Zbigniew Struzik said:You can keep saying that, but you aren't going to convince anyone.
1:22.5 is the best standard large scale for representing most (practically all except wide and park, etc.) gauges on standard model gauges.
Bart Salmons said:Bart, that is how G-scale works. But this is not my personal choice.
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.
Bart Salmons said:That`s correct, this is why I collect 1:22.5 models of various engines from various gauges. Anyway, I was not presenting my personal choices but the generic reasons for G-scale and 1:22.5 scale, although I agree that I should provide better explanation, I will do that as soon as possible. Best wishes, Zubi PS BTW I also have several larger scales, but that is a different story, my larger engines are all live steamers, where larger size is often beneficial. But in some cases I wish they were 1:22.5
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.
Zubi,
Perhaps that is true but the fact remains that “it isn’t accurate!” Does that mean that your thinking that 1:22.5 is correct is wrong? Nope. It’s correct for you and for those that feel that Fn3 (yes, I prefer that nomenclature for 1:20.3) is too large! Where most of us differ with you is your assertion that 1:22.5 is more “correct” than 1:20.3! The real question should be, “Is being accurate correct?” This question could be asked of modelers that want to model buildings.
For years we have used “selective compression” as accurate scale fidelity to all dimensions would prove too unworkable! Which is more correct? One is “accurate” and one looks better on a garden or indoor layout. The point is “correct” is in the eye of the beholder!
With this in mind, I can see where you are coming from. I personally prefer Fn3 but I haven’t any problem with 1:22.5! I’m just happy that Fn3 has taken off finally!
Bob McCown said:Bob, that is as maybe. Best, ZubiZbigniew Struzik said:You can keep saying that, but you aren't going to convince anyone.
1:22.5 is the best standard large scale for representing most (practically all except wide and park, etc.) gauges on standard model gauges.
Zbigniew Struzik said:Why would one want to represent MOST gauges on a single model gauge?
1:22.5 is the best standard large scale for representing most (practically all except wide and park, etc.) gauges on standard model gauges.
steve stockham said:Steve, standard gauge in 1:22.5 scale (so called gauge 3) is also pretty large. I am personally not interested in standard gauge but I have seen these models, known mostly in Germany and UK. Of course we all know that 15mm/1:20.3/Fn3 is a Proto scale. But you posed a very good question - "Is being accurate correct?", the answer is not neccesarily "yes" and I will illustrate this (as soon as possible). Best wishes, Zubi
Zubi, Perhaps that is true but the fact remains that "it isn't accurate!" Does that mean that your thinking that 1:22.5 is correct is wrong? Nope. It's correct for you and for those that feel that Fn3 (yes, I prefer that nomenclature for 1:20.3) is too large! Where most of us differ with you is your assertion that 1:22.5 is more "correct" than 1:20.3! The [i]real[/i] question should be, "Is being accurate correct?" This question could be asked of modelers that want to model buildings.
Bruce Chandler said:Bruce,Zbigniew Struzik said:Why would one want to represent MOST gauges on a single model gauge?
1:22.5 is the best standard large scale for representing most (practically all except wide and park, etc.) gauges on standard model gauges.
My explanation: Muddled thinking and compromiseitis! 
But that’s OK, I don’t have to live with that!
Zbigniew Struzik said:Thats where you are missing my point.....I don't DO G scale....... I model in 1:20.3 which is F scale according to the Enema Ray. I want to do accurate 3 foot modeling not good enough modeling. If I was doing Standard Gauge, I'd model in 1:32( actually I did) I have a minature railway.....not a model railroad collection.
Bart, that is how G-scale works. But this is not my personal choice.
I am with Bob on the 1.20.3 point of view. As I said I have compromised with scale to address my particular wants. I also have a lot of legacy stuff from the “metre” guage .
I went away form finescale O 10 years ago and had a rest and now I am content with the way things are going on my railroad.
Rod,
Nothing that is said could state things stronger than this.
“I am content with the way things are going on my railroad.”
Congratulations, its all that matters.
Bruce Chandler said:Bruce, could one reason be - you like trains...? Best wishes, Zubi
Why would one want to represent MOST gauges on a single model gauge?
You were right Dave. Great pics of the two locos. Notable size difference. Probably alittle like what an LGB K would have looked had they ever gotten around to making one…other than the brass one.
Again, thanks for your recent advice. I’ll follow up as we discussed.
Rich Niemeyer
I do 1:29 this-a-way, and 1:20.3 that-a-way. It works for me. As Rod said,
“I am content with the way things are going on my railroad.”
Oh, yeah, I do 0 gauge on 3-rail in the basement, and am considering bringing that outside, too.
I’m so confused!
I look forward to the demo Zubi. I still think that the proportions just “look” better with Fn3 engines though!
steve stockham said:Steve,
I look forward to the demo Zubi. I still think that the proportions just "look" better with Fn3 engines though! ;)
That applies only if you’re really familiar with the proto, hanging around the 1:1 stuff really helps!
Dave made me an offer I couldn’t refuse…or I made him one, its all a blur, but sometime next week I’ll be the proud owner of a green-boilered K27.
Bob,
That sounds real GOOD! Happy running (when the snow melts!).
He took your $3.50 bid! 
I had to raise it a bit, not much, but he did add RCS…
Bob,
You must be feeling kinda like a new papa.
Congratulations.
Jim C.
Now, if you and Steve can just bring both of them to Marty Cozad’s next September and double-head them. Wouldn’t that be cool!