I was wondering how you guys handle using scale autos (trucks & cars, etc.) My RR is 1:20.3 narrow gauge 1st half 20th century. I figure I can use 1:24 models with some 1:24 buildings as long as they aren’t positioned really close to the track. I’ll set them back a bit for perspective. What about the 1:18 models. Do you find them too large for 1:20.3 or have you found that they are okay? Looking for opinions and recommendations.
If you want 1:20 cars, check ebay for the old line of Hubley kits. (They’ve been sold under a few different names over the years, but “Hubley” generally brings them up on an ebay search.) They’re mostly c. 1915s and c.1930s.
Personally, I find “forced perspective” sometimes hard to pull off in the garden, especially when the railroad is viewed from multiple perspectives. The 1:24 cars might work well in the background or something like that; just make sure that where they’re situated isn’t the “foreground” for viewing the railroad from another spot.
I’ve always found the 1:18 cars to look too big to my eyes, but maybe it’s because I’ve been looking at the Hubley cars for so long. (Same as the 1:24 cars, really, except they look too small, not too large.) Having said that, folks will say that some of the 1:18 cars are really closer to 1:20, and I must admit I couldn’t tell you how wide a Ford Model A really is to be able to say for sure one way or the other. Still, I think if you know roughly the size a “proper” 1:20 car is, then you can gauge how others might look parked next to them in a parking lot.
Hopefully others will be able to post photos of cars on their railroads to give you a better idea of how “mixing the scales” looks, if it looks okay. Since all my cars that are built (all three of them) are 1:20, I can’t really help in that regard. (That’s the advantage of modeling the 1910s–not a whole lot of automobile traffic yet.)
Later,
K
My vote goes to Hubley.
I am currently converting a depot truck that I got off Ebay awhile back and it’s an enjoyment to work on.
I am looking at a 1:18 scale car within reach of the computer and although I like the detailed work on it I wouldn’t use it on the layout. It’s amazing how much larger it looks compared to the Hubleys.
Joe, if you have to live with it, and in “large scale” the proportions are all messed up anyway, the 1:24 cars to me look much better than the 1:18 cars. I think you have the right idea though: don’t mix too closely…like figures. A 1:24 figure standing next to a 1:24 pick-up right next to a 1:20 figure standing on the deck of a narrow gauge 1:20.3 caboose jars the senses.
Just think of that 1:20 figure as tall?
Everything is in the eye of the beholder, but.
Here are a few of my observations and things that work for me on my railroad.
My loco’s and cars are all 1:20 and I build all my buildings in 1:20 scale. Not that I am a purest but
because that is what looks best to me. Really building in 1:20 is no more difficult than building
in 1:24, it is all in the mind set.
I use 1:20 scale autos (Hubley) and 1:18 scale autos and 1:16 scale farm equipment, these are the sizes that I feel
work best and are easiest to use, for me.
Hubley kits, known by a coupla other names in later years, were very good in the original Hubley packaging 30 years ago or so.
Get an original kit off ebay now days you can bet the rubber tires will split and break and the plastic is brittle, but at least the
metal castings are pretty flash free. The later kits still have the rubber and plastic problems compounded by the use of worn out dies
so that you spend hours filing and sanding to clean up the castings. Even so you can still produce a very good model if your willing to
invest the time and effort that is required. As Kevin pointed out they have a very narrow window of years and body styles but if they fit your
railroad they are great.
1:18 diecast is very available representing a wide span of years and body styles, especially the teens through about 1940. The 1:16 farm
equipment I use because there is nothing else available in a scale even close to 1:20.
My opinion is that 1:18 works modeling 1:20 trains because the trains were , in reality, very small and the automobiles should look larger.
If however your working in 1:29, standard gauge stuff, I think the 1:24 autos would help make the trains look bigger, like they would in
the real world.
Like I said it is all in the eye of the looker.
As always, just my opinion.
Rick
you would be supprised how many 1 20 scale cars are out there, late 60s onwards there are quite a few,
and matchbox do a 1940 ford panel van in coke, police, cambells soup colors and a mid 50s chevy i think,
and a ford model t like delivery van
solido do a 30s ford truck in various body styles from car to tanker which is 1 19 and a 1946 chevy truck too
and golden wheels do a 1940s truck which is around 1 19
solido do a 1950s bentley and a caddy eldorado, both 1 20
a 1 20 ford is 9 cm wide, the 1 19 ford around 9.5cm and the 1 18 around 10cms wide
the 1 19 look ok next to the 1 20,
oh and mitsuwa do a 1 20 kit willis ww2 jeep,
there are quite a few 1 20 kits out there too, a few jap models and euro
triang also made a range of 1950s cars in 1 20
Kevin, since you were the first to respond, I disagree that Hubley kits are close to 1.20.3. I have a dozen and if anything, they are closer to 1/24. If you’re building in 1:20.3, I suggest you do what those guys at Sundance Central, that incredible 1:20.3 portable layout do, and that is to use 1:18-scale cars/trucks.
But here’s where it gets curious. With my 1:22.5 scale ruler I measured one of my Model A kits and the scale dimensions are pretty close to the prototype, which are: approx 160 inches long, 108 in. wide with a wheelbase of 103.5 in. (that’s what you get for working at Road & Track for over 30 years). You’d think the Hubleys are spot on, but when you place them next to structures, locomotives and rolling stock, and people, things get bizarre. Suffice to say, they never seem to look correct to me, even though, in these two photos with the boxcar and truck, the proportions seem right. I guess, like beauty, scale is in the eyes of the beholder.
Joe, I’d usually not argue with you with anything having to do with automobiles, but I’ve compared my Model A and Model T kits with drawings and specs of the prototype, and they’re within an inch or two across the board for 1:20.3. (My Model A has a wheelbase of 5.04", which scales to 102.3" in 1:20.3) I got curious about that when I tried to fit a 1:20.3 scale seated figure in the driver’s seat only to discover a significant lack of headroom. But the 1:22 and 1:24 figures still looked small compared to the car itself. So I checked the model against the real thing, and things checked out just fine. I decided the difference is in the seat. The model seat doesn’t squish as the prototype would, neither does the figure’s bottom side. When I gave my 1:20.3 figure a bit of a tush reduction to compensate, he fit much more realistically in the seat.
Not all Hubley kits are 1:20, though; only the Fords and Chevys. The Packards are stated to be 1:22, and the Duesenbergs are listed as 1:18.
BTW, if you’re searching ebay, look also for “Gabriel” and “Scale Models.” Those are two other brands under which these kits were sold.
Later,
K
I have also found that the Hubley kits (Ford & Chevy) are spot on for 1:20.
I ended up getting rid of all of my 1:24 vehicles because they just look way too tiny. Heck, even my Pola building kits have been relegated to the back row as they are way too tiny when compared to my selectively compressed 1:20 buildings.
Here’s a shot of a 1:20 figure in a 1:24 vehicle.
I don’t like using the 1:18 vehicles as they are just a bit too large, although they don’t look as bad.
Sure, they look sort of reasonable above, but the real problem is that those cars were NOT that big. I have ideas for using the frame and fenders as a nice basis for a truck, but that’s about as far as I’ve gone…just an idea.
I do make an exception: Solido makes a 1:19 model and it seems to fit in as a truck.
Left to right - A 1:19 Ford Pickup, a 1:20 person, a 1:20 Ford, a 1:22.5 person, and a 1:24 vehicle.
I haven’t scaled out the other Hubley kits, but this Hubley Dusenberg seems pretty decently sized:
If you want to make 1/29 scale trains look bigger, use 1/32nd scale cars.
This is actually very fascinating to me. Thanks Bruce for the visual. It really gives me perspective. As 1:20.3 modeler it really shows me how much smaller say 1:24 is.
Now if my prototype ever catches up to the age of the automobile I will know what to shoot for. But after all them new fangled contraptions will never replace the horse. Its just a fad like them diesel locos are.
Here’s some actual specs. Meanwhile, although the numbers all add up and the Hubley cars scale out, they somehow look too small parked next to certain structures. I’ll send a photo tomorrow. Until then…
Thats a pretty truck even if it is a Ford.(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Joe,
I think they SHOULD look small. They were small. I was just looking at the dimensions of the first generation Honda Civic - a pretty tiny car.
The 1931 Ford pickup is only 20" longer and 17" taller, with 20 LESS HP. The bed of that pickup is not even 5’ long. Good luck carrying a 4x8 sheet of plywood in that!
I doubt is was wide enough to even squeeze 3 people into that cab, but I don’t have those dimensions.
A 2015 F150 is 79" longer than the 1931 model. Over 6.5’!
I haven’t found a picture of one of those old cars next to a newer one, but I bet there’s a big visual difference.
When I was in junior high school my woodshop teacher commuted with a 1931 Ford Model A truck that his dad bought new. It did look small compared to 1960s trucks. And it was bigger than the T.
I have two '27 chevy sedans, one four door and one two door, for a future hot rod project. I purchased sedans over a coupe for the simple reason that these things are tiny. I will have to put the seats on the floor and about half way between where the front and rear seats are to get leg romm and head room. And still two grown men will rub shoulders. Basically in those days for cars and light duty trucks they used the same frame fender, hood and cowling for everyhting. So the trucks were as small as the cars.
So I agree they should appear small because they are small. These sedans are not much longer than a VW bug.
Not really having seen any real life vehicals up close to any of the prototypes of my 1:20.3 “Colorado” and logging locos and stock I find opting for 1:18 scale vehicals works for me as they do not look overscale next to the Woodland Scenics peeps that mostly populate my layout. Even my 1:16 MM 'dozer looks right as I have no idea how the prototype matches up to any of the rolling stock. Max.
.
Max Winter said:
Even my 1:16 MM 'dozer looks right as I have no idea how the prototype matches up to any of the rolling stock. Max…
Thats what is menat by “ignorance is bliss” if you don’t know what the real thing should look like comapred to another real thing then in the scale world close will work. I tend to be a nit picker but I think when it comes to comparing sizes of vehicles to trains on a layout close will be fine. After all it is your railraod and what looks good to you in the end is all that matters.