Large Scale Central

Origins of Large Scale scales.

General Discussion
#41

Mike McLaughlin said:

The dreaded scale question. I seem to have a lot of passers-by stop to see my railroad. It is in the front yard. Invariably, they all seem to want to ask me, “what scale is this”. Now, I’m not a rivet counter, or strictly adherent to scale. It’s my world, out of my own head. Mostly 1:29, some stuff is as big as 1:24, or as small as 1:32.

So when I answer their question about what scale are these trains, I see their eyes glaze over as I try and describe that, depending on the manufacturer, and whether you are doing narrow gauge or standard gauge it could be 1:20 to 1:32 running on the same 45mm track.

I think from now on I’ll just say G scale and leave it at that!

The correct answer is “yes”. That’s what I tell 'em.

TOC

#42

Inches, pounds, minutes. Meters, grams, seconds. Furlongs, wholeballs, oncearounds. No matter the system used, they are all equally accurate, if attention is applied.

#43

Steve Featherkile said:

Inches, pounds, minutes. Meters, grams, seconds. Furlongs, wholeballs, oncearounds. No matter the system used, they are all equally accurate, if attention is applied.

hehehe. Until the guy who tried to torque the heads on his engine…and thought the nanometersquared was foot pounds and broke all the bolts…

I had to order a rocker switch for a piece of sound equipment for the Church. Catalog…half the measurements are in meters…half in inches…and I ain’t got time to figure them out.

Carter did it, and we all ignored him.

TOC

#44

Devon Sinsley said:

Also what odd ball variations are there using different track? To my knowledge Fn2 is the only one and it is like the Large Scale equivalent to big foot. The vast majority don’t recognize its existence, there is little factual info on it, and the believers are die-hards that go to great lengths to prove its existence.

For me that’s where this came from. I am considering abandoning all rational thinking and scraping all Fn3 ambitions for the scratch builders paradise of Fn2. Honestly I am thinking seriously about psychiatric intervention or a 12 step program. I have really gotten derailed on the idea of Fn2. There is something very intriguing knowing that if I want it I will have to build it from scratch.

Devon

A few weeks ago I visited Jim Providenza a good friend in California. Jim models in Fn2 (30mm gauge track). His layout was recently in Model Railroad Craftsman. As there are no commercial models in Fn2, Jim scratch builds of performs major modifications to rolling stock.

The SJR&P is mainly Fn3 but this year we will start our dual gauge and standard gauge sections. Standard gauge in F is 70.6mm.

While 45mm track may have more scales on it then most there are a lot of other scales that share the same gauge track such as On30 sharing HO gauge track.

Stan

#45

Stan Ames said:

Devon Sinsley said:

As there are no commercial models in Kn2, Jim scratch builds of performs major modifications to rolling stock.

Stan

Another letter designation. I remember when the nmra decided they couldn’t have two scales on one gauge and squashed 17/64ths scale (correct scale for 0 gauge). We waited until Proto48 came along, which permanently and irrevocably split that part of the hobby (can you say "interchangeability?)

Proto48 is 1.177" gauge as opposed to the Maerklin 0 used for longer than any of us have been alive, of 1.250".

Talk about steamers falling between the rails, eh?

TOC

#46

Curmudgeon mcneely said:

Stan Ames said:

Devon Sinsley said:

As there are no commercial models in Kn2, Jim scratch builds of performs major modifications to rolling stock.

Stan

Another letter designation. I remember when the nmra decided they couldn’t have two scales on one gauge and squashed 17/64ths scale (correct scale for 0 gauge). We waited until Proto48 came along, which permanently and irrevocably split that part of the hobby (can you say "interchangeability?)

Proto48 is 1.177" gauge as opposed to the Maerklin 0 used for longer than any of us have been alive, of 1.250".

Talk about steamers falling between the rails, eh?

TOC

Dave

Indeed like 1:29 scale on 45mm track, 1:48 scale on 31.8mm track is indeed not totally accurate. I find it interesting how the US modelers and European models solved the same problem.

In the US Proto48 kept the scale but changed the track in order to line up both scale and gauge correctly.

The Europeans on the other hand kept the gauge of the track but changed the scale to 1:45 to make the scale and the gauge line up correctly.

And like 1:29, most in the US continue to use 1:48 scale on 31.8mm track because that is what has the widest availability.

Stan

#47

Behold the beauty of the NEM-MOROP 010 Standards table

the original from the PDF

.

First the column that lists the track gauges of the prototype in yellow e.g. 1250 -1700mm includes whatever falls into that range; 850 to <1250mm is the next smaller range and so on down to 300 to <400mm

.

.

Next the row that lists the model scale in red

.

.

And one more row in blue that references the track gauge of the model in mm

.

The row with the letters/Roman numerals is the list of model sizes which has been assigned based on the expanded Märklin scheme from the early years of the last century.

Now lets have a look at the 45mm track gauge and what will fit “the bill” starting with the largest scale which in this case is VIIp (Roman 8p) a park railway with somewhere between 300 to 399mm gauge and a scale of 1:8.

Next is the Vi, an industrial railway with a gauge of 400 to 649mm and a scale of 1:11

Next item is IIIe (é for étroit narrow in French) representing narrow gauge 650 to 849mm and a scale of 1:16

Here comes my favourite IIm (m for Meter gauge) representing narrow gauge between 850 and 1249mm at a scale of 1:22.5

And finally I which represents standard and broad gauge between 1250 and 1700mm and has a scale of 1:32

As most things in life it isn’t absolutely perfect, but it has a very nice symmetry that certainly appeals to my eye. However your mileage may differ.

BTW if one is able to fit one’s scale into this scheme e.g. IIm one has it made in the shade.

(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

#48

Periodic Table is easier to learn:

(http://sciencenotes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PeriodicTableCharge-BW.png)

#49

I guess since we mentioned P:48, we need to mention P:29…

Sounds like Large Scale isn’t the only scale with confusion problems…

Is it P:87 or P:87.1? “Interestingly, in Europe, HO is defined as 1:87, whereas in North America, it is defined as 3.5mm:1ft, which comes out very close to 1:87.1. This, together with conversion from Imperial to metric to Imperial units was the source of great confusion when we were figuring out the specs for Proto:87.” https://pembroke87.wordpress.com/about/

#50

Stan Ames said:

A few weeks ago I visited Jim Providenza a good friend in California. Jim models in Fn2 (30mm gauge track). His layout was recently in Model Railroad Craftsman. As there are no commercial models in Fn2, Jim scratch builds of performs major modifications to rolling stock.

I find this interesting. I have learned that there are three approaches to modeling 2’ gauge in and around the 1:20 sale. 16mm gauge uses 32 mm gauge track and corrects scale to match 16mm to the foot. The your friend is sticking to 1:20.3 scale and making the tack work at 30mm. While others have compromised and use 32mm gauge track and 1:20.3 scale; which is not truly an accurate representation of 2’gauge. Since 1:20.3 is an established scale for modeling 3’ gauge and in wanting to keep to one scale but wanting the readily available track I have chosen for the compromise.

I assume that the your buddy using 30mm track is hand laying it?

#51

WOW…alphabet soup…

#52

Stan Ames said:

Dave

Indeed like 1:29 scale on 45mm track, 1:48 scale on 31.8mm track is indeed not totally accurate. I find it interesting how the US modelers and European models solved the same problem.

In the US Proto48 kept the scale but changed the track in order to line up both scale and gauge correctly.

The Europeans on the other hand kept the gauge of the track but changed the scale to 1:45 to make the scale and the gauge line up correctly.

And like 1:29, most in the US continue to use 1:48 scale on 31.8mm track because that is what has the widest availability.

Stan

That’s what I said. Even gave the Proto48 gauge, and the 0 gauge. Nobody talks anymore. The proto guys can’t go run on an 0 layout, and vice-versa. I recall a discussion with Di Voss…the nmra is all about interchangeability…and in this case, it isn’t.

I do 2-rail 0, and I know what it’s like.

I have printouts of the nmra proposals. I learned long ago, due to the nmra purging data from their website, to print them out.

At one point they proposed LS29, 1.948-1.994" gauge on the rails. I suppose that’s for “correct” gauge for 1:29.

Can’t recall anyone trying to do that and change the Aristo Prime Mover gauge out.

They also had “G”. Covered under that designator 1:20-1:32.

“K”.

Still can’t find that designator.

TOC

#53

Craig Townsend said:

I guess since we mentioned P:48, we need to mention P:29…

Sounds like Large Scale isn’t the only scale with confusion problems…

Is it P:87 or P:87.1? “Interestingly, in Europe, HO is defined as 1:87, whereas in North America, it is defined as 3.5mm:1ft, which comes out very close to 1:87.1. This, together with conversion from Imperial to metric to Imperial units was the source of great confusion when we were figuring out the specs for Proto:87.” https://pembroke87.wordpress.com/about/

Craig,

One day I will find the write-up (again) on how “this all” came about. It was a very interesting progression, including the anomaly of measuring the track gauge from the center of the railheads.

What Stan forgot to mention in regards to the “0” effect, OK most of the European "O "scale is 1:45 (i.e. 45x32mm= 1440mm kind of close to 1435mm (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)), but someone figured that twice the size of 1:87 (yeah, that infamous 3.5mm/ft) should be 1:43.5 and the rest is history.

I am surprised, and disappointed, that no one (to the best of my knowledge) decided to pick the model railway scales and built a PhD thesis around it. That could settle things, more or less, but my hunch is that it would be less.

(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

#54

Curmudgeon mcneely said:

…

That’s what I said. Even gave the Proto48 gauge, and the 0 gauge. Nobody talks anymore. The proto guys can’t go run on an 0 layout, and vice-versa. I recall a discussion with Di Voss…the nmra is all about interchangeability…and in this case, it isn’t.

I do 2-rail 0, and I know what it’s like.

…

That’s almost like “RhB layout Grischun”; if it isn’t RhB on 45mm track, well it isn’t likely to be running.

(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-smile.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)

#55

Are you sorry that you asked the question yet, Devon?

#56

Steve Featherkile said:

Are you sorry that you asked the question yet, Devon?

I got my answer back on page one for as far as I cared to know. But I am learning quite a bit about large scale mentality. There are two main schools, those that are stickler for the numbers and wing it types. I came to Large scale because the subject is wide open to interpretation or artistic lisc and for the most part everyone is accepting of each other and there hair brain ideas.

#57

Hans-Joerg Mueller said:

I am surprised, and disappointed, that no one (to the best of my knowledge) decided to pick the model railway scales and built a PhD thesis around it. That could settle things, more or less, but my hunch is that it would be less.

(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

The question isn’t “if or what” it would settle, it would be more of a question of who’s providing the funding for said PhD study. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)If the NMRA was to fund it, one could guess that a certain outcome would result; if someone else funded it the result might be something completely different! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)

I’ll go hide in my corner now and wait for the first PhD on fluid dynamics and train handling to get finished. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

#58

Craig Townsend said:

Hans-Joerg Mueller said:

I am surprised, and disappointed, that no one (to the best of my knowledge) decided to pick the model railway scales and built a PhD thesis around it. That could settle things, more or less, but my hunch is that it would be less.

(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

The question isn’t “if or what” it would settle, it would be more of a question of who’s providing the funding for said PhD study. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)If the NMRA was to fund it, one could guess that a certain outcome would result; if someone else funded it the result might be something completely different! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)

I’ll go hide in my corner now and wait for the first PhD on fluid dynamics and train handling to get finished. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

Depends on who was in control of the PHD Working Group, one would think.

TOC

#59

Devon Sinsley said:

Steve Featherkile said:

Are you sorry that you asked the question yet, Devon?

I got my answer back on page one for as far as I cared to know. But I am learning quite a bit about large scale mentality. There are two main schools, those that are stickler for the numbers and wing it types. I came to Large scale because the subject is wide open to interpretation or artistic lisc and for the most part everyone is accepting of each other and there hair brain ideas.

After Chemo I’m left with hare brain ideas… they jump around alot!

#60

Steve Featherkile said:

Devon, the track we use is not really 45mm, rather, it is 1.75 inches. That equates to 44.45mm, which then gets rounded up to 45mm.

As to scale, I run a narrow gauge, 1:29 scale on 1.75 inch track. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)

Fascinating. I earned my first negative reputation point for this post. Don’t know why, as I spoke the truth. I guess he can’t handle the truth. I wonder if he will have the courtesy and courage to tell me why he objects? PMs welcome.