# GAUGE 1?



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Ok here were go again.

I know this has been asked a million times.

What is the difference between Gauge 1 and G scale.

Rail King says to be Gauge 1 Is that so different than 1:29 or 1:20.5 Or what ever it is? 

JJ


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

Its the same track gauge. 

"The term "scale" is a misnomer, as the actual scale of the trains that run on it vary from system to system, country to country. G scale is more correctly called "G Gauge", as the gauge of the track, 45 mm (1.772 in), is the one consistency. 
The name comes from the German groß (meaning "big"). Traditionally, G scale is the use of 45 mm (1.772 in) gauge track, as used for standard gauge (Gauge 1) models, for modelling 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) narrow gauge railways, using the correct scale of 1:22.5. Metre gauge is the most common narrow gauge in Europe, where it is known as IIm." - Wikipedia 

So, Gauge 1 and G Scale(which stands for a track gauge NOT a scale) is the same track gauge of 45mm 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_scale 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_1


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Rail King says to be Gauge 1 Is that so different than 1:29 or 1:20.5 Or what ever it is?
In a word - Yes. 

"Gauge 1" was invented many years ago, and usually means (a) a gauge of 45mm and (b) a scale of 10mm:ft in Europe or 1:32 in the US. Railking adheres to this 'standard'. 

Similar trains - models of standard gauge mainline railroads by Aristocraft and USATrains - are 1/29th scale, using the same 45mm track gauge, so they are a little bigger than Railking. 

"G Scale", as Andrew mentions above, is a problem to define as it has been abused by all sorts of manufacturers. We usually take it to mean 45mm gauge track but the scale can be anything. Most often, it is a model of a narrow-gauge train at 1/22.5 (e.g. most LGB, some Bachmann) or 1/20.3 (e.g. some Accucraft/AML, Bachmann Spectrum.) The latter is the correct scale for models of 3' gauge trains running on 45mm gauge track. 

Then you need to think about the track. if 45mm gauge track is used for 1/32nd scale models, it will have lots of small ties - looking like a model of mainline track. The 1/20.3 (also known as Fn3 scale) track will have big ties widely spaced.


----------



## GN_Rocky (Jan 6, 2008)

Hey JJ, 
My understanding of it is this ... G scale has many different sub-scales - 1:20.3, 1:22.5, 1:29, and 1:32. As stated before, they all use 45mm rail spacing on the track, but the cars and locos will vary in size. I think most of us are either 1:29 or 1:22.5 with 1:20.3 getting more popular each year. Railking's "Gauge 1" is based around 1:32 and most of their cars and locos are smaller than Aristo and USA Trains rolling stock - Yet, their unibody tankcars don't look too bad with our 1/29th rolling stock when slightly modified. I have aquired about a dozen of them and am fairly happy with these cars. Their quad bay hoppers are on the edge of small, but I still have a handfull of them to run with my USA Trains 70 ton hoppers. Railkings flatcars are small in as their lenght and width, but I have a couple of them just because they were done in GN. Their locos, boxcars and cabeese are real tiny looking next to our 1/29th, so don't bother on them unless you want to run them alone by themselves. I don't know about the Difco dump cars. If they made a GN one (or pair - they run 2 of most everything they make) Then I would buy a couple just to see what they are like. But Railking's tankcar though could pass off as a 1:29th car when you change out the trucks for something larger - say Aristo trucks like I did. This raises the cars up about 1/4" to 3/8" and looks ok. It might be short in lenght looking if your a rivit counter, but I like them.

So whatcha lookin' at gettin' ???? 
Da Goat wants to know why your askin'









Rocky


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I hate the term G scale. 
G gauge with ____ scale running on it.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

"Gauge" in a technical respect refers solely to the distance between the rails. "Scale" is a ratio between prototype and model. Two different concepts. 

The term "Gauge 1" has its roots that go back 100 years or so, when there was "gauge 0" (zero), "gauge 1," "gauge 2," and "gauge 3." Those were the early gauges of model railroading. So anything with wheels set to run on rails 45mm apart was "gauge 1." Technically speaking, anything today that runs on track of that gauge is "gauge 1." 

"G scale" started out as a marketing term, coined by the LGB gurus. 1:22.5 already had an official name in European circles, "Scale II." Models in that scale running on gauge 1 track would be called "Scale IIm." But that's nowhere near as catchy as "G is for Garden," so LGB promoted their trains as "G scale." (LGB was originally marketed as "K scale"--for "king size" in the US.) 

The muddiness comes in semantics. Even from the early days of the hobby, the concepts of "scale" and "gauge" were often mixed. "O gauge" meant "O scale," "Gauge 1" meant "#1 scale." When the Gauge 1 Model Railway Association started up, they were a group focused primarily on British models built to 1:32 scale. Since the two terms were viewed as being synonymous, they called themselves "Gauge 1," and that usage referring to a specific scale became firmly entrenched. As such, trains built by manufacturers specifically to 1:32 are often called "Gauge 1" in reference to the _scale_. A similar thing happened with the term "G scale." LGB coined the phrase, but as other manufacturers brought out trains with other scale ratios, the moniker "G scale" stuck with them, so that you've got the familiar meaning today of anything designed to run on 45mm track--regardless of scale--is often called "G scale." 

Later, 

K


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

Everybody pretty much answered the question, but I'll add one more. 

Is gauge 1, Railking's (ie MTH) way of trying to make sure 1:32 scale does not get confused with other scales such as 1:29, 1:22.5 and 1:20.3 on the same gauge track (45mm)?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Jake, precisely. MTH is tying themselves to the specific 1:32 end of the spectrum with the "gauge 1" reference. 

Later, 

K


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

Nevermind, Kevin posted the answer while I was typing the question. He must be psychic or something???


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

lol, he did it again!!!! 

Watch out everyone, Kevin knows what your thinking before you even think it.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Now, if someone can please think of the winning PowerBall numbers...  

Later, 

K


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

My view, after 10 years of assimilation: 

Gauge 1 = 45mm track, nothing more. 
G scale = models of meter gauge prototypes running on 45mm track in 1/22.5 scale, nothing more. 
G gauge = technically doesnt really exist..since the track for G scale is Gauge 1 track..but Gauge 1 track can be also be considered G Gauge track. 

"Gauge 1" and "G gauge" only refer to track..and both refer to 45mm track..the word "gauge" only means "distance between the rails" 
gauge refers only to track..not models of trains. 
"scale" means "the ratio of the model to the prototype" 

7/8n2 scale, also called 1/13.7 scale, is not G scale. 
Fn3 scale, also called 1/20.3 scale, is not G scale. 
1/22.5 scale IS G scale. 
1/24 scale is not G scale. 
1/29 scale is not G scale. 
1/32 scale is not G scale. 

but all of the above run on Gauge 1 track, or G gauge track. 
instead of "G gauge" or "G scale", they should more correctly be referered to as "Large Scale".. 

Scot


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 17 Nov 2011 11:54 AM 
My view, after 10 years of assimilation: 

but all of the above run on Gauge 1 track, or G gauge track. 
instead of "G gauge" or "G scale", they should more correctly be referered to as "Large Scale".. 

Scot 


Can't agree with that. "Large Scale" is too nebulous. What about Gauge 2, 3, and Buddy "L" track? Aren't they also "large scale."


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

A post on another site caused me to ask the Question.

I looked at Rail King at one time a long time ago, when I first started , because they had a animated car. It was a dump Car that dumped it's load when on a special track. 

Only it didn't seem to fit with my Aristo and USA cars and engines. Size wise It didn't look right when placed next to cars I already had. 


On my old Lionel layout when I was a kid I had a conveyor that loaded fake coal into a gondola car and the car would dump the coal back into a hopper.

The hopper ( more of a pan than a hopper) would vibrate and the coal would work it's way back to the conveyor belt and then be loaded back into the car.

I played with that thing for hours . 


I keep these ideas in the back of my head as I would like to add some kind of animation to my layout. Loading and UN-loading cars.

My work on my car barns has given me a idea for a Container yard for loading and unloading containers. 

I have been looking into Sensors and P L C s Micro Processors such as Basic Stamp and PICAXE, Propeller Eaton s programmable relay ( a small PLC) with the idea someday of using them for automation of some sorts. 

I see some guy has made his own remote control using the PICSAXE micro processor. 


JJ


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

JJ, the problem (as I sees it) with animation in LS, is you'll either have to go to great lengths to make it weather and critter proof, or cart the thing in and out every time you wish to use it. Neither option lends itself to being really user friendly.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 17 Nov 2011 12:35 PM 
Can't agree with that. "Large Scale" is too nebulous. What about Gauge 2, 3, and Buddy "L" track? Aren't they also "large scale." 





No , they arent..not in the sense that "Large Scale" is used by everyone in the hobby..
the probelm is that there is no authority that can set concrete rules and definations..
therefore its all simply a matter of opinion, or what becomes "generally accepted"..
but "Large Scale" has been in use for quite some time as a "better alternative" to "G scale" and "G gauge"
when used as a generic term to mean "All model trains that run on 45mm track regardless of scale"..'
is it "official"? no.
is it "generally accepted"? yes..

Scot


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

It's not really clear to me where the term "G scale" comes from originally and when it was first used. 

If you look at the first LGB catalogues on the database site: 
http://www.gbdb.info/categories.php?cat_id=376&l=english 

you will find that there was a clear distinction between gauge and scale - the gauge was shown as Gauge 1, 45mm and sometimes as Gaguge G, the scale was always shown as 1:22,5 or sometimes as 1:22 

At some point well after the beginning of LGB in 1968, the German term "Baugrösse" was used which is a term that combines scale and gauge into one - no real English single word equivalent, I think NMRA calls it scale designator. 
For LGB this became "Baugrösse" IIm (ie scale of 1:22.5 which is scale II with the prototype running on Meter gauge track, the small "m" in the IIm designator). This is the identical designation concept of all the smaller modeltrain scales, ie H0m, H0n3 etc. If there is no suffix, ie "Baugrösse" Ho it simply means that the prototype is running on standard gauge track which for scale II would be a gauge of 64mm and for scale I (1:32), 45 mm. 

At some point I remember seeing the scale designator "IIm" being equated to "G" and I guess it was just a small step from there to drop the word 'designator' and end up with scale "G" 

And them when Aristocraft and USA Trains came out with their 1:24 scale and 1:29 scale products and intially listed those as "G", the confusion was complete. 

At least now Arsito and USAT and others spell out the actual scale of their products. 

Knut


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 17 Nov 2011 01:39 PM 
JJ, the problem (as I sees it) with animation in LS, is you'll either have to go to great lengths to make it weather and critter proof, or cart the thing in and out every time you wish to use it. Neither option lends itself to being really user friendly. 

Or..., you make it part of the railcar(s) so that it goes in and out with the trains anyway.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I saw that car at SWGRRS on the Deloro Layout. 

I thought it was a great idea and a job well done. 

JJ


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By John J on 17 Nov 2011 03:06 PM 
I saw that car at SWGRRS on the Deloro Layout. 

I thought it was a great idea and a job well done. 

JJ 

Thanks John.


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

I would not criticise people on how they use the term Gauge 1. If I am not mistaken, others use the term as follows:


At Aster UK, the term denotes 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily standard gauge prototypes.

At Railking, the term denotes 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily US standard gauge prototypes.
At Marklin ,the term denotes 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily German standard gauge prototypes.
At Tenmille, the term denotes approx. 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily British standard gauge prototypes.



Just my two cents.

Tom


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Tom Leaton on 17 Nov 2011 03:42 PM 

I would not criticise people on how they use the term Gauge 1. If I am not mistaken, others use the term as follows:


At Aster UK, the term denotes 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily standard gauge prototypes.

At Railking, the term denotes 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily US standard gauge prototypes.
At Marklin ,the term denotes 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily German standard gauge prototypes.
At Tenmille, the term denotes approx. 1:32 scale model trains for 45mm track, of primarily British standard gauge prototypes.



Just my two cents.

Tom


Well Tom, from what I see each one of these four examples is 100% correct - gauge 1 + 45mm track gauge and 1:32 scale is correct for standard gauge prototypes which they all are.
If the models are US, German or British doesn't enter the picture.

But as an example where there are subtle differences in the smaller scale is 00 scale for instance - 1:76 scale standard gauge equipment running on 16.5mm gauge track.

This is really the wrong scale for that track gauge - should have been 1:87 scale running on 16.5mm track but there were practical manufacturing reasons that a slightly larger scale was chosen specifically for British prototypes than the correct 1:87 scale.
However, the scale designator was changed to 00 so there is no confusion with H0 - same track gauge for 00 and H0, even represents the same type of model, standard gauge prototype, but the designator was changed.
In Large Scale, and I like that term as well, some manufacturers lump everything from 1:20 to 1:32 scale under the same designator, the Fn3 designator is a bit slow in catching on for 1:20.3 on 45mm track.

Knut


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

One day out at the Botanic, a guy from the NMRA asked why we garden railroaders don't use the standard nomenclature. Not wanting to admit I'd never figured it out, I just said, "Just hard-headed, I guess."


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

lots of explanations, most of them more or less spot on. 

but one aspect was forgotten. 

"G-gauge" track of 45mm are different from "1-gauge" track of 45mm. 
the expression "G-gauge" includes the understanding, that the rail is N# 332, while "1-gauge" includes the use of a much smaller rail.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 18 Nov 2011 06:55 AM 
lots of explanations, most of them more or less spot on. 

but one aspect was forgotten. 

"G-gauge" track of 45mm are different from "1-gauge" track of 45mm. 
the expression "G-gauge" includes the understanding, that the rail is N# 332, while "1-gauge" includes the use of a much smaller rail. 

I doubt that is true..
since the term "G-gauge" in reference to track isnt any kind of official designation anway,
there certaintly has never been any "rule" that states G-gauge track is only code 332! 
there is no one to make any official rules..therefore official rules dont exist..except concerning the gauge, 45mm.
Code 250 and other rail sizes are certaintly lumped in with the "G gauge track" generic designation..

the only thing that must be consistant is the gauge..rail height, and tie spacing, can be (and is) all over the map..

and I dont thank 1-gauge has any specific "code" or rail height requirement either..but I could be wrong about that..

Scot


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By Scottychaos on 18 Nov 2011 07:23 AM 
... I doubt that is true.. since the term "G-gauge" in reference to track isnt any kind of official designation anway,
there certaintly has never been any "rule" that states G-gauge track is only code 332! 
there is no one to make any official rules..therefore official rules dont exist..except concerning the gauge, 45mm.
Code 250 and other rail sizes are certaintly lumped in with the "G gauge track" generic designation..

the only thing that must be consistant is the gauge..rail height, and tie spacing, can be (and is) all over the map..

and I dont thank 1-gauge has any specific "code" or rail height requirement either..but I could be wrong about that..

Scot



you may doubt, whatever you want, but for about one hundred years the germans have their system of denominations for modeltrains.

and for all this time the "Gauge No1 included rails of about code 200 (i'm not sure about the exact number), while LGB track was named gauge "IIm" (2m) from the beginning.
just because it was a narrow gauge of "Gauge II" (gauge 2).

missnaming the larger scales on 45mm track as Gauge 1 is the same, as would be missnaming the narrow gauge H0 trains and tracks as "N".

the "G-scale" track has so big rails, because the same rails were used, as for the then existing "Gauge II" (gauge 2)
and the expression "G-gauge" is the result of unwillingness or incapability to use the then existing german system.

to the day, this whole confusion about scales and gauges (not even to mention "guages") never was an issue in germany. only in the english speaking countries, where the toys, but not the specifics were copied .


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 18 Nov 2011 07:46 AM 


you may doubt, whatever you want, but for about one hundred years the germans have their system of denominations for modeltrains.

Im sure thats true.. 
but its also irrelevant..as far as the question of "G gauge track is only code 332"! 
which was the point I was disputing..

Scot


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Scot 

I would bet you a boxcar that if you sampled 25 retailers and asked for "G gauge track" EXACTLY ZERO would offer you a product that was NOT code 332. I would also guess that the Modelers who are using Tenmille code 200, Llagas Creek code 215 and 250, and Sunset Valley code 250 don't call it "G gauge" either, except to others who are either members of the general public or not particularly interested in trains. 

To me, "G'" is for toys [which is what LGB was for many years, just like Lionel]. Lumping all the "more scale" track products under the "G" label is just like claiming that all 32mm tack is the same whether it is Lionel tubular tinplate, Lionel Fast Trak, MTH Rite Trax, Atlas 21st Century 3rail code 250NS or Atlas 2rail code 148. Walk into ALMOST ANY store and ask for "O gauge track" and you will be offered 3 rail track, not Atlas 2 rail code 148. 

It is NOT the same and we should not try to pretend that it is because it is "too hard to understand the difference. I am sorry to say, but anyone who does not understand scale ratios [ie basic fractions] or the difference between code 332 track and code 200 track, either failed fourth grade math, or forgot it. 

I will admit that Peco markets G-45 that is code 250 and Micro Engineering had a product called "G-Trak' that was also code 250; but those are almost unknown in the large world of LGB, Aristo, USA, and AML track [all 332]. 

I was operating an H0n3 modular layout at a show about three weeks ago and a gentleman came up and commented on the "nice N gauge trains". I pointed out that it was H0n3 and was informed "I know N gauge when I see it." The fact that N is 9.0mm gauge and H0n3 is 10.5mm did not deter him.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

meh..semantics.. 
I bet I could sample plenty of retailers and say "show me what you have in G gauge track" and not one of them would say "G gauge track is only code 332..we have this Llagas creek and Sunset valley track as well, but that is not G gauge track".. 

I will admit that Peco markets G-45 that is code 250 and Micro Engineering had a product called "G-Trak' that was also code 250; but those are almost unknown in the large world of LGB, Aristo, USA, and AML track [all 332]. 

kinda proves my point right there!  
So if a retailer is selling "Peco G-45 track", or Micro Enginnering "G-trak" and I call them to ask about it,
they are going to say its *not* G-gauge track? 
of course not.. 

Scot


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Gauge 1 is a track gauge, 1-3/4" originally, now 45mm. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I would bet you a boxcar that if you sampled 25 retailers and asked for "G gauge track" EXACTLY ZERO would offer you a product that was NOT code 332. 
Jim, can I pick the box car? If you were to go to Caboose Hobbies and ask for "G gauge track," they'll take you down the "G scale" aisle where all the track is; both code 250 and code 332. (And to add to the discussion, the "G scale" aisle isn't dedicated only to LGB and Bachmann's "Big Hauler" line, but all scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3.) 

We can talk about what terms technically mean or "should" mean by definition, and probably reach a bit of consensus on that. But language is highly mutable, and words often take on new meanings within certain contexts. "Scale" and "gauge" have very precise meanings as individual words. I think we're all in agreement as to what those definitions are. But within the context of describing the size of various models of railroad equipment, the distinctions between those two words gets much more fuzzy. We know from the context of the discussion precisely what someone means when they say they had "HO gauge" trains as a child in contrast to a discussion when someone says they run their trains on "HO gauge" track. And because we clearly understand the distinctions in both conversations, the words' "dictionary" definitions become less relevant within this particular context. People have been making that contextual distinction in this hobby for _generations!_ At what point do you stop worry about whether a term is "proper" or not, and just accept that it's widely understood? 

Later, 

K


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

What are we yelling about ? Here in the US we always create *our own set of 'World Standards' *anyway. And we still don't have a central standard for time (4 time zones) - yet. The rest of the world does. We use the Foot, Pound, Sec measures - almost everyone else has dropped it.


In the land of the Free, how can anything be Mandatoreeee ?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By VictorSpear on 18 Nov 2011 02:09 PM 
And we still don't have a central standard for time (4 time zones) - yet. The rest of the world does. 


We have four time zones because of the Sun and the Earth..not because we are Americans! 
(and actuallty, we have 6 time zones.)

Some nations have only one time zone..but that is only because they are small enough that it takes the Sun only one hour to travel all the way across them..

Brazil has 2 time zones.
Mexico has 3 time zones..
Australia has 3.
Canada has 5.
USA has 6.
Russia has 10!

Its only has to do with the "width" of a country and how long it takes for that particular country to rotate underneath the Sun..
nothing to do with national preferences! 

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

And actually, bringing this back to trains, it was Railroads that created our time zones!

Railroads and time zones

In the US, before 1883 every community and city has its own 'local time"..based on the position of the sun in the sky at that particular longitude..
this made it impossible for Railroads to have any reliable passenger schedules..
so the railroads lobbied for standardized time zones, which were adopted in 1883.

and just think what would happen if we had only one time zone across the US..
On the longest day of the year, the sun sets close to 9pm on the East coast..
If "east coast time" was adopted for the entire USA, the sun would set at Midnight in California on the same day..

conversly, this time of year, close to the shortest day of the year in the winter, the sun sets in California about 5pm..
If "pacific time" were adopted across the entire US, the sun would set on the East coast at 2pm..

this is why we have time zones 

Scot


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

There are time 'zones' and a reference Standard 'time' for countries (and the EU). The larger they are, the more important it is. This you find out pretty fast when a subscription payment expires and your power gets disconnected.
Russia, currently has nine time zones from UTC+03:00 to UTC+12:00 and is still working on it...China, which has a land mass comparable with the US has a single Standard Time.


Cheers
Victor


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Victor, 
I just noticed on a map that China has only one time zone.. 
how can they function like that? 
where is the reference point? must be in the middle of the country.. 
wow, they must have sunrise and sunset times comparable to Alaska!  
(and Alaska's weird times are due to latitude..) 

Why would China want this? convenience? 
seems like it would really mess up peoples lives.. 
you would have darkness in some areas, at some times of year, at 1 or 2 pm.. 
then light out until 11pm or midnight at other times of year.. 
but I guess the Chinese govt isnt too concerned about making things easier for its people!  
IMO, we *need* time zones..they are a good and necessary thing.. 

Once China takes over the entire world, they will have to deal with it then! 

Scot


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

Touche !


----------



## Bob in Kalamazoo (Apr 2, 2009)

Posted By Scottychaos on 18 Nov 2011 02:53 PM 
Victor, 
I just noticed on a map that China has only one time zone.. 
how can they function like that? 
where is the reference point? must be in the middle of the country.. 
wow, they must have sunrise and sunset times comparable to Alaska!  
(and Alaska's weird times are due to latitude..) 

Why would China want this? convenience? 
seems like it would really mess up peoples lives.. 
you would have darkness in some areas, at some times of year, at 1 or 2 pm.. 
then light out until 11pm or midnight at other times of year.. 
but I guess the Chinese govt isnt too concerned about making things easier for its people!  
IMO, we *need* time zones..they are a good and necessary thing.. 

Once China takes over the entire world, they will have to deal with it then! 

Scot My son lives in China. He's been there for several years and has lived in different parts of the country. His wife is Chinese. Everyone in China goes about their normal lives with the local time. I believe the offical time only applies to things like train and plane schedules. I'm sure there are other times when the offical time is used, but not for when you go to work, out to eat, to a movie, etc.
Bob


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Scale this and scale that. 

Fact is, nothing in the hobby business is 100% true to the scale. Oh, yea 1/32 scale Gauge 1 trains might be close, but they're not perfect. So even the rivit counters have to compromise on some details. 

I still buy what I like and run what I like.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Scott: 

You forgot to mention that the Railroad time zones are a Canadian invention : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandford_Fleming 

Standard times zones were invented to reduce the occurrence of locomotives from running into each other with each locomotive running on their local town time zone. 

The telephone was also a Canadian invention. For some strange reason the telephone was incorrectly stated to be an American invention at a Disney World attraction. Apparently an Italian actually invented the telephone prior to Alexander Graham Bell but Mr. Bell got the patents and made the fortune. 


Norman


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It's all a plot by aliens to take over earth. 

Greg


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

The Train Collectors Society: History

Early Model Railroading History 

Gauge One Model Railway Association - History










( Why will the crappy editor accept inserting two links but not the third causing a code dump? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... )


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

What was the question ?

I love this stuff.

I know you guys wondered off the original topic but tidbits of information I learned from here are great.

Some call it HI JACKING some call it something else.

I don't mind

It's like sitting in a hotel lobby talking with you guys.

This is the same stuff that goes on at shows. 

Thanks for the fun

JJ


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

What was the question ?

I love this stuff.

I know you guys wondered off the original topic but tidbits of information I learned from here are great.

Some call it HI JACKING some call it something else.

I don't mind

It's like sitting in a hotel lobby talking with you guys.

This is the same stuff that goes on at shows. 

Thanks for the fun

JJ 

Arguing if time has scale -- or gauge.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Time does not have scale or gauge. But it does have relativity.


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By John J on 20 Nov 2011 10:24 AM 
What was the question ?

I love this stuff.

I know you guys wondered off the original topic but tidbits of information I learned from here are great.

Some call it HI JACKING some call it something else.

I don't mind

It's like sitting in a hotel lobby talking with you guys.

This is the same stuff that goes on at shows. 

Thanks for the fun

JJ 

......................................................................................................

Yup.. This is called Hi jacking......... 
Monday, November 21st  John J. Jablonski
66 years old · Sorry.. I couldn't wait for the ice cream for tomorrow... It was going to melt so i ate it today.. Happy B-day tomorrow.. laf..
By the way, what was the post???? 
Something to do with GEEEEEEE gage?


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Depends on if you believe we live IN time or out of time.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Belief indeed Marty.
Only Dr Who can travel in time. 
So don't start bringing some other poxy sort of religion into it.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 20 Nov 2011 03:27 PM 
Time does not have scale or gauge. But it does have relativity. 
Philosophers have asked for centuries: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The answer is no, sound is a precept of the mind. Perhaps time is not relativistic. It could be Euclidean.

This is some deep stuff.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh man, too early in the morning for this ****! Where's my coffee................?


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Posted By xo18thfa on 21 Nov 2011 11:09 AM 
Posted By TonyWalsham on 20 Nov 2011 03:27 PM 
Time does not have scale or gauge. But it does have relativity. 
Philosophers have asked for centuries: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The answer is no, sound is a precept of the mind. Perhaps time is not relativistic. It could be Euclidean.

This is some deep stuff. 


I am not so sure on this.

Everything makes noise weather you there to hear it or not.

It is only relevant when it reaches your ears. 

JJ


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By xo18thfa on 21 Nov 2011 11:09 AM 
Posted By TonyWalsham on 20 Nov 2011 03:27 PM 
Time does not have scale or gauge. But it does have relativity. 
Philosophers have asked for centuries: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The answer is no, sound is a precept of the mind. Perhaps time is not relativistic. It could be Euclidean.

This is some deep stuff. 



So if you put a recorder out there and the tree falls, the recording is blank? I ain't buying it. Sound is the compression and rarifaction of a pressure wave though a medium such as air.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

"sound waves" are not the same as "make a sound".. 
in order for there to be "sound", there has to be something that can convert sound waves into sound.. 
a person, an animal..and yes, a tape recorder counts!  

So if there is a tape recorder, the tree makes a sound, because the tape recorder converts sound waves into sound.. 
although..I take that back! because the tape recorder, by itself, does not mean the tree made a sound..because you still need a person or an animal to press the button to make the tape recorder make the sound..only then did the tree make a sound.. 

but..its a recording of the sound..not the sound itself.. 
therefore if a tree falls in the woods and a nearby tape recorder records the sound waves, the tree did *not* make a sound!  
not at that moment anyway..it made sound waves, that the tape recorder recorded, which can then later be converted into sound..
but at the moment the tree fell, it was completely silent, because nothing was there to hear it..

so if you have no person, animals, or tape recorder, then no, the tree does not make a sound.. 
it only makes sound waves..moving air.. which by itself is completely silent.. 
sound waves, by themseves, are not sound, they are simply moving molecules of air.. 
you have to have something capable of converting the sound waves into sound.. 

therefore "If a tree falls in the forest, and nothing is there to hear it, does it make a sound? 
my vote is no. 

Scot


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

leaves swooshing through the air, twigs and branches crackling, when hitting other trees, a thick fat thud, when the tree hits the ground, a finall shuffel of the leaves... 
they are all there, they are all sounds - and they happen, regardless, if there is anybody near or not. 
next you'll try to sell us the idea, that sound comes not into existence, if only deaf persons are near. 
so, if one deaf and one hearing person presence a falling tree, is there only fifty percent of sound?? 

if lightning strikes and the next person that hears the thunder is miles away - then the lightning will be thunderless/soundless until the first person has heard it?? 

what nonsense to accept the existance of sound only, if somebody hears it.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

If I close my eyes and put on a hood and can't see the light in the room, is the light not still there? If I bury my head in the sand, does the danger go away? 

From Webster: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudnal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective _cause of hearing_. So according to Webster, _the sound causes you to hear_. In the other way of thinking, the _hearing causes the pressure wave to be a sound_ and that's not the definition_._


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have to sort of agree with Scot... really depends on the definition of sound.... if sound is defined as the pressure waves existance, then Korm is right... if sound is defined as the perception/sensation, then it gets murky. 

A deaf person cannot hear any sounds... but he might FEEL the air pressure of low frequency waves... is that sound? 

A tricky question to be sure. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

About as tricky as the question of *scale* and *gauge*. 

In fact, probably a sort of a chicken and egg question.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

If one wants to believe that something doesn't exist just because you don't posses the ability to perceive its presence. I suggest you then go sit in a room with a 1 lb. block of enriched uranium, or maybe sit in a room with a 50% concentration of carbon monoxide. Hey it won't hurt you, it's not there. Right? Or maybe take a real deep breath and blow real hard through a dog whistle while sitting in a room full of pit bull dogs that have been trained to attack an individual doing that. But hey you perceive no "sound" so you'll be just fine.









Talk about a waste of time.









Or maybe you're in a Bill Clinton rationalization training seminar.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

You are standing on the roof of a train. 
the train is running at the speed of light. 
you aim a flashlight straight ahead, and turn it on.. 
does light come out of the flashlight?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 21 Nov 2011 06:43 PM 
If one wants to believe that something doesn't exist just because you don't posses the ability to perceive its presence. I suggest you then go sit in a room with a 1 lb. block of enriched uranium, or maybe sit in a room with a 50% concentration of carbon monoxide. Hey it won't hurt you, it's not there. Right? Or maybe take a real deep breath and blow real hard through a dog whistle while sitting in a room full of pit bull dogs that have been trained to attack an individual doing that. But hey you perceive no "sound" so you'll be just fine.









Talk about a waste of time.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 21 Nov 2011 06:44 PM 
You are standing on the roof of a train. 
the train is running at the speed of light. 
you aim a flashlight straight ahead, and turn it on.. 
does light come out of the flashlight? 

I wouldn't know. As I went faster and faster, the relativistic mass of the flashlight got greater and greater until I could no longer lift it. Furthermore, based on the space dilation, the on switch kept getting further and further from my finger as I reached for it even though my fingers kept getting longer and longer. I never did get the chance to turn it on before I dropped it.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Pressure waves from the outside world enter the ear and make their way thru a series of neural inputs to the medial geniculate nucleus in the thalamus. The MGN pre-processes the input into auditory sound. From there the input goes to the primary audio cortex (Broadman Area 41) which is ultimately responsible for the production of "hearing" and interpreting of sound in a meaningful way. Without an MGN and an advanced primary audio cortex, you can't process the pressure waves into something you can recognize.

Sound is the precept of the mind. The tree makes no sound if you are not there to hear it.


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

To eliminate something here is code of the rail. Various codes of rail exist in all scales. HO has code 100, 83 & 55 to name a few. Code 332, 250 or 215 doesnt really matter when it comes to discussion of scale discrepency (sp?). 

I really believe the NMRA is dropping the ball on this whole thing. I know they went as far as to designate 1:20.3 as Fn3. I think that is a start but the NMRa needs to go further. I know NMRA doesn't speak for the entire hobby world but if it sets stardards then most hobby manufactures will usually follow. Look at DCC it was the leadership of the NMRA that standardized it and we enjoy the many features of DCC because of it.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By jake3404 on 21 Nov 2011 09:51 PM 

I really believe the NMRA is dropping the ball on this whole thing. I know they went as far as to designate 1:20.3 as Fn3. I think that is a start but the NMRa needs to go further. I know NMRA doesn't speak for the entire hobby world but if it sets stardards then most hobby manufactures will usually follow. Look at DCC it was the leadership of the NMRA that standardized it and we enjoy the many features of DCC because of it.



I think NMRA has gone as far as they are going to go with the scale and gauge thing for Large Scale.

A while back there was an NMRA proposal of different letter designators for all the scales we use in Large Scale - someone may still have a copy of that, but that proposal was just being laughed at so it died rather quickly.

If you look at what exists;

1:29 scale on 45mm model track - that is really a non-starter as far as NMRA is concerned since the scale of the track doesn't match the scale of the rolling stock. 


1:24 scale on 45 mm model track - same problem

1:22.5 scale on 45mm track - That is already defined by MOROP, represents trains running on Meter gauge track, standard gauge track for that scale is 64mm. I assume NMRA doesn't cover that since there are no Meter gauge railways in North America. But an official modelrailroad standard does exist. officially called IIm.


1:20.3 scale on 45mm track - trains running on 3-ft track; defined by NMRA.


Now with Garden Railroading, if you get into the height of the rail, ie code, the depth of the wheel flanges, the tolerances of the gauge - you're into another can of worms.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

With regards to the code of rail: 

HO and O scale models are indoor models. Hence, NMRA can define standards for properly scaled indoor operation rail and indoor operation wheel flanges. 

Large scale, including Fn3, are generally outdoor models. Scale rail and scale wheel flanges are not suitable for outdoor operation. 

Norman


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By norman on 21 Nov 2011 10:19 PM 

Large scale, including Fn3, are generally outdoor models. Scale rail and scale wheel flanges are not suitable for outdoor operation. 


I wouldn't say that.
A friend of mine uses code 215 rail outside and we run all of the standard Large Scale equipment with no problems.

May not be true to scale but it looks better than the code 332 rail especially if the train and rail is at eye level or close to it.
Code 332 track on the ground doesn't look too bad because of the viewing angle.


The problem using code 215 track is that he ends up building all the switches himself - he loves doing that, wouldn't be something I want to try.


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Scot,

That is the sort of question that Einstein once pondered, except that his 'train' was a streetcar he rode in Switzerland. To answer the question he developed his theory of relativity.

Too bad these guys couldn't ask him about gauge 1.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I think NMRA has gone as far as they are going to go with the scale and gauge thing for Large Scale. 
A while back there was an NMRA proposal of different letter designators for all the scales we use in Large Scale - someone may still have a copy of that, but that proposal was just being laughed at so it died rather quickly. 

Well, there are still many in the NMRA who seem to want to continue hammering the proverbial square peg (large scale) into the proverbial round hole (NMRA's nomenclature). I still get involved from time to time, trying to keep cooler heads prevailing, so hopefully they'll leave well enough alone. 

Large scale, including Fn3, are generally outdoor models. Scale rail and scale wheel flanges are not suitable for outdoor operation. 
When it comes to the rail, even code 332 scales out to a prototypical height in many outdoor scales.  Here's a link to a chart showing how various sizes of rail scale in the various scales. The question becomes, did your particular prototype (or would a prototype railroad such as yours) use rail of that size? Code 250 rail scales to 80 - 90-pound rail in 1:20.3, which is what the larger narrow gauge lines used (and still use.) Code 332 would be akin to around 130 - 140-pound rail in that scale. On the 1:32/1:29 end of the spectrum, code 332 may be oversized, but code 250 equates to 140 pound rail. So "scale rail" is decidedly viable in large scale. 

Scale flanges, too, are possible, but you'd have to build your switches to tighter tolerances. The NMRA publishes "finescale" track standards for each of the scales, which are largely based on prototype practice, but scaled down to the appropriate scale. The bigger issue with scale flanges is that you'd spend most of your time turning down the wheels on your motive power (presuming you'd be buying wheels like Gary Raymond's finescale stuff for the rolling stock), and you'd also have to make sure you've got broad curves and very even trackwork. I'd not go so far as to call it "not suitable," because it certainly _can_ be done. More work than it's worth? Probably. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Budd (Mar 22, 2008)

Posted By krs on 21 Nov 2011 10:08 PM 

1:24 scale on 45 mm model track - same problem


Not so, 1:24th scale on 45mm track is used in many parts of the world to model 3'6" railways, e.g. in Australia for Queensland, South Australian and West Australian Railway systems, New Zealand Railways and South African Railways just to name a few.
At my club we have a bit of friendly banter about whose models are correct on gauge 1, 1:29 is referred to as that American barstardised scale, one member models 1:32 scale and maintains his is the only correct scale/gauge, I model 3'6" gauge trains so claim my scale/gauge is the only correct one, all in good fun.
I too believe that the NMRA have gone as far as they can go due to the huge range of scales legitimately using gauge 1, my mates 1:32 wheels/flanges should be a different size to my 1:24 wheels/flanges but we both want to run on the same club track (along with 1:29, 1:20, 1:22 scale trains), compromises have to be made in scale and practicality as well. I tried fine scale 1:24 wheels but found them too troublesome to persevere with in my garden setting, I am more than happy to compromise on larger flanges and have more fun with reliably running tains without having to constantly maintain my trackwork to a fine standard.
Each to his own.

Wayne


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

An excellent comprehensive list/explanation of nearly all if not all MRR scales and gauge:

*Rail transport modelling scales*

Some minor errors in the coments section, for example Omitting Accucraft and Aster offer models fired with Coal and Alcohol. You can make a contribution to correct these minor errors if you submit the correction to the Wikipedia Editors. 

The Wikipedia article does correct a number of errors in the descriptions above, for example; 

European Meter (narrow) Gauge = 45mm, Scale = 1:22.5; 
European Standard Guage 4'8" (Gauge 3) = 63.5mm, Scale 1:22.6


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

code 250 and 215 do NOT exist! 

if sound does not exist, until i hear it, then code 250 and 215 rails do not exist until i see them. 
and Scot's layout is a mere fairytale too. it can't exist, before i have seen it. 

did i succed now, to adapt myself to the ego-centric point of view of others here?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 22 Nov 2011 08:37 AM 
code 250 and 215 do NOT exist! 

if sound does not exist, until i hear it, then code 250 and 215 rails do not exist until i see them. 
and Scot's layout is a mere fairytale too. it can't exist, before i have seen it. 

did i succed now, to adapt myself to the ego-centric point of view of others here? 





Korm, get a grip man..
this was all in FUN! its called a "sense of humour"..something apparently you have never had..or have lost.
and when did I ever say you MUST agree with what I say?
I was stating my opinion..that was clear and obvious.
wow..

Scot


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Scot he was poking fun at you! 
Get a grip.... your 'meds' line wasn't necessary. 

No sound exists until I hear it ... the rest of you are just fooling yourselves. 

John


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Totalwrecker on 22 Nov 2011 10:25 AM 
Scot he was poking fun at you! 
Get a grip.... your 'meds' line wasn't necessary. 

No sound exists until I hear it ... the rest of you are just fooling yourselves. 

John 

No, its quite obvious he isnt "poking fun"..he is dead serious.
but you are right about the meds comment..post edited. 

Scot


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Wow you can tell that from the printed words? 

Calling your layout a fairytale kinda makes it humorous to me. 

Dead serious here? I think you are wrong (said with a laff) this is a derailed thread, far from the beaten track (guage) lol 

"Quite obvious" not to me, but it isn't my skin getting poked! 

John


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Uh, I think I'll keep my own opinion about trees falling in unoccupied forests to myself. BUT I thought all of you might enjoy the paraphrase I saw on a tee shirt a few months ago:

"If a man says something in a forest and there is no woman to hear it, is he still wrong?"








Have fun,
David Meashey


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dave Meashey on 22 Nov 2011 11:27 AM 
Uh, I think I'll keep my own opinion about trees falling in unoccupied forests to myself. BUT I thought all of you might enjoy the paraphrase I saw on a tee shirt a few months ago:

"If a man says something in a forest and there is no woman to hear it, is he still wrong?"








Have fun,
David Meashey





I love that one! and the answer is obvious..of course he is still wrong! 
another T-shirt:

I'm the Boss![/b]
(my wife said I could be)

Scot


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

sorry, scot. 
i didn't realize, i was pulling your leg too hard.


----------

