Large Scale Central

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

Track and Trestles
#21

Craig,
the very existence of 1/29 scale is a compromise and alas will always be seen as so. ‘OO’ originated due the small loading gauge of British prototypes and the lack of availability of small electric motors to fit the scale confines of a ‘h.o.’ scaled British prototype. Similarly with the 10mm scale. ‘Z’ scale has been available for many, many years and yet 16.5mm ‘OO’ gauge still flourishes and not the more restrictive Proto-4 scale (18.83mm track), as does the 10mm devotees.

    The status quo accepts 45mm track as the defactor standard for all largescale,  even down to continuing to accept 332 profile as the standard.  Consumers are reluctant to accept change and manufacturers are even far more cautious with their investment dollars.  There is simply no market for a correct scaled/gauged 1/29 scale.  Correct rail placement is in the realm of the very few,  unless one models in 1/32 scale, 1/24 scale, metre gauge 1/22.5 scale and 3 foot 1/20.3 scale.  Our hobby is generally a compromise of scale, gauge, badge engineering with prototypically incorrect roadnames, all as a manufacturing expedient to the manufacturer to maximise return on investment.
#22
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.


Precisely my sentiment! OTOH I really like museum quality stuff if it’s consistent from start to finish, but I haven’t seen it in a garden, yet!

#23
Craig Townsend said:
............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. .............
Craig,

Actually it’s fairly simple, the guys who started the mass produced stuff that runs on 45mm track in the garden - LGB, Aristo, USAT and Bachmann etc. - evidently didn’t have an inkling what scale is about nor did/do they seem to care. That’s why LS as generally practiced is more or less the laughing stock of the model railroad fraternity.
Remembering the giant strides that were made in the smaller scales from the mid 70s to early 80s and ever since, one sure wonders why the general LS producers get away with the crap that they’re still getting away with. Oh I just remembered; there’s a ready market that accepts a lot of that “stuff”.

#24

HJ,
one only has to look to the recent Brawa offerings, basically built to museum standards, but alas too fragile in the real garden environment. Of cause there were other issues with the Brawa releases, but fragility is high up the list. There is a simple reason generic largescale has survived and that is it’s perceived robustness.

#25

So in other words what the two of you are saying is the 1/29 will never be excepted in the model railroad world because the history of 1/29 doomed it from the start? This idea seems ridiculous in my mind… even if one or two individuals decide to model in 1/29 everything correctly it’s still considered the step child of large scale? Why? This is why I think large scale is so fractured and split. Yes to run outdoors things need to be a little more sturdy then indoors. So is indoors 1/29 ‘better’ then outdoors 1/29? No, not in my mind.
So what I’m reading here is that 1/29 will not only never become a ‘good’ scale to model in, but it’s incorrect to try and replicate prototypical modeling solely because it’s 1/29, BUT it would be okay if it was 1/32, or 1/24, or 1/22.5 or 1/20.3.
Okay I guess I just go back to my world and do what I want and see how it turns out…
Could this be why large scale is not popular with younger modelers who want to model prototypically? Humm…
Craig

#26

Craig, don’t give up. 1:20.3 started with just one guy, who talked to just one other guy.

I’d like to see something get going in 1:29.

The folks in 1:32 are smug because they think they have the “correct” gauge for the scale. If you do the math, you will find that 45mm is just a bit wide for 1:32 scale.

Go figure.

See if Gary Raymond will make some Proto 29 wheel sets. It won’t hurt to ask.

#27

Smug… haha South Park had a good episode on the “Smug” level in the air.

Craig, going to model the GN?

#28

Craig,
the criticism is not directed specifically at 1/29 scale. Largescale in itself is a compromise scale. Few actually run prototypically correct scale/gauge/track profile. Many will say, I run 3 foot narrow-gauge on 45mm track. When questioned deeper they are in general still using the compromised standardised 332 profile. The true scale officiando is the exception not the rule.

    Few would have the enthusiasm or the time to devote to completely scratchbuilding a new scale as regards track.  Your railroad, your chosen scale.  Whether you can attract followers is entriely their decision, but should not impact on your choice.  You will find that life will intervene in your plans and you also will find yourself compromised.  We wish for a perfect world but find not enough hobby time to fulfill our ambitions.  That is life.  Do not expect manufacturers to jump at the opportunity of a new track gauge.  It took Aristo over five years to admit and then commence production mods to their wide-radius switch.  Profit is the driving force so any new venture is at the modeller's expense.  Do not be discouraged as you are a pioneer and will encounter criticism and problems enroute.  As I stated earlier, seems more a pipe dream rather than a reality.
#29

what he said.

tac

#30

John,
I’m modeling the early BN. Specifically between 1970-1972. I might narrow it done a bit more but that’s the general time frame. The subdivisions I want to model were old NP subs, but I like the early BN time frame because then I can get repaints of GN & NP with simple BN patches.

Tim,
Okay I get your point with 332 rail. I’m using 215 (equal to 110) which was on the branch line that I’m modeling, same with using #9 and #11 turnouts. I know for sure that I will not be able to replicate the prototype curves so I guess that’s one compromise I’m willing to stay with, but track width and turnouts I’m not, so I want to scratchbuild. I’m not expecting manufacturers to jump right on in because I said so. But I would like to spread the idea that 1/29 can become a recognized ‘child’ of the large scale hobby, just like the movement of 20.3 became over the last 10-15 years. So that in 15-20 years 1/29th stuff might be offered from the manufacturer with the correct gauge, or at least convertible to the correct gauge.

Craig

#31

Craig thats whats so great about the hobby. You can do what you want and their wil be people who like the idea. A great way to get the word out is through the internet. Start with facebook or something. Get your idea out their and I bet you will get some people. Thats how it happens with all the other scales. Someone needs to start the idea. For me its too much work. If I was indoor it would be a different. For me I have to many environmental factors and money is a factor. Thats why I go with 1:24 on code 332 track. Whats nice with using the standard track for G is anyone can run on your track. If you do want you want then you are stuck with running only your stuff on your layout until you can get more people. Whay not have the two guages on one track. Then it will let you be more flexable.

#32

No skin off my nose, anyone can build whatever they like.

LS is a fractured bunch, the mfgs mention that whenever they are questioned. It also serves as their perfect excuse to come up with stuff that isn’t really to any single, specific scale. Doubters should get out their verniers, the prototype information and do a bit of calculating. It will be an eyeopener!

As far as standardized scales go, the only thing I can suggest is compare the NEM Standards to the NMRA Standards or anything else that might be out there. Anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of Standards and how they usually get established will have a good laugh.

OTOH I remember very well when GM went Metric. They actually proposed a 6.3mm screw be used as a Standard item - not withstanding ISO or any other standard that had been around since Napoleon… And then there are the mfgs in the aircraft industry, any drawing of any simple part has to have a separate specification sheet to account for all the stuff that isn’t covered by “normal” drafting practices.

#33

I remember well Craig, some half century ago, when I was an idealist. Many large scale railroaders like me, that have reached a certain age, will abide by the adage ‘anything for a quiet life’ :slight_smile: However I am sure you will win friends who support your views.

I have Code 332 brass (Aristo) track - it was what was principally available in the UK when I started in the hobby. It stands up to a reasonable about of careless feet: a wider gauge, if only slightly so, might not take the same amount of pressure. One quite valid point made by Shawn was that a ‘universal’ gauge track does allow visiting railroaders to operate their stock on your track.

It is an interesting thread and I am sure more will contribute to it. However, I did not read the MLS thread as it not on my ‘to visit’ list.

#34

Personally I’m not interested in having others bring their equipment to run on my railroad so the ‘interchangeability’ is not a factor. What I am interested in is modeling a prototype, and therefore it does not seem reasonable to me to ‘require’ that a 20.3 steamer or anything else should be allowed to or able to operate in my 1970-72 BN layout. Yes I would like to have operations on my layout with other hobbyists (not just large scale) but I want to keep things historically correct. In other scales if one has a prototypical layout it’s not ‘expected’ that anybody and their brother can & will bring out of date equipment to run. So why in the large scale? Because we’re stuck with this concept that everything has to be ‘interchangable’ So call my reasons idealistic or unfeasible but that’s what I want to model. So I’m venturing forth.

Craig

#35

Just remember to have fun!

#36

Craig,
I am having a little trouble understanding your feelings that 1/29 scale is not an accepted scale and will remain so due the ‘wow’ factor. 1/29 is an accepted scale, though 1/29 scale track is not readily available as the number of modellers who require such track is very limited. You want ‘scale’ track for your supposedly ‘scale’ equipment. Get out your scale rule and check just how accurate or liberal the manufacturer has been with his product. You are defining your railroad to a specific timeframe it seems because it will be simple to do repaints on existing paint schemes. You intend scratcbuilding track and switches to a specific scale and yet are happy with a simple repaint on an existing roadname from a manufacturer.

     If one is being so pedantic as regards scale track,  then one would assume that the equipment you run would be just as specific, otherwise the time invested in the trackwork would be superfluous.  You cannot demand 'scale' from one part of the equation and yet accept compromise from other parts.  You are ostracising yourself from the mainstream and seemingly 'demand' that others follow suit. 1/29 scale modelling is not a lower class hobby simply because it utilises the readily available gauge 1 rail.  1/29 scale would have never been produced if the manufacturer had to tool up a specific track gauge to suit. 

     We all enter the hobby for various reasons.  Some are happy to run ready to run equipment on ready to run track.  Some like to specifically handlay their track.  Some like to scratchbuild or kitbash as I do.  You obviously like track building and have probably emigrated from a idealistic proto 'h.o.' operation with specific design criteria for your new venture in largescale.  

      In general, apart from the 1/32 scale modellers, largescalers generally define themselves as such.  They generally do not specifically breakdown their hobby into the various scales that encompass 'largescale' 45mm track.  They choose a particular scale and stick to that.  The original 'mass produced' largescale (not counting the early gauge 1 standards),  was a compromise right from the start when the Richters produced their generic Stainz locomotive.  Metre gauge modelling equates to 1/22.5 scale and yet the chosen prototype selected by LGB were predominantly 750mm gauge, or roughly 32mm track.  Largescale modelling has accepted compromise from the late 1960's and will continue to do so.  Generic gauge 1 track is the bread and butter economics of many manufacturers.  Producing a single scale specific gauge track would force a manufacturer into liquidation/chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Any modeller choosing the specific track would limit his future 'choices' as regards operation.  Many modellers are not scale specific.  They will dabble in what takes their fancy,  combining both standard and narrow gauge prototypes.  Many simply enjoy 'playing trains'.  Others, like yourself prefer scale standards and scale specific modelling.

       You commented that track and building construction would precede any thoughts as regards scale automobiles and people.  Well,  1/22.5 scale has been around for over forty years and yet apart from a few specific European specialist manufacturers almost nothing exists in this scale as regards cars and trucks.  The items that are available are very expensive and very European oriented.  Do you really think that 1/29 scale trucks are going to follow the trend to 1/29 scale or will you compromise with the more readily available 1/32 scale products?  Aristo did introduce a few trucks in 1/29 scale specifically as loads for their roling stock.  USA Trains came up with some trucks and cars but wonders as to the actual scale of the items.  Aristo still produces buildings in 1/24 scale as it is a compromise to fulfill requirements from the narrow gauge and standard gauge modeller and this is even though Aristo now produce ONLY standard gauge 1/29 scale equipment.  All 1/24 scale ex Delton products have ceased production other than the 'bumble bee' C-16. 

        Your gauge specific modelling will be definately an achievement,  but unfortunately, unless supported by a manufacturer will not find 'acceptance'.  This is not a criticism but a reality.  Few would take the time or have the ability to handlay 1/29 scaled track.  I applaud your choice but remember that it is your choice so please do not criticise others for not embracing your idea.  You are supported in principle but the reality is that for most it is the trains themselves that are important and the track itself is merely the vehicle to carry the trains.
#37

I’m not trying to push the manufacturers to produce 1/29th track. I understand the economics, 45mm is here to stay nor demanding that others move away from 45mm track.
I said “I think that” 1/29 gets looked down because it doesn’t have the correct scale/gauge combination. I personally would like to remove the stigma associated with the storied past of 1/29 and try to move forward. Now manufacturers in smaller scales had been quite liberal in regards to ‘scale lengths, etc’ but now we are seeing a movement of correct scale length passenger cars for example. And NO I am not a emigrate from another proto scale. I have some HO, an N, but focus more on 1/29 because I enjoy it better.
Why does using prototypical track limit my choices in the future? If it is possible to convert the existing equipment to a slightly larger gauge now, it will also be possible in the future. I do plan on scratchbuilding a lot of things because that is one of the parts of the hobby I enjoy. As I stated before I’m trying to replicate/model a specific place, & time and no commercially produced product is going to come close in regards to buildings.

I sorry if you thought I was ‘criticizing’ people but I wasn’t. I was simply stating what my opinions are, and the goals that I have.

Craig
But as a side note this ‘open’ dialog seems to suggest to me one of the reasons why younger modelers like myself tend to keep to themselves and not join clubs because it seems that our ideas are not good enough compared to all older generation that has lots of experience and wisdom. Or from arm chair modelers that seem to ‘know’ everything about the hobby. NOT to be taken as a direct comment towards any particular person! JUST a personal rant!

#38

Awesome Craig. I am slowly getting back into BN. As an HO Modeler, I modeled 1980 BN and have a crapload of it in case there are any BN HO scale folks out there. Never got around to painting the Alco C636 though.

Keep the photos coming.

Let the rest of 'em loose sleep.

#39

Craig,
I’m glad you understand that a hobby is all about what makes YOU happy :wink:
Regardless of what someone else says, you can demand scale where you want, and accept compromise elsewhere.
Matter of fact, I would say that many in the hobby do just that.
Keep us posted about your projects.
Ralph

#40

Craig,
the scale/gauge argument is nothing to do with the age of the modeller, so definately no generation gap. I agree with having to accept compromises in smaller scales and how manufacturers in those scales are stepping up and producing scale length rolling stock. I remember the ready to run from all ‘h.o.’ manufacturers that had selectively compressed rolling stock so that the ‘modeller’ could run streamliner coaches on a 6 foot by 4 foot baseboard. For the same reasons, lack of perceived space, largescale manufacturers also compressed rolling stock and locomotives and in general, continue to do so. The LGB ‘R1’ mentality rubbed off on all manufacturers and it is only recently that the main manufacturers have shrugged off this requirement to run on four foot diameter rail.

     As a 'younger' modeller maybe you think that time is on your side and you have forever to build to your requirements.  I can assure you that your available hobby time will become very limited as life and family interrupt your life.  Right now maybe you think you have all the time in the world,  but family responsibility will intervene and limit what time you really have.  Will you spend all this time scratcbuilding new track (reinventing the wheel) or will you simply run trains and enjoy yourself doing so on commercially available track.  Only time will tell.  Dreams do not often become reality.   

     Your scale sized feed supply building is an example of your 'dream'.  Even in a decent sized outdoor environment,  your building will dominate anything else on your railroad,  making it more a caricature,  rather than the excellent model it eventually will become.  There is a very common saying, "do not bite off more than you can chew'.  The reason for this is that grandiose plans at the beginning tend to discourage the modeller,  as the end result reaches further and further into the future.