Hi all,
Since I’ve been harping for the last “Oh So Many Years” that a “to scale” model doesn’t need to cost more in development and production, here’s one more kick at the can.
I’m especially interested in what the “Toy” crowd lists as “No” reasons if all other things - fit for Outdoors, reasonable price etc. etc. - are equal.
But, what does 1:29 have to do in the same sentence as “to scale”?
Dave,
about the same relevance 1:22.5 has when applied to modelling USA 3’ gauge.
I desire, nay, DEMAND the main stream manufactueres to make equipment in my scale of choice.
7/8n2.
PROTO 485
Sure, why not? It’s a much needed improvement in the hobby just to put a true scale on the box so we would know for sure at time of purchase. If the cost is reasonable, the product decent, then scale doesn’t become the burden it is now. Simply match your stuff. But then we aren’t talking G scale anymore. We are talking “G”, “H”, “I”, and “J” scale. At least it would be true to form.
[oX)]
Hi Dave,
I meant to add “de facto” - similar to the G1MRA track gauge being “de facto” . [;)][:)][;)]
BTW 1:29 is still a lot closer than 1:27.
“BTW 1:29 is still a lot closer than 1:27.”
to what?
Hi Tony
I personaly would not complain 1:22.5 scale 3’ gauge on gauge one
its a lot more acurate than OO on 16.5 mm gauge
being only 3" over gauge as apposed to 6or7 inches under gauge[:D]
Good grief it cannot be that hard for the manufactures to make a wagon
24’ long and 9’ wide (based on 3 x gauge ) that measures with a scale rule
at you guessed it 9’ wide by 24’ long thats just as easy as a product
thats dimensions are all over the place.
But at the moment my number one gripe is none of them put the nominal
(extremely in some cases) scale they claim to use on the product box[V]
regards John
I would accept a new “Standard,” if it were to scale and ran on current track.
All I would to conform to that scale would be to sell off my old stuff via E-bay or the like and work on buying in that new scale.
But, what we have now promotes individuality and offers a choice that people might clamour for if the Standard Scale was the Status Quo. Thus a conundrum ensues!
I’m going to be the odd one out! I like a choice.
Does not matter what scale they produce you will want it to be your scale, and resemble the width etc of the trains you have .
I suppose it all depends where you are, what you model.
Apart from the general height ( to clear the numerous tunnels) all locos here, and most rolling stock was a diffferent size so its a mix and match to look like a narrow guage railway, so I buy the locos to suit what models I am building. Large loco for main line, smaller loco for branch or works lines.
Tony.
Hi John.
I must respectfully disagree with you.
Personally I don’t give a fig about scale.
Because I fancy 7/8n2 I will have to build most of what I want.
However, I believe it is historically accurate to say that commercially made models built in scale proportions are always better received in the overall 2 rail market than non scale items. For a start I don’t know see too many brass models being built in 1:29 scale compared to say 1:32.
Now why is that do you think?
I contend that ultimately it has to do with collectability.
If you build it to scale you have a pretty fair chance of adding the brass collectors to your available market.
Nowadays if isn’t scale the collectors will not buy it.
I am well aware the 00 scale on 16.5 mm gauge track is wrong. I guess you could say it is the British equivalent of 1:29 in accuracy.
If the scale - gauge relationship is not correct. It is not correct and no amount of “spin”, “WOW” factor or Corporate BS by any manufacturer is ever going to convince that it is correct, no matter how good the model might be.
Just because something is grossly wrong it does not mean that something else that is less wrong, is right. It is still wrong.
I too would like some truth in advertising so newcomers understand what they need to do.
However, I do acknowledge that some compromises must be made so our models can run reliably on uneven track outdoors.
I do not require absolute fidelity to scale detail.
As long as the proportions are correct I can add details to my hearts desire.
1:32; as in “to scale” for the track gauge representing 1435mm Standard Gauge.
Makes no real difference to me one way or the other. There’s plenty out there to choose from now, and counting rivets or measuring items with a scale rule just isn’t my thing. I buy and operate what I like, and what appeals to me for any of a number of reasons. I’m content to leave the fretting over precise scale and such to others.
Hi Tony W
I can live with inacurate gauge.
But got real hissed off when I dicovered my favorite suposedly
1:22.5 locomotive was in fact one 16mm scale inch off of being correct for 16mm scale
Had I at that time built a loco shed for it the chances are it would not have fitted through the door.
It should be noted the loco is claimed to be 1:22. 5 by the manufacturer[V].
It is going to converted to something closer to what the scale really is as it only entails a change of driver and buffers
It is this kind of carp that gets up my nose as it makes it hard to build anything that looks right because once you know something is that wrong.
It spoils it because it is not what it was claimed to be and only continues the confusion for the new chums.
Which is why I now want to see a stated scale on the boxes or the words Toy Train so I know what I am getting
Things look a lot better if they are at least close to a nominal scale, gauge conciderations aside and making bits and pieces becomes a lot easier
because you know it will be within Kooee of being right at least
I don’t see how everything can be in proportion if its not all the same nominal scale but maybe thats just me
Which is probably why I think my line is such a mess and am slowly correcting what I can to get at least some sort of uniformity through it.
It keeps me out of trouble I supose so that must be a good thing
[2c]
We might have to agree to disagree[:D]
Oh must phone you re mag when it is a more reasonable hour probably on the weekend.
regards John
Hi John.
No need to agree to disagree.
I agree with you re proper scale labelling.
I class wrong labelling as part of the “SPIN”, “WOW” factor and Corporate BS problem most of LS is plagued by.
The only way to stop it is to complain loudly and often and call the offenders to task at every opportunity.
I think you know to which manufacturers I refer.
If you don’t I will tell you on the blower.
Hang em I say. Hang em.
Re the mag. Call me at any time. I was going to send a reminder…
All I’m saying is that some friggin’ body decide on what “G” scale is, make it a standard so we all know. If it’s 1:22.5 then good, if it’s 1:32 or 1:29 or 1:33.5674 then fine, but only call one scale “G”, call the other ones something else. I’ll buy what is “G” scale on the box (without rivet counting), that’s all I want to see.
Maybe in the long term Bachmann will make their proto series a defacto standard, since it’s good stuff and affordable, more people will buy it and in the world of retail, sales figures are the standard. After a while, B’mann’s sales will cause other manufacturers to follow suit in order to compete. Then everybody will, after time, look back on the multitude of scales called “G” and wonder what all the fuss was about.
[oX)]
HJ
I voted “no” since you didn’t have a “probably not” option. I make some pretty obscure stuff . Any manufacturer crazy enough to make such items would go broke due to the lack of sales.
Bob
Hi TJ
Going out on a limb here "put that chain saw down!!"I can fall quite well on my own thanks[B)]
I would say “G” is 1:22.5 and the others are technicaly something else.
I base that statement on the following
LGB where to my knowledge the first to use “G” to describe their trains
and they use an increadably elastic Nominal scale of 1:22.5
So that being the case all the others cannot possably be “G” scale they
have to be something else.
NMRA (I think that’s the right monica) have in their infinate stupidety tried to lump all the garden scales together further adding to the confusion with
reference to scale[V]:[:p][}:)]
(I read their NON standard on the net somewhere)
Well I think that makes some sort of sence Err maybe[?]
regards John
John, I like my chain saw! I use it at work for all the red tape![}:)][:-,]
I agree, since LGB was the first, then 1:22.5 should be the G standard. Somebody with more influence than me in the model RR world needs to step forward and establi***hat as a fact. If it’s elastic, then so be it, I’m not that big on true-scale anyway, but please don’t call 1:29 or 1:32 G when they are not. THAT is where all this confusion comes from.
I’m all for a line of low cost, good quality locos and cars in an agreed upon scale, once the dust settles, I might worry more about it more than I do now.
[oX)]
I’m not sure what you are asking. If I say yes does that mean I would never buy anything that is not to scale?
There isn’t enough product out there for me to be scale-exclusive. I’ll buy anything that looks good to me no matter what the scale.
Bill