Large Scale Central

Kansas 463 doubled with Washington 463

General Discussion
#41
Zbigniew Struzik said:
TonyWalsham said:
Zubi.

Are you trying to say the 1:20.3 scale is wrong when used to represent 3’ gauge on 45mm gauge track?


Tony, I am not only trying but I have also been saying this for the past dozen years or so. Of course it is a wrong choice. 1:22.5 is a good choice for gauges from 36’ to 42’. 1:20 is much better suited for 30inch prototypes and thereabout, but even 30inch/750-760mm is often done in 1:22.5 for the sake of scale compatibility. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

Boggle WHAT?

#42
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
... If legend is to be believed, the "LS in the Garden based on plastic" model trend went askew with the very first "model" known as "Stainz" and it has been "interesting times" ever since.

:wink: :slight_smile: :wink:


Hans-Joerg, this is not a legend. Of course every scale has problems with narrow gauge, simply because narrow gauge defies most standards (ever wondered why standard gauge is referred to as standard;-)?) but the Richters started off with the Stainz which 1) is a 760mm prototype (also 600 versions existed I think, but not I am not certain) 2) they scaled using different vertical and horizontal ratios in order to enhance “cuteness” of the model, they used cuteness factor of about “1.125” or 12.5% if you wish (vertical scale of Stainz and many of LGB`s other 760mm prototypes is about 1:20 or less, while the length is kept at 1:22.5 or shorter). So yes, you are correct, this started off quite a puzzle, best, Zubi PS but there are some LGB models nicely scaled to 1:22.5, some 3ft US outline too.

#43

Zubi.
This is not a discussion of the scale accuracy or otherwise of LGB models.

This is a discussion of which model, the Magnus K-27 or the Bachmann K-27, is correctly scaled to run on 45mm gauge track.

I accept the Magnus is a nice model, as are many LGB models, but, it is not the correct scale for 45 mm gauge track.

Period.

Neither are any of the USA narrow gauge prototypes made by LGB. Even assuming the scale they were built to was consistent across all dimensions of the model.

#44

Getting back to the subject at hand…

So the Bachmann is the correct size, then. Cool. They really look nice.

#45
Zbigniew Struzik said:
(ever wondered why standard gauge is referred to as standard;-)?)
Because Abraham Lincoln declared that it should be. And the rest of the world followed suit......

Ok I see what you are saying,…too your eye, running an amalgamation of stuff, you like to have the various locos and rolling stock of a similar size, nuttin wrong with that. MANY folks have a strong desire to do proper scale modeling therefore they adopt one ratio and stick with that through out execution of the project.

My line is 3ft Narrow gauge, on 45 mm track, that works out to 1:20. That means the locos will be 1:20, the rolling stock will be 1:20, the people will be 1:20, and the outhouses will be 1:20. Thats my personal choice. There won’t be anything 1:22.5, nor anything 1:29. Its designed to be an operational outdoor model railroad that has a company look and feel to it. There won;t be an outside frame steam locomotive being run on the track next to a SD45, or 24ft wooden boxcars being run in trains with 40 foot steel ones. Its not a collection or a museum…its a unified whole…

#46
TonyWalsham said:
... Until I see evidence to the contrary I must believe the Bachmann K-27 is an accurately proportioned model for use on 45 mm gauge track. The Magnus is not.
That`s correct Tony. As Curmee kindly pointed out (and what is also well visible in the photos, the K by Magnus suffers from the so called "fat boiler syndrome -please refer to Curmee's posting for details). Other than that, of course it is an accurate model in 1:22.5 scale for 45mm model gauge, a suitably regauged representation of the 3ft prototype. I have explained the usefullness of 1:22.5 in my posting above.
TonyWalsham said:
Also BTW. "G" is definitely not a function of gauge.
Why so definite? Anyway, if it is not, it should be. I have no time at the moment to collect enough prototype data for a good fit but the G scale (function) is close to 22.5*(2*x/600+2)/(2*1000/600 +2) or if you wish 0.0140625*x+8.4375, where for x you need to substitute the prototype gauge. Please do not cite the function yet, as it is a tentative one. More important is how to obtain it - I have explained it in the previous posting.
TonyWalsham said:
... "G" is a scale. A ratio of 1:22.5. Just ask the NMRA.
Well, NMRA is wrong. Perhaps someone ought to tell them;-)... Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
#47

Zubi, I model 2’ on 45mm track. It is NOT “G” anything! Nor is it 1:22.5 which in my opinion would look stupid for 2’ on 45mm. It’s 7/8ths. Some want to give it the letter designation of “SE” but only time will tell if it sticks.

#48
Zbigniew Struzik said:
.........................

PS but there are some LGB models nicely scaled to 1:22.5, some 3ft US outline too.


Zubi,

I’m well aware of that, especially when it comes to RhB prototypes. :wink: :slight_smile: :wink: One of my favourite past times: Measure if the mfgs’ statements/ads correspond to what they deliver, then publish the results. :confused:

#49

Scale to gauge is not a flexible thing, IF one insists on sticking to a specific gauge. So to accurately model a 3-foot gauge prototype on 45mm track, the only correct scale is 1:20.3.

Of course, one can choose to model a 3-foot gauge prototype in another scale, such as 1:22.5, using 45mm track, and simply ignore the relatively minor inaccuracy of the gauge. We all have to make some compromises in model railroading anyway.

Or, one can model a fictional railroad in 1:22.5 scale on 45mm track, in which case the resulting gauge of 42" could be considered accurate. There’s no law that says narrow gauge railroads must always have 3 feet between the rails.

Personally, I prefer 1:22.5 because 1:20.3 models are just too big.

#50

The “Big Three” (or four or five) are to blame for all of this.
LGB should of produced American outline in 1:20.3 or they should have scaled their track to 1:22.5
Aristo/USA should have produced 1:32 outlines instead of 1:29.
Delton 1:20.3 instead of 1:24.
And so on…
Now we are stuck with what we got.
By the time Accucraft came along, I had already acquired 18 LGB “Narrow Gauge” engines and over 100 cars of various manufacturers.
Unless I hit the Power Ball, it’s way too late to re-model my models into 1:20.3 or 1:32.
So we are stuck with what we have.
So why do we keep whipping this dead horse?
None of those “Big Three” (or 4 or 5) are going to re-tool and correct the scale/gauge problem.

TOG

#51

John,

Just as long as nobody confuses scale items with “almost scale” items. :wink: :slight_smile: Personally I don’t care how “pleasing” those “almost scale” items look. :wink: :slight_smile:

#52

$3.50?

#53
Bob McCown said:
$3.50?
Huh?
#54

heheheh Bob’s pre sales interest on hoppers has enabled him to heighten his bid for TOC’s available K-27!

Andre’

#55

I use 45mm track but I build all my stuff to 1/22.5 scale, now I know some of you are asking WHY in God name WHY?

Simple, I just find that 1/20.5 for me suffers from a slight case of WAY TO FREAKIN BIG!

Of course my case is very special (at least thats what the doc’s tell me) being indoors and all, but I find that 1/22 works for me much better in my restricted space.

Not all of use have a spare acre of land for them 20 diameter curves ya’know.

I hope we 1/22er’s aren’t forgotten about in the future, of course I’ve given up on Bachmann ever doing another new engine in 1/22. I doubt Marklin/LGB will be a major US player for another year or so.

So as far as i can see it, guys like me and Zubi are essentially screwed when it comes to new stuff , I’m especially TSOLed because I cannot pay $500-$1000 for a NOS LGB engine, and I doubt LGB will make anything truely brand new US profile for a very long time.

#56

Screw all the “big” manufacturers! With your talents Vic, there is nothing you can’t build. Motor blocks of one sort or another will always be available. Parts will be available from the cottage industry…so…where’s the beef.??

#57

I love my home made K-27, but its still a bodge, being as it is a 1.22.5 version.

I chose that because like Vic a 1.20.3 is too big for me. At least it doesnt have a fat boiler :slight_smile:

I have 1.20.3 for the small loggin outfit tho and because they aint massive that works.

#58
Rod Hayward said:
I love my home made K-27, but its still a bodge, being as it is a 1.22.5 version. I chose that because like Vic a 1.20.3 is too big for me. At least it doesnt have a fat boiler :)
Rod, your K-27 is a marvel, I hope someone will release a series of those in 1:22.5, with a correct boiler of course. They look much better properly proportioned. By the way, I gather that Accucraft also got the boiler wrong? Best wishes ,Zubi
#59
Victor Smith said:
I use 45mm track but I build all my stuff to 1/22.5 scale, now I know some of you are asking WHY in God name WHY?

Simple, I just find that 1/20.5 for me suffers from a slight case of WAY TO FREAKIN BIG!


Vic, there is a very good answer to your WHY and it is actually not related to size only. 1:22.5 is the best standard large scale for representing most (practically all except wide and park, etc.) gauges on standard model gauges. It can easily be shown mathematically and I have the plots ready but I need to write some description to explain them, so please give me some time for this. Best wishes, Zubi

#60
Warren Mumpower said:
Zubi, I model 2' on 45mm track. It is NOT "G" anything! Nor is it 1:22.5 which in my opinion would look stupid for 2' on 45mm. It's 7/8ths. Some want to give it the letter designation of "SE" but only time will tell if it sticks.
Warren, that`s correct. 7/8ths scale applied to 2ft prototypes does not seem to fall under the G-scale formula. Best wishes, Zubi