Large Scale Central

What scale is this? or why I don't care what it says on the box!

General Discussion
#1

I grew up in the fifties. I think this is an era that many try to model. Trains were quite a bit different then. The best example I could find is this one taken in the Nashville Gulch:

http://www.pbase.com/deadelvis/image/21306302

The front row of boxcars shows an interesting size difference, but look at that pair over the top of the Silver Meteor box. If you walked into a shop and saw two boxes of box cars with your favorite scale on the end label. Then got them home and set them on the tracks and saw that they looked like those in the picture. Would you be happy or sad?
This is not meant to be a huge point, but scale on a box means nothing if the buyer has zero knowledge of the prototype. Scale on the box is often mentioned as being the savior of the neophyte. I think knowledge arms a buyer better.

The mixed sizes in the photo reminds me of the PIKO set. The differences in scale in the set are little different than this real life photo.

I have been unable to get the photo to post, so if anyone else wants to give it a try?

Jack

#2

Jack,
You make a valid point. There sure are a variety of boxcar sizes in the photo.
However, sometimes real life does not translate well to the miniature world.
I’m afraid if I was to model the box cars in the scene, it would just not look “right” to me, even if I know it is right.
Ralph

#3

Well, the Seaboard B7 series boxcars were a PRR knock off of the PRR X31 cars and were built by Pullman Standard. 10’ IH

The PRR X29 in front of that had an IH of around 8’6" depending on build series…

I would be sad if both were the same height if I had models. Had that happen with the PRR passenger reefers, the Walthers ones showed how really bad the Alco (brass, Samhongsa) ones were! The brass ones are HUGE!

#4

Ralph,

I glad you responded. You astutely went right to the gist of my post. I am not reaching for a big issue here. These real life boxcars are well within the range of scales offered for “G” track. But most of us apply an “eye” that is not justified on the prototype.
As you said “it would just not look “right” to me, even if I know it is right”. I think passenger trains (-Amtrak) and modern freight cars have skewed our “eyes”.

jack

#5
Jack Barton said:
Ralph,

I glad you responded. You astutely went right to the gist of my post. I am not reaching for a big issue here. These real life boxcars are well within the range of scales offered for “G” track. But most of us apply an “eye” that is not justified on the prototype.
As you said “it would just not look “right” to me, even if I know it is right”. I think passenger trains (-Amtrak) and modern freight cars have skewed our “eyes”.

jack


Very true. Passenger trains especially, back in the day you would have mixes of fluted side, smooth side and heavyweight cars in the same train, excluding some top named trains and PR photos.

The problem does come when you see the cover of some garden railway mag or book that has a standard gauge 1:29 GP38 with a 1:22,5 D&RGW NG outline wood boxcar behind it.

That is what puts a lot of modellers off (my father et al included) of large scale. “More interested in cutesy than trains” is his remark.

Not until he saw Burl Rice’s stuff in person a while back did my father’s opinion of what could be done in finescale (even if wrong gauge/scale to be 100% correct) change.

#6

Garrett, I agree on the different passenger sides. I was trying to say the more modern trains have shifted our eyes toward level roof lines. To a lesser degree the same effect existed on some narrow gauge lines. This photo looks like a couple of 1:22 boxes behind a 1:20.

(http://www.trainweb.org/wcng/photos/doctorshots/mixedtrain2.jpg)

#7

I have different size boxcars on my layout. Different heights, different lengths. But, they all have the same ladder spacing and brake wheel size. Same size wheels, same size roofwalks. That’s what allows them to fit on my layout.

#8

Jack makes the point there are varied sizes of prototype box cars – therefore, on our layouts that variance can be prototypical.
Makes sense.

I have only box, some gons, and flat cars in 1:24 (LGB and B’mann?).
Any visual experience with 1:20 tankers/gondolas/ore cars combined with 1:24 (LGB?) and also combined with 1:29 scale in the same consist?

Wendell

#9

Hey Jack. That picture is one of Bart’s models!

#10

Bob,

You got me good, I have been searching for over a month to find photos that worked for my topic and didn’t have a clue I had run across some high quality modeling and photography. Thanks for the heads up.

#11

A fair number of the 1:22 and 1:24 models scale out very well in 1:20.3. The biggest reason for this was that the size of narrow gauge equipment grew as the years progressed. The “smaller” stuff becomes quite suitable for the older generation equipment.

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/box150/finishcompare.jpg)

Here’s a c. 1910 EBT boxcar coupled to a c. 1875 Billmeyer & Small-built EBT box car. No, the one on the right wasn’t tall enough to stand upright inside. The one on the right is built from a standard 1:22 Bachmann box car. The one on the left is the same size as Bachmann’s 1:20 box car. Here’s two “modern” hoppers leading a smaller wood hopper (30-ton vs 12-ton capacity)

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/TRR/TRR3hopper02.jpg)

Most of the cars in this train are dwarfed by the c. 1910 locomotive, but are spot on for c. 1870s narrow gauge equipment.

(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/eastbroadtop/TRR/TRRfreight04.jpg)

It would have been completely normal to see both generations of cars mixed together in trains as the new cars were added, and old ones replaced. Yeah, it may look funky to our eyes, but that’s how it was. Standard gauge cars underwent a similar advance in size with one notable exception. The width (loading gauge) of the cars never varied near as much. Most standard gauge cars from 1880 forward are pretty much all between 9 and 10’ wide. The height and length have grown, but they never really got appreciably wider as the narrow gauge cars did. (Narrow gauge cars ranged between 6’, upwards to 8’ 6" wide in the later years, with the odd wider piece here and there.) BTW, Bachmann’s 1:22 equipment scales out fairly well in 1:29 for c. 1890s standard gauge stuff. It’s important to cleary mark (and adhere to) scale. As evidenced by this thread, such deliniation isn’t nearly as “limiting” as some might think. ALWAYS bring a scale ruler with you to the hobby shop. You never know what you’ll discover. Later, K

#12

Jack,
all very fine to come up with photographic ‘evidence’ to support your hypothesis, but looking at your photograph, you have, not a mixture of scales but a mixture of prototype types. No matter what scale, a 40-foot boxcar is exactly that - a 40-foot boxcar! It is not a matter of using a discerning eye, as in your photo we obviously have a mixture of car construction materials. The smaller boxcar is apparently wooden and obviously a shorter length car. However, in the modelling world when mixing 40-footer steel cars from various scales the effect is not the same. Look to the steel cars as they all appear the same relative size. It is not just ‘looking’ right but is right when the same scale is applied. Maybe, Dr. Wilfer purchased the same scale rule at auction, that the boys used when they were making trains so very long ago.

#13

Kevin-
Thanks for the photo comparisons.
The two hoppers in one photo appear to be 1:29 that are ahead of the B’mann 20’ style or Aristo “classic” version cars. If so, my assumption is using standard gondolas from B’mann and LGB would also mix well with 1:20 rolling stock.

Are the conclusions I have reached also shared by you:

  1. For personal acceptance, IF you choose either a 1:20 tank car or stock car, check it against what you already are running in any other scale first ;
  2. Box cars, gons, and hoppers all work OK as narrow gauge when mixed with the 1:20 and 1:29 scales.

Wendell

#14

Wendell,
the 3-bay Bachmann EBT hopper is an example of your response. Many ‘standard’ gauge modellers use the 1/22.5 scale narrow-gauge prototype as a standard gauge car when running in 1/29 scale. the initial low purchase price coupled with standard steel wheels makes it a viable alternative to the more expensive ‘scale’ hoppers. Now, if B’mann released a ‘data only’ oxide red car (with appropriate trucks) then they would interest the standard gauge modeller even more so.

#15
Jack Barton said:
If you walked into a shop and saw two boxes of box cars with your favorite scale on the end label. Then got them home and set them on the tracks and saw that they looked like those in the picture. Would you be happy or sad?
I would be very happy if it was the difference in the size of the prototype that was accurately applied to the models. I would think the manufacturer had put in the time and effort to research his products, then used that research to produce a model that met the labeled description.
Jack Barton said:
This is not meant to be a huge point, but scale on a box means nothing if the buyer has zero knowledge of the prototype. Scale on the box is often mentioned as being the savior of the neophyte. I think knowledge arms a buyer better.
I agree that the scale statement doesn't mean anything to the uninformed, but the scale statement does mean something to lots of potential repeat buyers and also serves to inform those who will buy it of a basic fact. What the potential purchaser of the labeled box does with the information is his choice. So, why don't these supposedly brilliant manufacturers of high quality German made goods humor those of us who ARE informed, by some reasonable adherence to some uniform scale, especially when representing something as a 'set?' I note that there are a several companies that can do it, even with their low end and starter sets.
Jack Barton said:
The mixed sizes in the photo reminds me of the PIKO set. The differences in scale in the set are little different than this real life photo.
Sorry, but the mixed-scale PIKO set has absolutely nothing in common with the prototypes you pictured. The trains in the pictures are all exactly the same 1:1 scale. The very notable difference in the sizes of the cars are due to era, manufacturer and purpose. That is one of the basic facts that make railroads and railroad models interesting.

As a comparison, the PIKO ‘set’ is composed of what ever scale equipment PIKO could sweep off the global bargain basement floor and package together, calling it a ‘set.’ It looks exactly like what it is: A total mismatch of eras, scales and even continents.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#16

My personal preference is uneven roof lines.
I run the same as Bruce and Kevin.
Wheels and trucks are the same, but it said on the box the cars are 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:29, etc.
But my 1:20.3 is a wee bit too large to mix.

jb

#17

The hoppers in the photo are Bachmann’s 1:20 EBT 2-bay hoppers, though relative to the discussion at hand, the cars are based on hoppers which evolved from Pressed Steel Company hoppers. PSC was primarily a builder of standard gauge cars, and simply adapted their plans for the smaller size/gauge of the narrow gauge equipment. Compared to a 1:29 hopper (or even a 1:22 narrow gauge hopper) the B’mann car is considerably larger, so I wouldn’t be putting a string of them behind a GP-9 or or anything like that. Bachmann’s 1:22 3-bay hopper is more well-suited towards that if you’re looking for “cheap” hoppers.

Quote:
... Are the conclusions I have reached also shared by you: 1) For personal acceptance, IF you choose either a 1:20 tank car or stock car, check it against what you already are running in any other scale first ; 2) Box cars, gons, and hoppers all work OK as narrow gauge when mixed with the 1:20 and 1:29 scales.
I'm a bit fuzzy on where you're coming from, so I'll offer my perspectives. 1) I've chosen a specific scale (1:20), though I do not limit my rolling stock purchases specifically to those products identified as such. I look at all large scale products through 1:20-calibrated eyeballs. If it scales accurately for something I might use, I buy it. For instance, I might buy Aristo's RDC or FA-1 power trucks for a model of the EBT's M-1 should they scale appropriately. (I've not checked.)
  1. Primary consideration has to be given to era and construction methods. If one is modeling a post 1920s standard gauge railroad, then the lion’s share of the 1:22 and 1:24 models will not “work,” even if it were to scale out somewhat accurately. Wood-framed cars and archbar trucks were banned from interchange service in the early parts of the 20th century, so you’d never see them behind a diesel. Conversely, if you’re modeling the early 20th century, then (obviously) the modern cars wouldn’t be appropriate. Once you establish a baseline for your modeling, then you can look at the array of “crossover” models which may be appropriate for your needs. But just randomly mixing 1:20 and 1:29 models on the basis that rolling stock changed sizes over the years is ill-founded.

BTW, very few (if any that I’ve seen) 1:20 models will work in 1:29. They are simply too large.

Note also, that any of this crossing of scale lines comes to a grinidng halt where things representative of human interaction are concerned. A 1:24 narrow gauge caboose may be the same physical size as a 1:29 standard gauge locomotive in terms of width and height, but the doors will be completely different in size. Passenger cars are similar. How many times have we seen B’mann’s passenger cars behind Aristo’s pacific or some such. A 5’ 8" person in 1:29 would scarcely be able to see out the windows of a 1:22 coach.

Later,

K

#18

Kevin-
What I was thinking (outloud in my posting!) was the tank cars in different scales MAY be more prone to personal taste as to whether or not they fit a narrow gauge-purposed layout. True, the tank cars curently available in 1:20 as standard gauge may be too modern in appearance for some modeling 3’ gauge. The same thought for stock cars for the observation you made involved with people. I have the B’mann stock cars and they are OK unless run directly against one of the Aristo big box cars and they appear to me dwarfed.

Again, thanks for your through responses.

Off-topic question:
Did Accucraft change the manufacturing of the size of their track to accomodate LGB/Aristo/USA size after your post-review notice in Garden RR? My guess is that revelation was a surprize to you. I found the size difference to be puzzling – perhaps, likely, it was not purposeful.

Thanks,
Wendell

#19

Assuming you meant 1:29 standard gauge tank cars, then yes–we’re on the same page.

As for the Accucraft track, I’ve not heard of any adjustment on their part. My understanding is that their code 332 rail is rolled as opposed to extruded, a process which (I’m told) isn’t quite as accurate, hence the variation in size. The folks who brought it to our attention had rail that measured even taller than my sample, so I’m thinking it has to be the manufacturing process.

I didn’t notice any size difference when I put the Accu stuff next to a section of LGB track, but I think looseness in the rail joiner probably hid that. But that’s a good thing, as it means the height difference really isn’t an incompatibity as much as it is just something to be aware of. Compensating for it can be done fairly easily.

Later,

K

#20
Jerry Bowers said:
. So, why don't these supposedly brilliant manufacturers of high quality German made goods humor those of us who are informed by some reasonable adherence to some uniform scale, especially when representing something as a 'set?' I note that there are a several companies that can do it, even with their the low end and starter sets. Jerry
Jerry,

To help me form an answer can you tell me when you started in large scale.

Jack