It’s a good thing I’m reclining when I read.[}:)][:)] The more I read the less “Basic” it appeared. But first things first: While this is a valiant effort by Kevin Strong to get some of the stuff straight, the whole thing fizzles.
Stating that “G” scale is 1:22.5 is not recognizing that “Baugrösse 2” (1:22.5 Scale) has been on the books for quite some time. LGB may (and it’s a big may) take credit for introducing 2m i.e replicas of Meter Gauge prototpyes running on 45mm track.
Interestingly enough the very first engine LGB produced - the Stainz - was a replica of an engine that runs on 750mm track. Which they were then calling “G” scale. Yes absolutely! “G” as in “Gummi” (the German word for rubber) since it can be stretched, compressed, inflated and collapsed. It’s always “G” and will fit anything!
OK so what is the basic problem? The basic problem is people don’t understand that scale means one thing: ratio between prototype and model. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would have had my ears boxed if I wouldn’t have grasped the fact the very first year of my apprenticeship in a tool and die room. One can’t read and interpret technical drawings without grasping the basic ratio.
And another thing, those who merrely mix Imperial and Metric measures when relating to scale should get “with it”, really bad practice that confuses people.
A lot of people have problems remembering how many Millimeters there are in an Inch, let alone relate one to the other in a fractional manner.
Just as an aside, have a look at the NEM Standards http://www.morop.org/en/normes/index.html
You’ll be amazed how logical the scale and gauge tables line up. This is where the KISS principle really applies! It isn’t “Rocket Science”!![}:)][}:)][}:)][:(!][:(!]
Alright, now I feel better! It’s annoying when the “Basics” are mangeled! I go back and read the rest of the mag!
A scale is something I stay away from these days. It announces I have been eating too much. [:)][:D] Just kidding. I agree with RhB_HJ “ratio between prototype and model”.
Here’s another “nit” to pick: “…the prototype is 29 times larger than the model”.
Well in any scale equation the prototype is taken as representing “1”; so the model is 29 times smaller than the prototype i.e. 1:29.
Anyone who has ever looked at engineering drawings most likely will have encountered details on such drawings. In order to show all the detail one enlarges them, this results in the scale being 2:1; 10:1 or whatever is required. “1” still refers to the prototype.
A practical application are models which are larger than the prototype (finished product), for instance models used on pantograph engraving machines.
And yes, scale in models is applied in all three planes at the same ratio, be it 1:20.3 or 1:32 it should apply in the same ratio to length, width and height. The “models” which “discount” that principle quite often end up being caricatures
BTW I’m always puzzled by how “relaxed” the terminology and definition of scale gets when applied to garden railways, compared to the other modeling scales.
I model in several different scales, so I can explain the ratio for N, HO, S, O, and some G-scale; however, what is loosely bantered about as “G-scale” has too many actual scales involved to explain to a newcomer.
Something about scale Marty, I think!! I know all about it but I choose to ignore it, it’s a garden railway and the plants are 12" to the 1’, so it doesn’t matter what the scale of the RR is really if it’s running through a bush 4’ high. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers,
Kim
[tup]
So what would a grasshopper scale out to? Would that make a bird 5,000:1? My goodness, a leaf would be astronomical! I agree with Kim, scale to me is meaningless outside, I just make sure my stuff “looks” right and I’m totaly satisfied.
This scale debate has been going on for some time. It seems that “G” scale is anything larger than “O”. Don’t really want to get into all that right now, but it is puzzling at times how readily the word “scale” is thrown around when some manufacturers don’t even know what the word means.
I can’t help but to be a bit confused myself, not by the scale/gauge thing, but by the points raised within this thread…
First, the first sentence in the second paragraph of my April column states “‘Scale’ is merely the relationship between a model and its prototype.” How is that different from HJ’s “Scale is the ratio between prototype and model?” I don’t see the difference, beyond the words “ratio” and “relationship.” To my mind, the two are synonymous in this context. Perhaps I’m blinded by familiarity, but if I were to read both sentences separately, I’d get the same message.
As for whether a prototype is “29 times larger” than the model or vice versa, that’s a matter of semantics. I’ll agree that usually sizes are expressed in terms of the prototype, but the context was pertaining to the model, so I expressed it in those terms. Whether Tommy has 29 more apples than Billy, or Billy has 29 times fewer apples than Tommy, the end result is that Billy’s gonna get hungry a lot faster.
As far as combining metric and imperial units in terms of describing size, I don’t see what the big deal is. Sorry, HJ, most folks I know–even here in the metrically challenged US–know what a millimeter is, and even if they can’t say exactly how many millimeters there are in an inch, know that one edge of the ruler is the metric, the other is imperial, and can look across to make the conversion. We’re all very used to expressing size in terms of “1/4-inch to the foot,” etc., so it’s really not a stretch to use an equally identifiable unit to represent one foot.
If we converted 15mm into imperial units, we get 19.592/32". You tell the average person that a model is built to 19.592/32-inch to the foot, they’ll have as little clue as to what you’re talking about as if you told them the ratio expressed in picas. Tell them “15mm to the foot,” they can at least fake understanding long enough to consult a ruler. To the completely unwashed masses, you can fudge and say "roughly 5/8-
What can one say? Very well put and quite sweeping and I still use imperial rather than metric but there’s nothing wrong with 16mm to the foot, is there? It comes down, as most things do, to personal choice. If someone wants to model 1:20.3 and everything they do equates to the old 3’ guage and is scaled accordingly then I applaud them and admire them for all the scratch buidling/kit bashing they must do. Similarily if a UK modeller decided to build the old GWR broad guage then I would treat them equally, perhaps I would think them a bit nutty, but whose to say whose sane! To do both properly then they would really have to be in an enclosed area where everything therein is to that scale.I can only basically reiterate what I said earlier, it’s a garden railroad set in the easiest scale imaginable, 12" to 1’, my house is in this scale as I am, the whole world around me is. My railway isn’t, it’s mine, it does what I want it too and goes were I put tracks for it. It’s G and is everything that that denominator stands for. If my 1:20.3 connie is pulling Bachmann freight at 1:22.5 then I really think that’s Bachmanns fault, but I don’t care. Similarily when my 1:29 diesel is pulling Bachmann freight then that’s my fault but I think USA/Aristo freight cars are very overpriced and at the end of the garden who the heck can tell anyway. To all of you scale guru’s out there, I applaud you. To all of you none scale, the devil may care brigade, I applaud you. Actually, we are all right.
Cheers,
Kim
[tup][2c]
The point I’m trying to make is: the Scale standards as stated by NMRA and by implication your article in GR are a hotch-potch.
The Basics are:
a) the prototype is value “1” ; the model is a fraction or multiple there of.
b) When a ratio is applied it applies to the model as a whole i.e. if the model is 1:29 scale and represents a standard gauge item running on 1435mm track gauge then it follows. 1435:29= 49.5mm That’s not the same as 45mm. Not anymore than 1435:48=32mm
c) Yes, the Morop Standards are practically unknown in NA. I well remember a time when the same applied to ISO Standards.
Sorry if I offended!
Having spent 45 years concerning myself with technical matters, part of it QC and Standards, I find it hard to stomach some of the stuff that is being passed along to confuse yet another batch of novices.
OTOH I have the perfect excuse; I grew up with the decimal system and learned the archaic stuff later. [;)][:)][:D]
Occasionally I write reviews for magazines and as part of the reviews I add a comparison chart (prototype to model dimensions) of the items.
To illustrate where I’m coming from (other than North of the Border[;)][;)][;)]) here are the values which are applied to the determined dimensions:
+/- 1.0% or better : Excellent
+/- 1.1 to 4% : Very Good
+/- 4.1 to 7% : Good
+/- 7.1 to 10% : Passable
+/- 10.1% and above : Questionable
Of course this is simply my subjective standard, however it is more precise than “quite close”.
For those interested in RhB rolling stock some of the comparison charts can be found at http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/E/html/rolling_stock.html
I’m confused, does the word “scale” even apply in the garden? I don’t see where it is of any value to have your rivets on the box car scale out to 1435:29 when the weeds are 1:1 as are the twigs and bugs. I moved outdoors because “scale” was killing me. Outside I can have a train, running on track, through some nice flowers. That’s it, nothing more to think about. My 1435:29 loco would look no better than an “about” 1:20.3 one when chugging past my full size foot bridge. As Kim said, it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
I see HJ’s point, he is interested perhaps more with “accuracy” than “scale”? I can understand that view. Perhaps if the NMRA even recognized G as a legitimate model train hobby we wouldn’t be having this issue at all. Until then, and maybe even then, I’ll continue to run my trains around hotch-potch with a 1:1 smile on my face.
For anybody that wants to nit-pick my layout, come on over. I’ll throw a steak on the grill and crack a cold one. I have a bumper crop of nits this year and when you are done picking them we can fry them up with the steaks and pig out. I LOVE G SCALE!!!
[:D]
A lot of info here and for some it seems very important. But, as I thought about scale in this particular hobby (Garden RR) the importance comes into play at least for me was when I first started. I, probably like a good many others started with a smaller scale. For me it was HO and everything I bought HO was all the same “scale”. (I think). Anyway it wasn’t until I bought a couple of different G scale train cars and locos that I noticed a very big difference in size. I then read more about this greart hobby and discoveed this scale thing for G isn’t the same for all manufacturers, But, I like T. Jack, don’t really get into that fine part of this hobby that demands a perfect scale look-alike. I am not saying that that is bad, just that I don’t care to get that percise. I like to run my trains and anything I build is 1/24 scale. I might buy any scale that looks good in the garden. Happy RRing.
An interesting topic, but one that won’t win any converts. I run in the garden, but I do like 1:20 scale. I try to make things “look right”. My “looks right” may be way different than your “looks right”. (Though I do think accuracy and scale go hand in hand.)
I do prefer metric over imperial, but I really prefer keeping one hand colder than another - so I’m more than willing to open up a cold one and running trains in the garden.
Hey there,
SCALE: The very thing we truck drivers try to avoid when a) Overweight b) Out of hours c) Equipment does not quite meet DOT standards d) All the above. Oh…trains? Yeah I think I got it. [:D] [:D] [:D] Later eh…Brian. [:o)]