Large Scale Central

1/29 scale correct track, not 45mm? Ideas, comments, etc

Track and Trestles
#1

Please don’t shot me, but I wanted to see what other people think. I didn’t feel like reposting my entire comments/thread over here so I’m posting a link to the ‘other’ site. Like I said please don’t shot me.
http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aff/9/aft/122415/afv/topic/afpgj/11/Default.aspx#237991

For those who don’t want to read the link, or are lazy this is what its about…

I’ve been thinking about making correct 1/29 spaced track at 1.948". Having heard for the longest time that 1/29 is not the correct scale I’ve come up with the idea of building/starting a correct gauge for 1/29. Yes it does prevent the interoperability of the 45mm gauge crowd, but I think I can live with it. So far I’ve found that USA freight trucks DON’T require any modifications other then moving the wheels out on the axle. The power block on a GP9 requires a little more modification, but possible. Move the axles out on the gear, and then move the sideframes out by ~.120" with .060 styrene shims. So after seeming to run out of comments on the other thread (for some reason?) I’ve decided to post over here and collect even more opinions, good and bad…
So go forth.
But it would be helpful to read/scan the MLS thread. But if you want I guess I could post some pictures, just let me know.
Thanks,

Craig

#2

Craig,

It never fails to amaze me how complicated life can get. :wink: :slight_smile: Five pages in that thread!

If the Polk’s would have been model railroaders instead of “Toy Merchants with a WOW obsession” it would have been a simple matter of building in 1:32 scale.
If you like to handlay all your track, turnouts etc. with Code197 or Code205 rail including the tie plates and correct size spikes, cut all your own ties to the proper cross section etc. … I’d say “Go for it!” :smiley: :smiley: And don’t forget to scratch build the structures to 1:29, have someone make road vehicles in 1:29 along with figures etc. etc.

OTOH I would look at all that is available in 1:32 scale before considering it, but then I’m a few years older than you.

Oh BTW, I model Swiss Meter gauge in 1:22.5 using Code215 track and handlaid turnouts. :wink: :slight_smile:

#3

I am scratch building buildings in 1/29 actually! People and cars? That can come later. For example my building I’m working on is 7’ x 6’ x 3’tall! No selective compression for me.

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/41324_433631761911_838651911_4992959_6706943_n.jpg)

I’ve thought about going to 1/32 but it just seems like not enough choices, and selection for me, plus I already have a steady collection of 1/29 trains. Craig

#4

Way too much trouble for me. The slight scale discrepancy doesn’t bother me that much. For Narrow Gauge I started out 1:24, but with the availability of reasonably priced 1:20.3 gear, I’m moving there slowly. If 1:32 had been available when I started I might have considered it, but the 1:32 stuff looks too small to me now :o

#5

1/29th people and cars?

Never happen.

tac

#6

Dear Craig: If you want to build in 1:29 go to the Scale Card web site and buy a 1:29 ruler and build away! I believe that 1:29 was a bed dream someone on the East Coast had!

Paul

#7

I just love the 1/29 argument, I guess the free market economy took over and left the rivet counters behind, I guess with the exception of 1:20. I too pondered 1:32, but the smaller size bothered me, sorta like an upsized proto 48.

Craig, that is an impressive structure, talk about the “wow” factor! Please post photos as your track laying and buildings progress.

#8

Whatever “floats your boat”! If laying your own track and regauging your rolling stock suits you, go for it.

#9
Quote:
... If the Polk's would have been model railroaders instead of "Toy Merchants with a WOW obsession" it would have been a simple matter of building in 1:32 scale.
Whether 1:32 would have eventually taken off on its own absent Polk's introduction of 1:29, who knows. In the late 80s, a handful of manufacturers tried to make 1:32 commercially successful (Great Trains, MDC ,and a few others) All failed. Heck, even Delton's 1:24 stuff was just that much smaller than the LGB stuff to where it had difficulty gaining a foothold, and ultimately would go under as well. "Size matters." Personally, I think the oft-talked-about "Wow!" factor of large scale railroading would have proven too strong for 1:32 to gain any kind of foothold. I think a 1:29 (or at least an adaption of the UK's 10mm scale) would have been inevitable. Like it or not, the "Wow!" factor is what's built this hobby, for all the scale/gauge discrepancy it brings with it. And as much as it pains the rivet counter in me to say, I think the hobby is far stronger with 1:29 than it ever could have been without it.

But back to the subject at hand:

Craig, if you’re looking for 1:29ish people, of course there’s the Lemax and other figures you see at Christmas. They’re usually right in that ballpark, though I’m unsure how many folks would be wearing winter scarves and singing carols while waiting on the platform for the train to come by. But there are a fair number that are more generic, if overdressed for Summer. Also, if you can find the Life-Like “G-scale” figures, they’re pretty dead-nuts on for 1:29 as well. They make a few different sets; passengers, workers, etc. I haven’t seen them in a while, but keep your eyes open.

(And my hat’s off to you for widening the gauge. My grandfather was correcting O-gauge locos to what’s today called “Proto:48” standards back in the 30s. If it bugs you, change it!)

Later,

K

#10

I have lots of those Life-Like “G-Scale” people if anyone would like them. They are way under-scale for 1:20, but like Kevin said, they look pretty close in 1:29.

#11

You want a wow factor?
How about standard gauge 1:20.3?
You could have three rail track, just like the D&RGW and other NG RR’s had in some areas.
I’m going to build a 1:20.3 standard gauge box car some time, just for the
heck of it.

#12

Thanks for the ideas about people. I was actually thinking that I might take a stab at making my own people based on the articles in GR. Or at least attempting to see if I can come up with something that looks ok. 1.20 standard gauge that would be huge! I don’t think too many people would have room for that. My building is on hold while I’m in grad school so it might be a while before I get back to completing it. But here’s some teaser pictures

(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/21042_242741781911_838651911_3179973_4972790_n.jpg)

(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/44807_432793631911_838651911_4978853_8131132_n.jpg)

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/46851_432795026911_838651911_4978893_5438785_n.jpg)

(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/47849_433631851911_838651911_4992961_2027176_n.jpg)

(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/58219_433631871911_838651911_4992962_7423113_n.jpg)

(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/47679_433631906911_838651911_4992963_3357764_n.jpg)

Boy I’ve really derailed this thread now! Craig

#13

Craig: you will have a real large RR with that building, most interesting.

I do know a RR that has 3 tracks NG & SG. They built a mold for ties and trucks for the SG equipment.

Paul

#14
Jon Radder said:
I have lots of those Life-Like "G-Scale" people if anyone would like them. They are way under-scale for 1:20, but like Kevin said, they look pretty close in 1:29.
E-Mail sent Jon
#15

Before venturing to ‘correct’ scale, I would actually check just how ‘rubbery’ the Aristo/USA Trains scale rule actually is and how accurate the models are for what roadname the company has conveniently painted them. Compromises are part of the hobby. We have lived with the rubbery ‘scale’ rule for many years from most manufacturers.

With no disrespect intended, the venture seems part of an ‘idle’ dream wish list rather than reality. Once the track is accurate, then one needs to look at trucks, wheel standards, etc. The correctly gauged rails are just part of the scenario. Scale discussion has happened throughout the ages with the OO/h.o. debate spurning the Proto 4 offshoot, the 1/32 scale/10mm debate and the 1/43 and 1/48 scale ‘O’ gauge.

If one wishes to be so pedantic on actual rail spacing, then one needs to encompass everything to that scale, not just simply widening rails and wheelsets.

#16

Craig,
First of all I like the structure…nice work!
Now let me ask this question…I’m not much of a reader or theologian(hit your link and too much debate for me) so I’m assuming this is going outside? If so I guess you have all the space for what you want? Now are you going to take pictures of the ALL 1:29th scaled stuff and if so what are your outside surroundings?
RR’s like Marty Cozads or Andy Clarke’s(come to mind) make for great pictures because of there surroundings not just the structures or equitment they have.
I build off the cuff and try too keep to scale but I personally go for the overall look. My biggest issue is getting that look with my surroundings so a lot of what I made won’t get the full effect where it sits here. Now if you took it to Martys or Andys then yes it would look great!
BTW …NO dad that does not mean you can have my stuff!!!
:wink:
Just my thoughts if they mean anything?

#17
Tim Brien said:
Before venturing to 'correct' scale, I would actually check just how 'rubbery' the Aristo/USA Trains scale rule actually is and how accurate the models are for what roadname the company has conveniently painted them. Compromises are part of the hobby. We have lived with the rubbery 'scale' rule for many years from most manufacturers.

With no disrespect intended, the venture seems part of an ‘idle’ dream wish list rather than reality. Once the track is accurate, then one needs to look at trucks, wheel standards, etc. The correctly gauged rails are just part of the scenario. Scale discussion has happened throughout the ages with the OO/h.o. debate spurning the Proto 4 offshoot, the 1/32 scale/10mm debate and the 1/43 and 1/48 scale ‘O’ gauge.

If one wishes to be so pedantic on actual rail spacing, then one needs to encompass everything to that scale, not just simply widening rails and wheelsets.


Tim,
You make a great point. I would like to see proto wheel standards or at least semi-scale wheel standards on my equipment. As regards to you comment about incorrect paint schemes I also agree. That’s why I’m looking at a 1970 ORER to figure out exactly what was on the rails during the time period I want to model, and sticking to those paint schemes involved.
What got me interested in was the fact that I’ve heard over and over again and again that 1/29 is not really a model but rather a toy because 45mm is not the correct gauge (mostly from the 1/32 people for some reason?). So why can’t 1/29 move beyond this idea that it’s always ‘wrong’ because it doesn’t have the correct gauge. Or that matter why does the large scale hobby seem to think that we should always keep the same gauge, and change the scale? Yes it complicates the manner to have different gauges, but I don’t see a problem with that in smaller scales.

So I wanted to experiment and see if it is possible to build and operate a prototypical layout in large scale. I don’t think it’s a pipe dream to want Proto 29 or Proto 32 or Proto 1/20.3. If this causes me to continue to scratch build most of my roster then so be it as I feel like I would rather have something prototypical then not having it at all.
Craig

#18
David Russell said:
Craig, First of all I like the structure..nice work! Now let me ask this question...I'm not much of a reader or theologian(hit your link and too much debate for me) so I'm assuming this is going outside? If so I guess you have all the space for what you want? Now are you going to take pictures of the ALL 1:29th scaled stuff and if so what are your outside surroundings? RR's like Marty Cozads or Andy Clarke's(come to mind) make for great pictures because of there surroundings not just the structures or equitment they have. I build off the cuff and try too keep to scale but I personally go for the overall look. My biggest issue is getting that look with my surroundings so a lot of what I made won't get the full effect where it sits here. Now if you took it to Martys or Andys then yes it would look great! BTW ....NO dad that does not mean you can have my stuff!!! ;) Just my thoughts if they mean anything?
Yes I am planning on keeping everything outside. Do I have space for all this right now? No. Currently my wife and I are renting out our house, while I'm in grad school. So when I get done, and get a new job, a new layout will come forth. This is my idea. First I would like to accurately reproduce sections of 2 subdivisons that I grew up by. The feed mill in the town of Redmond, Wa is one such structure that I would like to model. If push comes to shove and I don't have the room to build everything I would rather spend the time to continue to reproduce a small section. So if I had the time, funds and land to build everything I would try, but I know I wont so I'm focusing on a couple of areas and would like to keep everything 'correct'. I don't particularly like the idea that structures are a side show to the trains. I would rather have 1 large building then 20 small ones because it looks better to my eye. The same with track. I think track is one of the most under modeled elements in the model RR hobby in any scale. We all focus on the trains, but forget about the track. So with that in mind I am planning on building #9 and #11 turnouts (correct for the 2 subs I'm modeling) so that I don't have to deal with the toy train look. From that came forth the idea & concept of 'correcting' a 'wrong' in 1/29th track. Hope this explains everything. Craig
#19

Craig,
my comments were not intended to be derogatory. I applaud your effort to maintain fidelity with scale, however, 1/29 scale will always be seen as a ‘WOW’ scale. In reality circa-1990, the 1/32 scale cars did not measure up against the then abundant 1/22.5 scale narrow gauge offerings from LGB, so Aristo upsized the scale so that the chosen 1/29 scale would sit comfortably with items then avaialble from the other manufacturers. 1/32 scale is just too small to ‘compete/compare’ with the larger scales. It was a wise marketting decision by Aristo to wow factor his new production back in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s as few, if any products were available in standard gauge.

As previously stated, if 1.32 scale had been chosen it may have failed in the marketplace. 1/29 will always maintain the stigma attached to other scales such as ‘OO’ and 1/43 scale ‘O’ gauge. Correct gauge is just the start of the journey.

#20

Tim,
I didn’t read them as derogatory. I know the history behind 1/29th and it’s a storied history, but can’t we as modelers move beyond? But this raises the issues I brought up before. Why does the large scale hobby seem to think that a single gauge track should fit various types of scales? Does any other scale do this? No. The closest thing in my mind is HOn2 1/2 and On30. But a better comparison would be this. I have a HO scale layout built to HO scale standards, but hey my buddy has On30 equipment and he wants to run on my layout. But for some reason his cars and rolling stock is to big and wont fit. Now in large scale this would be looked at as a major mistake that my buddy can’t take his On30 equipment on my HO layout.
Isn’t it the same by saying that a 1.20.3 modeler ‘has to’ accept the fact the a 1/29 or 1/24 or 1/32 modeler wants to run on his 20.3 layout or even the other way around?
So that’s why I want to widen the 1/29 gauge not so it excludes 20.3, 1/24 or 1/32 equipment but rather that’s the scale I wish to model in. I’m just asking why large scale must remain ‘stuck’ with the concept that large scale is ‘only’ equipment that runs on 45mm gauge track (or 32mm).
Isn’t creating a correct gauge for 1/29 the first step in removing the stimga attached to it, so that it becomes a recognized scale?
Craig