Large Scale Central

Jim Hediger, Senior Editor, Model Railroader

General Discussion
#1

In the December issue of Model Railroader, in Jim’s “Workshoptips,” 10 tips for beginners, promising help for those who want more than the annual train-around-the-tree limitation to the hobby. Good motive for 10 helpful tips.

Clearly, the helpful article is for all scales in the hobby. What is suggested are tips generic to ALL aspects of model railroading. However, notice the language in describing the scale choices: “The most popular sizes are: HO (1:87), N scale (1:160, and O (1:48 scale), which is equivalent to the Lionel toy trains. Large scale trains are also popular. They come in a mixture of scales from 1:220.5 to 1:32 but share a common 45mm track guage.”

Large scale trains are added as “also popular.” Why are they not listed in same sequence suggesting an afterthought? Furthermore, the included comparative size picture does not include large scale – only N, HO, and O. There is an answer --which may be the one Jim confronted.: Very simply, how can a SINGLE representative picture of a large scale locomotive, along with N, HO, and O, be shown for comparisons? What is LARGE SCALE?

Conclusion:
Until there is consistent identity with scale, how can any newly interested railroader make a choice based on any picture showing comparative size? LGB did it by virtually owning the scale. It worked! People SAW and they bought. They knew what they were getting. LGB was in every store window that had a train running.

Selah,
Wendell

#2

Wendell,

My perspective only. Way back in the dark ages (about 1974) when I was first gaining interest in the model railroading hobby, I looked at all the scales from Z to G. Back then, LGB was bay and far the DOMINANT supplier, if not the only one, I can’t remember. Newly married with an infant daughter, the expense of G at that time was way out of my price range. Compound that with LGB selling European prototype or at best some bastardized American equivalent, and I went elsewhere in scale. However, that being said, I did look then at the 1:20.3 scale because I would be able to build most items on my table saw with out having to purchase strip wood.

I never looked back and went to On3 instead. As my family grew and funds became more scarce, I finally mothballed my hobby until a couple of years ago. It was a real shocker to find out how much the hobby had changed in 20 years of absence. Since my children were out of the financial picture, G became my choice again for the same reasons mentioned above. The other variety of scale and the logic for their existence were interesting reading, but 1:20.3 is where I went. Please notice that from the start I was looking at 45mm track in a ‘true scale’ fashion.

I wasn’t around when all the upheaval of scale/gauge in large scale took place, but with no real governing body to guide hobbiests and manufacturers, the chaos was inevitable as each manufacturer tried to make his product the ‘defacto standard’. Personally, I run pretty much all scales together without impunity. I may not put any 1:20.3 stuff directly coupled to 1:32, but if you spread them out enough it is not too noticeable at shows. I am not a rivet counter, maybe that explains it. I follow the ten foot rule…‘If it looks good at ten feet, it’s all good!’

You are correct in stating that the scale/gauge thing in large scale is confusing, but the major non-garden specific magazines do little to ease that confusion. Usually the first thing I find I must do to help the new large scaler get a grip is to make sure they understand the difference between scale and gauge. Many, even coming from other well established scales, don’t fully understand it. I don’t know if there is a faq on this site with all the neat information available settling some of the mud out of the waters regarding scale/ gauge, but the information is available in print and on the net if one looks for it.

Thanks for alerting me to the article, I will have to purchase the mag and read it. Unless there is a particular article in the mag that catches my interest, I usually don’t purchase MR or RMC any more. GR and NG&SLG are my primary reads, along with this and a couple of other fora.

Bob C.

#3
Wendell Hanks said:
In the December issue of Model Railroader, in Jim's "Workshoptips," 10 tips for beginners, promising help for those who want more than the annual train-around-the-tree limitation to the hobby. Good motive for 10 helpful tips.

Clearly, the helpful article is for all scales in the hobby. What is suggested are tips generic to ALL aspects of model railroading. However, notice the language in describing the scale choices: “The most popular sizes are: HO (1:87), N scale (1:160, and O (1:48 scale), which is equivalent to the Lionel toy trains. Large scale trains are also popular. They come in a mixture of scales from 1:220.5 to 1:32 but share a common 45mm track guage.”

Large scale trains are added as “also popular.” Why are they not listed in same sequence suggesting an afterthought? Furthermore, the included comparative size picture does not include large scale – only N, HO, and O. There is an answer --which may be the one Jim confronted.: Very simply, how can a SINGLE representative picture of a large scale locomotive, along with N, HO, and O, be shown for comparisons? What is LARGE SCALE?

Conclusion:
Until there is consistent identity with scale, how can any newly interested railroader make a choice based on any picture showing comparative size? LGB did it by virtually owning the scale. It worked! People SAW and they bought. They knew what they were getting. LGB was in every store window that had a train running.

Selah,
Wendell


Wendell,

LS stands for Large Stuff, the scale is mostly missing!

Yes, LGB hoodwinked a lot of people by proclaiming their trains were 1:22.5 and if one accepted that as gospel truth what would one get … welllllll. There once was a VP at Kalmbach (great fan of LGB) who replied to one of my posts doing the dimensional comparison of proto to LGB “model” on a forum with: “I didn’t know they are that far off”.

BTW I get a kick out of your persistent expectation that Kalmbach would get it right; can you imagine them listing up the funky scales and having to print how the funkiness of 1:24, 1:27 and 1:29 came about? For them it’s all about selling product, just read the reviews in their mags.

Luckily they also publish stuff like Trains and Classic Trains. :slight_smile:

#4

Bob: I agree that little is done by the publications to sort out the scale/gauge flap. Marc Horovitz did acknowledge in his Garden RR reviews of rolling stock the disparity between the varied scales and the track – noting scale and gauge did NOT match with anything other than 1:32. He was correct, yet, there was not change to 1:32 so his reviews became unacceptable editorials and were dropped. Nada. Zero future correct or incorrect comments, only a statement of the scale.
imagine the roasting in HO if the NMRA scale regimen was not observed in product reviews! OUCH!

HJ: Yes, I am persistent. Any successful influence of mfgs.? I doubt it for the same reasons your clear thinking analysis has previously stated. My interest is in continually exposing the lunacy. Yes, LGB hoodwinked on the scale proclamation. No one has taken up the slack. Like Harley Davidson, they now only have a few cops and outlaws as customers. At least Harley got their company back and found their customers. MTH has tried with 1:32 – yet, stupidly only among those already in the hobby. 1:32 hasn’t flown with those who are in the hobby as a standard as it’s only a standard for those who already use their products. So meanwhile, where’s the LGB-like brand standard? Is there an Athearn or Atlas taking charge of enlisting the Christmas tree set with starter sets and an accompanying standard of scale and gauge relative to the track? Apparently, MTH won’t be the Christmas tree set this year.

Wendell

#5

Scales are for fish, I never touch them :wink: :lol:

#6

For those who got hooked we have reached our limit from hearing the same 'ole mfg. line of getting lured into accepting that carp are really trout and live with it.
Wendell

#7
Wendell Hanks said:
For those who got hooked we have reached our limit from hearing the same 'ole mfg. line of getting lured into accepting that carp are really trout and live with it. Wendell
Huh? What does that mean? With sales and marketing, three is no limit.

Wendell, I read the article and actually looked at it that we were making progress by actually being mentioned as a measurable part of the hobby of model railroading. I think there has been considerable progress in the large scale portion. we are almost up to where HO was in 1950. Now if we only had an economy and a large group of people in that economy with disposable income beginning to grow their lives and families as those veterans of World War II did. Personally, don’t see it in the near future.

#8

I read the article too…And noticed they made no mention of 1:20.3 or 16mm, or? Not offended by any means, just a little disappointed that a journalist in the hobby would not be aware of the very hobby they are reporting on. It’s not like Bachmann and Accucraft are complete unknowns. I could see the omission if he was referring to only “G” scale but he specifically mentioned “Large scale”.

Personally I never got hung up on scale. I like big trains so I am drawn to 1:20.3, I don’t go into 1:32 because it’s just too small.

#9

Ric has a good point: We were mentioned by Jim.

What gives our part of the hobby its unique identification isolates us from the rest.

For example, the other scales are clearly defined by their title. HO is HO and not four size variations. Same for the others. While On3 clearly lacks the popularitiy of HO, it is still like the others because it is a scale with specific manufacturing dimensions not variations. Unlike “large scale”, even though it has a small following, On3 is accepted as a specific part of the model railroading hobby .

Secondly, we have a population of users who understandably could care less if the “scale” is right or wrong just so it looks good. The other scales provide no manufacturing support for users who hold a looks good conclusion. That claim would be aseen as disparaging to a non-large scale manufacturer. Name any HO rolling stock that has four size variations? Where’s the support group in the other scales publicly arguing, as we do, that a product is still worthy of purchase even though it doesn’t match the track!

CONCLUSION:
Until our large scale hobby is again part of the American consumer’s vocabulary we will continue to only be assessed by the modelers in HO,N,S, and O. Fifteen years ago, try and find a Macy’s that didn’t have at last one store window with a Christmas train. Guess what brand it was.

Wendell

#10
Wendell Hanks said:
In the December issue of Model Railroader, in Jim's "Workshoptips," 10 tips for beginners, promising help for those who want more than the annual train-around-the-tree limitation to the hobby. Good motive for 10 helpful tips.

Clearly, the helpful article is for all scales in the hobby. What is suggested are tips generic to ALL aspects of model railroading. However, notice the language in describing the scale choices: “The most popular sizes are: HO (1:87), N scale (1:160, and O (1:48 scale), which is equivalent to the Lionel toy trains. Large scale trains are also popular. They come in a mixture of scales from 1:220.5 to 1:32 but share a common 45mm track guage.”

Large scale trains are added as “also popular.” Why are they not listed in same sequence suggesting an afterthought? Furthermore, the included comparative size picture does not include large scale – only N, HO, and O. There is an answer --which may be the one Jim confronted.: Very simply, how can a SINGLE representative picture of a large scale locomotive, along with N, HO, and O, be shown for comparisons? What is LARGE SCALE?

Conclusion:
Until there is consistent identity with scale, how can any newly interested railroader make a choice based on any picture showing comparative size? LGB did it by virtually owning the scale. It worked! People SAW and they bought. They knew what they were getting. LGB was in every store window that had a train running.

Selah,
Wendell


I haven’t had the pleasure of reading said article, but reading through your posting, it seems that the language was appropriate. They are the most popular scales, though I beg to differ on the “O” being equivalent to Lionel which is O27. Gee, another slight to the purest maybe?
Sure they could make a comparative picture for large scale by superimposing each scale over others Start with 1:20.3 and work down to 1:32. They could even include 7/8ths and 1:16, and 1:13 for that matter, did I forget any.
If you open Model Railroader you will usually find articles dedicated to HO,rarely to the other scales though N is gaining. If you open Garden Railways you find articles dedicated to larger scales.
And for all this banter, why, since we at least got mention even as an after thought, did you say nothing of “S” guage,or “Z”, or "TT for that matter, being left out entirely? An oversight?
Do I really care that my “hobby choice” is an after thought of someone else? No, if I did I’d change hobbies

#11
Wendell Hanks said:
For those who got hooked we have reached our limit from hearing the same 'ole mfg. line of getting lured into accepting that carp are really trout and live with it. Wendell
You mean something is fishy?? :lol: If you like to model "real scale" on 45mm track you just have to pick more carefully, be able to do basic math and forget the rest.

Back to building good looking turnouts that say “RhB”! :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

#12

I run what I like and if someone ignores me that’s fine. Besides, I also like Gn15 and I never heard that mentioned!

#13

HJ-
Yes, fishy – and extensive word play on Victor’s comment (above).
OK, no matter what we, as large scalers prefer, the industry management and modelers don’t have the same choices we have. My point is simple: It is those choices of variances in scale that differentiate us from the HO, N, S, O,etc. choices based on NMRA standards of manufacturing. We are the only ones in the hobby that actually have in front of us a myriad of scales with only one that is truly true-to-scale – and we still CAN choose 1:29. 1:22, 1:24, 1:?? AND 1:32. Wow! They all run on the same track! This alone drives the NMRA devotees nuts!!! Gee, we are the supporters of the loose canon. We buy one size track and run all-sizes of trains! Amazing.

CONCLUSION:
This is one reason why we don’t get enthusiastic promotion of our hobby by the publications industry – outside of Garden RR. mag. How can they promote standards which are so obviously missing in our own product choices.

Wendell

#14

Wendell,
look to the title of the magazine, “MODEL” Railroader. Smaller ‘scales’ are referred to as such, SCALE. LargeSCALE is a generic term and like it or not, larger toys are simply referred to as TOYS and not MODELS. No matter what the industry does, or does not do as is generally the case, in promoting the hobby, largescale will be just the boys ‘playing’ with their big toys!!!

#15

I would be guessing but I think most of these people follow the NMRA standard where there is little information
other than a little on track standards for “G” compared to the other major scales.
As well as my outdoor layout I have a very large ( 28 feet X 52 feet) N scale layout and would have club
meetings at my house. When I first started building up my locomotives and rolling stock for my “F scale”
layout, I would show the equipment to fellow modelers and most were surprised of how far the F scale has
progressed from when LGB started “G scale” . Then I have to go through all the different scale that run on
G scale track. The most often question I get asked is why 1/29th scale and not 1/32nd scale.
I guess what I’m trying to say is we need to get a more of a identity with the NMRA.

Rodney

#16
Wendell Hanks said:
HJ- Yes, fishy -- and extensive word play on Victor's comment (above). OK, no matter what we, as large scalers prefer, the industry management and modelers don't have the same choices we have. My point is simple: It is those choices of variances in scale that differentiate us from the HO, N, S, O,etc. choices based on NMRA standards of manufacturing. We are the only ones in the hobby that actually have in front of us a myriad of scales with only one that is truly true-to-scale -- and we still CAN choose 1:29. 1:22, 1:24, 1:?? AND 1:32. Wow! They all run on the same track! This alone drives the NMRA devotees nuts!!! Gee, we are the supporters of the loose canon. We buy one size track and run all-sizes of trains! Amazing.

CONCLUSION:
This is one reason why we don’t get enthusiastic promotion of our hobby by the publications industry – outside of Garden RR. mag. How can they promote standards which are so obviously missing in our own product choices.

Wendell


Have you ever notice how huge that Code332 track looks even under 1:20.3 models? It looks absolutely dreadful in combination with 1:29 stuff. Do you remember how long it took before the “Big Guys” saw fit to produce turnouts that looked a little better than the streetcar material they still flog?
I count my blessings that I model the Swiss stuff in IIm, just like I do in HOm. Apart from having standards there is also stuff that is to scale. Still leaves plenty of room for scratchbuilding and kitbashing.

#17
Rodney Edington said:
... I guess what I'm trying to say is we need to get a more of a identity with the NMRA.
do we really?

what for?

for each and any of us, this hobby should fill his own personal needs and desires.
and if these needs and desires are not standardized, so what?

#18

One of the big things that turned me off in the smaller scales was the scale nazis, rivet counters and ‘historical accuracy’ police. Work your butt off, do your best work, and some yahoos ALWAYS just seem to feel the need to pick it apart to build up their own egos… Especially aggravating when I’m willing to bet that well over 3/4 of folks in the smaller scales are actually operating a “Plywood Central” at home. I’m not into pretensions, my little mangles are what they are, and are not intended to be what they are not.

It also doesn’t matter near as much in 1/24 if my hands shake, or my vision isn’t the best.

IMO a bunch of NMRA rules at this point would probably make a bad situation even worse. Especially if they were imposed from outside the LS hobby. Who’s proprietary standards do you adopt? Why? Because they’re really “better”, or some lobbyist bought you? The other manufacturers WILL probably cry foul if you don’t have a real good reason. Or do you make up new ones that NOBODY uses? You do that, then it’s a good chance that nothing we currently own will work with the new stuff… You got that kind of scratch to replace and upgrade, great. Most - including me - probably don’t. But then, 1/24 isn’t actively supported by anyone but Hartland anymore, So I probably don’t matter much. But what about the guys already heavily invested in 1/29? (The math was easy, btw it’s 3x HO)

#19

I agree Mik, being a long time HO modeler, the rivet counters had a way of ruining a good time. I belonged to two large clubs, one in LA and the other in San Diego, and nothing was worse than a rivet counter running someone into the ground for having a model never painted as such, etc… Well guess what, I have a Rio Grande GP38-2 in 1/29 scale. Hmmn, D&RGW never had this locomotive set to this gauge!!! Doesn’t bother me a bit.

I guess the purists can boycott the manufacturers and sit on the curb and throw stones at me.

I also agree on your point about standards, some I do like, some I don’t. Heck if I made the rules, Kadee G Scale couplers would be mandatory… that would not sit well with others.

John

#20

…" for each and any of us, this hobby should fill his own personal needs and desires.
and if these needs and desires are not standardized, so what? "

Korm and all:

Yes, for so many of us one of the positive features of large scale is the lack of standardization which means choices without criticism.

In this case, the “so what” is focused not on the current choices we value, but WHY manufacturers such as Atlas and Athearn don’t mess with Large scale plus why Model Railroader has conflicted efforts to promote us. For example, if Atlas also made their freight cars in 1:32 , 1:29 or even 1:24 for that matter, look at the quality and quantity that would now be available to us. Yet, they would get roasted by MR and modelers for doing so as it affronts the entire idea of each true-to-life scale having an accurate gauge of track. Meanwhile, Large Scale is the only part of the railroading hobby that could grow and attract new mfgs. by promoting advertising associated with gardening, children, and women. Instead, it has taken a strong bull-headed avoidance of that attracting those associations, favoring LS manufacturers continuing the fatuous pretension that increasing sales is acceptance by the model RR neighborhood.

It isn’t going to happen.

Selah,
Wendell