Large Scale Central

Nothing compares to consistency

General Discussion
#1

Hi all,

Well we all need a laugh - at least once a day, preferably a lot more often than that! Yesterday’s biggest laugh was an excerpt I received from a friend straight out of the Gorgeous Garden Railways book.

Appendix 2 contains a chart on scale and gauge which reads:

Scale Gauge Represents

  1:32          1 (45mm)    Standard gauge ([i]most correct combination[/i])
  1:29          1                 Standard gauge
  1:24          1                 3' narrow gauge
  1:22.5       1                 3' narrow gauge
  1:20.3       1                 3' narrow gauge ([i]most correct combination[/i])

Hmmmmmmmmm isn’t that interesting!
Not a mention of 1:22.5 on 45mm being the correct ratio for Meter Gauge, really makes me wonder what gives in the accuracy department.

OTOH it is consistent with what scale/gauge confusion reigns at Clambake.
BTW my friend who got a copy of the book told me to save my money and if I really “needed” the book to buy it at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871162326/sr=1-1/qid=1152844533/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0730520-1268146?ie=UTF8&s=books
and get 1/3 off. Frankly I don’t “need” it.
Some of his other comments: Printed in China, substandard print quality (colour shifts etc. etc.), pictures that are not up to par (lousy focus, wrong exposure, substandard resolutions printed too large), picture captions that are apparently hilarious.
Well… you get the picture. :wink: :wink: :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

Cheers, eh!!

#2

Funny.

1:29 is goofy gauge, right?
1:24 was 3’6", 1:22 is, as you say, meter.

Good thing I don’t buy that stuff.

I did pick up an older hard-cover book that is so badly wrong it isn’t even funny.

Calling “steam” a “diesel”, and stteamers “resting” in the yards with no rods.

Captions of “a diesel pulls a freight train”.

Yeah.

What KIND of diesel, where and when?

TOC

#3

Yes, 1:24 works out to 42" gauge on 45mm. But I don’t really expect that “Newfie Bullet” would ring bells with the Clambake crowd. South African and Japanese NG is probably also not on the sheet, never mind Aussie and Kiwi. 42" Gauge?? What’s that??? This whole “How many scales and gauges on the same track gauge” problem is just “too complicated”.

But if it isn’t good for a laugh, it is good for a chuckle! On the “buying” front, the only Clambake item I still buy occasionally is “Trains”, if there’s a reasonably interesting article with Canadian relevance. The rest I get from the library! Average time required to peruse GR or MR: 60 to 90 Minutes, that is, if I actually read it. Sometimes it’s enough to look at the ToC!

#4

Good for a chuckle.

That table just sums up many LS operators, collectors and modeler’s (lack of) knowledge of scale / gauge. They don’t know what it is and don’t want to be confused with anything approaching accuracy. LGB, Aristocraft, Hartland and USAT love it. Thanks to Kalmbach for doing their part in keeping it that way!

As one of my Asian technology clients recently wrote in response to a very simple question we had posed:

“We do not have clue”.

At least honesty (if not knowledge) appears to be alive in the far east.

Happy RRing,

Jerry Bowers
Boonville, CA

#5

You chaps are just showing your own lack of knowledge .
You must realise that the only true scale standard is the Size of the Box .
Irrespective of scale ,the model must fit a Standard Box .
It’s called “box engineering " and is so called because it is the way to maximise the number of sub-boxes that can
be exactly fitted into a Standard ISO Container measuring 20’ or 40’x8’x8’6” . So there .
You read it here first .
Mike

#6

Hi Jerry,

Yeah, they must just love it!

To my mind the biggest hoot is the " (most correct combination) " explanation. It would be interesting to find out if there are “substantially correct”, “almost correct”, “essentially correct”, “in some cases correct” combinations, too.

As far as I remember from “Scale 101” - taken at the tender age of 16 in conjunction with basics of technical terms as they relate to drafting and production of models - they never mentioned the plethora of possibilities within one given scale. Now I must admit, that was concerning “technical”, “models” and “accuracy”, not a mention of toys. “Toys” was the term applied to substandard equipment of any type.

If one reads the “About the authors” webpage http://www.gorgeousgardenrailways.com/authors.html one would, as a reader, expect just a tad more. But it looks like “Expect less and Bliss will follow!” :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley:

#7
Mike Morgan said:
You chaps are just showing your own lack of knowledge . You must realise that the only true scale standard is the Size of the Box . Irrespective of scale ,the model must fit a Standard Box . It's called "box engineering " and is so called because it is the way to maximise the number of sub-boxes that can be exactly fitted into a Standard ISO Container measuring 20' or 40'x8'x8'6" . So there . You read it here first . Mike
Damn, Mike!

“Box Engineering”!!

I would have never thought of that! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :wink:

#8

Most correct falls into the same catagory as a statement on a sample can of contact cleaner someone gave me. It states that the contents are “practically non-toxic”. It then goes on to state than “inhalation of thermal decomposition products may be harmful”.

#9

Yeah, HJ has it pretty well copied.
I just got off the phone with the author.

They e-mailed me the entire page, so I have it in front of me for reference.

He says the “most correct combination” is what you need to look at.

The rest of it is really right.

LGB US Narrow gauge prototypes are models of 3’ narrow gauge.
Delton and AC 1:24 are models of 3’ narrow gauge.

While some MAY be of obscure 42" gauge stuff, most are of 3’.

Let’s guess an LGB D&RGW box…ah…three foot!
Bachmann Florence and Cripple Creek…three foot!

How about the Delton C-16…

He thought it was quite clear, but as long as you understand they are models of three foot narrow gauge prototypes, that is why the listing is so, with the “most correct combination” listed.

For those interested, it’s page 139.

TOC

#10
Curmudgeon said:
Yeah, HJ has it pretty well copied. I just got off the phone with the author.

They e-mailed me the entire page, so I have it in front of me for reference.

He says the “most correct combination” is what you need to look at.

The rest of it is really right.

LGB US Narrow gauge prototypes are models of 3’ narrow gauge.
Delton and AC 1:24 are models of 3’ narrow gauge.

While some MAY be of obscure 42" gauge stuff, most are of 3’.

Let’s guess an LGB D&RGW box…ah…three foot!
Bachmann Florence and Cripple Creek…three foot!

How about the Delton C-16…

He thought it was quite clear, but as long as you understand they are models of three foot narrow gauge prototypes, that is why the listing is so, with the “most correct combination” listed.

For those interested, it’s page 139.

TOC


Hi Dave,

You didn’t really expect me to pull such a morsel of a table out of my hat, did you?? :smiley: :smiley: :confused: :confused:

Matter of fact I have a JPEG of page 139, but since, for purposes of reference in a critique one is only supposed to quote short sections, I figured the table was by far the most illustrative.
While I never went to journalism school, I was always of the opinion that one adds appendices to a book in order to elaborate on or clarify certain aspects which would have been too exhaustive in the regular text.

In which case the table in question should have read:

Scale Gauge Represents

  1:32          1 (45mm)    Standard gauge (correct)
  1:29          1                 Standard gauge (incorrect)
  1:24          1                 3.5ft narrow gauge (correct), 3' narrow gauge (incorrect)
  1:22.5       1                 1Meter/39.37" gauge (correct), 3' narrow gauge (incorrect)
  1:20.3       1                 3' narrow gauge (correct)

(Not to mention a few more gauges that could be added to the table!)

As it is neither clear nor correct and the scale/gauge discussion will be an ongoing reality of the Large Scale hobby.

Since we’re on that topic, perhaps one of the most concise and clear explanations on the 1:20.3 scale origin was written by “Uncle Russ” Reinberg. It is titled “The 1:20.3 Revolution” http://www.collectorcafe.com/article_archive.asp?article=450&id=1094 highly recommended reading and very enlightening as background info.
It is a sorry day when those who are truly knowledgeable decide to publish less, while others, who dumb down content to the lowest common denominator, seem to thrive. Well, at least it doesn’t just apply to the Large Scale field, as many of us know. :wink: :wink: :frowning: :frowning:

PS I trust this isn’t a “personal attack” (at least not on this forum!). :wink: :slight_smile: Elsewhere it could conceivably be construed as such, since a certain publisher has a rather sever digestion problem. Call it as it is and it will be hard to swallow!

#11

I agree with whatever he said.

Except 7/8n2 got left out.

#12

Hi Tony, Yes, it is a very good write-up! The conclusion I arrived at regarding the publishers who wrangle with the “Scale/Gauge” problem and wrangle and wrangle… I believe in some instances it is the influence of the BS Factor which makes them conclude/see things that we can’t see. Before I get pointed replies, let me define “BS Factor” aka “Broad Spectrum Factor”. It makes you see the really large picture i.e. no narrow view of what scale is, but rather what scale could represent with some flexibility. It gives you a firm grasp of how a clear scale definition could impact the scale of your advertising revenue. It appreciates the information overload we all suffer under and tries to lighten the load by not burdening the reader with yet more concise information.

#13

Oooooops.

I guess I meant I agree with both of you.

#14
TonyWalsham said:
Oooooops.

I guess I meant I agree with both of you.


No worries, mate!

#15

Of course there is also a small consolation in that table. Small mercies, but at least “G” isn’t mentioned. This despite the fact that “G”, as practiced by LGB, is truly the most “versatile” item, it can cover anything from ca. 1:17 to ca. 1:33. And the zenith of versatility is reached when combining several of the scales in one “model”.

#16

Well , Hans , my latest LGB RhB carriages are dead on 1/24 long , they sit very nicely behind the truncated Ge$/$'s I meant 4/4’s there , and I keep on doing that , hitting the wrong button .
The way I see it is , better something that looks ok than nothing at all . My pocket allows the odd luxury of madness
in pursuing true scale , my Accucraft and Kiss stuff make nice reminders that you pay for what you get .
But , again , I have to agree with you that the manufacturers should be more honest . If the model looks right or nearly right , then they should say what scale it is intended to be used with .
Hiding the scale behind silly lettering does not help the customer one bit . I still insist on knowing the scale as in 1/20.3 or 1/19 , not Fn£ or some such barmy thoughts from those who should know better . They do know , of course , but they still make asses of themselves by promoting such silliness . "Look what I did , aren’t I brilliant standardising things ? " And making life even more difficult .
I just enjoy buying something that looks nice and gives ME enjoyment . Selfish ? Yes , in a way , but why not ?
The way HO suddenly went true scale should give us hope that the same may happen in our lifetimes to all the differing large scales . Keep the different “scales” , just make the stuff properly within that scale .
Mike .
ps
Bloody’ell it’s 'ot 'ere . Do not scoff , it is 95 at the moment , and I am not operating within my guarantee range .
I blame global warming . It’s the sun that does it .

#17

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we would all have a Merry Christmas! :slight_smile:

#18

Dennis Paulson said:
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we would all have a Merry Christmas! :slight_smile:

When it comes to scale, there’s no ifs and buts, those who don’t get it are most likely nuts.