Large Scale Central

Is switching from 1:22.5 to 1:20.3 worth it?

General Discussion
#1

Once again I’m at the crossroads of 1:20.3 and 1:22.5. Most of everything I own and all but two of my structures are 1:22.5 and the scale/size is small enough not to totally overwhelm the space available for any railraod I decide to build–or for my living room.

But 1:20.3 is protypically accurate for 3-foot narrow gauge and the locos and rollng stock are impressive in so many ways, so much so that I bought two Connies and four freight cars and they look terrific. BTW, none of them have ever turned a wheel because the curves of my temporary Living Room Central are too sharp.

As I contemplate my next structure I’m once again forced to decide on scale and frankly, I’m almost tempted to say, “Screw accuracy” and just build it in 1:22.5.

What do you guys think? BTW, at least two of our kind, Bruce Chandler and Kevin Strong have switched to 1:20.3.

#2

Hey Joe,

Most of my locomotives and rolling stock are Aristo Craft, Bachmann, USA Trains, or scratch built which makes them somewhere between 1/29th and 1:22.5. But all my buildings and bridges are built to 1/24th or 1/2"= 1’ scale. It makes it easier to cut material and I can buy ready made windows and doors. I like all the 1:20.3 stuff but I don’t model narrow gauge, I model standard gauge. Now thats not to say a don’t use some of the Bachmann locomotives built in 1:20.3 for my railroad, these just get a few modifications.

Chuck

#3

My buildings are 1/24. Vehicles are 1/24. Most of my trains are 1/22.5 and 1/24.
I’m not a rivet counter, so it works for me :wink:
Ralph

#4

Deb and I started out in 1:22.5 but several years ago we switched to 1:20.3 and we love it.

There is a look and feel to 3 ft narrow gauge and for us the 1:22.5 equipment just did not have that look. The compresion factor common in 1:22.5 was also a factor.

The change required rebuilding several bridges, the turntable several tunnels, and a lot of clearance areas. Still one more tunnel to go.

We have gradually sold off most of our 1:22.5 equipment and replaced it with 1:20 equipment and today the SJR&P is totally 1:20.3.

Was it worth it? For us absolutely!

Stan

#5

I commit the cardinal sin of not giving a rats patutie about scale (within reason). Just this morning while prepping for this weeks open house I was running an LGB GN passenger train on one loop, and a 1:20.3 freight on the other.

The horror!

:slight_smile:

The hobby is full of compromises, how many have the scale miles of trackage that would justify our multiple lash-ups of Dash-9’s and hundreds of cars?

I don’t mix scales within a consist but I run multiple scales with no complaint. If it bugs you then don’t do it…Otherwise, works for me!

#6

One Man’s trash is another man’s treasure…

Joe, it’s your railroad, do as you feel/want/desire, not what others expect or want you to do…

I build my railroad as I want it, and use what engines and rolling stock I want… I want to enjoy it, If other folks enjoy it, then that’s great, but if they don’t, then they can build their own, just like they want…

just my 2 cents worth… :slight_smile:

#7

I run Gauge 1, 1/29th, 1/24th, 1/22.5, 1/20.3, 16mm [that’s 1/19th], and 7/8th - all on 45mm gauge track. Since I have two unconnected loops, any two scales can be operating at the same time, and frequently do.

I’m cool with whatever folks want to run on their track - it has absolutely nothing to do with me.

tac

#8

Joe, I am modeling the Maryland and Pennsylvania in the 30’s or 40’s (or there abouts).

It was a standard gauge RR at that time.

I am doing it in 1:20.3 because I like the size.

Do it your way. It will all work out and most won’t know the difference. Those that do, most won’t care.

And those that do care, well…

At least that’s what I think!

#9

I’m too heavily invested in 1/22.5 / 1/24 to change myself. It would cost a small fortune to duplicate all my rolling stock in 1/20.3 and engines in that scale do not look as much at home on my 5’ radius curves as the smaller stuff. I considered going with a proper gauge for 1/24 (1.5") years ago since at the time I hand laid everything anyway but the thought of re-gauging all the motive power and rolling stock was just too much. While the look of the 1/20 stuff is nice, I’m quite happy living with the compromise !

#10

Like everyone else I don’t think scale is as important. Besides the two scales your working on are close. If you are wondering, then I say build it in 1:20 to try it on for size. If you like it then go from there. If not then you can still use the 1:20 building and I bet 90% of people wont even notice the difference.

#11

Joe,

I started in large scale AND narrow gauge, with the LGB 2018D D&SP mogul. I invested in a lot of D&RGW LGB rolling stock! I was comfortable with 1:22.5 for many years UNTIL I saw my first 1:20.3 rolling stock back in 2006. I bought one car (a high side gondola) to compare to my high side LGB gon. What a “mistake” that was! No comparison with the looks and heft of 1:20.3. My 1:22.5 has been stored away since that time. Never to see the light of day again. I have been in 1:20.3 ever since AND never looked back! NOTHING beats Fn3. JMHO. There IS a difference! Period!

#12

You mention scale buildings, I think we make many compromises there too. Our church has a 1:24 scale model of the “old church” in the lobby…WOWZA! A tiny small town church in 1:24 would take up considerable real-estate on any layout (I want it!).

#13

To me, it boils down to how much 1:22.5 stuff do you have to replace, and how deep are your pockets?

All of your clearances will have to be checked, as the 1:20.3 stuff will not clear trackside stuff meant for 1:22.5.

Its your railroad, run it the way you want to run it.

#14

Joe Rusz said:

Once again I’m at the crossroads of 1:20.3 and 1:22.5. Most of everything I own and all but two of my structures are 1:22.5 and the scale/size is small enough not to totally overwhelm the space available for any railraod I decide to build–or for my living room.

But 1:20.3 is protypically accurate for 3-foot narrow gauge and the locos and rollng stock are impressive in so many ways, so much so that I bought two Connies and four freight cars and they look terrific. BTW, none of them have ever turned a wheel because the curves of my temporary Living Room Central are too sharp.

As I contemplate my next structure I’m once again forced to decide on scale and frankly, I’m almost tempted to say, “Screw accuracy” and just build it in 1:22.5.

What do you guys think? BTW, at least two of our kind, Bruce Chandler and Kevin Strong have switched to 1:20.3.

No. When I started laying track over 20 years ago, there was no official 1:20. In fact, I had never seen a Garden Railroad. We experimented, played with length of sidings for specific length of trains (4-6-0, six cars and a hack). Doing 1:20 necessitated wider and higher clearances, shorter trains to fit existing sidings…reworked spurs as the cars in the spur no longer cleared the main.

A year or two ago I got rid of every last piece of 1:20 rolling stock. Gone.
I have a couple of K-27’s. One is way too big, so it sits, used for testing purposes. The other fits just fine, as it’s a Magnus, and 1:22.5.
I don’t care any more. And, with the price of the latest 1:20 loco from the “cheaper” source, I cannot imagine anybody moving to it any longer.

Keep your buildings, keep your rolling stock and locomotives. Spend your time doing what you want to do.

TOC

#15

If it matters to you, then it matters.

If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

It mattered to me. Still does.

#16

Boomer Keel said:

Come to the dark side Joe…Its bigger over here.

Boomer

And we have cookies…

#17

I’m a 1:22.5 hold out. 1:20.3 is nice, but I had far too much invested in the smaller scale to change. I also prefer that 1:24-1:25 vehicles look fine with 1:22.5, but look too small with 1:20.3…

But finding accurate looking 1:22.5 locos is extremely difficult and super expensive. My two main locos (LGB/Aster K-28, and KISS K-36) took a very long time to find and save up for. 1:22.5 is a dying scale.

It is so easy to find 1:20.3 locos and rolling stock.

So if you want “narrow gauge” locos and rolling stock and don’t want to spend a lot of time and money looking for appropriate equipment, I’d say go with 1:20.3.

However, if you’d like to see what can be done with 1:22.5, take a look at my layout photo website:

http://southwestchief.deviantart.com/gallery/29995261

Here’s one of my more favorite photos showing how nice 1:22.5 can look:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img411/3462/rockwoode.jpg)

#18

I guess my last comment is ‘You don’t have to switch’! It’s not that big a deal. Why do we feel it’s all or nothing? All one scale and no other? All battery or all DC?

Don’t limit yourself, have fun.

I love my Pontiac Solstice…There is no better car ever, never will be!

…until I need to haul plywood, then it’s my Dodge, no better vehicle, never will be ever!

…until I have to commute 400 miles a week, then my Malibu with higher mileage…

I think you get the idea. Why switch when you can do both?

#19

1:22.5 is (almost) spot on for the 1m gauge I model. “almost” because it really should be 1:22.222222 a 1.25% error.

#20

Sigh, you guys are all correct–each in his own way. The detail in 1:20.3 is outstanding (I love the little things like working coupler lift bars). But as Boomer said, F-scale is a pig for space. In fact, everytime I get ready to build another structure and compare its size in both scales, I am flabbergasted by how the thing seems to grow seemingly exponentially in F.

And it’s my 1:22.5 buildings that tempt me to stick with G. Although y’all haven’t seen but one that I actually completed (the rest are in various stages of completion), they are pretty fine, if I gotta say so myself. Plus I have a dozen Hubley Model T Fords and lots of figures. And three Bug Maulers (one converted to a 2-8-0 by Barry) along with about two dozen freight and passenger cars.

Boomer and Matt have shown either scale looks great, which doesn’t help. Where is Lucy Van Pelt (“The doctor is in”) when you need her?