Large Scale Central

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

General Discussion
#41

Vic Smith said:
snip…

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.

Well if Vic is even against “small” diameter curves I guess they are bad! :slight_smile:

I have been operating “trouble free” with 8 and 9 foot diameters and R3 switches with all manner of Bachmann and AMS equipment including the K-27 and Jackson coaches. I do mean trouble free. Only caveat: NO reverse curves without a full car-length straight between them.

#42

Red brings up a good point. What do you want to do with your railroad?

If you’re into operations, I don’t think the scale matters that much.

When I operated on TOC’s RR, I didn’t even notice the scale; same with Richard’s.

I just came back from Canada where Fred’s RR is 1:29 one day for standard gauge operations, then 1:22.5-1:20-whatever on the next day for narrow gauge operations.

In all those cases, my mind is focused on operations…

#43

Frankly I dont understand why we are even having this conversation, everyone knows that in 5

years or so the whole Large scale Hobby will be 1/29th, Even the Bachmann knows that !!!

Nicky

(http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/nicholas_savatgy/_forumfiles/96_lg_clr.gif)

#44

Mark V said:

Vic Smith said:
snip…

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.

Well if Vic is even against “small” diameter curves I guess they are bad! :slight_smile:

I have been operating “trouble free” with 8 and 9 foot diameters and R3 switches with all manner of Bachmann and AMS equipment including the K-27 and Jackson coaches. I do mean trouble free. Only caveat: NO reverse curves without a full car-length straight between them.

I’m actually the small diameter advocate here, what I was trying to illustrate is that with physically larger models require a physically larger area to operate.

If I was able to build in an area Joe describes as a potential layout zone I personally wouldn’t use anything larger than 6.5’ dia and would stick to 1/22 rolling stock, because I can get the best bang in track planning for the buck.

One of my pet peeves about large scale and layout areas is when someone gets advice to use the widest track possible irregardless to the actual area the person has to use. I advise to see what fits best in the area available, and to use the minimum dia curvature that allows the builder to achieve their long term operating goals.

I also believe that the last 5 years of constant drumming that “wider is better” has actually hurt the hobby in some regards more than helped it as it gives the perception than large scale is only for the land rich, and small urban and suburban yard owners were better off taking up golf instead of large scale because they don’t have room for a K-27 or Dash-9 on 8-10-12-20’ dia curves (this is my case) and this is also the public’s perception I receive all the time while displaying at all-scale train shows.

#45

I know your an advocate Vic, that’s why I used the ‘smiley’. :slight_smile:

I just wanted to point out that 8ft dia. can be used without operational issues. I am sure 100’ diameter would be better! LOL!

#46

Somehow there seems to be a myth that 1:20.3 must equate to large railroad, large curves, and great expense.

True if you are modeling a DRG&W prototype past the 30s you likely will have large locomotives which need large curves and space. But that is only one prototype and era

Not all narrow gauge fits that single concept. For example the Unitah had 66 degree curves which equates to a radius of 4.5ft in 1:20 and they ran rather large articulated locomotives. Many logging railroads had even tighter curves running Shays and other geared locomotives.

I have actually had to increase the radius of some prototype bridges I am modeling because they were to tight for my preferred minimum radius for our railroad.

It all depends on what your vision is for your layout. I have seen very effective indoor small 1:20 layouts that use smaller locomotives and shorter 20ft cars. Typically these are either logging or industrial railroads.

Large Scale covers a very large range of interests and one size literally does not fit all. Choose the theme of your railroad and the scale that best fits your desires.

For us that was 1:20 because we like the character of 3 ft narrow gauge and eventually we will have some standard gauge 1:20 which is indeed rather large but remember the EBT routinely ran one or two standard gauge cars at the front of there smaller narrow gauge trains.

And if anyone want to trade 1:20 equipment for 1:22.5 equipment, We still have some 1:22.5 equipment left including a BBT 4-6-0 which is stored serviceable. :slight_smile:

Stan

#47

Now, Stan, there you go again. Here we are, nicely talking about DIAMETER of curves, and you chime in talking about RADIUS, as if it is the same thing.

A 4.5 ft RADIUS is a 9 ft DIAMETER.

Just thought I bring that up, lest it be forgotten. :slight_smile:

#48

Don’t tell him that. Next thing you know, we’ll be reading dissertations on what radius and diameter are…and it will probably be wrong.
TOC

#49

Steve Featherkile said:

Now, Stan, there you go again. Here we are, nicely talking about DIAMETER of curves, and you chime in talking about RADIUS, as if it is the same thing.

A 4.5 ft RADIUS is a 9 ft DIAMETER.

Just thought I bring that up, lest it be forgotten. :slight_smile:

Steve

Sorry to confues folks. To correct this the Prototype 2-6-6-2 on the Unitah was designed to run the Unitah’s 9’ diameter (in 1:20.3) curves.

My point was that the largest narrow gauge prototype locomotive in the US (more tractive effort than a K37) ran in real life on just a little larger than an R3 curve. You simply do not need 20’ diameter (10’ Radius) in 1:20.3 to look good.

To put this in perspective if you are are modeling standard gauge in 1:29 the minimum curve should be 10ft radius (20 ft diameter) and that would be real real tight yet most are quite happy to run their 1:29 trains on much tighter curves.

All but the largest 1:20.3 locomotives will run on R2 and many will run on R1. Modeling in 1:20 does not equate to needing lots of space or large diameter curves to enjoy the hobby.

Running smaller 1:20 narrow gauge equipment on R1 curves is not that far off from the prototype and looks very good so enjoy no matter what scale and curvature you choose.

Stan

#50

Curmudgeon mcneely said:

Don’t tell him that. Next thing you know, we’ll be reading dissertations on what radius and diameter are…and it will probably be wrong.
TOC

and you guys say I act like a jerk…

#51

One small problem with that Stan, the LGB Uintah mallet is 1/22.5 scale (more like 1/24) not 1/20.3.

you said:

“…All but the largest 1:20.3 locomotives will run on R2 and many will run on R1. Modeling in 1:20 does not equate to needing lots of space or large diameter curves to enjoy the hobby…”

Well lets look at a breakdown of whats currently on the 1/20 market:

Electric models only, min dia. per mfr website

1/20.3 Bachmann:

Mallet min dia. 8’

K-27 min dia. 8’

C-19 min dia. 8’

Spectrum 4-4-0 min dia. 8’

Spectrum 4-6-0 min dia. 8’

3 truck Shay min dia. 8’

Forney min dia. 8’

2-8-0 min dia. 6.5’

2 truck Climax min dia. 4’

0-4-0 min dia. 4’

2-4-2 min dia. 4’

Railtruck min dia. 4’

Accucraft: (electric)

28ton 2 truck Shay min dia. 8’

SP 4-6-0 min dia. 8’

2 truck Climax min dia. 8’

DSP&P 2-8-0 min dia. 8’

C-19 min dia. 8’

C-25 min dia. 8’

EBT 2-8-2 min dia. 8’

WSL 3 truck Shay min dia. 8’

Whitcomb min dia. 8’

Mason 2-6-6 min dia. 8’

Plymouth min dia. 4’

DRGW #50 min dia. 4’

Porter 0-4-0 min dia. 4’

Clearly the largest majority of 1/20 motive stock is geared towards the big layout, Same for rolling stock, sure there are a few small engines, but theres even fewer shorty rolling stock samples readily available or affordable in 1/20, thats why most still scratchbuild shorty stock.

My point is that it is these BIG engines that are clearly going to be a big draw from people getting into the hobby, and that IF they want the BIG engine and BIG rolling stock (alot of which in 1/20 comes with body mounted couplers) then they had best plan for having a BIG area to put it in.

Given this IF you are going to limited to smaller layout with smaller than 8’ dia curves then using 1/22.5 vastly opens to possibilities of what the modeler has access to, often a tremendous difference especially in prices as 1/20 stock can get very pricey, i can get a latest edition Annie, coaches and a long string of rolling stock for way less than a single C-19.

#52

@Nick S. - If that is true, them the large scale hobby will get little to none of my disposable income. This hobby has been around a long time with too many scales to mention. I chose mine, and it isn’t 1/29. (Seeing what I am seeing in the market place, I wonder if that major 1/29 manufacturer will be around in 5 years.)

My first purchase in large scale was the Bachmann K27, because I have always been in love with that locomotive from the first time I saw it in the articles in RMC back in the mid '70’s. From there all the rolling stock I could afford at the time was second hand LGB/Aristo/USA Trains/ Delton/etc., and in just about as many scales. I have participated in three of the South East Garden Railway Shows before they went bust, and NEVER had anyone comment that the K27 or the consist looked funny, even though I was pulling a 30 car consist. Kids don’t care about scale, they want to see long trains.

Over time, my preference to 1/20.3 is now to where I am scratch building rolling stock to run along side the few AMS cars I own. I have seen the picture Jon refers to above, and the variety of car size and shape is amazing, making it even easier for me to mix and match rolling stock without feeling too guilty about it. My wife likes the ACL and a lot of the rolling stock I have will also run well with her USAT diesels, so even there, I have an out.

Joe, run what you like, how you like to run it. I am the primary member of my club running 1/20 and take a good bit of ribbing over it. First time I ran at a club event, the plow on my K cleared most of the sceniced stuff off the side of the tracks. Upset a few members, but it is good laugh among most today.

Most of all, HAVE FUN!!!

Bob C.

#53

John Joseph Sauer said:

Curmudgeon mcneely said:

Don’t tell him that. Next thing you know, we’ll be reading dissertations on what radius and diameter are…and it will probably be wrong.
TOC

and you guys say I act like a jerk…

Nobody can just leave it alone, can they? You all have to snipe your petty arguments with each other whenever you have the opportunity. Everyone is tired of it, me mostly, because I also have to deal with emails from other members wondering why you guys cant just leave it alone. There’s a reason I dont answer my phone when any of you call, or return emails from a number of you. 99% of the time someone wants to complain about another member, or “give their side”. I really dont care. Deal with it between yourselves, privately, but not here.

E-(*&#($ING-NOUGH!

Edited for calmness

#54

Bob Cope said:

…SNIP

First time I ran at a club event, the plow on my K cleared most of the sceniced stuff off the side of the tracks. Upset a few members, but it is good laugh among most today.

Most of all, HAVE FUN!!!

Bob C.

My plow equipped K will make its first run on the club layout this evening…I am curious if I too will earn the scorn of fellow members!
:slight_smile:

In truth I am only concerned about one bridge that the club was kind enough to modify to clear my non-plow K’. A few others have ‘broke down’ and picked up Shays, they look pretty good no matter what they pull behind them.

#55

Earlier I stated that I model in 1/29th to 1/24th. Although I model my trains and structures in this scale I have made sure that all my bridges and tunnels have enough clearance for all my friends that run 1:20.3 scale trains can run on my outdoor railroad. The same will be true of my future indoor railroad.

When the “Gezzers” get together we like to run all of our trains. One day may be for Narrow Gauge, the next for Standard Gauge, and we even have a European Day. But the bottom line is we all just like getting together and sharing this great hobby together.

Joe. I think the bottom line is to do what ever you like and have fun doing it!!!

#56

The original question was/is “Is switching from 1:22.5 to 1:20.3 worth it?”

If I remember correctly “worth” in this hobby is mostly tied in with money, in which case I repeat: it will cost you plenty.

Kevin has a good point, most people don’t notice the “incorrect” track or the “incorrect” scale, whichever way you want to look at it. If “things fit” i.e. everything is the same scale, it will work very nicely and if you can make it “believable” (very little to do with scale) that much the better.

#57

I run a mixture of everything and never give it a thought. They all have Kadees so they play nice.

The only challenge I ever had was I had to rebuild my tunnel to fit the Shay and then had to rebuild it AGAIN for the centercab! Oh well, the exercise is good!

#58

I’m with Doug. I run all 1:20.3 Bachmann locomotives, but the only 20.3 cars I have are the ones that I scratchbuilt. All the rest are 1:22.5, and I run them all together. My railroad, my rules.

Ron

#59

I don’t model steam, however what I do model, I model by what is pleasing to my eye not by a specific scale. And when I decide I would like to drink beer I choose Lewis Ro (did I use the comma correctly?)

#60

Edit for or is it four or fore Page 4