Jerry Barnes said:Amen.
Cracks me up when guys get all wrapped up about scale. I just run what I like and build what I like and have fun, isn't that the whole idea of a hobby? Some get so wound up about this issue and others I don't see why they are in the hobby, don't seem to be enjoying it. To each his own, why put anyone down over something you disagree with?
tac
www.ovgrs.org
Jon Radder wrote
Is this site leaning toward more and better modelers, rather than the RTR crowd? Yes, I think so.
Do we have anything against RTR ? No. Not at all.
I certainly hope so. one of the reasons I chose this forum is that 1. I was made to feel welcome. 2. Even when someone made a model that was not of contest winning quality, no body made an unfavourable comment. 3. The other site that I considered has some extremely good builders but they tend to be somewhat anal about getting everything “prototypical”, God how I hate that word.
The main thing is to do what you enjoy and not worry about what anyone else thinks.
I run 1:22.5 rolling stock with my 1:20.3 locomotives and rolling stock and almost no one who sees my railroad ever even notices. For those that do I have a good story cooked up to explain the difference. I build most of my buildings in 1:24 because it is easy to work in and if the buildings are kept a little further from the track no one notices. Besides, lots of figures available in 1:24. I have also found that buildings in 1:20.3 are very large and because of space limitations I usually have to reduce the size anyway.
Be proud of what you do and don’t ever be afraid to share your work. That is how we all can benefit from each others experiences.
Just my 2 cents worth
Ron
Ron Spencer said:that's it! right between the eyes!
Jon Radder wrote ... Be proud of what you do and don't ever be afraid to share your work. That is how we all can benefit from each others experiences. Ron
but i would wish to speak up for prototypical modelling.
i asked myself, what is prototypical?
hoooray! i’m a prototypical modeller!
Well Korm, :lol: it all depends which prototype you model. And where they purchased the rolling stock, who built their infra structure etc. etc. As we say around here; “Your milage may vary!” :lol: :lol:
BTW on a similar note, recently I explained the term “Spaghetti design” to some of your “Landsleute”. Apparently not a new and completely unfamiliar concept, just a more apt description.
Here in NA most model railroaders (emphasis on model) know what a Spaghetti layout is, for the German frat it needed some explaining. BTW while I was at it I expanded/detailed the terms a bit more. A spaghetti layout is definitely narrow gauge, standard gauge is a broad noodle layout. All the in-between stuff - the gauge/scale ration a bit on the leaning side - could be linguine or fettucine. 
it does not astonish me, that germans don’t know the expression “spagetti” layout.
most put so many tunnels on their layoputs, that it reminds more of hollow maccaroni…
My scale is “suitable for G-Gauge.” :lol: Unless I’m going to run at jb’s house. Then I run only 1:29. It drives him crazy!
Tim Brien said:
It seems that if not specifically stated, then any project posted is assumed to be 1/20.3 scale or standard gauge, if obvious. The defacto 1:22.5/1:24 scale seems to be left a relic of the past and rarely spoken of. I have absolutely no intention of switching to 1:20.3 scale and find that this site is heading definately in that direction. For the newcomer, or someone not heavily involved in 1:22.5 scale, then this is not a problem. I am not particularly fond of the direction we are headed, as a large portion of the hobby are disenfranchised and lose a site to post their thoughts.Fifteen years ago, 1:20.3 scale was a modellers’ scale with little to none ready to run stock available. Today, the scale is heavily supported with most anything one would need (almost like Athearn in ‘h.o.’ scale), so there is little the hobbyist need do. Basically, select his personal choice of wheels and couplers and his locomotives and rolling stock are 'out of the box, ready to run. Is this a good direction? What of those left in the lurch who follow other scales? Will this become a dedicated 1:20.3 scale site?
The guys totally in 1:20.3, far from running “out of the box” are in large numbers very fine modelers that never leave well enough alone. If it can be changed, improved or modified they’ll do it. The simple fact is that for narrow gauge, North American, it’s the best and most accurate thing going. If I were to start over I would most likely go 100% 1:20.3. I don’t have any problem at all recognizing what is most obvious to me and admiring the fine work. The same methodology can be used in 1:22.5 or 1:24.
My RR, the POC, while built to 1:20.3 clearances is anything but pure. Most of my lokey fleet is 1:24 (Delton) and one, the 4-4-0 is 1:20.3. I also own a Bachmann 4-6-0 in 1:22.5 scale which I don’t run officially and a 1:20.3 Shay that doesn’t work with my RR at all scale wise. I also even had a 1:29 FA diesel I bought when there was little available.
I am currently working on my third scratchbuilt depot for Port Orford using plans from an old HO kit I built years and years ago. In the past I have been in O Tinplate, O Scale, On3, HO, HOn3, a bit of On30 (before there was anything offered here) and even dabbled in N around the time it was called OOO! The experiences in all these scales were valuable as there are certain principles and techniques picked up in each.
We might as well face the fact that as you say above 1:24 in particular is a relic of the past so far as availability is concerned. I personally would prefer to model entirely in 1:24. As for yourself I think you do some mighty fine modeling and I don’t really care what the heck the scale is. It just doesn’t matter except to yourself. So there’s no reason to feel that you’re left in the lurch. If you are you’ve got lots of company, including me. hehehe!
Lastly everytime you post some work in 1:22.5 or whatever I don’t think you’re leaving anyone in the lurch either. In fact I’ve seen nothing but praise for what you’ve done.
When I first purchased a garden railroad engine it was one I just thought looked beautiful. A Bachman two truck shay. It happened to be 1:20.3 in scale as it was one of their Sprectrum engines. I only model narrow gauge (US 3 foot gauge) from the 1850’s to the 1940’s. Every thing I own is steam except for one 44 ton diesel switcher which I am planning to replace with the new Bachman deisel. I just love the look of the short narrow gauge equipment and have no desire to model modern trains. I scratch build all my buildings and assesories such as figures, carrages, vehicles etc. I don’t have the space to make buildings to full size in 1:20.3 so I take liberties on their size. I make sure the doors and windows are the right size for my figures which are true to 1:20.3 scale. Of course a person can be as short as 4’ and as tall as 6’5". Maybe weigh 100 pounds or 300 pounds. What that means any size looks OK. I really don’t have the desire to fuss over everything and make it absolutly to scale. If it looks good to me next to my engines than it go into the layout. That also goes for my rolling stock. The early narrow gauge railroads made do with whatever was available so anything you can think of will probably have be done in the real world at the turn of the 19th century. Just forget about scale and run what you like.
Big John
I’m more artistic than scale. Kind of like an impressionist, if you will. If asked, my stuff is “1:24-ish” because the math is easy and stuff (mostly) comes out a manageable size. I think the end result (usually) looks good enough that I’m not ashamed to claim it.
Besides, I have a couple rivet counter buddies and my approach makes them sorta nuts… but then, they only finish about 1/4 the projects (or fewer) that I do, sooooo…
Quote:In terms of there ever being a distinct rift between the standard and narrow gauge product lines, I don't believe we'll ever see that in this hobby. The conglomeration of scales is too far ingrained into the fabric. I do see a wider variety of "out of the box" stuff as being decidedly beneficial. If people can buy what they want and have it run reliably, they're far more prone to stay in the hobby. While I believe it's of great benefit for a modeler to understand how to take a locomotive apart to fix any mechanical issues that may arise, I don't see where having mandatory just to have reliable models does any good. Get them involved with reliable equipment (in any scale), and they'll develop the skills they wish to develop as they progress.
... Basically, select his personal choice of wheels and couplers and his locomotives and rolling stock are 'out of the box, ready to run. Is this a good direction?
Quote:Only if those of you active in the other scales disappear. I agree with the overwhelming sentiment expressed by others here. True, I model 1:20.3, but only because I'm modeling a 3' gauge prototype. I don't care what scale others build their models to. I learn from their techniques, I'm inspired by their results.
... What of those left in the lurch who follow other scales? Will this become a dedicated 1:20.3 scale site?
Later,
K
I’m modeling in 1/24th scale.
My ‘dilemma’ is not down to a bad hair day. I am not criticising those who model in 1:20.3 scale, my ‘fear’ is that the hobby is going 1:20.3 scale and nothing is going to hold it back. There is simply too much detailed ready to run available, from Bachmann and Accucraft, to entice the hobbyist (including live steam). The concern that I expressed was that this site would be ‘over run’ with those who model in this scale and this will lessen the impact that other scales have in the hobby and on this forum. I fear that this site may become ‘LargeScale1:20.3Central’.
Tim Brien said:Even if it became large scale 1:20 why should it matter. Narrow guage is narrow guage no matter what the scale it is. Its the trains and structures that set the time period for me. As long as im here it wiill be 1:22-24 scale. Thats how I look at things. If I see Climax, forney set in the backwoods carrying logs I see a late 1800 early 1900 narrow guage logging RR not a 1:20 or 1:24 scale RR. You can still use 1:20 scale RR for ideas for a 1:24 scale RR. There still trains running in a garden with scenes.
My 'dilemma' is not down to a bad hair day. I am not criticising those who model in 1:20.3 scale, my 'fear' is that the hobby is going 1:20.3 scale and nothing is going to hold it back. There is simply too much detailed ready to run available, from Bachmann and Accucraft, to entice the hobbyist (including live steam). The concern that I expressed was that this site would be 'over run' with those who model in this scale and this will lessen the impact that other scales have in the hobby and on this forum. I fear that this site may become 'LargeScale1:20.3Central'.
I think I will begin modeling broad gauge 6’0" Atlantic and Great Western Rail Road. What scale will my train be then?
Tim Brien said:Not gonna happen, unless the hobby goes that way. We have mainline guys in 1:29, and lots of people modeling in 1:24. We're not promoting any one scale/gauge combination over another. I model in 1:20 and in 7/8, but that's only because that's where the locomotive, and level-of-detail I want is. I'd rather be modeling in 1:24, personally. Makes measuring and building things a snap.
My 'dilemma' is not down to a bad hair day. I am not criticising those who model in 1:20.3 scale, my 'fear' is that the hobby is going 1:20.3 scale and nothing is going to hold it back. There is simply too much detailed ready to run available, from Bachmann and Accucraft, to entice the hobbyist (including live steam). The concern that I expressed was that this site would be 'over run' with those who model in this scale and this will lessen the impact that other scales have in the hobby and on this forum. I fear that this site may become 'LargeScale1:20.3Central'.
I think its like the trend in HO now to model completely prototypical layouts. The ‘freelance layout’ is rapidly going away, for a more “model the N&S in 1965” approach.
David Hill said:1:40.64 if you run on 45mm track. :P
I think I will begin modeling broad gauge 6'0" Atlantic and Great Western Rail Road. What scale will my train be then?
Tim - it sure as hell ain’t going to get overrun by anybody who presently graces these pages, I’m pretty certain. Why? Well, we are all big boys here, and the term overrun has certain upleasant connotations of a bunch of slavering wackos taking over a site by sheer post-count number of mainly cr*p - something that HAS happened to other fora, I hear.
Uusually, however, these fora are the home-base of gaming nerds who get all anal about the way Lt Woof holds his grallock grrhr splunt in episode 41 of the Revege of the Return of the Star Trek jedi, or somthin’. Did he mutter ‘gragshftttsp wsplutt fnoqrhb’? or was it something else that really means ‘anoint my elbows with tulips’? Wh knows? And WGAS?
NOT easy-going, train-loving, laid back guys like us here present.
And for the record -
I run -
1/32nd, 1/30th, q/29th, 1/27th, 1/24th, 1/22.5, 1/20.3, 16mm/1 to 19 scale and 7/8ths [not mine yet, but soon will be] on my little tracks - and so can anybody else who comes here to run.
I’m even adding a third rail to make 32mm and have the facility to run 16.5 H0/0n30 between the rails, too.
‘Trains on tracks’ is what matters - I just can’t afford to go all one make and scale like many folks do - I have waaaaaay too much invested in different scales. Shall I run a Hudson and a few cars? Shall I run Welsh NG? D&RGS or White Pass? German pacifics from Epoch II - or maybe Epoch III?
Or feldbahn?
I can and I will.
tac
www.ovgrs.org
Bob McCown said:Bob, this is what for me I dread most, its one of the prime reason I dumped HO and N, I got dam sick and tired of the hyper-anal guys modeling the Blowjoe Subdivision Yard of the Whogivesacrap and Western RR on the afternoon of June 3, 1959 at exactly 3:32 in the afternoon on a slightly cloudy day and they have the 1354 photograghs, 205 blueprints, 5 books to proof it and a small warehouse to build it in and oh, what your doing exactly what I'm doing? then your not a real serious model railroader like the rest of us troglites confined to the darkness of our collective basements.
The 'freelance layout' is rapidly going away, for a more "model the N&S in 1965" approach.
Kinda sum it up? I doubt it will ever get that hyper-anal but I have noticed a drop in interest in freelancing and freelance kitbashing over the last few years.
I used to be a supplier to the model engineering hobby. One thing I noticed over the last decade or so, is the number of people who can build stuff without formal drawings/plans seems to be decreasing rather rapidly. Whether it’s due to lack of places to gain a decent shop education (especially how to think in 3 dimensions), or lack of inclination due to the mindset of our instant gratification society, I really don’t know.
That’s why I try to show a bunch of steps when I make my little mangles… If it gives one guy the courage to try, in whatever scale, then (to me) it’s worth the extra effort… (or maybe it’s really because I like to hear myself blather? lol )
Buy, build, stick to one scale, mix n match, operate, or go roundy-round… as long as you’re having fun playing trains, it’s all good.
Victor Smith said:This reminds me of one of the first indications to me that "these people think differently than I do". I was probably in my late teens, at an NMRA show around here. I had wandered over to the model contest table to marvel at the craftsmanship. There was a hub-bub going on about the locomotive that won first place (A gorgeous scratchbuilt N scale Union Pacific 4-8-4 Northern locomotive). The ribbon was being protested because the locomotive was built from the correct ALCO drawings the builder had obtained, but the guy protesting said something like "but everyone knows the UP changed the tender appliances before they put the locos into service".
I got dam sick and tired of the hyper-anal guys modeling the Blowjoe Subdivision Yard of the Whogivesacrap and Western RR on the afternoon of June 3, 1959 at exactly 3:32 in the afternoon on a slightly cloudy day and they have the 1354 photograghs, 205 blueprints, 5 books to proof it...