Well Excuuuuse Me !
I run what I want !
Well, 1:32 is too small, you might just as well use 0 gauge out in the garden. Standard gauge at 1:20.3 is too big for my taste. I can’t imagine trying to lift a 1:20.3 scale 2-8-8-2. Talk about going to Achinbach!
I advanced the idea of using Proto 29 a while back. Is this idea gaining traction?
This morning I made up a train using 1:22.5, 1:29 and “suitable for G-Gauge” rolling stock, and pulled it first with my 1:20.3 Shay, then with my 1GEN 1:24 C-16, finally switching the cars with my 1:29 ALCo S4. It looked good to me.
Compromises are made in all scales so that the rolling stock will roll in our gardens. Fer instance, the Aristo Dash-9 is a scale height above the track, however, the compromise was made to remove some of the piping just above the trucks so the Aristo Dash-9 could make it around 8’ diameter curves. This made everyone think that Aristo had screwed up again… well, you all remember the donnybrook. Some even went so far as to lower their Dash-9’s instead of replacing the piping.
Now, some say that 1:32 scale is spot on, but if they were really honest, they would have to acknowledge that in 1:32 scale, 45 mm track is just a smidge too wide, wide enough to equal a 10 or 15 rivet discrepancy, I would imagine.
Now, then, what was that comment about …“it says loud and clear that you know nothing of model railways nor, probably, of toy trains.”? If you are 15 rivets off, you probably don’t know much about scale model railways.
Just my 25 cents.
Tim Brien said:
Scale does not necessarily incur enjoyment anymore than not to scale does not rule out any enjoyment in the hobby.Today, I had my twin-motor B’mann Annie bash Mallett with LGB sound, running with four bashed/lengthened B’mann coach/combine/RPO’s that look nothing like Mr. B’man ever intended, followed by three relatively standard C&S stock cars and taking up the rear was a slightly modified LGB drover’s caboose. On the adjoing shuttle circuit was one of my B’mann coaches modified to look like a tram/trolley. Friends came around and were exceedingly envious. These are people with no interest in trains at all. Scale was not a relevant topic and certainly did not come up in the conversation. Lack of adherence to scale fidelity certainly did not dampen my enthusiasm, nor that of my guests.
Good Lord, Tim! You do all that and you are still able to look at yourself in the morning when you shave? :lol:
Steve,
I do not shave and only look at myself in the mirror of an evening, before going to bed (just to make sure I did not age too radically due the stresses of a day in the life of a retiree). One can never be too careful.
Just to make matters even worse, the other day I purchased two AMS Cable Cars from Hans Kahl to run on my railroad. Now I am required to purchase two lazy susans to provide end of track turning facilities for the cars, plus possibly (but not likely) remove all the track ties to allow the cable cars to run prototypically. I do not want to run foul of the 'scale' police.Well, if you are that feckless about scale with your trains, it is probably best that you don’t shave.
Point of order. Is the opposite of feckless feck, or feckfull, or what?
Steve Featherkile said:Here in Ireland, instead of messing around with all the complications of cutting and pasting an already expensive locomotive toy/model, most of us took the easy way out and raised our entire trackage by about 1/4".
Some even went so far as to lower their Dash-9's instead of replacing the piping.
tac
Steve Featherkile said:Please be advised that the word 'feck' is an Irish expletive and a euphemism for another curse-word that sounds very similar.
Point of order. Is the opposite of feckless feck, or feckfull, or what?
As in ‘What the feck?!’
tac
Dear Mr Mueller - It is obvious that over there in sunny Coldstream, you have little to occupy your vivid imagination than engendering foment and discord among your fellow-members who would otherwise never have heard of Bert Wettenschweiler.
If anyone cares to know, he is a VERY long-standing member of the G1MRA and has a prodigiously large, complex and thoroughly real-life layout of a size that might even impress an American in his capacious acreage - mostly, but by no means all, given over to the running of his enormous collection of Gauge 1 live-steam railways.
With upwards of at least a couple of million $$$ invested in Gauge 1 over the last 30-40 years, he can hardly be taken as an example of inter-scale tolerance, and would sooner have boiling mercury poured into his stapled-open eyes than have anything else other than live-steam gauge 1 running on his 5000ft + trackage.
His open days and running days are saved from being a stampede of like-minded enthusiasts of G1 only by the distance we would all have to travel to attend them.
Live and let live.
tac
Terry A de C Foley said:Steve Featherkile said:Please be advised that the word 'feck' is an Irish expletive and a euphemism for another curse-word that sounds very similar.
Point of order. Is the opposite of feckless feck, or feckfull, or what?As in ‘What the feck?!’
tac
bloody heck.
Terry A de C Foley said:
Dear Mr Mueller - It is obvious that over there in sunny Coldstream, you have little to occupy your vivid imagination than engendering foment and discord among your fellow-members who would otherwise never have heard of Bert Wettenschweiler.If anyone cares to know, he is a VERY long-standing member of the G1MRA and has a prodigiously large, complex and thoroughly real-life layout of a size that might even impress an American in his capacious acreage - mostly, but by no means all, given over to the running of his enormous collection of Gauge 1 live-steam railways.
With upwards of at least a couple of million $$$ invested in Gauge 1 over the last 30-40 years, he can hardly be taken as an example of inter-scale tolerance, and would sooner have boiling mercury poured into his stapled-open eyes than have anything else other than live-steam gauge 1 running on his 5000ft + trackage.
His open days and running days are saved from being a stampede of like-minded enthusiasts of G1 only by the distance we would all have to travel to attend them.
Live and let live.
tac
Dear Mr. Foley,
If I remember correctly I was added to Mr. Wettenschwiler’s Newsletter mailing list as a result of my “G - wie Gummi” feuilleton in the GBp. 
Or some such. 
I’ve been having an added chuckle when the “Thoughts of Trains” arrive ever since.
BTW I’m a firm believer in sharing the words of wisdom when I read them in a Newsletter. 
Terry A de C Foley said:Steve Featherkile said:Here in Ireland, instead of messing around with all the complications of cutting and pasting an already expensive locomotive toy/model, most of us took the easy way out and raised our entire trackage by about 1/4".
Some even went so far as to lower their Dash-9's instead of replacing the piping.tac
Remarkably inventive, those Irish, wouldn’t you say?
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
:lol: :lol: :lol:Good one, guys; I guess Bert and Tony Koester are on to something if the vehement objections are any indication. Nothing like having someone state their believe/position quite clearly and the fur will fly.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
They not only state their opinion but then extend that opinion to the PERSONS who may not share their opinion. That ain’t cricket mate! The only thing they are “on to” is poor manners.
Steve Featherkile said:
Well, if you are that feckless about scale with your trains, it is probably best that you don't shave.Point of order. Is the opposite of feckless feck, or feckfull, or what?
Watch your vowels, Arlo!
Holy Feck!
Someone one needs to sit ol’ Bert down and break the sad news to him, there ALL “toys”, just some are more to scale than others, and some are very expensive “toys”, but essentially they are all 'toys", as they are “played” with, if they were models, they would be delicate static display objects, usually under a glass case. Put a motor in it and run it on tracks, boom, you’ve crossed into the “toy” catagory, and in my book that definition runs the gammit from Z to Ride-On gauges. There’s ZERO difference in general purpose between an O gauge Marx’s tinplate litho “toy” train and a “fine scale” 1/32 live steam locomotive, they are both scaled down representations of full scale real world objects, the level of detail and scale fidelity are only the defining factors of how accurate the representation is, but they both are motorized toys that and run on tracks. the difference between “toy” and “model” is just semantics.
Back to huddling with the unwashed masses…
Vic,
You hit the nail right in the head… Them G1 livesteam locos are toys when you compare them to the real McCoy… If you have any doubts just look @ the backhead of each…
Victor Smith said:
Holy Feck!Someone one needs to sit ol’ Bert down and break the sad news to him, there ALL “toys”, just some are more to scale than others, and some are very expensive “toys”, but essentially they are all 'toys", as they are “played” with, if they were models, they would be delicate static display objects, usually under a glass case. Put a motor in it and run it on tracks, boom, you’ve crossed into the “toy” catagory, and in my book that definition runs the gammit from Z to Ride-On gauges. There’s ZERO difference in general purpose between an O gauge Marx’s tinplate litho “toy” train and a “fine scale” 1/32 live steam locomotive, they are both scaled down representations of full scale real world objects, the level of detail and scale fidelity are only the defining factors of how accurate the representation is, but they both are motorized toys that and run on tracks. the difference between “toy” and “model” is just semantics.
Back to huddling with the unwashed masses…
Blasphemy Vic!
Put your flak jacket on!
I have corresponded some with Bert and he seems to be fine. He is even running an article on my Rocket Car in one of the NZ train newsletters next month. That does not fit in with a snobbish disdain for anything not 1/32nd. Shows he has a sense of humor, I’d say. I did get a youTube comment yesterday from someone trashing my Rocket Cr video. Heck I was grinning the whole time I made it-just for fun! Some people need to lighten up. Jerry
Jerry Barnes said:Jerry,
I have corresponded some with Bert and he seems to be fine. He is even running an article on my Rocket Car in one of the NZ train newsletters next month. That does not fit in with a snobbish disdain for anything not 1/32nd. Shows he has a sense of humor, I'd say. I did get a youTube comment yesterday from someone trashing my Rocket Cr video. Heck I was grinning the whole time I made it-just for fun! Some people need to lighten up. Jerry
Contrary to what some believe, some Swiss ex-pats have not just a sense of humour, they have a wicked sense of humour. At least that’s how my friends put it; others put it quite differently, especially if they’re on the receiving end.
OTOH there are the reactions to certain comments and statements. Jerry, those guys don’t need to lighten up, the comments are much cause for laughter, even if completely unintended.
Victor Smith said:
Holy Feck!Someone one needs to sit ol’ Bert down and break the sad news to him, there ALL “toys”, just some are more to scale than others, and some are very expensive “toys”, but essentially they are all 'toys", as they are “played” with, if they were models, they would be delicate static display objects, usually under a glass case. Put a motor in it and run it on tracks, boom, you’ve crossed into the “toy” catagory, and in my book that definition runs the gammit from Z to Ride-On gauges. There’s ZERO difference in general purpose between an O gauge Marx’s tinplate litho “toy” train and a “fine scale” 1/32 live steam locomotive, they are both scaled down representations of full scale real world objects, the level of detail and scale fidelity are only the defining factors of how accurate the representation is, but they both are motorized toys that and run on tracks. the difference between “toy” and “model” is just semantics.
Back to huddling with the unwashed masses…
Vic,
I’ve read that definition of “toys” quite a few times, in many different minor variations. All of them sound PC to me, that’s the way I see it, without semantics.
Quote:The bottom line is that Tony makes a very valid statement. Many fine-scale modelers [i]do[/i] look at large scale--the cacophony of scales all on the same track--and quickly form the opinion that we're all basically (for lack of a better description) Lionel guys in the garden. In truth, many garden railroads are tinplate (or Plasticville Central) with bigger trains. As such, many small scalers--who are not interested in "toy" trains in the Lionel sense--do shy away from becoming involved in the hobby. The perception is accurate, just not representative of the whole. What Gary has been doing (and I suspect what Tony was expressing appreciation for) is calling attention to the fact that scale modeling (as familiar with the small scalers) [i]is[/i] being done outdoors, and there is "more to the story."
... [i]Let me again express my admiration for what you are doing in 1:32, and for the leadership you are thereby showing scale modellers, many of whom flinch and turn away when they see compromised 1:29 equipment.[/i] -Tony Koester
Now, Tony’s statement does come across to imply that anything other than 1:32 is “toy,” and that only 1:32 can be accurate for scale models. Whether that was his intended sentiment, I don’t know. Certainly anyone who’s seen Marty Cozad’s, Jens Bang’s, Burl Rice’s (etc.) stuff knows full well that slightly narrower rails has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a scale model railroad. I would assume that Tony–through his connections with various hobby magazines over the years–would know better, but it is an assumption. If not, it serves as testament to how large the blinders are in the small-scale community in terms of what large scalers actually do in the garden.
Quote:I agree with the principles behind Bert's thoughts. There is a distinct difference between toy trains and model railways. One would never lump a "typical" ping-pong table HO or Lionel set-up with something built by John Allen or George Sellios. Likewise, it would be equally wrong to equate a loop of track placed in a flower bed with something like Jack Verducci's or my dad's railroads. They are both valid pursuits, but completely different approaches. The "problem" in large scale is that there are no semantics to classify the two pursuits as separate, thus they get lumped together.
... [i]There is nothing wrong with toy trains, as long as it is not paraded as being a model railway and the toys are passed of as "models" and painted in the colours of a prototype railway. Toy trains and model railways are not one and the same, though, like myself, you may of course enjoy watching and playing with both. Just don't mix them in the same train and don't buy toy trains painted up like models. Otherwise it says loud and clear that you know nothing of model railways nor, probably, of toy trains. [/i] -Bert Wettenschwiler
Where I disagree with Bert is in that he seems to imply that mixing scales, unprototypical roadnames, etc. indicates the modeler knows nothing of toy trains. I would argue that such activities are at the very core of the toy train enthusiast’s enjoyment of the hobby. The freedom to run what one likes simply because he/she likes it continually ranks among the top reasons people get into garden railroading to begin with. Does it fly in the face of prototypical railroading? Absolutely! But that is very much it’s appeal. I know of many railroaders whose basement empires are accurate down to the key in the switch lock, but whose outdoor railroads are anything but.
I readily admit I cringe every time I see “Santa Fe” painted on an LGB forney pulling a string of streamlined passenger cars, but my grimace is countered by the broad smile on the operator’s face. And, it could be he’s smiling because I’m grimacing–which indicates a well-grasped knowledge of both toy and model railroads, and the ability to pit one against the other for maximum enjoyment.
Later,
K