“…I’m not sure why guys would prefer a scale closer to 1/20th and then reply that they can’t run larger equipment because it doesn’t look right on their layout? …”
It does seem an odd paradox. But it’s a matter of aesthetic balance between the train itself and the environment in which it’s running. I like the overall size of the 1:20 stuff; that when I compare the model I just built to a photo of the prototype, the rails are the same distance apart relative to the car in both instances. It’s on that level that 1:20.3 appeals to me, since I’m modeling a specific prototype and have lots of photos of their equipment.
You have to contrast that with the overall environment of the railroad on which the models run. On my railroad, any train longer than 7 or 8 cars looks too “long” for the scenes on my railroad. Each town is its own “theater set.” These sets are spaces only so far apart, and the train needs to be able to leave one before entering the next. It’s what gives the railroad a greater sense of distance than what really exists in such a confined space. My passing sidings are really only good for 4 or 5 car trains, so when I roll into town with a K-27-sized loco, it takes up half the passing siding by itself, overpowering the depot and other scenic elements.
Take that same K-27 and 10 cars in tow out to a railroad that’s in a much more open environment like that at the Colorado RR Museum, and it looks much more apropos. So, that’s where I run all my “big” stuff. On the home rails, it’s the smaller locos and a mix of c. 1880s and 1910s equipment that gives me a sense of the narrow gauge proportions I love without physically overpowering the environment.
Back to the subject of 1:32, it’s just never caught on. Historically, a handful of companies have tried, but the sales were just not there. People talk of the “Wow factor” when it comes to outdoor trains, and I think that has every bit to do with it. Heck, even Delton’s 1:24 stuff was noticeably-enough smaller than LGB. You could make a strong argument for that playing heavily into their relative lack of success in the large scale market, despite having–in my opinion–a better-looking product.
People get used to a particular size of trains running on the track, and anything smaller than that somehow isn’t the same. My dad’s railroad is all 1:22/1:24 stuff, and while I’m used to it running in that environment (the 1:20 stuff just looks out-of-place on his line), the models by themselves seem somewhat lilliputian compared to mine.
Yeah, it’s all in the mind, but the mind is where our perceptions of what looks “right” and “wrong” is shaped. I’ve seen photos of some very well-done 1:32 railroads that look pretty close to spot-on perfect. When I’ve seen 1:32 railroads in the flesh, the trains always look small to me. It’s all in what we’re used to seeing.
Later,
K
