Large Scale Central

1:29 vs 1:32

General Discussion
#21

Randy Lehrian Jr. said:

Craig Townsend said:

For now it’s just a big experiment that may get pushed aside for one reason… If my little boy gets his own Playmobile train, it wouldn’t be able to run on P:29 track, but it would on Gauge 1. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)

Yeah those little buggers derail a lot of the best laid plans, but they’re worth it. Just think of it as your track work getting much easier.

Or just convince the CFO/Wife/Mother that Dad and the kids need two garden railroads… (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)I’ve already got her convinced that we need at least 2 acres of land for a layout in the future…

#22

Devon, I have built 3 “display” pieces of 1:20.3 standard gauge rolling stock: 40’ box car, D&RGW dual gauge idler flat and a Boxcab loco.

However they run on 1:20.3 trucks because I have grown tired of waiting the three years for 1:20.3 standard gauge trucks from a certain supplier.

I’ll posts pics once I figure out how.

#23

John Bouck said:

Devon, I have built 3 “display” pieces of 1:20.3 standard gauge rolling stock: 40’ box car, D&RGW dual gauge idler flat and a Boxcab loco.

However they run on 1:20.3 trucks because I have grown tired of waiting the three years for 1:20.3 standard gauge trucks from a certain supplier.

I’ll posts pics once I figure out how.

John do you have F standard track laid? Side frames and bolsters would be no issue to build and cast. But wheel sets gauged properly would be an issue. Instead of pictures why don’t we get together some time and you can show me in person. Its not like I live 1000 miles away. I live in PF and wrok in the valley (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)

#24

Steve, I guess I’m just not getting the point you’re making with regard to scale, gauge, and 1:32, and why you feel it’s not accurate.

Later,

K

#25

John Bouck said:

Devon, I have built 3 “display” pieces of 1:20.3 standard gauge rolling stock: 40’ box car, D&RGW dual gauge idler flat and a Boxcab loco.

However they run on 1:20.3 trucks because I have grown tired of waiting the three years for 1:20.3 standard gauge trucks from a certain supplier.

I’ll posts pics once I figure out how.

Nice. When you are running them in a narrow gauge consist just say you are modeling the EBT who put narrow gauge trucks under standard gauge cars and moved then on their 3 foot track. Just keep them at the front of the train.

#26

I get where your both going and your splitting hairs in my opinion and also in my opinion are right what is missing is agreement on the criteria for the argument. If I get this right Steve’s argument is that at 45 mm track gauge 1:32 is not 56 1/2 which is the stated target gauge of the prototype
Its a fraction off. So it is not true to scale. Such as why in f we say 1:20.3 instead of 1:20. 1:20 would be a fraction off. Steve is dealing with exact numbers based on stated target prototype guage and he is right.

Now Kevin is dealing with prototypical acceptable gauge tolerances. At which 1:32 falls within that acceptable range and therefore would meet any prototypical criteria so he is right.

The problem is the basis of argument has not been agreed upon. You both are arguing different sides of the same coin.

Now I respect you both and ha e learned a lot. Bit it makes a guy leery to ask a question. But at leasr you both are being civil. I am all for friendly debate.

#27

I get where your both going and your splitting hairs in my opinion and also in my opinion are right what is missing is agreement on the criteria for the argument. If I get this right Steve’s argument is that at 45 mm track gauge 1:32 is not 56 1/2 which is the stated target gauge of the prototype
Its a fraction off. So it is not true to scale. Such as why in f we say 1:20.3 instead of 1:20. 1:20 would be a fraction off. Steve is dealing with exact numbers based on stated target prototype guage and he is right.

Now Kevin is dealing with prototypical acceptable gauge tolerances. At which 1:32 falls within that acceptable range and therefore would meet any prototypical criteria so he is right.

The problem is the basis of argument has not been agreed upon. You both are arguing different sides of the same coin.

Now I respect you both and ha e learned a lot. Bit it makes a guy leery to ask a question. But at leasr you both are being civil. I am all for friendly debate.

#28

If you are to define “accurate scale/gauge” as meaning the track gauge scales precisely to the specific target gauge (56.5"), then all but one of the NMRA-identified model railroading scales miss the mark. Using the NMRA’s standards (target track gauge x scale):

Z = 57.0"

N = 56.8"

TT = 56.8"

HO = 56.7"

S = 56.6"

O = 60.1"

1 = 56.7"

F = 56.5"

3/4" = 56.0"

1" = 57.0"

The only one that is dead-nuts on for 56.5" is F scale, but the gauge for F(standard) track was derived from Fn3. Of those, the only scale that is outside of the acceptable range of track gauges with respect to the prototype would be O scale.

Later,

K

#29

You are/You’re, Your; each have different meanings…in case anyone cares to think about using them properly.

No offense is meant by this note, and is just an observation on my part, with the hope of seeing people, at least making an attempt to use good English in their communication.

Thank you all for putting up with my “Picky” observations.

#30

Hey John, I’d love to see your “D&RGW dual gauge idler flat” I’ll PM you some picture help!

#31

These “scales” are NOT the only ones that have these discussions about track gauge and the appropriate scales.

We have this discussion on the ride-on scales too. When Walt Disney built his ride-on trains and layout on his estate in Holmby Hills, CA back in 1950, he made his American to 7-1/16 inch wide gauge for 1-1/2 inch scale (accurate for 1-1/2 inch scale at 56.5 inch standard gauge). In New England, the track gauge is 7-1/4 inch wide (NOT accurate). The remainder of the U.S. is 7-1/2 inch gauge (also NOT accurate!). So a few years ago, the “finescale” guys started modeling ride-on stuff in 1.6 inch scale (appropriate for 56.5 inch standard gauge.

Just seems like a lot of “hot air” wasted every time the 1/29-1/32-1/20.3 discussions begin. Hey we’re talking thousandth pf an inch here. Chill a little and enjoy your trains, no matter what size they are. From five feet away, you guys will never see the difference:)

Thank goodness, the NMRA has not invaded OUR (ride-on folks) space yet. :slight_smile: The International Brotherhood of Live Steamers takes care of our standards.

#32

Fred Mills, BSc, BS, SD (Hons) said:

You are/You’re, Your; each have different meanings…in case anyone cares to think about using them properly.

No offense is meant by this note, and is just an observation on my part, with the hope of seeing people, at least making an attempt to use good English in their communication.

Thank you all for putting up with my “Picky” observations.

We love you Fred and it is not the first time you have caught me doing that YOU’RE right in that YOUR assessment of my word usage is not correct. I never mind being corrected for it. It my take years to stick but I never mind being reminded. I still use their and there interchangeably. So no harm no foul.

#33

I am not picking sides but i will say that 1:32 is damn close enough for me to call it to scale and that is why i am choosing 1:29… Did you follow that logic. No really I didn’t choose 1:29 it chose me.

#34

Gary Armitstead said:

These “scales” are NOT the only ones that have these discussions about track gauge and the appropriate scales.

We have this discussion on the ride-on scales too. When Walt Disney built his ride-on trains and layout on his estate in Holmby Hills, CA back in 1950, he made his American to 7-1/16 inch wide gauge for 1-1/2 inch scale (accurate for 1-1/2 inch scale at 56.5 inch standard gauge). In New England, the track gauge is 7-1/4 inch wide (NOT accurate). The remainder of the U.S. is 7-1/2 inch gauge (also NOT accurate!). So a few years ago, the “finescale” guys started modeling ride-on stuff in 1.6 inch scale (appropriate for 56.5 inch standard gauge.

Just seems like a lot of “hot air” wasted every time the 1/29-1/32-1/20.3 discussions begin. Hey we’re talking thousandth pf an inch here. Chill a little and enjoy your trains, no matter what size they are. From feet feet away, you guys will never see the difference:)

I agree, Gary. Its just that I enjoy poking the smug 1:32 “I’m the only standard gauge scale guy in garden trains,” because it is empirically obvious to the most casual observer that they are not. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

#35

Steve,

You are just ornery. That’s why we get along.

#36

Steve Featherkile said:

Gary Armitstead said:

These “scales” are NOT the only ones that have these discussions about track gauge and the appropriate scales.

We have this discussion on the ride-on scales too. When Walt Disney built his ride-on trains and layout on his estate in Holmby Hills, CA back in 1950, he made his American to 7-1/16 inch wide gauge for 1-1/2 inch scale (accurate for 1-1/2 inch scale at 56.5 inch standard gauge). In New England, the track gauge is 7-1/4 inch wide (NOT accurate). The remainder of the U.S. is 7-1/2 inch gauge (also NOT accurate!). So a few years ago, the “finescale” guys started modeling ride-on stuff in 1.6 inch scale (appropriate for 56.5 inch standard gauge.

Just seems like a lot of “hot air” wasted every time the 1/29-1/32-1/20.3 discussions begin. Hey we’re talking thousandth pf an inch here. Chill a little and enjoy your trains, no matter what size they are. From five feet away, you guys will never see the difference:)

I agree, Gary. Its just that I enjoy poking the smug 1:32 “I’m the only standard gauge scale guy in garden trains,” because it is empirically obvious to the most casual observer that they are not. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

Steve,

Amen to that! :slight_smile:

#37

This recurring discussion over the years has always amused me. I like the term, ‘it’s your railroad, do what you want’, and I do it. I have no problem with anyone running whatever they want and mix and match. It’s a hobby, just have fun. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

#38

Jerry Barnes said:

This recurring discussion over the years has always amused me. I like the term, ‘it’s your railroad, do what you want’, and I do it. I have no problem with anyone running whatever they want and mix and match. It’s a hobby, just have fun. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

amen to that.

#39

Daktah John said:

John Bouck said:

Devon, I have built 3 “display” pieces of 1:20.3 standard gauge rolling stock: 40’ box car, D&RGW dual gauge idler flat and a Boxcab loco.

However they run on 1:20.3 trucks because I have grown tired of waiting the three years for 1:20.3 standard gauge trucks from a certain supplier.

I’ll posts pics once I figure out how.

Nice. When you are running them in a narrow gauge consist just say you are modeling the EBT who put narrow gauge trucks under standard gauge cars and moved then on their 3 foot track. Just keep them at the front of the train.

Exactly, Jon.

Several NG RR’s interchanged with SG by lifting cars off of their trucks and replacing them. EBT prolly most famous, but there were Western big names that were known to do that on occasion.

#40

Jerry Barnes said:

This recurring discussion over the years has always amused me. I like the term, ‘it’s your railroad, do what you want’, and I do it. I have no problem with anyone running whatever they want and mix and match. It’s a hobby, just have fun. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

Jerry,

That’s really the heart of it isn’t it. I already feel much more a part of a community both on here and at the club than I ever did in N or HO. The very nature of large scale “the gummie scale” is that it almost forces people to be tolerant of different ideas and passions. There is no right way at least for most. I never got that in the other scales. I always felt like I was doing something wrong. Here people say “heh its your RR have fun with it.” I have no problem buying a little bit of 1:29 (or 1:32) stuff to play with even though when my layout becomes reality it will be 1:20.3. Who cars if my little diesel will look funny parked next to a giant 1880’s depot or is pulling giant 30" L&P box cars. Its my railroad and in my world its plausible.

So thanks Jerry for being one of those people, as are most all here even when we debate, that make me as a new guy with a vision feel welcome and accepted.