HJ, I probably have somewhat more faith in LGBoA than you do so I won’t hesitate to say that EPL handed them a box and said “Make it fit.” With that in mind, Jack’s statement “as close to “G” scale as I could get it” would hold true. I’ve always felt that LGBoA was doing the best they could under the circumstances. Some of the modern freight cars are fairly close to scale and look quite acceptable with other manufacturer’s products.
Hello HJ,
This is not a challenge, just a question. Have you ever measured and posted the data for any other brand products than LGB? It doesn’t affect me because I like toy trains and have for decades before LGB.
But, it would be easier to understand the photos posted if your grading system was applied to all three pieces.
Jack
Warren Mumpower said:Warren,
HJ, I probably have somewhat more faith in LGBoA than you do so I won't hesitate to say that EPL handed them a box and said "Make it fit." With that in mind, Jack's statement "as close to "G" scale as I could get it" would hold true. I've always felt that LGBoA was doing the best they could under the circumstances. Some of the modern freight cars are fairly close to scale and look quite acceptable with other manufacturer's products.
Jack Lynch’s statement was " As close to 1:29 as I could get it" so the expectations were a bit greater. 
Fred Mills said:Fr Phred. As a man of the cloth, you should know the answer to that question. Nothing LGB makes has correct scale. The question needn't be asked. :) :)
Just curious, what scale are the new LGB Amtrak passenger cars ?
Old Phart.
Post a pic of your Genesis and the Amtrak car hooked up, if you would, please.
TOG
Jack Barton said:
Hello HJ, This is not a challenge, just a question. Have you ever measured and posted the data for any other brand products than LGB? It doesn’t affect me because I like toy trains and have for decades before LGB. But, it would be easier to understand the photos posted if your grading system was applied to all three pieces. Jack
Yes, there was a prototype and model comparison article of the Gbk-v from Kiss and LGB in BTO #116; LGB Ek and the Kiss Ek in BTO #118. Since I don’t usually buy equipment that doesn’t fit my RhB scheme, I don’t review that equipment. However there was the one occasion when the discussion revolved around the F3 and F7, someone measured the engines, I compiled the chart.
The interesting feature of charts is: a) prevents most of the squabbling and niggling b) when there are “scores” it is clearly stated how I arrive at those i.e.
c) everyone can double check the measurements, provided they have the reviewed item and the required measuring instruments The charts are a direct results of the RBB stating “it can’t be”; “prove it”; “but it looks really good”; “that is hardly possible” etc. etc. etc. Of course there are those who find my criteria too strict, fine let them have their own. I never claimed that it was anyone’s but my own, mind you the European mags have a very similar grading system. Have had that for many years! None of the “essentially correct for 1:xxx” statements!!
Its almost like the Star Trek chapter , “The Trouble With Tribbles" LGB keeps popping up everywhere !
[img/]
[img/] And to make matters even worse , non scale dragonflys attack !
[img/] LGB Scale dragonfly ?
[img/] LGB will live forever in postings ! These new LGB streetcars operate really nice , and out in the real world , look pretty good .
I don’t have any problem with your criteria at all! When one chooses to do research, they get to use the parameters they design.
I was referring to the photo’s posted in this theme. I feel it does little good to discuss the deviations from a set of ratios if we don’t know if or how the other two items pictured deviate and to what percentage. Height is often one of the biggest areas of deviation.
If the loco pictured above has a 1:32 height like the USA F3, then it is little wonder if the two look odd together. The same goes for the USAT coach. Is it closer to 1:32 than 1:29 in height? I don’t have any diesel era items to know.
Jack
Jack Barton said:
I don't have any problem with your criteria at all! When one chooses to do research, they get to use the parameters they design.I was referring to the photo’s posted in this theme. I feel it does little good to discuss the deviations from a set of ratios if we don’t know if or how the other two items pictured deviate and to what percentage. Height is often one of the biggest areas of deviation.
If the loco pictured above has a 1:32 height like the USA F3, then it is little wonder if the two look odd together. The same goes for the USAT coach. Is it closer to 1:32 than 1:29 in height? I don’t have any diesel era items to know.
Jack
Warren wrote
Warren Mumpower said:John Joseph Sauer said:Absolutely NOT! They look like sh*t with the USAT passenger cars and almost as bad with the Aristo smoothsides..lowered or not. They are compatable with the Genesis only!!
Compatible with 1/29th.I was hoping to be able to add a few to my passenger fleet but they look so horrible with my USAT cars that I won’t buy any more than the one orphan that I now have.
I stated that the Amfleet car is 8.5% higher when compared to a USAT car, which IMHO is a bit closer than " look like sh*t ".
Yes, we are still waiting for the relevant “rail to top of roof” measurement of the LGB Amfleet item to determine that particular scale. So what is it? Is it proprietary information as in “You need to buy one to find out”?
It is mighty curious how quickly some can jump in to a topic, but when it comes to producing real information there is … nothing!
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I stated that the Amfleet car is 8.5% higher when compared to a USAT car,..................Yes, we are still waiting for the relevant “rail to top of roof” measurement of the LGB Amfleet item to determine that particular scale. So what is it? Is it proprietary information as in “You need to buy one to find out”?
It is mighty curious how quickly some can jump in to a topic, but when it comes to producing real information there is … nothing!
I was simply asking “8.5% higher than what scale”?
“Proprietary?” The chemical composition of the plastic used would be considered proprietary information, but the height measurement of a publicly sold model is hardly proprietary. I guess “proprietary” could mean that you already have the measurement and don’t want to give it out because it doesn’t fit your argument. I thought Warren could provide that information since he has one available to photograph.
I was hoping we could discuss without resorting to attacks.
Jack
Jack Barton said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I stated that the Amfleet car is 8.5% higher when compared to a USAT car,..................Yes, we are still waiting for the relevant “rail to top of roof” measurement of the LGB Amfleet item to determine that particular scale. So what is it? Is it proprietary information as in “You need to buy one to find out”?
It is mighty curious how quickly some can jump in to a topic, but when it comes to producing real information there is … nothing!
I was simply asking “8.5% higher than what scale”?“Proprietary?” The chemical composition of the plastic used would be considered proprietary information, but the height measurement of a publicly sold model is hardly proprietary. I guess “proprietary” could mean that you already have the measurement and don’t want to give it out because it doesn’t fit your argument. I thought Warren could provide that information since he has one available to photograph.
I was hoping we could discuss without resorting to attacks.
Jack
See?
"I was simply asking “8.5% higher than what scale”? "
Typical attempt, blatant, no less, to derail the discussion.
“what scale” is precisely the question.
Is it 1:31?
1:29?
1:28?
1:27?
1:26?
You seem to want folks to think you have all the answers, so 94% of consumers want to know, Jack, what scale?
Problem with that answer would be if stated, and someone compared the model to the actual dimension by scale, well, Houston, we have a problem.
Nobody is bashing.
Actual data, gleaned from measurements of the model and compared to the prototype, is NOT bashing, and you may be rather surprised on some forums if you or your cohorts try that “bashing” line when it isn’t, to find out how long your posts stay put.
There is another thread on another forum that is now locked, on purpose, once the facts of the situation were posted.
If they were wrong, they of the post would have been deleted.
Think about that.
“Proprietary”…let’s see…“Suitable for Large Scale”?
If a manufacturer won’t tell you, the consumer can only surmise it is “proprietary”.
I cartainly would hope that those in marketing for any company would see the 94% of consumers wanting to know the “scale” of a product and adjust their marketing to align with consumer demands.
Curmudgeon said:Mr Goodson,
I certainly would hope that those in marketing for any company would see the 94% of consumers wanting to know the "scale" of a product and adjust their marketing to align with consumer demands.
I personally feel you are making a bit much of this 94% figure.
If I read Marc Horovitz correctly in his June “From the Editor” column, 2000 of Garden Railway’s 30,000 plus subscribers are sent a questionnaire. Questionnaire returns a usually quite low. As an insider do you have a figure for the number of returns?
Of those that did return, a 94% response to this question is significant and worthy of evaluation. But it doesn’t mean 28,200 readers have made this response.
(As a note: Classic TOY Train magazine has twice the subscribers of GR.)
Jack Barton said:Curmudgeon said:Mr Goodson,
I certainly would hope that those in marketing for any company would see the 94% of consumers wanting to know the "scale" of a product and adjust their marketing to align with consumer demands.I personally feel you are making a bit much of this 94% figure.
If I read Marc Horovitz correctly in his June “From the Editor” column, 2000 of Garden Railway’s 30,000 plus subscribers are sent a questionnaire. Questionnaire returns a usually quite low. Do you have a figure for the number of returns?
Of those that did return, a 94% response to this question is significant and worthy of evaluation. But it doesn’t mean 28,200 readers have made this response.
(As a note: Classic TOY Train magazine has twice the subscribers of GR.)
Jack,
That statistic is just like any other statistic, it is believed to be accurate for the sample that was used to compile the statistic.
Of equal interest is the following passage in that editorial
Marc Horovitz in the editorial of the June 2006 Garden Railways mag said:I won't ask what statistics EPL/LGBoA used to arrive at marketing and production decisions, I believe the "fire sales" speak louder than the statistics!
[b] Can't you make the manufacturers specify the scale of their products?[/b] No, unfortunately, we can't. This comment was frequent. Manufacturers, please take note.
After all this speculating and debating about the pros and cons of building equipment to a standard scale. I got to wondering what success a major MODEL RAILROAD manufacturer would have in HO, S, N, or O SCALES, if they were to produce for the MODEL RAILROAD market, a model that was “CLOSE TO” the scale.
After thinking on this subject for a moment, I suddenly realized the big factor that everyone is missing, and makes this whole debate rather useless.
The fact is; that those most disturbed by a “LACK OF SCALE” or deviation from any standard scale, are the MODEL RAILROADERS, and the rest of the group are really “TOY TRAIN ENTHUSIASTS”.
Never the "TWAIN" shall meet, but then there is nothing wrong with being a member of either group, as long as we respect each others' enjoyment.
The most disappointment I get, as a “Model Railroader” in Large Scale, is due to a limited market for this size of equipment. So if a “Toy Train” manufacturer produces a “Toy” model of a piece of equipment, in a size not compatable with other manufacturers’; it will not likely be produced in “Scale” by any one else. So I’m denied the opportunity to have a SCALE model of it.
To some this is of no importance…fine…but it sure would be nice to be able to mix and match, in Large Scale, as we can in the smaller scales, when enjoying MODEL RAILROADING from an operational point of view.
It might be noted that I don’t think the cost of producing a model in a standard scale, would be any higher than a toy version. The other interesting note is that it possibly would open the market to larger sales if the model was of interest to all parties.
Just here on this forum; some have said that they won’t buy certain items due to their incompatibility, scale wise.They represent a market that is being missed, don’t you think; which could be included in total sales, without any added costs ?
Bizarre to say the least.
The only demographics we have, and you want t discount them.
Those surveys are random, different subscribers each time (I bothered to call and find out…did you?).
Easy job to divert any and all attention to the question at hand by trying to discredit the results.
Quite typical, actually.
Oh, let’s take H0…in the early days, when some manufacturer put a 00 body on an H0 chassis…folks sure as heck noticed.
I do believe, based upon the spinning we have been seeing, that the old MR/nmra standards for review might just start showing up in print.
Big Time.
Jack, you ever going to give up your diversion tactics?
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:I love it when the "Tag Teaming" starts. Figured out that it is a great way to avoid direct answers?
That statistic is just like any other statistic, it is believed to be accurate for the sample that was used to compile the statistic.Of equal interest is the following passage in that editorial
Marc Horovitz in the editorial of the June 2006 Garden Railways mag said:
[b] Can't you make the manufacturers specify the scale of their products?[/b] No, unfortunately, we can't. This comment was frequent. Manufacturers, please take note.
Statistics was my favorite class at the ole Alma Mater. To make any evaluation I would first need to know the phrasing of the original question and as I said the actual response figure. As I recall the over-riding theme of the class was: One can make statistics do anything you want them to. I think 5 minutes of TV news viewing would convince most skeptics.
Marc was reporting the “comments” on the questionnaires, the same people that had responded to the question. Marc is a good fellow and a true gentleman. I would never consider that he would “try” to influence any response. I am planning to write him soon about the future of the magazine. I have a quite large collection of on-line posts if he is interested.
Now waiting for the Tag. Got to get back to the yard work.
Fred Mills said:
...........................................It might be noted that I don’t think the cost of producing a model in a standard scale, would be any higher than a toy version. The other interesting note is that it possibly would open the market to larger sales if the model was of interest to all parties.
Just here on this forum; some have said that they won’t buy certain items due to their incompatibility, scale wise.They represent a market that is being missed, don’t you think; which could be included in total sales, without any added costs ?
Fr. Fred,
That has been my refrain since 2000/2001
However there are people who don’t want to hear the fact that producing an item to scale i.e. one uniform scale for length, width and height, is no more expensive than producing a fantasy item. Pick the correct prototype and it will even fit the platen of the injection moulding machines one already has!
The usual comeback is: we don’t want it with all the detail! Well, all the detail doesn’t need to be added! Detail and accurate scale are not synonyms.
Quite often I have found that the loudest objectors seem to have:
a) no idea where the expenses in tooling are buried (but they are good at quoting high figures)
b) no idea what technologies are involved in production of the tooling and how a modern tool room operates (they keep telling everyone who likes to read it “I am not interested” or variations of same).
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Ken Fillar said:Ken,Fred Mills said:Stiring the pot, again, eh?
Just curious, what scale are the new LGB Amtrak passenger cars ?Please enlighten us, what are the respective scales of the LGB Amtrak coaches as regards length, width and height.
Is 1:31.3 for the length correct? i.e. 26009.6mm (85ft 4inches) : 830mm (length of LGB item over couplers) = 31.3
Is 1: 28.6 for the width correct? i.e. 3200.4mm (10ft 6 inches) : 112mm (width of LGB item) = 28.6
Here are the basic proto measurements
Length over Couplers…85’4"
Width…10’6"
Height-Rail to Roof Top…12’8"
Top of Rail to Step Level…17"
Top of Rail to Vestibule Floor. … 51 1/2"
I’d be more interested in what scale the Aristo and USA cars are. They claim to be 1/29 but just how close.
I hear the are in the 1/31 ish range.
So, who can measure up a new USA Train passenger car? or a new Aristo passenger car, how about the height of say a Dash 9 ?
So, there’s a good job for you, Ken.
Keep you from spewing for a while, anyway.
I await your posted results!
For the record (since I did check), the GR Surveys are random, 2,000 per survey, and the number has not changed in a long time of 93-94%, as in several years.
So, for statistical purposes, let’s say two years.
6 surveys per year.
That’s 12,000 per year.
In two years, that’s 24,000.
Out of 30,000 subscribers.
What part of that don’t you understand again?
Oh, and tag-team?
You can’t be serious, with the three of you doing this.
But, we have a copy of your play-book, and are just doing this by your rules!
Curmudgeon said:Dave,
I await your posted results!
Apparently you missed the boat, again.
I could care less about a specific number.
I believe in G scale…
For 39? years. 
But, others also believe some manufacture make 1/29 scale products just because they claim they do, but are they really all around 1/29 scale?
Ken Fillar said:
So, who can measure up a new USA Train passenger car? or a new Aristo passenger car, how about the height of say a Dash 9 ?!
Curmudgeon said:
I await your posted results!
Ken Fillar said:Not trying to take sides, but this is a argumentative contradiction.
I could care less about a specific number.
You asked a SPECIFIC question, TOC says in so many words, if you think its important, provide them yourself, which draws a reply that you really dont care.
Why bother ask in the first place if you now claim to have no interest in what the fact actually are?
Just looking at Warren pics of the proto equipement its apparent to a one eyed monkey that no matter what USAs scale is the LGB is still taller by a noticable margin. Yet both are supposedly 1/29 scale.
Now I dont have a dog in this fight as I have no interest in standard gauge stuff like this, but I do find the aurgument interesting.
People are asking reasonable questions (what scale is it?) and we are getting responses that are really something.
“LGBs cars are obviously not to scale when placed next to USAs”
“Well how do you know USAs are correct?, I dont beleive my eyes, someone else provide me data to prove it”
“Do it yourself and you wont have to question the results”
“Well I dont care what the numbers really are”
Its like an Abbot and Costello skit.
The diversionary tactics being employed here (and not very well I’ll add), do nothing to divert the original questions. What scale is it and why cant manufactures just give us a simple aswer, were all adults and can take the facts.
Personally I think LGBoA in future should just say they are not made to scale and are toy train caracitures “close” to a certain scale, and be done with it! All this hyperbola just makes them look bad in an already edgy market about their ultimate future.