Large Scale Central

New Article Posted: On the Naming of Scales and Gauges

Articles
#5

Kevin, I guess that I’m a traditionalist (some would say “Old Fhart”)

I grew up with Zero Gauge (0) (or zed for the Canadians, though the Good Lord only knows why), Half Zero (H0) for the Geeks, and then there was “S” which was used for that odd Gilbert produced American Flyer stuff that the weird kid down the block had.

The rich doctor who lived on the hill scratch built some stuff in 1 gauge, and the banker who lived across the street from the doctor imported some stuff in 2 gauge. Both were cool to the kids because we got to see/sometimes run (not play with) their stuff on occasion.

And then there was the 1:1 stuff down in Appleyard that we could get cabrides in before the suits took over the railroads.

Those were the days.

#6

You were around with 2 gauge? :open_mouth:

Did you ever serve with Captain John Paul Jones? :open_mouth:

tac, ig and The Constantly Amazed Boys

#7

What about some crazy guy that is building 56.5" gauge track in 1/29th scale? :wink: Shouldn’t we start creating a new name for that scale/gauge combination? :stuck_out_tongue:

#8
tac said:
You were around with 2 gauge? :O

Did you ever serve with Captain John Paul Jones? :open_mouth:

tac, ig and The Constantly Amazed Boys


I was his Surgeon.

I was also ten. Memory dims.

All I remember is that it was big, bigger than the doc’s.

#9

Well, well, well JLF I have some fundamental News for you: when designating a scale for drawing and other purposes the integer of 1 stands for the size of the item drawn/described. The value after the : designates the number the integer is to be divided by. which means if the original is 1000 millimeters long the 1:87 version of same will be 11.49 millimeter

In clear text an item that is drawn/produced 87 times smaller than the original has a scale of 1:87 - NOT 87:1! Unless of course the H0 trains in your world are 87 times larger than the original. :slight_smile: :smiley: :lol: That would make it a lot easier to fix if you can find a large enough crane.

BTW I find it very amusing that the wheel is reinvented yet again! Have at it! :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

#10
Jason Gallaway said:
.........

For those who don’t care about scale correctness, they can be certain to get equipment compatible with their existing railroad simply with the letter, and conversly, when trying to model multiple gauges on the same layout, you cane also be certain that equipment will match: On3/36 becomes HO48, 36" guage 1/29 scale becomes O29(or there abouts)

Just a thought.


Hmmmmm

Very interesting! Are you aware that for “0 scale” there are three different values? 1:43, 1:45 and 1:48! Instead of giving them random letter it would be a bit closer to call them “1:43/32mm”; “1:45/32mm” and “1:48/32mm” and precisely the same could be done with every scale.
Humour on!

Admittedly there is a problem with this. Those who are mathematically challenged may mess up when calculating which is now the accurate scale/gauge combo. :smiley: :wink: :smiley:

Humour OFF!

NMRA Panel Discussion
#11

I think what is clear is that model train scale/gauge nomenclature is clear, concise, and easy to follow. And any other system developed would be equally clear, concise, and easy to follow.

:smiley:

#12
Mark V said:
I think what is clear is that model train scale/gauge nomenclature is clear, concise, and easy to follow. And any other system developed would be equally clear, concise, and easy to follow.

:smiley:


One day one should have a poll of all the people who “play with trains” to find out how closely they follow “their” given scale. Naturally with the possibilty to mark “I don’t give a fig” as one’s answer. :lol: :wink: :lol:

#13
Craig Townsend said:
What about some crazy guy that is building 56.5" gauge track in 1/29th scale? ;) Shouldn't we start creating a new name for that scale/gauge combination? :P
I think your set up would be Proto-29 or P29
#14
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Jason Gallaway said:
.........

For those who don’t care about scale correctness, they can be certain to get equipment compatible with their existing railroad simply with the letter, and conversly, when trying to model multiple gauges on the same layout, you cane also be certain that equipment will match: On3/36 becomes HO48, 36" guage 1/29 scale becomes O29(or there abouts)

Just a thought.


Hmmmmm

Very interesting! Are you aware that for “0 scale” there are three different values? 1:43, 1:45 and 1:48! Instead of giving them random letter it would be a bit closer to call them “1:43/32mm”; “1:45/32mm” and “1:48/32mm” and precisely the same could be done with every scale.
Humour on!

Admittedly there is a problem with this. Those who are mathematically challenged may mess up when calculating which is now the accurate scale/gauge combo. :smiley: :wink: :smiley:

Humour OFF!


Not to put too fine a point on it, HJ, but it is 1:43.5. That is how they got Half Zero (Zed) at 1:87. Attention to detail, indeed. :smiley:

#15
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Mark V said:
I think what is clear is that model train scale/gauge nomenclature is clear, concise, and easy to follow. And any other system developed would be equally clear, concise, and easy to follow.

:smiley:


One day one should have a poll of all the people who “play with trains” to find out how closely they follow “their” given scale. Naturally with the possibilty to mark “I don’t give a fig” as one’s answer. :lol: :wink: :lol:

Why don’t you start a thread here? I think that even with all the fantastic modelers we have in this group we would find that the majority “don’t give a fig” :slight_smile: I know that when I’m building a model I get all anal about sizes and details; but then I’ll run that perfectly scaled and detailed 1:20.3 model with a 1:22.5 caboose and say it looks good :slight_smile:

#16

In 1993/4 a group of us got together to try to define the various scales in Large Scale. Much has changed since then but the the concept around this early agreement still hold.

http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/nmra_large_scale_report.pdf

Stan
an Fn3 modeler

#17
Jon Radder said:
I think that even with all the fantastic modelers we have in this group we would find that the majority "don't give a fig" :) I know that when I'm building a model I get all anal about sizes and details; but then I'll run that perfectly scaled and detailed 1:20.3 model with a 1:22.5 caboose and say it looks good :)
I agree 100% I model by eye...so if it looks good to me then I go with it despite the scale correctness.
#18

Oh, I was SO hoping this discussion would arise again.

Settling in with a tall cool one and a bowl of popcorn to watch the fun, I remain…

Steve

#19
Steve Featherkile said:
............ Not to put too fine a point on it, HJ, but it is 1:43.5. That is how they got Half Zero (Zed) at 1:87. Attention to detail, indeed. :D
I tried to keep it to even numbers, it apparently is less confusing that way. Especially since most NA modelers are convinced the 0 (O) = 1:48 aka "quarter inch to the foot". Which is another scale to gauge mismatch.

BTW when it comes to road vehicles the mfgs refer to them as 1:43

#20
Stan Ames said:
In 1993/4 a group of us got together to try to define the various scales in Large Scale. Much has changed since then but the the concept around this early agreement still hold.

http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/nmra_large_scale_report.pdf

Stan
an Fn3 modeler


Sooooo Stan, did it do any good? Reading through the fora, I doubt it!

HJ

a IIm modeler

#21

It wasn’t '93/'94 but maybe '01 or ‘02 when the NMRA tried again. The resounding cry on the forums was "Standards? We don’t need (or want) no stinkin’ standards". For the life of me I can’t figure out that mindset. Unless you operate in a vacuum, you need some measure of standards for interoperability. Whenever we get together at shows or meets, the lack of standards always rears it’s ugly head, especially with couplers. Thank goodness for rubber bands and paperclips )

#22

Jon, we managed to at least get wheel and track standards in 2010, though I’ve still got the scars from the pitchforks poked at me for daring to suggest we needed them. An attempt at coupler standards (not a standard coupler, but just a basic consensus on sizes and heights) fizzled out shortly thereafter.

Stan, that may have been the proposal which sparked the NMRA wanting to define -n3, -n30, and -n2 standards for each of those individual scales. (The proposal I saw had “A” scale for 1:29 instead of “X.”) Personally, I’m glad that one died on the vine. What they were looking to do based on that proposal was the textbook definition of “utter chaos.” And it took some convincing to get them to agree we didn’t need individual track standards for each of the individual scales since the premise of large scale was that all the scales run interchangeably on the same track.

HJ, interesting question. In my case, I’m pretty OC about accurate scale for my own stuff, but also model in 1:24 for my dad’s railroad. And my kids are decidedly in the “don’t give a fig” camp.

Later,

K

#23

Kevin

Indeed the need to define all the different scales was killed many times but kept comming up again. F and II are about the only letters that makes sence since both standard and multiple narrow gauges are modeled in them. Some still use F while others you the 1.20.3 nomenclature.

Many more of the scales are modeled than commonly reconginized. for example around here it is common to model the Maine 2 foot stuff. Some model in 1/20.3 and changes the track gauge while other keeps the 45mm track and changes the scale.

In the end it is interchange and interchange normally is only key when you have more then one manufacturer producing product commercially.

Stan

PS many of the gauges other then 45mm also play around with multiple scales sharing the same guage. In each case it is the track and wheel specifications that are the most important aspects to agree upon.

#24

Personally I think the free market has done a great job for compatibility. I run or have run Accucraft, AMS, Aristo, Bachmann, Delton, HLW, LGB, Lionel, Marklin, MDC, USA, and even a tiny amount of MTH. Mixed different brands in one consist too. I do this on track from AML, Aristo, and LBG. I’ve used wheels from all of them and many more from Gary Raymond and San-Val. I’ve used couplers from Kadee and mixed couplers from one brand with rolling stock of another. I run LGB deep-flanged wheels on code 250 track and Raymond fine-scale wheels on LGB code 332. I’ve never used a coupler height, wheel, or track gauge. I cannot ever recall having a derailment that was related to a “compatibility issue” except running on too tight a curve. I have had to swap couplers to make “transition cars” and while this is a minor irritation I do not expect Ford parts to fit my Dodge either.

I think formal “standards” are a solution looking for a problem. If you want 'em, go ahead and work on it. I am not against them, but at the end of the day I will still be running my trains and likely not notice a bit of difference.