For the record, I’ve never been one to worry too much about scale. I have 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:26, 1:29, and probably even some stray 1:32 cars running happily together in my consists. Oh, the horrors! They play nice. If I squint just so, I can’t tell the difference.
Steve Featherkile said:
For the record, I’ve never been one to worry too much about scale. I have 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:26, 1:29, and probably even some stray 1:32 cars running happily together in my consists. Oh, the horrors! They play nice. If I squint just so, I can’t tell the difference.
I have seen your stuff, I think your the anti scale…(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-innocent.gif)
I will build you a 1:20.3 flat car so you can throw that in as well.
I’m like Steve and never lost sleep over scale. We’re moving to a condo and all my train stuff is gone, but I liked the looks of USAT woodside reefers (1:24?) behind my 1:29? USAT Big Boy. The larger 1:29 boxcars just didn’t look right to me.
I like throwing a couple of 1:32nd boxcars into a string of 1:29 boxcars too. To me it adds visual interest, to see cars of different sizes trundling along in a train.
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.
Fred, in the Dominion of Canada, I thought that we spelt offence in defence of the Queen’s English. I hope that I am not colouring the issue too much or being too picky. (just kidding…)
Myron
couple of pics of two 40’ box cars. 1:32 and 1:20.
Myron;
Just proves that I’m human, and can, and do make mistakes too…thanks …
Fred
John Bouck said:
couple of pics of two 40’ box cars. 1:32 and 1:20.
Hmm how would a 1:32 box car look with the above?
I thought that is exactly what was illustrated.
Why yes it is… (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)Hmm how about a 1:29, 1:32 and 1:20 box car line up! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Don’t own any 1:29 box cars or I would take a pic for you. I’ll get one from a friend and compare it. Heck, let’s add some 1:22.5 LGB’s and 1:24 Delton’s to the mix as well. 
I just got my first 1:29 equipment and that includes an Aristo flat car which looks just down right tiny compared to the 1:20 boxcar. Not to mention the little mogul and tender that outsizes the GP-9.
I made this short video to show a 1/32nd size MTH locomotive with some 1/29th scale cars. There’s a slight difference in height but I can live with it. The MTH stuff is too much fun to run so I overlook the height.
I suggest you do not share that part of your grandiose dream, i.e. the divorce part!!! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-sealed.gif)
Greg
mike dorsch said:
I made this short video to show a 1/32nd size MTH locomotive with some 1/29th scale cars. There’s a slight difference in height but I can live with it. The MTH stuff is too much fun to run so I overlook the height.
Mike
You rebadged an Amtrak locomotive! For this you shall forever be haunted by the “Roosters Curse”
A for the thread topic itself …this is why I myself have always preached “Model by eye” which I do.
Greg Elmassian said:
I suggest you do not share that part of your grandiose dream, i.e. the divorce part!!! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-sealed.gif)
Greg
Greg,
Truth is the sun rises and sets with my wife. She is the most awesome person on the planet and there is nothing that would stand between her and I. I realize sarcasm doesn’t come across on the net, but I would never dream of divorcing my wife. If she asked me to give up every single hobby I would but because she is so awesome I don’t have to.
So no worries on that front. Best of all she is actually coming around to the railroad.
Same here Devon, I know you were kidding. I feel the same about my wife!!!
Good for you!
Greg
Dave those “old” dash 8’s have to retire eventually .
First question I am compelled to ask, just to twist the conversation a bit. I recall that code 332 rail is way oversize for the 1/32 and 1/29 trains. But how does it compare to modern rail in 1/20.3? Not that I’m trying to torque anyone, but I honestly am curious.
Separately, I would like to point out that when I started assembling my Office Car Special (OCS) for my freelanced Freedom Central Railroad, I had planned on Aristo cars (with USA addons when they became available) but I switched to building a Norfolk Southern Executive Office Car train, I initially planned on using USA F3 A&B units to represent the power. However when they became available at a reasonable cost, I immediately switched to LGB F7’s and matching streamliner cars. Quite simply, this was done solely because of the larger WOW factor over 1/29th equipment.
Thanks for having such an exciting conversation available when I decided to revisit LSC for the first time in a while.
Personally, I think folks put too much emphasis on what scale is correct…
There are different scales in G-gauge, and what scale one wants depends on his/her individual tastes of modeling… Everyone wants to make one answer for the question, but there are as many correct answers as there are many different people… It’s all what the person thinks he likes, and desires… Nothing and nobody is perfect… Accept ones individual choice, as their choice, and be done with it…
In all my years in the hobby this subject is always brought up… It’s one’s individual choice as to what they want/desire to run… As there are many rail gauge sizes in real 1/1 railroading, there are also in G-Gauge… It’s a fact of life…
Not looking to start any argument, just stating my 2-cents worth… (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
(edited to correct spelling)