Shut up Rooster
Just to be clear, when I wrote “worth it,” I meant “worth the trouble,” not necessarily, worth the money. That said, although I really love Bachmann’s 1:20.3 C-19, but I’d really have to think long and hard about shelling out $800 for one. Even the cars are pricey, especially when you get into “varnish” (passenger cars). BTW, after reading some of your posts, I hooked up my Bachmann 1:22.5 shorty flat to my AMS 1:20.3 flat and they don’t look the least bit out of scale. But because they use body-mounted couplers, they absolutely will not go around a 4- or 5-foot diameter curve–not that anyone said they would.
Actually, what prompted me to start this whole thread was the dilemma I face every time I start on a new building. Although it’s possible to mix and match, my 1:20.3 station pretty much overwhelms the 1:22.5 buildings. In fact, when the time comes, I’ll place the “smaller” structures toward the back to kinda force the perspective.
But don’t let me stop the discussion…
You could always be a tightwad, like me, and almost dispense with buildings altogether. I have just one structure - a PIKO water tower - and ‘set it up’ whenever we have the portable layout on show.
Remember that most railroad miles are not over-populated with scads of structures of any kind.
tac
Joe Rusz said: I hooked up my Bachmann 1:22.5 shorty flat to my AMS 1:20.3 flat and they don’t look the least bit out of scale. But because they use body-mounted couplers, they absolutely will not go around a 4- or 5-foot diameter curve–not that anyone said they would.
Joe - put one of your 1/22.5 passenger cars beside an AMS 1/20.3 version and only Stevie Wonder wouldn’t be able to tell the difference…
I bleeve our own Mr Strong had some pics of side-by-side comparisons of the two different scales.
However, bear in mind that there were small and big cars of most types, but passenger cars are not included - people tend to be more or less one-sized overall.
tac
(http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/gary_armitstead/_forumfiles/jslgb1cropres.jpg)
Something like this? AMS J&S, 1/20.3 coach on the left and LGB 1/22.5 coach on the right. Mix and match? I don’t think so.
Gary Armitstead said:
(http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/gary_armitstead/_forumfiles/jslgb1cropres.jpg)
Something like this? AMS J&S, 1/20.3 coach on the left and LGB 1/22.5 coach on the right. Mix and match? I don’t think so.
This picture was the reason I “ran” from “smaller” scales!
Again I say, no need to give up any scale…Run 'em all. Never heard a man ask, “Should I date only blondes or brunettes”?
There are some that just don’t look pleasing to the eye so I either scrap them or run them with cars that match up.
I have a Bachmann gondola that I took the trucks off of and put the gondola in the parts box. It’s never been run.
It’s even oversized for the Bachmann Shay. The trucks could be saved because they are 1/24 but the gondola is HUGE. Go figure.
Doug, you put them under a Gold Mine shorty gon?
You are right Dave!
Gary Armitstead said:
(http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/gary_armitstead/_forumfiles/jslgb1cropres.jpg)
Something like this? AMS J&S, 1/20.3 coach on the left and LGB 1/22.5 coach on the right. Mix and match? I don’t think so.
Great comparison photo. But a little misleading.
The AMS coach is true scale (all dimensions correct) in 1:20.3. The LGB coach is a heavily compressed (length greatly compressed) model in 1:22.5. A true scale model in 1:22.5 compared to the AMS model would not be as dramatic a difference in size.
Here is an accurate “true scale” baggage in 1:22.5 next to the heavily compressed LGB baggage:
(http://i.imgur.com/SMla5.jpg)
However your comparison photo is a great photo of what you can actually purchase. The true scale 1:22.5 baggage in the photo I posted is a scratch built car by Barry Bogs.
Matt,
Good point about “actual” 1/22.5 and LGB’s “gummi scale”. But then, as you pointed out, the LGB coach was all I had for comparison, not a custom-built 1/22.5 scale car.
I have some Bachman J&S coaches sitting in the background on my indoor layout. I think they are 1:22.5, but I have no idea how compressed they are. They don’t look horrible in the background. I’m thinking of putting body mounts on them and pulling them with my Porter or Indy if she ever gets powered. Would probably look way too small behind the 45 Tonner or Connie.
Edit to add that I have no FN3 varnish and can’t afford any; so my passengers all ride in the hack.
At the “Invasion” Don had his new B’mann C19 here. I purposely had it set beside several 1:25 scale locomotives. OK, some people might find fault, but to my eye, the C19 looked quite all right sitting there.
If I had $700 dollars handy; I’d purchase a C19 right now., in fact I’d go for two of them.
They would look fine pulling all of my 1:22.5 rolling stock in our operations. The same goes for the two Connies which I already have in service.
I don’t collect locomotives, but I do purchase locomotives that are needed for the operation of our railroad.
It is great that B’man produced the Connie, and now the C19. They are small enough locomotives, that they can be used in 1:22.5 operations, and look rather good. The bonus with the C19, is that it’s a narrow locomotive, so, it looks better than a Connie with the 1:22.5 rolling stock. The B’man, and LGB passenger cars are fine with both.
Of course, some people will disagree, but that’s fine with me…it is a free World where I live.
This is a great dialog and I enjoy reading everyone’s views. I had one random thought, which implies nothing. I was just wondering, whatever happened to the site “1:20.3point me” or whatever it was called?
That was a great site for all of us in 1?20.3! There were all kinds of rumors about who was running the site and then BANG! It was gone.
Fred Mills said:
SNIP…
It is great that B’man produced the Connie, and now the C19. They are small enough locomotives, that they can be used in 1:22.5 operations, and look rather good. The bonus with the C19, is that it’s a narrow locomotive, so, it looks better than a Connie with the 1:22.5 rolling stock. The B’man, and LGB passenger cars are fine with both.
Of course, some people will disagree, but that’s fine with me…it is a free World where I live.
I personally do not care to see “Big Hauler” stuff behind the K-27/28’s but I totally agree the Connie, Indie, and C19 look very good pulling 1:22.5 stock. I also think the Annie looks ok pulling most 1:20.3 stock.
Oddly I find my 1:20.3 Spectrum 2-6-0 and 4-4-0’s look better pulling 1:22.5 than 1:20.3!
Here is a photo of the comparison Fred mentioned, front to back, Indy, Annie, C-19
(http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/gary_buchanan/comp1.jpg)
Gary;
Sorry to correct you…the locomotive in front is a modified LGB Mogul, not an “Indy”.
In hindsight, we should have included a “Connie” in the picture too, along with some 1:22.5 scale rolling stock.
Some people looking at this picture, might be interested in the rebuilt Aristo Wide Radius switch in the foreground.
That picture reminds me that I really need to get my never run Indy set up to do something, Connie is still waiting on a battery set up too.
Jan’s engine was there when that picture was taken. Its a shame it wasn’t included.
By the way, I will stick with my 1:21.4 scale with some minor fudging in both directions.