John, I do apologize for my jumping the gun earlier. I didn’t realize that both boxes were supposed to be standard gauge cars.
I still say that using the letter to denote the actual gauge (ie G=45mm, 0=32mm etc) and then tacking on the scale being modeled in is a simple, effective and completely all-encompassing solution. Aristo & USA: G29 - Bachmann: G20.3 - LGB: G22(.5?) or G26 - MTH, AML, Accucraft: G32.
John Bouck said:
I say it’s all
G scale.
“What’s G scale”, they ask.
I say G is for Garden Scale.
Even for some that’s TMI. How 'bout a new designation; BO (Bigger than O) ;]
Jason - Aristo tried to get traction with G-29 a while back, but it wouldn’t take. I thought it was a good idea but the Enema Ray had other thoughts.
Jason,
No problemo. I should have been more specific.
Here’s a what if:
The Sandy River (2 foot gauge) had to move a Standard gauge box car by placing it on 2 foot trucks.
What a huge model that boxcar would be if you modeled 2’ gauge on 45MM track. 7/8 scale.
Hmmmm…No, I’ve done enough damage for one build.
One car is enough.
I think SG on two-foot would be pretty risky without training wheels or outriggers :]
I’d post a relative picture of Ken here, but then he would retaliate with some compromising shot of me; so just remember those images from the past ;]
John Bouck said:
Hmmmm…No, I’ve done enough damage for one build.
One car is enough.
One car is NEVER “enough”… it’s like one potato chip.
And you didn’t “damage” anything. For the sake OF the hobby, I think we IN the hobby SHOULD honestly and politely discuss the relative pros and cons of each of the scales… But then, we should also do that with various control options, too, Sadly, that discussion ALWAYS ends up with somebody’s ego getting in the mix… 
Jon Radder said:
I’d post a relative picture of Ken here, but then he would retaliate with some compromising shot of me; so just remember those images from the past ;]
smart thinkin…
btw…
what scale are these blue smileys?
that they are laaarge goes without doubt, but are they just G, or what are they?
I avoid scales as much as possible
(http://coachcalorie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/dont-use-the-scale-to-gauge-healthy.jpg)
Thats probably a good idea Victor, especially while you’re wearing “PINK” toe nail polish. You California boys!!! LOL
Jumping from HO to “G” scale, all of it looks big. I settled on 1:20.3 and mostly stay around that scale, but thats me.
I never got clarification before and since we are talking about scale… when someone refers to 1/2" scale, they are refering to 1:24, correct?
Jake - Yes 1:24 - 1/2" to the foot - half inch scale. Using that analogy we should call 1:20.3 15mm scale.
And speaking of scales Victor. My wife got me a talking scale for Christmas one year. We had to take it back because all it ever said was GET OFF!!!
Yes, Jake, 1:24. It’s the best scale. Ask Jon R :-O.
I would love to build a standard gauge line in 1:20.3…About as big as I care to get. While I enjoy the occasional scratch build I just do not have the time to commit to scratching an entire line. The lack of ready made trucks and loco-drives will keep me away. Still, maybe someday…
So…1/24 is 1/2" scale. Then the Delton and Aristo classics would be proper if they rode on trucks that in turn rode on 1 1/2" track gauge. (3’ NG). Is that the correct assumption?
Does anyone make 1/2" scale trucks? You could hand spike some 1 1/2" gauge rail and have a layout a little bit bigger than 0N3.
Yes John, but is all that worth it for just over 1/4" of track gauge? 45mm = 1.77 inches. It would certainly look better, but a ton of effort. I’ve chosen to up-scale what I have left in Arsto Classics by making them a little wider and a little longer by sheathing the box with 6mm PVC.
(http://lsc.cvsry.com/WoodBoxcar/Up-Scale_08.JPG)
My 1:24 wood hoppers I plan to run as-is.
I agree that the math behind 1/2" scale is so much easier, but everyone has a calculator and scaling other scale isnt too difficult.
Scratchbuilding my Grist Mill I found that close enough was good enough. When you are dealing with such a small scale.
The NMRA had nothing to do with the success/failure of that. They simply do not have any influence on what happens in large scale. That’s actually a good thing, because the “naming scheme” they put forth at one time had an individual letter with complete–and unique–set of standards for each of the individual scales. The standards that are in place now for large scale were developed by large scalers (some of us outside of the NMRA), and designed with one single goal in mind; consistent wheel and track standards across the scale spectrum. We pretty much succeeded, but still, the NMRA’s influence on large scale is so small that the manufacturers are slow to adapt, and many who appear to do so do only by coincidence.
The LS## scheme that was put forth in the late 90s didn’t go anywhere because it lacked any kind of manufacturer support. At that time, it seems they didn’t want to segment their market. Aristo, Hartland, Piko, and a few others use the “G45” circle emblem we see now. Some put the scale in the circle, some do not. (Piko used to, but that seemed to stop about the same time it was pointed out that their models of standard gauge locos were not 1:22.5).
Ryan Equipment Co. did at one point in the early days, but it just never caught on. The problem was locomotives. LGB was the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and you can’t re-gauge their motor blocks to make them narrower. With no fodder for proper motive power, the idea just withered and died.
Later,
K
I hope I dont open a can of worms, but… I’m of the opinon that leadership from the NMRA on the scale issue would be a good thing.
Us newcomers to the guage (I say that because of the gauge of the track, not the scale of the trains so dont yell at me, I used it right!) would have a better understanding of what they are buying. As a long time HO guy I was used to buying stuff labeled HO and knowing that it was scaled with the other stuff labeled HO that I already had. That is a result of the leadership of the NMRA to standardize the scale. There is no such animal in this guage.
The use of F scale designation is a good step, it just needs more support by manufacturers. I agree with Kevin, the resistance is the segmenting of the market. If you change from listing your stuff as G-scale to Fn3 you might miss out on a purchase of someone looking for G scale. We as modelers can help by refering to our stuff as Fn3 instead of G scale. But that is a solution for only one scale in the guage. The rest are just out of luck,
I dont have answers and I dont think there will be any, anytime soon.
