# Trouble with scaling



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

OK, I thought this was gonna be easy: making a computer model of a basic 36' flat car, using drawings of a prototype and designing for common materials (BM trucks, cedar strips, 3D-printed metal bits).

For scale, I've been using 1:22.5. And all I'm trying to do is make a sketch of the new model, overlaid on an image of the scaled-down 1:1 drawing.

The prototype for my RR is the V&T, which was all standard gauge. But the commercial products I have represent (roughly) narrow gauge. So, I figure 1:22.5 is a fair compromise, as long as V&T experts don't come by.

So, after messing with this for a couple hours, here's a brief list of my issues.

- Since my prototype is standard gauge, right off the bat my intended trucks are too small. OK, I can handle that.
- Measuring the proto drawing, with the car length at 36', the deck height (from top of rail) is way too high (2.5") in comparison with all my other model cars (1.6" to 1.9"). So, I'll have to squish the deck down so as to not stand out too much.
- That proto car length scales to much longer (19.2") than the BM & LGB stuff I have (about 14.5"). The only cars I have that come close to that length are BM Big Hauler pass cars, about 18.6". So, maybe I shorten the thing to.... I don't know, 18".

From this, I'm sensing that not only were different scales used for commercial products, but also a variety of tricks to shorten and squish and squeeze things at will. Further, it almost seems that a short deck height and width was agreed to between the main 1:22.5 manufacturers, along with a "standard" car length of about 27' -- regardless of proto car it represented.

I understand "fluid scale," but I'm now thinking that at least in 1:22.5, real math isn't involved except at the detail level for grab iron widths, brake wheel diameters and journal heights. In other words, artistic license has been used all along; but that license sometimes developed into implicit and random "standards" that, to fit in, new designs for compatible equipment need to follow.

Anyone else here been through this sort of thing?

===>Cliffy

PS, the main thing confusing me is the too-short deck height.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

yes....

I went back to I'm building this for me. 

I have 1; 1/29 stock car, a 42 footer, it's 17.5" on roof walk, while a Classic (Delton) box car supposedly 40' =15.75"
I chose the classics, to me they look better on my 10'D curves.

For me... I can do G24 in my head all day long, the others not so much.... like nunski! It's funner when I can do it and move on....

Your persnickerdness* may vary...

John
*how picky


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

I agree, 1:24 is so much easier! 
And my curves are 10'd too, so short is good.

Your Delton, at 1:24 I believe, should be 20" long.... 
So, by "Classic," maybe that's code for chopping the car length to fit in the usual box.

Not sure about my persnickerdness, but the needle on my trusty Give-a-Crap is starting to go pretty low.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

The Delton cars are based on a 30' car. They were the first, as I remember, to put a scale (1:24) on the box.

The cars are 14.5" long. Assuming a prototype length of 30', that gives a scale of 1:24.8. I measured the length of the car, not the length including the couplers.

LGB and USAt NG freight cars are of similar length. All are very close to 1:24. USAt started making steel sided freight cars on the same platform. Those were nominally 40' and scale out in length to 1:32. The other dimensions height and width are off.

Chuck


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Welcome to " G WORLD" .....Buddy!!

I run into this every day....I'm not building museum models...
I strive for reasonable balance....yet still go out on a limb at times.....cause I can!!
Not to get too frustrated tho either. .

I recommend a standard you can live and work with...
Will you be building more cars than you currently have?
Will you buy most cars....

Try to choose a standard that will meet your goals....now ..n later...

Maybe build to standard ga. Use g trucks...raise the cars that are too low..or
...build to some point. ....porportion of standard ga...but still larger than n.g. cars...
Balance this with your locos also....

Try to get a good look...I don't think your building to museum quality .....

You also need to consider ...your buildings..their scale..like all dock heights..

Start sorting out the big picture. ...
You'll come up with a happy medium where it will all work together. ..and when it does...it will look great!!

Ya. .take a break...ponder some more.
...thanks fer asking

Yer bud!!


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

Cliff

What V&T car # are you modeling? 2.5" deck height is 56.25" in 1:22.5 scale (maybe a derrick car). The atypical 33" diameter wheel plus car frame and deck usually puts you at 46"- 48" off the railhead. 

Michael


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Just for Fun Cliff..

Run your standard ga. numbers again..using a ratio of .85%

36' car becomes 30.6'

2.5 " deck lowers to 2.125".
......but try to maintain the ratios for L vs. W vs. H..

Try a cardboard mock up of a box car...behind your loco....next to your built mine....

Have fun...


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

My measurements were the walkways across the tops. Stated sizes of cars was based on printed info on side of each car.
Many folks use the coupler height gauge as their starting point.

It's was all rubber until the 20.3 division had a true measure of 3 feet. My feeling is if I wanted fine scale I'd use that scale, the rest are more funner with the informal 10' rule ... 'cept now I see better at 10' than I do at arm's length. Oh well, I still don't have a scale mile (220') of track so in that crap-o-meter of life.... it's an illusion.

Happy Rails


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Ta think...ya could pick a 1" scale....like Marty!!


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Cliffy,

You are using cad software for drawing, correct? Why not do some experimentation and use different "scales" in each axis, X, Y and Z and let the computer do the headache work. I do this all the time with my 1 1/2 inch stuff. Many castings in this scale vary all over the place in scale. 1.5"/ft., 1.6"/ft. and the bigger NG stuff 2 1/2"/ft. and 3 3/4"/ft. That way I can use various components made commercially, add these to my drawing and see what "looks" good to me.


----------



## Sjoc78 (Jan 25, 2014)

Ah the LGB rubber scale; don't get discouraged, many of us run fine scale models along side our LGB, Bachmann and etc. Heck if you ever think to pick up a Bachmann Spectrum piece they are mostly 1:20.3 to be fine scale narrow gauge, but I believe they added a 1:29 scale street car to that series. Do you want to build a reasonable model of a V&T car that won't look wrong with LGB and Bachmann? Play with 1:29 if you want it to be right try 1:32, chances are either of those scales when using off the shelf hardware will look reasonable with what you already have.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Morning Cliff....

Wondering what scale did you build your mine to?
...the foam one in your shop....

Dirk


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Might want to give this a look;


*Stan's Handy Converter for Model Railroaders*

http://www.stanstrains.com/SoftwareHandyConverter.htm


And definitely bookmark Stan's web site. 
http://www.stanstrains.com/index.htm


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks for the tips guys. 

Chris, thanks for the link, I agree, that's a nice tool kit.

Dirk, the mines are 1:24. 

Sjoc78, you're sensing the crux of the issue: Trying to force anything standard gauge to look like it belongs with BM or LGB is going to require some hacking, or reducing the scale, or whatever. This little effort has been the first time I've run into just how creative those manufacturers have been.

So, here's my solution: design the car for 30' long (vs. 36'), and stay with 1:22.5 (a compromise between my 1:24 and 1:20.3 stuff). Lower the deck to 2", to not stick out like a sore thumb. And keep the deck width to about 4". 

If any V&T fan asks me what scale it is, I'll have to answer, "In which dimension?" Or, "which part?" So yes indeed, "rubber scale" it is.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

I guess maybe what I'm asking is, what do the fine-scalers do with these sorts of problems? Just modify to suit, and not sweat it? 

Trying to get over the cringe factor... Not that I'm a great modeler by any means, I'm just a newbie in that regard. But still, my inner librarian-historian is screaming incoherently at me, and I'm trying to make amends... 

===>Cliffy


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

They build everything to the correct scale! That's why proto87, proto48, etc are gaining traction... That's one of the reasons why I'm doing what I'm doing. Move away from the rubber scale!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

How many miles of track does your layout try to represent?
Selective compression; I have a 20 mile short line in 143' of track.
I run short trains so there is a tad of time between scenes.... so I'm already compromising in length... it carries over to rolling stock too otherwise 3-4 complete trains would grid lock the system.... 
1:20.3 is where you'll find fine scale in Narrow ga. or 1:32 for Standard ga. anything else is rubber in the states.
I can't say how to make your mix match. I stayed in one scale and suffered for lack of variety...
John


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

John...now really. ..

...what you lack in variety,..
You make up for in creativity..!!

20 miles is awesum buddy!!

You run...
Alan runs...
I need to make saw dust...geeeeeee!


Cliff runs toooo!!

D


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

The New Hampshire Garden Railway Society's website has a handy online scale conversion calculator calibrated for all of the common Large Scale scales, plus 1:1 units in both feet/inches and metric. You can also generate and print a list of measurements for your project.

NHGRS Scale Conversion Calculator


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Cliffy,
The bible - John White's "The American Railroad Freight Car" has drawings of a V&T std gauge flat car in pre and post air brake form. It does seem short and tall.
I could scan it for you - or take a photo of the drawing ?


----------



## Sjoc78 (Jan 25, 2014)

Cliffy,

Thought of something else reading more comments, just a quick unit conversion, 30ft in 1:22.5 is equivalent to 38 2/3ft in 1:29, so going back to my original though and borrow some other ideas posted here, why not make an accurate paper/cardboard mock up at 1:29 and see how close it comes to what you suggested? I'm guessing that at 1:29 scale and not being rubber it will look fine with what you are already running and be reasonably close to the dimensions you suggested. Then if you like building and make more cars you won't continue to have a dilemma and still look decent with your current trains and structures.

Ultimately it also comes to what you are most happy with, I was in your boat several years ago, I knew the LGB passenger cars were short and the gauge wasn't quite right, but looking at more pictures and plans of all D&RGW cars, LGB stuff just started looking off to me so I started measuring and was baffled a 30' stock car was almost right if I scaled in 1:24 but the height was almost right if I scaled in 1:20.3. I decided that especially since Bachmann Spectrum stuff was starting to come out in 1:20.3 that going forward I would start going that direction. Now I have a 1:20.3 scale D&RGW freight train thanks to a little scratch building, Accucraft and Bachmann, but when I've taken it out for displays I run it side by side with older Bachmann and LGB and it looks good. The K-27 looks huge compared to a Bachmann 10 wheeler but compare a K-27 and RGS #20 and the difference is acceptable and realistic.

So back to my point, don't beat yourself up trying to rubber scale and if you have an inner voice screaming make it right, then make it right


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Sjoc, good points. I'll have to do a little research, but maybe 1:29 would have been the better route. Or, commit the heresy of modeling the V&T as if it were narrow gauge... Or, just try to eyeball something that seems to work, and just change the subject if someone brings up scale. I'll muse further and post back on this, thanks for your thoughts.

And Pete, I hadn't thought of that, maybe V&T's car decks were higher than usual? Yeah, would you mind scanning and emailing me that, if it's convenient? I have a couple car builders dictionaries, but not that one. Thanks for the offer!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

To run on our track...........................................

They are all scales.
The conflict is trying to make 45mm ( 4'8.5" or 3') work when the scale is off. On 45mm, G24 (1:24) they say is cape ga. or 42" G29 is closer, but still in the rubber ball park by default.
Wow factor ... scale(?) that in! 

If you float, draw up your own standards and stick to yer guns!
Above all else, you must 
Have Fun!

John
..............................................The track is only correct twice!


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

I've been measuring my model flat cars, and here's what they turn out to be. Next, I looked at the two drawings I have (sounds like Pete has a better one), and worked out their potential scale dimensions from the 1:1 dimensions.










If I stick with a deck dimensions that are roughly 2" from top of rails and 4" wide (per LGB & BM), it looks like 1:29 is a good choice for the derrick flat car, while 1:24 or 1:22.5 looks better for the shorty flat. 

Which flies in the face of consistency John... But I do indeed intend to have some fun! 

===>Cliffy


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

You mentioned having Locos in all scales...

Is there a group of locos in a scale that is more predominant in your collection?

I "...might..." .. lean for S.G. built for the majority of your power !!

....and if you add more power....what will they be....can you buy in the primary group as you expand..

Or....back to the drawing board....

Redefine your goals and needs to meet them....

Good luck Cliff....

Hi .... my name is.... was wondering what scale your trains are?

Great to meet you...my trains are G scale....or ( F )


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I do know the boiler on my Jupiter 1:24 Hartland is missing one course. There was an early compromise to semi match LGB and shortening the engine, I suppose, helped it do that. 
To make our trains run on tighter curves, shortening is common. The more options the better sales, making a buck won the majority.... chop chop.
Me again


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks for your thoughts Dirk. 

For some time, because of loco availability, I've been resigned myself to modeling the V&T as if it were built to a narrower gauge than standard. You and John are right, I need to think that through, and make a decision as to actual scale. At least, preferred scale when I care about it. And then, stick to that.

And claim my layout is that scale...

Still deciding...

I'm realizing now why some people still use the term "G scale." It stands for Gooey.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

A bit of review...

Track gauge 
45mm
1.77	in
0.15	ft

Represents 1:1 gauge at scale 
1:32 = 4.72	ft
1:29 = 4.28	ft
1:24 = 3.54	ft
1:22.5 = 3.32	ft
1:20.3 = 3.00	ft

1:1 Gauges 
Standard: 4.7	ft
A few mining rr's: 3.5	ft
Narrow: 3.0	ft

Now, for the rambling. 
Since most of my stock needs to remain 4-4-0's and moguls, that means LBG & B'Mann will remain in my roster, and that trends toward 1:22.5. But, my main structures are modeled at 1:24. 
1:24 / 1:22.5 aren't quite NG, and that's a good thing for me: I can say my layout isn't narrow gauge. 
1:24 has always been a lot easier for me to figger (I'm with John on that!), and it's represented gauge is at least closer to standard...
Still, for car modeling, I'd like any "kits" I come up with to be appealing to other g-gaugers, and most of us are narrow-gaugers.
That leaves 1:22.5 probably the best compromise scale (as Jerry has pointed out).

All that averages out to 1:23.25 I think....


----------



## Scott (Jan 29, 2008)

CliffyJ. I am in the same boat as you. I model 1:24 NG 3'6" South Australian Railways - I went for 1/2 inch scale thinking 1 scale inch makes 1mm (no brainer). 

Scratchbuilding is good for finescale, it takes a bit longer but the outcome is great. 3d printing does require some thicker parts in order to print effectively. If its an inch or less in scale I make it from 1.2mm (finest) or 1.5mm. This way it gives more strength to the model and looks from 3 feet away more defined and not flimsy.

I have had to make certain trade offs to make a good detailed model that can operate well and be sturdy enough to cope with the rigours of handling. Find your happy medium and things will flow from there.

The first model is where I've made mistakes, trialled new tech and skills, redesigned items several times over to ensure accuracy & durability. However, by overcoming these hurdles, the next model and subsequent models will be faster in production. Use the experience to build on to and improve from there. Keep us posted on your developments.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks Jonesy, you're gettin' my drift.

I'm working with...
- 3DP part constraints
- commercial fasteners
- standard brass rod & tube
- inch-size scale lumber
- bachmann trucks

And, trying to make it seem ok with my prototype, and be appealing to others down the road perhaps. 

And, as you say, be sturdy. And buildable. And lots of other little adjustments that make any kind of perfectly-to-scale model impossible. 

Which is fine, it's just that I'd not considered a lot of things until this discussion. 

So thanks everyone.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Every artist I know (too many) had to refine his tools and skill sets to express the vision. When you moved beyond toy trains you opened a new can o' worms.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> Yeah, would you mind scanning and emailing me that


 Gotta boat to Chestertown, but I'll do it when I get back....


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks Pete, no hurry, and have fun! 
And yeah John, I hear ya...


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Dirk asked me offline about my selective compression for the mines, and I thought the question was relevant here. 

In short, it was a real battle to design the mine structures for the real estate of the layout I have. The originals were enormous. So, on all these surface works, I chopped all horizontal wall dimensions in half, cut vertical dim's by 1/4 to 1/3 (to keep things roughly looking like they're supposed to), and using 1:24 for scale. I had to eliminate many windows, and sometimes even floors. But the basic arrangements look similar enough.

Though I've not made the mines yet (one exists in foam only), the designs are fairly complete on the computer, and I'm starting to pour concrete pads based on those designs. 

So as not to make other buildings look out of place, I'll probably continue with the 1:24. And, since that scale is closer to representing standard gauge (than the bigger ones), I guess I have to say that's my scale.

BUT, that doesn't mean I'm not gonna haul out a nice Bachmann Spectrum anyway. Just means its a target. So thanks Dirk and John for encouraging that decision. 

As for rolling stock, 1:22.5 seems fine to me, even in a 1:24 environment, at least for now. Exception: people gathering places, such as station platforms & boardwalks, can be sized for 1:22.5, just to keep figures all the same height. I don't see any other choice. Can't easily re-scale my environment, and don't want to; HLW has a 1:24 mogul and an American, but who else does? And who else visiting my layout would really care, or be able to tell the diff? 

As for modeling projects and "fine scale" kits, if that becomes a reality, I'll just have to take things on a case basis... apparently like Bachmann and others did. All I'd want to produce is stuff that fun to build (real cedar and brass and hardware, "metal" parts 3D printed, etc) and that looks good enough.

Ramblin' here,
===>Cliffy


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Good ramblin' which'cha Cliff....

Yer start'n ta see your lilly pad ....

... ;-)


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks Dirk.

And another thing. I guess it's evident to some that I made a fundamental mistake going in, relating to what the model scale was relating to.

Put differently, 1/20.5 of what? 1/24 of what? I'd always heard that 1:20.3 was narrow gauge, that 1:32 was standard, and vaguely -- very vaguely -- thought the in-between's were sort of standard-ish. But obviously, I was wrong. 

And though I've read it several times, here's a line from Wikipeedia that had never really sunk into my thick skull:

_*"'G' scale 1:22.5 used to model European trains that run on 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) gauge track."*_

Well, that's basically North American narrow gauge, give or take 3.375 inches.

So, by leaning 1:24th-ward, I guess I'm H-ish:

*"'H' scale (1/2" to the foot) 1:24 used to model 3 ft 6 in..."
*

John, do you consider yourself H-ish? 

C


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Here's a shot of the model I'm working on that started this inquiry:










One final thought: until one can control the design & scale of the wheels, trucks and couplers, one isn't exactly controlling the design & scale of the car riding on them. 

Not trying to be feisty, just raising a point to perhaps consider.

It's "all good" though, as they say!


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Cliffy;

I have some similar models, but they were not made to represent a specific prototype. Oddly, I was able to get credible hand derricks by using the "guts" from two different HO crane models.






























As I looked at your drawing, it called to mind a Lionel O27 flatcar that sported a similar pedestal derrick. Since that O27 derrick was most likely oversized (so small hands could play with it more readily), you may be able to modify the Lionel version for your project.

Best wishes on your project,
David Meashey


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

CliffyJ said:


> Thanks Dirk.
> 
> And another thing. I guess it's evident to some that I made a fundamental mistake going in, relating to what the model scale was relating to.
> 
> ...


Mostly foolish, but I have fun!
Nope, I claim my slice of the G whiz pie. Somebody here suggested a simplification, instead of colons I just write G24.
I think my sister thinks; hopeless.

John

A lot of the big deal is about fractions that one really needs to look for to see.... When my mind's eye is in HD and I look down from my perch in the arched window frame,(cab gets hot ) I note the wheels are on the track, the road ahead is clear, the ball hangs high and Whoo woo oo wooo I am on the road again, younger too!
The common features; ladders, doors, seats etc... need to match. Change the ladders so the gaps are similar on your cars and suddenly odd sizes are more prototypical...


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Nice pics John. And since I've never heard anyone saying they were an H-scaler, just thought I'd ask. Whose locos do you use? 

Dave, nice bashing as always, you are one of the most resourceful modelers I know of! This derrick though is something I'm already making; actually, I'm getting it in a few days from the 3D printer. The hard part has been navigating all the preferences on how big to make what. Which, I think, is gradually settling down to a slow simmer in my noggin. 

===>Cliffy


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

I was wondering to myself, if "G gauge" is Fn3, what's F? 

Ran across this:
http://www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com/WhatIsFScale.html

Not that I'm going there, it's just that inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Fn3 is not G, only G is G.
Fn3 refers to 3-foot gauge in F-scale, while "straight F" would be modeling standard gauge in F scale, which does exist.

Scot


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

The notation of "Fn3", clearly indicates - 3 ft. narrow gauge in F scale....

It in no way is G anything...thanks to folks bringing us correct narrow gauge running on 45mm track...thought of as 36" between the rails.....all is well in Fn3 World....

Personally...I do not even know what scale 1/32 falls into....

Everything in between seems to get thrown into G...but I bet some one better in the know will correct me here!!

Cumberlands is more a proponent and supporter of F scale - Standard gauge....which is even wider track. ... 

Yer comin along Cliff!!!!!!


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

My understanding is that "F" is 1:20.3. It all depends on your prototype as to the gauge of your track.

Chuck


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

SD90WLMT said:


> Personally...I do not even know what scale 1/32 falls into....


1:32 is "#1 scale" or "gauge one", going back to the early days of model trains when it was thought to be the smallest practical scale for the rudimentary electric motors or live steam locomotives of the time. There were also larger scales 2 and 3, 3 being 1:22.6, very close to the 1:22.5 scale that LGB would use many years later for their narrow gauge models, but with 2 1/2" (63.5mm) standard gauge track. When a new scale smaller than gauge one came along, they called it "0", which we know today as "O".


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

I've been modeling in 2 different scale using the same G gauge track. The 1/20.3 scale narrow gauge, also known as Fn3, and I recently (last spring) picked up a couple of Delton 1/24th scale cars. From a review that I read in an older "Outdoor Railroader" magazine, the Delton boxcar is a pretty close scale model of a 30 foot D&RGW boxcar, except for the oversize trucks. Apparently, the Delton caboose is also fairly close to the D&RGW long caboose in 1/24th scale. One of the main problems with the Delton cars as far as 1/24th scale is that they sit too high on their oversize trucks. I'm sure it was a compromise to make them compatable with everything else that runs on G gauge track. I had built a 1/24th scale 6000 series D&RGW flatcar from plans and bought a set of Ryan 1/24th scale D&RGW trucks in 1-1/2 inch gauge to put on it. That car looks right when compared to the pictures of the real ones, it sits down on top of the trucks like they real ones did. I bought several pairs of Ryan 1/24th scale D&RGW trucks in G gauge earlier this year to put on the box car, the caboose, and the flat car. Those trucks wouldn't fit on the flatcar because the wheels hit the frame beams. I'll have to lower the car's bolsters in order to mount the trucks, and then the flat car will sit at about the same height as the box car sits now.
The 1/20.3 scale stuff is significantly larger for the same length car. It doesn't matter to me, I won't run them in the same train, assuming I ever get some track laid so that I can run. Preparing to move makes "playing with the trains" a lot more difficult. I haven't been able to get anything done with the trains in several months.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

chuck n said:


> My understanding is that "F" is 1:20.3. It all depends on your prototype as to the gauge of your track.
> 
> Chuck


Hi Chuck. So did I. But, according to NMRA, 

F scale = 1:20.3
F (standard) gauge = 2.8" / 71mm
Fn3 (3' narrow) gauge = 1.77" / 45mm

http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-1.2 2009.07.pdf
No mention of an "H scale" (1/24) though. Bummer.

Interestingly, you can actually buy standard (2.8") and dual (1.77" / 2.8") gauge track: 
http://www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com/CMEProductsTrack.html

===>Cliffy


----------



## chama (Jan 2, 2008)

*you are in violent agreement qith Chuck...*



CliffyJ said:


> Hi Chuck. So did I. But, according to NMRA,
> 
> F scale = 1:20.3
> F (standard) gauge = 2.8" / 71mm
> ...


 what he said...


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

You're right Scott, violent agreement!

(sorry Chuck, I mis-read what you wrote... They say the brain is the first thing to go, hmmm...)


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Cliff:

I've been there I think. 

Chuck


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

been where....
...I'm lost....

Which turn again....?

...taxi....!!

Your kiddin me ..right...

Who's on second?


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Dirk:

Welcome to the club!

Chuck


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Thanks....

I was ...thimk'in about start.ing my own!!

Plenty a room for ALL...!!!!!!

..... ;-) ...


..


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I wouldn't join a club that would have me for a member! 
(thanks Groucho)


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

We'll change your name to protect the innocent..

JC ...fer short

.....quit be'in a party pooper TW..

Join in the fun...!!
....sides..ya.allready know us all....!!

.


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

And the confusion has been firmly established...


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Hard to establish confusious....

...since Cliff is off an running with his derrick flat car..

...the rest of us can sit back n wait fer the results.!!

Keep drawn thar C.... whilst we keep goofing off!! FUN...

Good to see you again Amber, even if just between packing boxes....

Moving far...across the street..across town...cross country!!?

D


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

SD90WLMT said:


> We'll change your name to protect the innocent..
> 
> JC ...fer short
> 
> ...


Funny man....
Last name can't be done phonetically, for 30 years in SoCal, even my boss called me JC.... 
I was going to suggest a water treatment for that Scaling problem....


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Cliffy,

That NMRA list you linked is actually a slimmed-down version of their first proposal, which was rudely shouted down by the 'large scale' community. [Not me, I think we need a standards body involved.]

If my memory serves me (which can be douted at times,) NMRA proposed "A" for American 1/29th scale, "G" for traditional 1/22.5 [which the Germans call Spur 2], "F" for Fine scale (or ??) at 1/20.3 and also "T" scale for Thirteen at 1/13.7 (7/8ths scale.)

The "F" caught on, because the scale modellers/rivet counters, who invented 1:20.3 in the first place, understood what Fn3 meant - most had already built an On3 or HOn3 layout. The others - not so much, except perhaps 1:13.7 on 45mm track, which is known as 7/8n2.

(Incidentally, "T" scale got used by the Japanese firm who invented something smaller than "Z" - 4.5mm gauge trains ?)


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Pete, I have been told that 'F' is for Fifteen but I first thought it was 'F' for Fine scale. ???
'A' could be for Aristocraft who first did 1:29. No matter though, it all works.
'T' is a new one to me except for the match sticks on rails that crud out after a short while. 

Andrew


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The NMRA standards Cliffy linked to are out of date. We revised the standards in February, 2010. The current standards can be found on the *NMRA's web page*.

Of interest to the large scale community would be the wheel and track standards:

*Wheel standards (standard)*
*Wheel standards (Hi-Rail)*

*Track standards (standard)*
*Track standards (Hi-Rail)*

The "Large Scale" standards are broken out as their own set of standards on page 2 or page 3 of each set of standards.

When we re-did these large scale standards, we purposefully grouped the scales generally covered by large scale (1:32 - 1:20.3) into one category called "large scale." The reasoning for this was that the track is the unifying factor in large scale railroading. We felt a common standard that covered all scales would be the better approach to ensure the interoperability of multiple scales on the same track, since that is the cornerstone of large scale railroading. Earlier proposals to create unique standards for each of the scales that fall under the "large scale" umbrella, and give them their own unique alphabetical name were tossed aside. 

We _did_ define "F" scale as its own unique entry in the NMRA's "alphabet" of scales, and it shows up on page 1 of the standards along with N, HO, etc. (One of our committee members was a manufacturer of F standard gauge models.) The standards for "F" scale are for 70mm track (standard gauge). The "Fn3" standards are for 45mm track (3' gauge), and are identical to the "Large Scale" standards. 

For whatever reason, though, the term "Fn3" has yet to catch on in conversations beyond that of some of the modelers who model in that scale. Many of the manufacturers (Bachmann, Accucraft, etc.) use "1:20.3." Likewise, you're far more likely to see "1:20.3" in the magazines when describing the scale of the models than you would "Fn3," including in magazines like the _Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette_, whose readers most definitely understand the "-n3" stuff.

Later,

K


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> I have been told that 'F' is for Fifteen


 Andrew,
Yep - 15mm:1ft so 3' = 45mm. I knew Fine scale wasn't right! 

T-gauge is 3mm gauge, 1:450 sale. http://www.tgauge.com/


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

East Broad Top said:


> The NMRA standards Cliffy linked to are out of date. We revised the standards in February, 2010. The current standards can be found on the *NMRA's web page*.


Thanks for the correction Kevin. That link was the best one I could find at the time, on NMRA's site.


----------

