Even just a single 1/20 Bachmann Porter and a few logging flats, one can build up a really well detailed small logging RR that used to be very common.

When I started I wanted to do mining RRs, so I got LGB Porters and other small engines, I decided to build up my layout closer to 1/22.5 at the time due to space restrictions, it works for me, lots of other modelers also built to 1/22.5 but nowadays its far trickier scale to start in. With LGB going kaput 18 months ago and Marklin dragging its feet reentering the US market, instock LGB has gotten thin, and prices remain as high as ever. I think LGB should be considered only thru Ebay acquisitions and for some items even there used stock asking prices are close to the new asking prices, so buyer beware.

1/29 is nice but I cannot think of any 1/29 stuf that would work as well or look as nice for logging as the 1/20 stuff would.

 

[Don Howard]

I have adopted 1:20.3, except for LGB cog or rack portion of layout.

I did an archive search and (re)found some AMS short flat cars turned intosom wonderful logging cars by JMKING.
http://archive.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=31099&SearchTerms=Kit+bashing+AMS+short+4+wheel+flat+cars
A further search inside the archive SEARCH page available on the above link:
Look for AMS, in Modeling Forum, user JMKLING and you'll get a bunch more links.

Warniing, some of the pictures are no longer there. I MAY have them if you really want them.

One of the Vermont Garden Railway members has a logging boom setup that spends the summer out, and was recently shown at the Central Vermont Flower Show in Barre, VT. While I was there, I was stunned, and pleased for the builder, that a Vermont Forester there for the show stopped and was very appreciative of the logging section of our display. I'll post a picture later.

 

[Don Howard]

Logging Derrick at Central Vermont Garden Show March 14, 15, 16 2008

 

[lownote]

I'm just a newbie and I think about this a lot. My favorite era is the end of steam, the 40s and early 50s on mainline. I grew up on the east coast and narrow gauge is a western thing. There's some nice 1:29 stuff for that era, and also some very nice 1:32. MTH  makes some great engines and they come with a fantastic sound and control system

But to be honest I think that unless you have a huge layout with lots of long runs and gentle curves, 1:24 or 1:20 look better. We have a small layout, around 250 feet maybe, and in retrospect I kind of wish we'd gone with 1:20 and narrow gauge. The tighter curves make for a more varied track and the trains look "cuter," which my wife likes and which i think casual visitors respond to. If I had a layout of 2000 feet, mainline in 1:29 would look really great--we'd run long trains that'd look sort of epic. But on a smaller layout long trains start chasing thier tails pretty quickly. It seems to me that 1:20 narrow has the right combination of eye catching size and "cuteness." You can squeeze a lot of variety into the same space, shorter trains look more "right". I just wish everything didnt look so "old westy!" 

 

[markoles]

From what the original poster stated,  there is room for interpretation.

My initial thought is that old logging railroad means "Narrow gauge Steam era" .

But, what about the standard gauge logging railroads that changed over to diesel? 

I don't think you need a half mile of track to give the feeling of standard gauge.  I barely have 200 feet of track, but pretend that I am a branchline.  That allows me to operate any length of train I desire.  Freight trains headed up by a LGB Mikado or Aristo Mikado are generally in the 10-14 car length.  Sure, it is short for a 'real' train, but I have heavy grades (think Saluda).

You could do a logging railroad in 1/29 if you like diesels and the more current era.  Small switch engines, like S-4s, NW-2s, 44-tonners or even larger Geeps or RS-3s could be your motive power.  Use 1/32 trucks to haul the logs out of the woods to the sawmill and railhead.  Then,  you could either use USA woodchip hoppers or 40' flatcars to haul finished lumber out.  Isn't that how Ft Bragg's Yreka Western operates?  Plus you could always get a smaller steam engine as an excursion engine.  Use a 4-6-2 or 2-8-2 or wait for Aristo's 2-8-0 due out later this year as your 'tourist' train. 

I guess that there's really no right way or wrong way to model the industry.  It comes down to what constraints you place on it. 

 

[pdk]

Posted By lownote on 03/25/2008 5:35 AM
I grew up on the east coast and narrow gauge is a western thing. 

You're overlooking the East's two-footers -- definitely narrow gauge.

 

[East Broad Top]

There were far more eastern narrow gauge railroads than western ones. The difference was that few of the eastern ones survived past the 30s, either succumbing to the Great Depression or being absorbed into the standard gauge railroads with which they connected. The eastern narrow gauge lines lend themselves very nicely to modeling because they tended to be (a) rather short, and (b) used a very limited amount of rolling stock. That's a rather ideal situation for modeling in any scale if you're looking to model more than just a small snippet of a railroad's operations.

Later,

K