Reading Ians ‘low point’ just now so I thought that it would be a good time to get this hot potato out of the oven. What is scale? I firmly believe in the ‘if it looks right then it must be right’ school of railways but I do think that the manufacturers con us with their offerings. I currently have in my stable goods and passenger from Bachmann/USA,/Aristo and loco’s from Bachmann/USA + a scratch built based on an LGB mallet chassis.
The Bachmann Connie I can believe is 1:20.3 but no way the Jackson Sharp coaches. The centre cupola caboose looks 1:20.3 but not the gondola, which matches quite well with the Aristo gon based plough. The USA pipe flat looks bigger than most other things on the railway whilst the USA work series engineers car is the same width as everything else, but slightly larger than the Bachmann box car which is supposed to be 1:20.3! The LGB drovers caboose looks quite at home with everything else that’s there so who’s conning who? Whilst we’re at it, USA - PUT METAL WHEELS ON YER WAGONS!!![soapbox][banghead]
That feels better,
Cheers,
Kim
[tup]
And whilst I’m having a good old moan, that there USA pipe flat is a super bit of kit except they must have run out of pipe and had to go down to the nearest DIY shop to buy some. The pipe has a full bar code printed on it together with all the descriptive writing that goes with it, size, for drinking water etc etc. The pipe has been glued into a position so that all of this is visible, easily painted out but a darn nuisance.
Now that definately feels better…did I mention METAL WHEELS!!!
After I noticed several doing the metal wheels I thought that wsa great, now I not to sure about it.
Did I make a small mistake in buying a box of metal wheels?
Note: when my friend was showing me G Scale he added you can never have enought wheel sets and kadee couplers. Well I have them and will stick with both of these.
That small shop I have really has nothing for me but they sell MTH, RailKing and in this winter catalog they now have steel wheels…so I poped one out of the box to inspect.
Nice design, because the 1st MTH I had seen did not impress me at all.
Then I asked price…$80.00ish USD ($63.91 euro).
I’ve replaced the wheels in my engineers car with Bachmann ones from a coach and it runs great. I’ve asked my local shop to order up some Bachmann ones, but I’m not holding my breath. Price wise they said about £9 to £10, not to bad.
I bought total metal where you can even make them pick up wheels @ 9.95 and they are nice!
Problem is I don’t know where the ole man got them. I think Walthers.
Heck I will send you a set of 4 see if you like them.
I should check Walthers to see if that is where he got them.
Personally I find Bachmann metal wheels work best, fit virtually everything, and are inexpensive. USA wheels axles are too wide and only fit USA cars.
Kim, You’ve hit on one of my personal pet peeves in large scale, that almost NOTHING is to “To Scale”. Namely Bachmann’s Spectrum engines are supposed to be 1/20.3, yet there freight and passenger cars were made to 1/22.5, I DONT CARE what there boxs say NOW, they can cry out to the Moon that there freight cars are 1/20.3 all they want, but there made from the SAME original 1/22.5 molds from several years ago! The 4-6-0 Annie was NEVER 1/22.5 more closer to a 1/24 version of a standard gauge engine. HLW’s stuff is closer to 1/24. Aristo never had narrow gauge, there C-16 was a standard guage version at 1/29, 1/29 is a WAY off scale intentional screw up on Aristos part to give there models more Umph! visually over TRUE 1/32 scale trains.
Its a F*cking mess, every one knows it. If you want to be a absolute to scale Rivet Counter, then you’ll be scratchbuilding almost everything you own or spending thru the nose for high end scale models. Otherwise, like you and me, you adopt a "built to a scale of 1/20-looks about right " attitude. If the trains LOOK realistic, dont sweat the minor scale descrepancies or you’ll go stark raving loony-tunes over it. I have said before, Dont expect manufacturers to listen to us, I am more convinced that ever that manufacturers are ignoring what the consumers want and demand. Why I dont know? But it is a fact of life for us doing narrow guage.
I don’t see the “looks right” crowd ever going away. I think the days of that being the motivating force behind proportioning a model are long gone (LGB excepted). Manufacturers now know they can build a model to a specific scale and please many more people. At the same time, they’ve still got the tooling for the older “off-scale” models, so they’ll keep building them as long as they sell.
I think the thing to watch is how the definition of “looks right” changes with each individual modeler over time. For some, it never does. They’re content to buy items off the shelf and run them in the garden without regard to scale or really any other factor. This is by far the easiest way to get enjoyment out of the hobby, and by and large the reason most folks get into this hobby. Others’ tastes refine over time to the point where they not only look at proper scale before purchasing a model, but era, and purpose as well. “Looks right” now means a small industrial 0-4-0 with a string of wood hoppers, where it used to mean a GP-9 with wood flat cars and Gunderson double stacks. Being in this camp makes it much easier to resist temptation in the hobby shop, that’s for sure. The word “maturing” is frequently used to describe this process. I think it’s more of a self-realization than anything else. The word “mature” implies a hierachy that doesn’t really exist in garden railroading, certainly not to the extent it does in the smaller scales. Of course, some would also call it “the road to insanity,” but that’s a story for another time.
I use some Bachman coaches that look fine with my LGB locos but I’ve never seen a Bachman loco next to a Lgb one.I have a feeling that they will look oversized,so I hav’nt bought one.If anyone can post or send me a picture of a couple standing together I will be grateful.
Hey Kim.If I were you I’d stick some metal wheels on that USA wagon.It will go better
Troy
The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a very close 1:22.5 model of the ET&WNC’s narrrow gauge locos. (Lee Riley–Bachmann’s product developer–is a big-time Tweetsie fan and active in the historical society.) I’ll agree that this particular prototype has standard gauge proportions, but that was actually quite common to a number of more modern non-Colorado motive power. The mikados of the East Broad Top look like 3/4 scale USRA light mikes. It’s just the way Baldwin built 'em. The Bachmann bobber caboose is spot on for 1:22.5 of the Tweetsie’s caboose, except that it’s a scale 6" too narrow. Most of Bachmann’s rolling stock is based on Tweetsie or EBT prototypes, some more accurate than others.
As for the Aristo C-16, it’s made from the old Delton molds, which was a 1:24 model of the C-16. Comparing my model to the plans in the current Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette, it’s spot on except that the wheelbase is about a scale foot too short. The only thing that Aristo changed from the original Delton was to raise the boiler and cylinders a bit (unprototypically) to accomodate the new drive mechanism. They also added marker lamps to the front, but everything else is identical. Their “classics” line is a re-issue of the Delton cars from the mid-80s, which were 1:24 models of indeterminant or generic prototypes.
What Vic inadvertently alludes to is one of the odd side effects of this scale mess–prototypes in one scale working well in another with minimal modification. It’s something I count on when researching and looking for available models to fill my roster. It’s a legacy left by the development of the hobby, and something we should embrace.
Aristo isn’t the only company using hand-me-down molds. Hartland’s equipment is also based off of older molds. They bought the old Kalamazoo molds and the Delton passenger car molds which were all to 1:24. Both Delton and Kalamazoo began producing products in the early and mid 80s as a competitor to LGB. They cho
On the subject of listening to consumers, I firmly believe that capitalistic competition will eventually equalize the standards. Just ask Triumph Motorcycles. Or maybe Harley in the early '70s or maybe Indian or AMC. Honda listened to the consumer and killed the competition or made it better. As consumers, we can buy what we want or not. I believe the press (ie Garden Railways Magazine) has the power to influence the manufactures by choosing not to run thier adverts if they make crap that is uncompatable with consumer desires. Perhaps that may be over the top and a little draconian, but it has to start somewhere. The only reason LGB, Aristocraft, Bachmann et al manufacture anything is to make money, period. If they make something we don’t buy, they don’t profit. Sooner or later they will figure it out.
On the other hand, in defense of the manufacturer, when was the last time any of us wrote/ emailed, or spoke to a corporate rep at a convention or show? Maybe the executive board sitting on Mt. Olympus are just misinformed to the consumer wants? Perhaps if they are reading this very forum, they may start to question thier products’ marketability. It is in the manufactures best interest to all get together and decide once and for all on scale/guage standards
This is not a really huge pet peve of mine, but it would be nice to at least have two things of the same “scale” at least be the same size. Sorry to vent like that, thanks for letting me stir up a little controversy… [oX)]
Wait… are you asking the media to turn away advertising dollars?[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]
Sorry, that kind-of struck me as funny. (It’s advertising dollars that pay my salary. As much as I hate commercials, without them I’d be broke.) I do agree that a little subtle pressure from Kalmbach, Walthers, and the NMRA would go a long way to get manufacturers to at least adhere to minimal standards such as wheel profile and track standards. There is a way to be subtle without affecting advertising revenue.
As for speaking to corporate reps, many of us do on a routine basis. There is a long discussion over on the Bachmann board as to why they chose the obscure loco they did in the face of the myriad pleas for a mainline narrow gauge rod loco such as a C-19 or similar. Believe me, we’re asking, begging even. Heck, I’ve sent books, drawings and photos to some manufacturers in a lobbying effort. They may be listening, but boy is their hearing selective.
I talk to manufacturer’s all the time, sometimes several times a week.
They really don’t care what we think, unless it fits into what their marketing research has shown to be viable.
We can scream and holler for Bachmann 1:20 freight cars until we pass out, but until their own research shows the release to be viable, the prototypes sit.
Aristo isn’t going to suddenly drop 1:29, and all them folks who swallowed the 1:29 pill don’t want it to go away.
Warbonnet GP9’s an NW2’s sell, even if not prototypical, so why change?
CZ’s in window arrangements not run sell, so why change?
As stated, LGB has their own market, and loyal followers, scale is not a concern, but the stuff looks good all plugged together.
The only real change needed is standards on track, switches and wheels, which have been approved, and are being implemented.
I cannot wait until reviews start in with 'this item does NOT meet nmra standards".
BTW, the Bach 1:20 (sic) cars are not of any moldings ever done before.
They re-lettered the boxes “20 foot” cars.
I use the low-side gons a lot. Fit my requirements.
This may come as a complete shock to some of the readers of this forum, but I have a problem with being “subltle”. Too many years in the Field Artillery I guess. I like the direct, to the point, get it done approach. Just be sure to write your responses to me loudly so I can hear them[(-D]
I do like the idea of at least getting the wheel sets/ coupler hieght standardized. That could be done without much redesign of existing equipment and relieve a lot of stress on our part. Perhaps that can be the wedge to break some of the corporate design dead-lock.[oX)]
I’m curious, if Bachmann pays attention to “research” to develop a viable product? The please tell me which side of the Moon do they do this research on? I am a frequent visitor to the “Ask the Bach’man” site and have seen some of the wishing that is done very publicly there as to which products or type of products the consumer would like to see produced. They seam to have completely copped out for 2005! It doesnt take a Harvard MBA to determine that the Vulcan is a niche engine and would have limited appeal. Yet they decide to make it as a flagship product. It has gotten a rather sour reception from the LS coummunity and I really wonder how well it will sell. Unless I find one for blowout at $100 I wont get one, and if I did it would be kitbash fodder.
Please enlighten me into the mind set of these people. How do they decide this stuff? I’m very confused…[%-)]
I don’t think there wil be any great changes in the industry for a long, long time. Most of us have settled on a particular “scale” and/or manufacturer and invested thousands, and in some cases many thousands, of dollars in our equipment. We’re not going to scrap that kind of investment to get on the “correct scale” bandwagon. However, we may aquire a piece or two over time and slowly migrate into a new standardized scale.
What I’d like to see is the creation of a “standard scale” for both NG and Standard gauge that also offers a complete line of readily available and reasonably priced accesories such as correctly proportioned vehicles, figures, structures, detail parts, etc. The defacto standard for indoor RR’ing is HO. Because of standardization the market has expanded and now you can buy really good quality stuff for a very small fraction of what you have to pay for a corresponding item in any of our many LS scales.
I model 1:24 because of the availabilty of 1/24 scale autos and trucks. Since I don’t model any particular prototype, I kitbash and modifiy mainly B’mann stuff to get it down to what I call the "looks about the right size to me " proportion. I’ve put in a lot of work, and a few bucks too, to get what looks good to me and I’d be very reluctant to start over.
However, I really do wi***here had been a standard, universally accepted scale for NG and one for standard gauge equipment when I began. I think the hobby would have been even more enjoyable than it already is despite the hodge-podge that we now have.
Jack you and I must secretely be related I agree with you, however a few things.
1/ I do not believe our hobby can ever be truly to scale, not just the rolling stock but everything else and what Walt says is the only right there can be “If it looks right is must be right”. I have read a few things that i can’t remember fully but the logic was inarguable when Iread it; we just can’t do it to 100 % scale irrespective of any philosophy. What it is all about is doing what you want in your layout and everyone else can get stuffed; unless they are prepared to pay your bills. And even; there is no wrong or right way of doing anything, will forever hold true.
Another matter, steel wheels. I have a few luxury coaches and a Post office van with LGB steel wheels with ball bearings and electrical pick up and I cannot speak highly enough of them. You cannot sit them on even the slightest grade or they will roll away from you, as a matter of fact i have discovered some grades i didn’t even know I had.
The lack of friction must be just so good and this must translate into improved apparent power and traction for your loco.
Now on to my problem. My fun train is an LGB Stainz pulling 3 little box carriages plus a Dining Car and my Postal Van on the back. In past it worked just great, but now in my Area 3; which has 4 % grades and R3 curves, it will not handle it and loses traction sometimes. I am considering a number of options and I would like to hear what others think.
just put up with it and smile.
reduce the size of the train, it works well with a couple of carriiages removed.
Get another Stainz and run them double headed (LGB MTS controlled).
I can get an LGB tender, which has full sound and has a big engine in it. I thought to run this also as a double header (also LGB MTS controlled.
The same 1987 issue of Garden Railways has the following from Marc Horovitz in response to a question on scale and gauge:
“It would be a help, however, if the advertisers would all specify the scale to which their products are built.”
Yes. Yes it would. Even 17 years later, yes it would.
Ian with 4% grades you have to either double head or reduce lenth. If you can afford it I would go for the powered tender, its powerfull. Otherwise a 2nd Stainz can be had on evil-bay for less than $100 US , sometimes a lot less. I dont use MTS so I dont know how far back it was offered on older Stainz engines. Maybe best to get a new one or the tender and not worry about it.
My major moan is the 8’ radious the companys are going to!
Yeah if I get my RR built I can handle them big boys.
But what if you have a track laided and you have 3, 4, 5, 6, 7’ curves?
Are these engines “correct” in size? Or have they streached them out[?][?][?]
Like if I go to TOCs, Matts or Vics house and try to run one that “requires” 8’ radi, will I be able to run it? Answer is possiable no unless you have the area to run them.
I feel here at this house anyone running 45mm would be able to run them here when RR track is up unltill some company makes a engine that needs 13’ radi!