Large Scale Central

What Scale are the LGB Amtrk passenger cars?

General Discussion
#41

“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.”

I almost think that’s what they are doing without actually doing so.

“Suitable for Large Scale” and “Judge for yourself” seem to fall right into that category.

Like you, and I have posted this, I am not interested in modern SG pasenger service.

BTW, Aristo heavyweights are 72’ long…

#42
Ken Fillar said:
Curmudgeon said:
I await your posted results!
Dave,

Apparently you missed the boat, again.

I could care less about a specific number.

I believe in G scale… :wink:
For 39? years. :slight_smile:

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?


Kenny,

OK, so now we know that you don’t care. Some of us knew already.

To get back to the original question which Fr. Fred posed “What Scale are the LGB Amtrk passenger cars ?” is what he asked.

We determined that the length is somewhere in the 1:31.3 neighbourhood, the width is in the 1:28.6 neighbourhood, what we are still looking for is the height of the LGB Amfleet car from top of rail to top of roof, once we have that measurement we can give Fr.Fred the answer he deserves.

What is it? Do you know or don’t you? Or is it too rudimentary a question with which you can’t be bothered???

On the “other mfgs 1:29 scale”, well, there are quite a few reviews in the GBp which have a close look at just that. But for starters I found the approx. 50ft boxcar comparison very interesting. Here’s the link to the PDF, translation by yours truly. Aristo, LGB, USAT box car review

#43
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


Thank you Jack.
That was precisely my point in response to the original model comparison photos published in the original thread, (since deleted) at GR.
They were an insult to the intelligence of the reader.
Then, when called on that, we got a blatant “G” scale which as we all know, is 1:22.5 scale.
I would have had no argument if Bucksco had said “LS” or “Large scale” or “we don’t make scale models”.
“G” scale is just plain wrong.
I would have expected better from someone so high up in the pecking order at LGBofA.

#44

Like I said, some of you need to get out your ruler when compairing other manufacturers products. They may not be what a person may assume.

USA Trains 1/31 ishes pass cars are not going to look good behind the LGB Amfleet cars when there a few scale numbers off, say 1/31,32 ish to 1/29ish.

Why should a person feel that LGB should spend bucks to make cars look good with say Aristo and USAT? Why doesn’t USAT & Aristo & Bachmann make say 1/27 scale trains since 1/29 scale isn’t correct anyway for standard gauge on 45mm track?
Why doesn’t Ford make doors to fit my Chevy?
Ever go to a Honda shop to get motor parts for a Harley.
Ever wonder why an assosiate of Bachmann shares so much scale interest, everywhere, about the products that Lehmann/LGB made?

So,

Ever think about kicking up some cash (hundreds of thousands or millions) for some new 1/29 scale LGB molds?
Just wondering.

#45

They were an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

Tony,

You know that photo was posted on MLS way back when the Genesis first came out.
Not just now on the GR site.
Why continue it here in the first place. It happened over there. But the three of you do nothing but continuously gripe about ANYTHING and EVERTHING that could possibly concern LGB.

A Judge for you self comment is not ignorant.

The pic showed a size comparison with an Aristo Dash 9 so let the reader deside.

BTW,
THE READER WAS HAPPY WITH THE PIC.
He commented that.

So why Tony are you doing the griping???
Inquiring minds would like to know.

FYI.
Jack has also mentioned many times before that they would be as close to 1/29 as he could get them.
Go to MLS for references.

#46

Boy.

That takes the cake.

#47
Curmudgeon said:
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?


Well, Mr Goodson it’s the RANDOM part. When Marc says the surveys are randomly selected, I feel comfortable believing him.

There is no way 12 random selections of 2000 will produce 24,000 different people. In a random selection it is likely and probable that one individual will receive all 12. It is also likely and probable that another subscriber would have received none. Unless it is a random selection of those who have not been selected previously? (annually?)

I feel a lot more comfortable when Mr Mueller is handling the math!

#48
Ken Fillar said:
Like I said, some of you need to get out your ruler when compairing other manufacturers products. They may not be what a person may assume.

USA Trains 1/31 ishes pass cars are not going to look good behind the LGB Amfleet cars when there a few scale numbers off, say 1/31,32 ish to 1/29ish.

Why should a person feel that LGB should spend bucks to make cars look good with say Aristo and USAT? Why doesn’t USAT & Aristo & Bachmann make say 1/27 scale trains since 1/29 scale isn’t correct anyway for standard gauge on 45mm track?
Why doesn’t Ford make doors to fit my Chevy?
Ever go to a Honda shop to get motor parts for a Harley.
Ever wonder why an assosiate of Bachmann shares so much scale interest, everywhere, about the products that Lehmann/LGB made?

So,

Ever think about kicking up some cash (hundreds of thousands or millions) for some new 1/29 scale LGB molds?
Just wondering.


Kenny,

Fr. Fred asked a simple question. You apparently don’t know the answer and just keep spewing the “party-line”. Fine, so once again, you don’t know!

As far as injection moulds and other tooling is concerned, do you have any expertise in that field? If yes, please enlighten us. I’ve only worked in that field for 38 years; I am perfectly willing to learn a whole bunch more.

#49
Ken Fillar said:
Snip the ballast

FYI.
Jack has also mentioned many times before that they would be as close to 1/29 as he could get them.
Go to MLS for references.


Kenny,

Let us presume that if one states “As close to 1:29 as I can get them.” that statement refers to the ability of that person to either build the model or supervise the building of the model. But in either case if 1:25.5 through 1:29.2 (LGB Genesis) is “as close to 1:29 as I can get it” then one :

a) is not a very good model builder

or

b) is not a very good supervisor

or

c) was just mentioning 1:29 because many people were hoping they would be 1:29.

#50

Kenny,

Fr. Fred asked a simple question. You apparently don’t know the answer and just keep spewing the “party-line”. Fine, so once again, you don’t know!

HJ,
That’s a simple answer.
G - scale :slight_smile:

38 years in the mold bussines, then you should be able to figure out why the demention are what they are. right?

#51
Ken Fillar said:
Kenny,

Fr. Fred asked a simple question. You apparently don’t know the answer and just keep spewing the “party-line”. Fine, so once again, you don’t know!

HJ,
That’s a simple answer.
G - scale :slight_smile:

38 years in the mold bussines, then you should be able to figure out why the demention are what they are. right?


Kenny,

Slow down, when you type quickly you make more mistakes than usual. :wink: :smiley: :lol:

On those “demention” - yes Sir, that one is as good as the “LGB Ventilatoren”!

As a matter of fact I’m well aware why the dimensions are what they are. In computerese it is called “GIGO”: Garbage In Garbage Out.

BTW I didn’t write that I was in the mould business for 38 years, when you’re in a hurry you don’t seem to comprehend what you read. Best read again.

But we can sum up: the LGB items are cases of demention! :lol: That’s the reason the dimensions are “not always” to scale. :lol: :lol:

#52

The common response we are getting is ‘G scale’. To be correct, G scale is 1/22.5 scale, as originally devised by Lehmann for one metre gauge rolling stock running on 45mm gauge 1 track. This was ratified by the NMRA standards commitee. To quote ‘G scale’ is simply incorrect when referring to other than 1/22.5 scale items.

The real answer should be that Lehmann products have ‘no scale’, as the word scale, implies that the item is a replica of an item to a defined reduced ratio. When the ratio chosen is not consistent, then the term ‘scale’ is irrelevant. This is not a criticism of LGB products, as apart from its variation on European models in the past, Lehmann have generally not restricted themselves to such a defining criteria as ‘scale’. Lehmann products should be viewed as an entity to themselves and not compared to other items of a known defined scale ratio. To do so confuses the modeller.

#53
Tim Brien said:
The common response we are getting is 'G scale'. To be correct, G scale is 1/22.5 scale, as originally devised by Lehmann for one metre gauge rolling stock running on 45mm gauge 1 track. This was ratified by the NMRA standards commitee. To quote 'G scale' is simply incorrect when referring to other than 1/22.5 scale items.

The real answer should be that Lehmann products have ‘no scale’, as the word scale, implies that the item is a replica of an item to a defined reduced ratio. When the ratio chosen is not consistent, then the term ‘scale’ is irrelevant. This is not a criticism of LGB products, as apart from its variation on European models in the past, Lehmann have generally not restricted themselves to such a defining criteria as ‘scale’. Lehmann products should be viewed as an entity to themselves and not compared to other items of a known defined scale ratio. To do so confuses the modeller.


Tim

Quite right.

Did you know that Lehmann used to build a climbing monkey?? Nobody wanted to know what scale it was, it was a monkey and the rest was monkey business! :wink: :slight_smile:

#54

HJ,
if only I had of started collecting those little climbing monkeys, instead of collecting monkey business, then I would be a rich man. The early Lehmann toys are gold mine investments.

#55

LGB , is number 1 , the most talked about trains in the world .

Fred your post with the thought ,

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.

Fred you really have shown the light , and it really makes me understand , the most talked about subject in large scale [ what ever scale it is ] , that it is the two groups , playing on the same track !

Thanks Fred , I hope others will understand this also .

#56
Curmudgeon said:
Boy.

That takes the cake.


He is having his cake and eating it too.
Clever man?

Ken, et al, can’t deal with the message so once again they attack the messenger.

#57
Jack Barton said:
Curmudgeon said:
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?


Well, Mr Goodson it’s the RANDOM part. When Marc says the surveys are randomly selected, I feel comfortable believing him.

There is no way 12 random selections of 2000 will produce 24,000 different people. In a random selection it is likely and probable that one individual will receive all 12. It is also likely and probable that another subscriber would have received none. Unless it is a random selection of those who have not been selected previously? (annually?)

I feel a lot more comfortable when Mr Mueller is handling the math!


Okay, Jack, you come up with a random possibility of actual numbers.
Folks seem to want to know the scale.
Note that it didn’t ask if they cared what that scale was.
In all of this, just in case you missed it (which I would guess happened), the remains of the ex-LGB are on the table, announcements are pending, and the hope of the 94% of the Garden Railroad Community is that whoever the new owners are, they will see this 94% and if nothing else run their own numbers.

I do believe, completely, that the days of the rubber-scale toy are past.
Not that they won’t continue, but rather that the demand for such is no longer a sales leader.

That said, when they do run the numbers, they might find that #1 gauge modellers are a very small segment of the hobby, and ones who model specific themes, as it were, smaller yet.

Unfortunately, I know what some of those numbers are, know what all manufacturers are up against, and the “mindset” of the hobbyist who is not satisfied with the current release, rather, when the latest comes out, on some forums you will see statements to the effect of, gee, that was nice…what’s next?

That’s hobby-wide.

And, with the cost of materials (copper and brass particularly), rising mandatory minimum wage hikes, shipping costs, value of Yuan to Dollar, the cost of out toys is going to be nothing like what we saw 10 years ago.

I’m not arguing with you.
However, the only publicised survey of consumer wants is what we have here.
You have better?
Post it.

The only way folks will understand is to read all they can.

Lionel didn’t publish scales back when either, and some wag found in measuring thousands of pieces it was 1:52 or 1:53.

#58

Okay, I’ve seen enough. I can’t stand by without commenting any longer! Jack, Ken and everybody that feels like LGB is “under attack,” guess what? YOU ARE!!! (maniacle laughter followed by sinister music…) Seriously though…I model narrow gauge and I have a mixture of Aristo, LGB and Bachmann that I started out with as that was what I was able to acquire. I couldn’t afford the brass Accucraft stuff in 1:20.3 and then came the Bachmann Shay and I began my metamorphosis to Fn3. AMS and Bachmann have become my major manufacturers of choice because they model in the scale that I have chosen!
You may not like the fact but there are people that want their trains to be in the same scale! I have long known that LGB’s trains were fantastic runners but that they were NOT to any particular scale and that was okay as they weren’t meant to be! Someone asked why LGBof A (by the way, I thought you guys were now called G45 or something. What’s up with the LGBof A?) should make trains compatable with USA and Aristocraft and I would think the answer was obvious! LGB went bankrupt! Kaput! Never mind the reasons, the fact is that you guys are trying to pick up the pieces and continue and I wish you the best but I also am waiting for the answer to a question (No…I’m NOT going to ask what scale something is as we ALL know that these trains aren’t to any particular scale. Rather, I am wondering if, when financing is more manageable, that SCALE might be a consideration in future products?
Back in 1968, LGB was it. Even when Lewis, Charlie, H.Lee, Phil and the rest joined in, LGB maintained a seemingly higher level and continued to enjoy almost a cult status and prices reflected this. Fast forward 30 years and the other manufacturers were catching up and in some cases, even surpassing LGB! Scale fidelity is such a situation. I would seriously consider manufacturing your next new product in a measurable scale and one that is compatable with the other manufacturers. It’s not only good business, it’s common sense!
Anyway, please stop with the accusations of “attacks” as this whole thing really makes you guys seem petty! I know you believe in your company and it’s products but you HAVEN’T answered the original question and it IS relevant to many of us! I’m not going to spend boucoup bucks on something that might look good next to my other rolling stock without first checking it out Knowing the scale is a BIG step towards doing that! Please consider this. Thanks!

#59
Curmudgeon said:
Lionel didn't publish scales back when either, and some wag found in measuring thousands of pieces it was 1:52 or 1:53.
Hi Dave,

I know that you don’t need or seek my approval, but that was a very good and well thought out reply. I agree with very much you said. That kind of rational analysis can only benefit the hobby.
I’m glad you mentioned Lionel. It is an example of what I was going to referring to when I mentioned that CTT has 60,000 subscribers and add that the T.C.A. has close to 35,000 members. All in the pursuit and enjoyment of toy trains that never were “scale”.
I subscribe to Dennis’s goal “…long as we respect each others’ enjoyment.”.

Jack

#60

Before this thread becomes another locked thread because certain Trolls expect everyone else to do their homework, here is one measurement I will leave you with:

The USAT passenger car that I measured (Santa Fe dome car) is 5 13/16" from rail head to top of car body.

That measures out to 14.05’ in real life @ 1:29. That’s a tad higher than the average height of a heritage car and darn sure blows smoke up the butts of those that want to claim that the USAT cars are closer to 1:31. My quarrel is with the height of the cars and I’m NOT going down to the basement to measure the car further nor am I going to dig out the LGB car to measure it. If you want it measured pay the $200 to buy one and measure it yourself. The pictures say the rest.

John, I don’t have a picture of my LGB car with the Genesis.