Large Scale Central

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

General Discussion
#21

Joe 1.20.3 quite frankly, is HUGE, and unless the area the layout is also HUGE, then it can look very cramped if its squeezed into a small space.

My indoor layouts have all been built to 1/22.5, because there is a lot of stuff in those scale available on the market and it looks and works well in a constricted area.

1/20.3 is much larger, when you see a Bachmann K-27 with a couple of Accucraft 1/20 coaches you kinda have to tell yourself its not “ride-on” scale, but its flipping close to.

Also 1/20 stuff out there now K-27, C-16, anything from Accucraft, all have a MINIMUM curvature of 8’, but most require 10’-12’ to work trouble free and up to 20’ to look "prototypical’, thats a heckova lot of real estate to find for anything other than a basic circle. Unless you have a spare cornfield with SUV size turnaround space, your layout is going to be limited. At least with 1/22.5 curvatures using 6.5’ or even 8’ are easier to incorporate.

So, it really all depends on what rolling stock you REALLY REALLY want, if you will just die without a K and some J&S coaches then 1/20 is your choice, but if you find an Annie and a string of Bmann coaches have the right appeal, then 1/22.5 it is.

Personally, just ME speaking, if I had the real estate in my yard, I would still go 1/22.5, its just alot easier to live with.

#22

Joe,
entirely your decision as to which direction to take. If you have not got a permanent railroad then the choice is simple. Design your new road to accomodate 1/20.3 thus enabling use of existing equipment, with easy transition to the larger scale in the future.

I am happy with my 1/22.5 scale equipment. I do not feel the need to ‘upgrade’ to a prototypical scale. Sure, the track may be correct to scale, but what about prototypical curves, gradients, etc? Strange that we ‘demand’ prototypical accuracy from our locomotives and rolling stock but do not batter an eye lid that our track is not accurately laid. We are happy to compromise.

I am happy to run small 1/20.3 scale locomotives with 1/22.5 scale rolling stock as it ‘looks right’. As regards anything larger, well that is not in my sights.

My limiting factor in deciding on a scale was my Aristo wooden truss bridges. Alas, even with constant maintenance these have suffered dry rot and collapsed. Now that they have been replaced then theoretically I could run 1/20.3 but have no desire to. I am happy with my current stable and long ago lost the urge to buy the newest release from the usual manufacturers.

The final decision is yours alone. If you have the space and the money to embark on a new venture then 1/20.3 is the way to go as current 1/22.5 scale American prototype offerings are relics of the past with little to no support from the manufacturers.

#23

Is this wrong time to ask for (another) pony?

#24

David Russell said:

Is this wrong time to ask for (another) pony?

Son, that is so wrong… (sigh)

#25

David Russell said:

Is this wrong time to ask for (another) pony?

Since you’re the top of the heap, as far as the town musicians of Bremen go, you should ask for a donkey, not a pony. You probably have a cat and a dog already.

:stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :slight_smile:

#26

BTW on the original question; when I switched from HOm to 2m I sold a lot of my HOm stuff. Back in 98/99 there were a number of people very keen to get some of my stuff.

Would you be able to sell your 22.5 stuff and get equivalent 20.3 stuff without breaking the bank?

#27

Andy Clarke said:

Son, that is so wrong… (sigh)

Why?

#28

David Russell said:

Andy Clarke said:

Son, that is so wrong… (sigh)

Why?

you couldn’t handle the first pony…

#29

Is it worth it? Lots of factors come into play. If you’re heavily invest in the “small” stuff, especially with an existing railroad, maybe not.

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/WoodlandRY/wry11.jpg)

My dad’s as much in this camp as Dave, Matt, and others who have posted here. By the time the 1:20 “revolution” began to take root, we already had an ample fleet of locomotives and rolling stock for dad’s railroad, and weren’t really buying anything new. That, and it would have required rebuilding a lot of tunnels. (Many of them have since been rebuilt as a matter of course to larger clearance, but not because a change in scale was being considered.)

My situation was different. At that point in time, I was already out on my own with my own 1:24 railroad, though my collection of equipment was quite small (9 or 10 cars, 3 or so locos). I was modeling the EBT, but at 1:24, the scale/gauge discrepancy that didn’t bother me at all building models specifically for dad’s railroad stood out because the models I was now building were based on “real” prototypes. I saw some 1:20 equipment, and it looked “right” when compared to photos of EBT equipment.

So, when I moved to Colorado a few years later and began contemplating “the next railroad,” I made the choice to start over. One of my two locos, and my two passenger cars got re-lettered for dad’s railroad and now run there. The rest of my collection was auctioned off in an FEBT benefit auction. Spending a year in an apartment with no railroad gave me time to start building a new “fleet” of locos and rolling stock, so by the time I finally got around to building my current railroad, I had about the same amount of equipment I had when I decided to switch in the first place.

For me, the biggest thing I got out of it was that I could look at a photo of the prototype, and a photo of the model I built, and it looked accurate. It was an easy switch to make since I was at a transition point anyway.

Yet at the same time, when I run on my dad’s railroad, “proper” 1:20.3 stuff looks too big. Dad’s railroad is narrow gauge, but not 36" gauge. My EBT prototypes look as out of place on his railroad as his locomotives do on my own railroad.

Later,

K

#30

Its really up to you. How much do you like 1:20 scale? If its something you like, you have the room and the cash, then go for it. I like the look of the 1:20 stuff but not willing to pay the price. Im very happy with my 1:22-1:24 stuff. I feel I have created a believable narrow guage RR without having to stress over scale. Everyone that has seen my RR seems to really like the look that I created and I get lots of compliments. If I were modeling a real RR, like the Colorado Narrow Gauge stuff, then I would go with the proper scale but since I model a fictitious RR, scale does not matter. I prefere the look of a smaller RR with smalle stuff. It has more charm that way. What I enjoy most is seeing a train travel through a miniture landscape that I created. Shut up Rooster.

#31
  1. it’s too big.
  2. if you have 1:22.5, not much market for it.
  3. 20.3 stuff is expensive.

Had you had nothing, the answer probably would have been a qualified “yes”. Qualified due to space, size and boatloads of available cash.
Since you have 1:22.5 stock, no space, and…available boatloads of cash?
No.

#32

Don’t mind Dave & Andy - They tend to have their own private conversations in the middle of a thread. Makes the place interesting though.

As others have said, it’s a decision only you can make. I’ll add these few things I’ve learned as I started to migrate from 1:24 to t:20.3 to help muddy the waters.

There are plenty of 1:20.3 locos that will get through the “Wide” (10Ft Dia ?) switches. The Connie being the largest I own, plus the 2 truck Shay. The Shay, 45 Ton Diesels and the Porter will get through R1 switches with nothing coupled. The Porter will get through a single R1 switch between straights with a short car coupled via body mount.

1:24 and/or 1:22.5 rolling stock can be used to represent early narrow gauge cars that were smaller. Eventually I’ll up-scale grabs etc. but for now I’m just tacking on body mount couplers and an angle cock and my 1:24 boxcars become usable in my 1:20.3 operations. Keven Strong detailed a string of 1:24 wood hoppers that look great as early coal hoppers in 1:20.3. I have a stash waiting to be converted.

You don’t have to spend a fortune of 1:20.3 rolling stock. There are deals to be had if you look for them. Most everything I have was purchased at close-out prices way below the going street price when they were first introduced. I really think I stole my Connie for less than $150 new and, with a few exceptions,I’ve not paid over $85 for an AMS or Bachmann FN3 car.

For me, it was the size and detail that sucked me in.

#33

Jon brings up some good points. Youy can have 1:20 stuff work with 1:22. Most of my Live steam are 1:20 scale but work fine with most of my rolling stock.

#34

working fine and looking right in this case are diametrically opposed.
I have HiRail pike. Now, some wag in the late 40’s or early 50’s measured every piece of stock he could find, and determined most was 1:52 or 1:53.
0 scale is 1:48.
You run all Lionel stuff, it looks good together. You put one piece of 0 on the pike, you’ve lost the illusion…flatcars excepted.

You put one 1:20 box or reefer in a string of 1:22.5 stuff, you’ve lost the illusion.
Almost as bad as mixing NewBlight in with your LGB stock.

TOC

#35

“You put one 1:20 box or reefer in a string of 1:22.5 stuff, you’ve lost the illusion.”

Not quite, especially with narrow gauge. Railroads weren’t (still aren’t) nearly as concerned with aesthetics as we are as modelers. If the car could carry freight without falling apart, they used it.

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/box150/finishcompare.jpg)

Both of these cars are spot on accurate for box cars that ran on the EBT c. 1910. The one on the left is the same size as a Bachmann 1:20 box car, modeled after a box car the EBT built c. 1907. The one on the right is a re-sheathed Bachmann 1:22 box car, modeled after a c. 1875 Billmeyer & Smalls box car. Here are the two cars in a train.

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/TRROps/TRROps22.jpg)

Here’s a 1:20.3 train whose rolling stock is made up almost entirely of equipment that had its start as 1:22.5 or 1:24 models save for the scratchbuilt caboose.

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/TRR/TRRfreight04.jpg)

Each car in the train is accurate to the prototype within 6", and is virtually unmodified in terms of overall size from the stock model–just re-detailed.

With the notable exception of cabooses and passenger cars, there are few pieces of 1:22 or 1:24 freight equipment for which you cannot find a prototype when you measure the dimensions of the model in 1:20.3. Maybe not spot-on perfect, but within a few inches one way or the other.

In fairness, most of these smaller pieces didn’t last much past the 1920s, so–yeah–if you’re modeling a c. 1940s narrow gauge railroad, the smaller stuff isn’t appropriate from a historical perspective. But most definitely equipment of such small stature ran on narrow gauge rails, and for a period of probably 30 - 40 years (1880s through 1920s) mixed with the larger, more “modern” equipment.

As the saying goes, “there’s a prototype for everything.”

Later,

K

#36

I’m not commiting yet, but I fear reality will determine my final choice, which will probably be 1:22.5. Unlike some of you, I can’t have the whole yard, which isn’t all that big because it’s in a housing tract. So is Kevin’s 1:20.3 layout but it’s point-to-point, based on the photos I’ve seen, so wide radius curves don’t matter 'cause the train don’t turn much anyway, right K? Chandler’s 1.20.3 pike is point-to-point and curvy, but he’s got the whole yard to play with. TOC has a big yard but uses 1:22.5 and is point-to-point. Richard Smith has half of Oregon, and even though he models in 1:20.3, his layout is point-to-point although it’s pretty long. Dunakin has the whole back yard but is 1:22.5. No conclusion. Just sayin…

#37

And those photos…lost the illusion, strongly.
It isn’t one dimension.
You ought to understand that by now.

#38

If seeing freight cars of such varying size upsets one’s Lionel-influenced sense of “what should be,” then I’ve done it right. “Good riddance!” I say to that illusion. I want to challenge people’s perceptions of “what was.” I want people to leave my back yard having learned something about history that they hadn’t thought about before. The development of railroad technology from the 1850s to the 1920s is an absolutely fascinating microcosm of the industrial revolution. Learning how freight equipment evolved over time is cool in its own right; learning why it evolved allows one to take their modeling to a whole new level. And if even one person looks at my models and gets lured into learning a bit more about railroad history, that’s a good day.

Joe, my railroad is a double reverse loop. Upper loop is 6’ radius, lower loop is 5’ radius. Aesthetically, I think 5’ radius is too tight. If I could expand my lower loop to 6’, I’d do it in a heartbeat. The whole back yard is 35’ x 60’; pretty small (though about average for a modern housing development).

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/TRRConstruction/backyardplan.gif)

Don’t “fear” 1:22.5. Ray’s, Richard’s (his is 1:24), my dad’s, Dutton Foster’s, Matt’s, Dave’s; these are all very well-done 1:22.5 railroads about which no one has ever lamented the rails being too far apart. The key is consistency in the execution. Keep everything the same scale, and strive for believability.

Later,

K

#39

There are standard gauge examples of different size and era cars being run together too. This is a shot of the Buffalo waterfront from 1900. Look at the two box cars on the left…

(http://lsc.cvsry.com/Post3/Buffalo1900-1-800.JPG)

And a zoom in view…

(http://lsc.cvsry.com/WoodBoxcar/BigNSmallBoxCarsJPG.JPG)

[Photos borrowed from Shorpy]

#40

My idea of a garden railway is to keep it simple with emphasis on the garden; with a line appearing and disappearing between the plants, with emphasis on bridges, water features and rock work and very few buildings. That way I can run any scale train. If chosen and designed carefully buildings can appear to fit in with the two scales without anyone really noticing or being critical. If you want to recreate a mini town with loads of stuff then you have to choose, but neither scale has as much available as 1:24 or other scales.

Ideally I would like to model in 1:24 which is the prototypical scale for the garratts and other large mainline locomotives which ran in Africa and other places in the world (3 feet 6 inches)- but no one makes any of those. The appeal for me is that there was still main line steam, with large diesels, in Africa up until the mid 80’s and with the huge amount of cars, trucks and other accessories in 1:24 a relatively modern era could be modelled easily; an era I grew up in and can relate to.