# How did 1:24 scale get replaced by 1:20.3 scale ?



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Monday, Oct 26, 2009

Hi there :

I was speaking with an O gauge brass manufacturer today.

He tells me that way back in the 1970's, the current large scale manufactures had agreed that 1:24 scale was to be the Amerian narrow guage scale and that 1:32 was to be the standard gauge scale.

I realise that Aristo Craft later introduced 1:29 scale as their standard gauge.

Who was the driving force behind 1:20.3 scale for American narrow gauge? Was there a NMRA type organisation promoting 1:20.3 scale?

Incidentially, this O gauge designer/ manufacturer jokingly referred to 1:20.3 as *ride on scale. * He said that 1:24 was the perfect scale for American narrow gauge as the locomotives were a reasonable size while 1:20.3 is simply too large referring to the large size of the 1:20.3 Bachmann K-27. Yes, this O gauge brass designer realises the track guage error of 1:24 scale. He designs scale brass locomotives.

So guys, would you have preferred that 1:24 scale had not been replaced with 1:20.3 scale or do you prefer 1:20.3 scale ?

Thank you

Norman


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

As far as I know as more modelers (as opposed to garden railroaders) came into large scale, there was a push for correct scale. I have a fair number of old issues of Outdoor Railroader (which later became Finescale Modeler) and the editor and frequent contributors made a push for this back in the 90's. The release of the Bachmann Shay in 1:20.3 sealed the deal since it was a big hit. 
1:24 scale would have been perfect if someone had come out with 1.5 inch gauge track. Me, I don't sweat a quarter inch! 

-Brian


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Norman,
To partly answer your first question, one of the first driving forces for "F" scale (1:20.32) was Tony Ferraro (known as "Mr. 1:20") who championed the adoption of "true" scale fidelity to 45mm track. For a while it seemed like he almost singlehandedly kept the flame alive! Of course, there were others such as "Uncle Russ" over at _Outdoor Railroader _(later _Finescale Railroader_) and Marc Horovitz of _Garden Railways_ that also promoted the scale. Slowly various manufacturers began to offer items in this scale. Hartford Products made incredible kits for 1:20.3 and Accucraft began offering 1:20.3 items but it really was the Bachmann Shay that broke the dam and started the 1:20.3 flood! 

In some ways this was where the beginning for the demise of 1:24 can be traced to. LGB was _never_ 1:24! It's products scaled out more to 1:22.5 and Bachmann's early non-_Spectrum_ items were made in this same scale to be compatable. (There is an valid argument that Aristo and USA's scale of 1:29 was picked, in part, due to the size compatability with narrow gauge 1:22.5!) 1:24 was simply pushed aside! Delton, the company that really pushed 1:24 was defunct and the dies were sold at auction to both Aristocraft and the new Hartland Locomotive Works (HLW). While the rolling stock is still being made, it does seem to have become a "niche" within a niche market! There is a small but growing "fraternity" of large scalers that feel that 1:20.3 is too large and that engines like the K-27 with full size J&S passenger cars are too much for their small railroads. A 1:24 engine looks to be only 2/3rds the size of a comparable loco in 1:20.3! This allows for much more in the same space with tighter curves! Also, 1/2"scale has a _lot_ of accessories that 1:20.3 simply doesn't! Some of us have both scales!


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Norman, it was the committee or an NMRA working group, with one manufacturer (Bachmann) on board: http://www.spikesys.com/Modelrr/g_gauge.html 
You can see it as genuine 'fine scale' move, but also to a certain extent as a commercially driven, strategical move. Notice in this document, they even refer to the Bachmann Ten-Wheeler as 1:20.3 which it is not (it is actually 1:22.5, consistent with the large scale proposed by LGB). Yes, 1:24 was until early 90's considered to be the US large scale, for some reason US always wanted to be different from the European continent. US outline brass was mainly produced in 1:24 at that time (Delton, Iron Horse/Precision Scale) and this is what was most well known in the US. The exceptions which I found, produced to the consistent 1:22.5, stemmed from the rest of the world. These were several US locomotives and rolling stock (both 3ft and standard gauge) by Magnus (Germany) although it is (various including soft) metal and not brass strictly speaking, a couple of Sunset/KTM locomotives (Japan) and one or two Aster locomotives (Japan) depending on whether you count in their two truck Shay or not. Later, in late 90's LGB added three brass US locomotives built by Aster and even after that Kiss (Germany manufactured in Korea) made one US brass locomotive. But back in the 80's essentially all US commissioned brass (built in Korea) was 1:24. Had US brass and more plastic at the time been produced to the consistent 1:22.5 rather than 1:24 we would have less scale mess, 1:20.3 would only exist now as a 'proto' scale used by correctness minded scratch builders much like it is now for standard gauge. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't agree in total with Zubi's assessment of 1:24 vs 1:22.5. LGB was really the pioneer for postwar largescale and used an already exisiting track gauge of 45mm. 1:22.5 scale on 45mm gauge track equaled meter gauge which was widely used in many places in the world except the North American continent. 

Since meter gauge would be a compromise anyway for NA 3 foot gauge, it seemed better here to use 1:24 scale which was much easier to convert in inches. This also required a compromise since 45mm gauge in 1:24 equaled 42" gauge of course. Also as already stated there were, and are, many useable accessories in 1:24 scale. I don't think 1:22.5 would ever have surplanted 1:24 over here unless LGB had remained the only act in town. Too there were a few craftsman kit makers producing kits in 1:24 at the time. Rio Grande Models had some gorgeous kits in 1:24 scale but dropped out of largescale when 1:20.3 brought about the ruin of 1:24. 

The desire for gauge compatability to allow running anyone's trains on anyone's track led to the 1:20.3 advocacy. Otherwise I think 1:24 would have remained the narrow gauge scale of choice over here and the finescalers would have moved to 1.5" gauge to accurately model 3 foot prototypes. I wish this had been the choice but what's done is done and it's highly unlikely there will ever be a 1:24 resurgence now. Further even though there would have been a gauge difference with 1:24 truescale the size of 1:20.3 pretty much precludes running it with the other scales anyway except for clubs that regularly run multi-scales together.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi again:

Thank you for the evolution of scale information.

Personally, the 1:24 scale Delton/Aristo C-16 with the brass dome lids and the brass cylinder caps was too nice a locomotive for me to not have purchased.
Similarly, the 1:20.3 scale Bachmann 4-4-0 is also a very nice locomotive.
Fortunately, the Baldwin 8-18C is a small prototype and "looks" ok with the 1:22.5 Bachmann J&S coaches.

As for the large size Bachmann 1:20.3 K-27 and the Accucraft 1:20.3 plastic J&S coaches, forget it ! 

The Accucraft J&S coaches are almost as large as the standard gauge Aristo Craft heavyweights. This is really too bad as the Bachmann K-27 and the Accucraft J&S coaches are both wonderful products with great detailing. Given the high quality of Accucraft, I really wanted to buy the Accucraft J&S coaches until I realised how large these coaches actually are.

My plan is to add Aristo Craft Sierra trucks to my Bachmann J&S coaches to improve the truck detailing. 

The USA Trains Sierra cars are almost as fine as the Accucraft 1:20.3 J&S coaches.

*Are the USA Trains Sierra cars 1:22.5 or 1:24 scale ?*

So that is my compromise. 

I wish that 1:24 scale had prevailed as models of 1:24 scale are large enough for the manufacturer to add as much detail as desired.

No K-27 in my future unless I decide to also get into ON30 . Now there is a slippery slope! Best to concentrate my efforts in one gauge.

Norman


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 26 Oct 2009 09:39 PM 


*Are the USA Trains Sierra cars 1:22.5 or 1:24 scale ?*


Norman



If you mean the USAT Overton cars, they are 1:24 scale and a perfect fit for the Aristo C-16 -










If you mean the Aristo Sierra Cars, they are thought to be 1:29 scale but there is some debate on that. I have some that I will be bashing into longer cars. Marty Cozad did after he saw a pic I posted of some similar standard gauge cars in the B&O museum -






















-Brian


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

If you'd like to know who from, and how it came about, it is all here.... 

Uncle Russ tells us how it happened...

(The guessing and LGB vs. the US vs. the world conspiracies aside...)


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

That's right Parkdesigner! This is a nice story which restates that without Bachmann's involvement and leadership 1:20.3 would still be a domain of US based cottage and garage industry. Best, Zubi 
BTW 15mm scale has been known and used by UK live steam makers before autumn 1991.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

If I remember right, it was LGB who came up with the first mass produced 1 : 20,3 model for 45mm in the early Nineties: The saddle tank Porter. Even their Forney, although modelled after a 2 ft. prototype, was more or less in 1 : 20,3. 

LGB claimed, there models are made in 1 : 22,5. But very few actually are. Their very first model, the Austrian Stainz, a 760mm prototype, scales out to be in the 1 : 18 / 19 range. The Aster meth fired Shay said in the instructions, it is in 1 : 27. So the scale confusion is not a new thing. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By altterrain on 26 Oct 2009 10:24 PM 
Posted By norman on 26 Oct 2009 09:39 PM 


*Are the USA Trains Sierra cars 1:22.5 or 1:24 scale ?*


Norman



If you mean the USAT Overton cars, they are 1:24 scale and a perfect fit for the Aristo C-16 -



If you mean the Aristo Sierra Cars, they are thought to be 1:29 scale but there is some debate on that.


-Brian 



Actually I believe Aristo-Craft has always said that their Classic Series including the Sierra Coaches are 1:24

Regarding the scale controversy I may be wrong but I think that even today most of the buildings are in 1:24 scale.

When I got into the hobby scale was never that important to most large scalers I knew. Lewis Polk identified "The WOW Factor" which I think was accurate in that trains simply had to be BIG to be impressive and desirable. Who can not remember that when MTH entered large scale they did so with their photograph of a man holding a Challenger with his son holding the tender?

Even today I believe it is easy to confuse new sales as perhaps inaccurately describing the future direction of the hobby. Since there are so many thousands of trains already out there in 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:26 and 1:29 it is easy for relatively recent introductions of new products in 1:32 and 1:20.3 to seem like the world is moving in that direction.

My personal opinion is that 1:32 lacks the WOW factor while 1:20.3 is simply too big to fit in many locations where people may want to build a garden railroad. Perhaps forgotten is LGB's focus on the 4' rule which some may object to but that assured the ability of impressive layouts in a very small space including indoors.

For me it takes a Challenger or Big Boy to have the WOW factor in 1:32 and the pure size of a 1:20.3 K-27 pulling six passenger coaches makes it prohibitively too large for me to ever consider on my layouts.

As has been said a lot of the emphasis on 1:20.3 has been by those wanting prototypical scales. My question to them would be just how many locomotives, freight cars and passenger cars will they buy vs those modeling smaller scales? There is also the relative cost factor in what 1:20.3 takes to manufacture, store on shelves and retail.

For me scale is just one more thing for folks to consider when making a purchase. I have a personal curiosity about what the world of 1:20.3 will be like in 10 years time but it is a curiosity rather than a concern. I suspect that once the newness of 1:20.3 wears off and the manufacturers look at their unit sales they may be very hesitant to offer a great increase in the variety of railroads, locomotives and rolling stock.

If I were a betting person I would be willing to bet a lot that by far the most large scale trains being bought and sold today continue to be 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:26 and 1:29 - when used trains are included. It is raining outside today as it was yesterday. I doubt that many trains other than LGB are being run in the rain anywhere. It all boils down to what we are looking for when we go shopping.

Going back to the original question "So guys, would you have preferred that 1:24 scale had not been replaced with 1:20.3 scale or do you prefer 1:20.3 scale ?"

My answer would be that a 1:24 Mogul would be too small (as the C-16 was for me) but a 1:20.3 Mogul would be too large. A 1:26 or 1:29 Mikado or Pacific or F7 or FA-1 looks just right to me but then I mix and match narrow gauge and mainline trains without giving it a second thought. I just don't mix them on the same train.

Fortunately for me my 1:24 buildings look just fine with my 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:26 and 1:29 trains but do not look so good with 1:32 and would not look very good with 1:20.3 trains. 

My impression is that when one gets into 1:20.3 they will end up building their own buildings or those buildings would be cost prohibitive (for me anyway).

Jerry


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 27 Oct 2009 07:47 AM 
As has been said a lot of the emphasis on 1:20.3 has been by those wanting prototypical scales. My question to them would be just how many locomotives, freight cars and passenger cars will they buy vs those modeling smaller scales? There is also the relative cost factor in what 1:20.3 takes to manufacture, store on shelves and retail.

For me scale is just one more thing for folks to consider when making a purchase. I have a personal curiosity about what the world of 1:20.3 will be like in 10 years time but it is a curiosity rather than a concern. I suspect that once the newness of 1:20.3 wears off and the manufacturers look at their unit sales they may be very hesitant to offer a great increase in the variety of railroads, locomotives and rolling stock.

My impression is that when one gets into 1:20.3 they will end up building their own buildings or those buildings would be cost prohibitive (for me anyway).

Jerry

1:20.3 scale evolved because it is the CORRECT SCALE for 45mm track if you are MODELING American narrow gauge. And it ain't going away. I know all you 'toy train people' don't care about scale, but the rest of us do.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 27 Oct 2009 09:20 AM 
1:20.3 scale evolved because it is the CORRECT SCALE for 45mm track if you are MODELING American narrow gauge. And it ain't going away. I know all you 'toy train people' don't care about scale, but the rest of us do. 


Hi John,

I was not suggesting that 1:20.3 is ever going to go away or that it should go away. I LIKE 1:20.3 - I just do not have the room and the clearance to run it. The 1:20.3 trains I have seen are very impressive.

All I was doing was to address the question of the topic "How did 1:24 scale get replaced by 1:20.3 scale ?" by saying that while those who want to model the correct scale for 45mm track may go to 1:20.3 that in my opinion the majority of large scale buyers will most likely stay with 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:26 and 1:29 while a smaller number of buyers will go with 1:32 and 1:20.3.

In the long run my opinion is not important. The manufacturers will be looking at their sales histories and they will put their design and manufacturing funds into whatever scale they deem most profitable.

1:32 and 1:20.9 may have some advantage there in that new products in those scales will not be competing with used products in those scales where other scale manufacturers will have to convince their potential customers to buy new rather than used products.

The one thing that 1:24 and 1:20.3 have in common is that (I believe) most products in those scales are narrow gauge. I believe that most LGB and USA woodsided rolling stock tends to be closer to 1:22.5 and is visually somewhat incompatible with 1:24 and definitely incompatible with 1:20.3. 

Bachmann 4-4-0s, 4-6-0s, 2-6-0s and LGB 2-6-0s and 2-4-4s mate very nicely with woodsided rolling stock from USAT and LGB.

As always the customers will tell the manufacturers what to make by voting with their money. 

Jerry


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

I perhaps need to make one thing clear in my ramblings above. I applaud the introduction of closer to scale 1:20.3. The products by Accucraft and Bachmann in this scale are beautiful! I just would have preferred that 1:24 with a revised track gauge for narrow gauge had prevailed instead. 

My reasoning is that since 1:20.3 isn't very compatible with any other popular scale anyway that a different track gauge to accommodate 1:24 scale wouldn't have mattered much to those interested in more accurate models. Too I had a West Side Shay number 15 in 1:24 that while gauged for G track could be easily converted to authentic 3 foot (1.5") gauge with the purchase of an optional set of trucks available from the manufacturer. Probably many other models would have been offered this way as well had 1:24 prevailed. 

Also the Bachmann 4-4-0 and 2-6-0 in 1:20.3 are small enough prototypes to look pretty good with 1:22/1:24 models. 









* The rolling stock here is almost all Bachmann 1:22 semi-scale while the engine is Bachmann 1:20.*


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

*Oops! Wrong photo!*


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

*Another comparison...*


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Richard, 
If 1:24 had the right track, then there wouldn't have been as much call or need for 1:20.3. Not to say that 1:20 couldn't have evolved from LGB's track, but those seeking finescale would have already had the foundation in a size better fitted to more people. 

I think it's ironic the B'mann is being lauded for Fine-G when in my mind they did the opposite with On30! None on their stuff would run on my handlaid scale track! Back then, n30 was Toy-like to me! 

Jerry, 
Recently, well before the last buying spree I chose to use 1:24. I'm not sure if it's NG or Std... muddled ga. I guess, but with the era of the 1900's I can use the smaller engines and cars which look 'more' natural on my relatively tight turns of 10' _ diameter _...5'r =60"r same as my 30"r in On3. See I think the smaller scale makes my curves look larger! Plus I get more bang for my buck. I just wish there were a few more choices, a 35' outside braced boxcar would be welcomed... 

John


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 27 Oct 2009 09:20 AM 
I know all you 'toy train people' don't care about scale, but the rest of us do. 


Countin' all those rivets has got you a bit worked up!









-Brian


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

'toy train people' 

By your definition I are one, but Mr realistic, How many scale miles does your pike have? 
Have you figured out how to have scale weight? 

Cool your jets we all make compromises... eh?


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

While we are at it..... 

The Aristo Classic wood caboose can trace its origins to the Delton version of the D&RGW "long" caboose if memory serves. 

Now, in the same thought, what are the origins of the USA wood caboose? I always liked it as it seems to sit "down" on its trucks more than the Aristo version. 

EDIT: Nevermind, just saw this thread: http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...fault.aspx

Piko now have the old MDC D&RGW "short" caboose, also 1:24 if memory serves. 

There are some interesting items for the 1:24 modeller. Anyone ever used it to model 42"/Cape gauge? For example, many of the Canadian NG lines were 42" gauge...and it scales out much closer!


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Totalwrecker on 27 Oct 2009 12:37 PM 
Jerry, 
Recently, well before the last buying spree I chose to use 1:24. I'm not sure if it's NG or Std... muddled ga. I guess, but with the era of the 1900's I can use the smaller engines and cars which look 'more' natural on my relatively tight turns of 10' _diameter _...5'r =60"r same as my 30"r in On3. See I think the smaller scale makes my curves look larger! Plus I get more bang for my buck. I just wish there were a few more choices, a 35' outside braced boxcar would be welcomed... 

John 
Hi John,

I think Bachmann muddied the scale waters every bit as much as other manufacturers.

If their locos were supposed to be 1:20.3 the coaches were not yet they were marketed tigether. 



















Of course locos and coaches were made in a variety of sizes but not that many different ones ran on the narrow gauge railroads.

I think garden railroads on 45mm track had been out more than 35 years before 1:20.3 started being produced in realisticly scaled locos and rolling stock.

Hopefully everyone can find something they can be happy with.

Jerry


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Brian & others:

*" If you mean the USAT Overton cars, they are 1:24 scale and a perfect fit for the Aristo C-16 - "*

Yes, I was referring to the USAT Overton cars. Great news that they are 1:24 scale. These USAT Overton coaches are just as nice as the larger scale 1:20.3 Accucraft J&S coaches.

The only thing that bothers me in the LGB 1:22.5 world is that the LGB coaches have
a) too few windows on the car sides ( I think twelve "looks" correct as I have seen a similar coach at the Ottawa train museum with twelve side windows )
b) a different number of windows in the roof clestory than on the car side, that *really *bugs me to the point that I don't own any LGB passenger cars

I would say that Bachmann did a much better design job of their J&S coach *but *the LGB paint jobs are always superb and are of Bachmann Spectrum level quality.










*If you mean the Aristo Sierra Cars, they are thought to be 1:29 scale but there is some debate on that. I have some that I will be bashing into longer cars. Marty Cozad did after he saw a pic I posted of some similar standard gauge cars in the B&O museum -

*I wish that Lewis would produce a long version of his Sierra cars. I never bought the Sierra 9 window version as I don't like the look of the vestibules on the end platforms. Doesn't look narrow gauge to me.
However, a Sierra long version coach would be a must buy for me !

*Is there anyway to convince Lewis Polk to produce his Sierra cars in the long coach version ?* 
Brian please post your modelling effort of combining the Sierra cars. Long coach Sierras would look great behind the Bachmann 4-4-0 .






















I am happy that I posed the question.
For my interests, the 1:22.5 Bachmann coaches look fine with the 1:20.5 Bachmann 4-4-0 (althought I realise the prototype error), the high quality USA Trains Overton cars are perfect for the C-16 and there is also the Aristo Delton freight rolling stock available.

I have realised that the remaining 1:20.3 "*ride on"* product is just physically too large for me no matter how detailed and temping it is.

One final point is a 1:20.3 locomotive which is self propelled by either electricity or steam is also classified as a toy. The track gauge is accucrate, but the locomotive is still a toy. If we can play with it, its a toy!

Museum historical *models* as displayed in glass cases are always* static*.

Norman


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Here's an example of LGB 1/22.5 coaches with AMS 1/20.3 J&S coaches.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Significant size difference !

Definitely reserved for outdoor layouts.

Norman


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't remember Bachmann ever claiming anywhere their 1:22.5 scale J & S coaches were 1:20.3 scale. 
When Bachmann re-ran the original 1:22.5 scale saddle tank Porter they did claim it was 1:20.3 even though it was identical to the original.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By gary Armitstead on 27 Oct 2009 07:51 PM 
Here's an example of LGB 1/22.5 coaches with AMS 1/20.3 J&S coaches.











Hi Gary,

It was at Diamondhead where I first saw a train made up of with six of those AMS coaches. I instantly gave up any thought of every buying anything in 1:20.3. I was very glad to have seen them because until then I had not really appreciated just how HUGE 1:20.3 trains would be. 

The train was absolutely beautiful but the owner was understandably apprehensive about anyone touching that train. As much as I liked it, it was simply too big and too expensive for me and it would not have looked at all right next to any of the buildings on my layout. I cannot imagine how huge a 1:20.3 mainline train would be.

In effect for me to switch to 1:20.3 would just about involve replacing everything I have and even if I was willing and able to do it, I would simply not have the space to run and store it anyway.

I am happy with what others refer to as the toy like features of LGB trains but if those trains were magnified to 1:20.3 the lack of detail and lack of prototypical accuracy would become unacceptable to me. When something is that large (in my opinion) it MUST be of high quality or it would be a real turnoff.

If someone has the room and can afford trains like the Accucraft in 1:20.3 that is fine with me. I can appreciate things I don't have the money or room for.

It would be interesting to see some pictures of layouts with 1:20.3 trains running on them.

Jerry


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry, 

I think I understand where you are coming from on the size of 1/20.3. BUT, no where did I ever post that LGB was toylike. As a matter of fact, I posted this pic as a comparison ONLY. Draw your own conclusion. I have "tons" of LGB narrow gauge rolling stock dating back to 1985-the reason I got into garden railroading. I bought my first piece of 1/20.3 rolling stock at a railroad show, from Jonathan Bliese, in early 2007- a highside gon very similar to my LGB 4073. Boy did I have a shocker when I arrived home and compared my NEW aquisition, to my 4073's! When you have nothing to compare too (size-wise), the difference is remarkable. I had another shocker when I bought my first two AMS J&S coaches and put them next to each other for comparison. That's when I took the photo above. 

At the time that I purchased my first 1/20.3 gon, I had a very modest, outdoor layout with less than 150 feet of track-all 1600 curves and 1600 LGB turnouts. I knew then that what I had for a layout wasn't going to work with the larger "stuff". I have spent the last 2 1/2 years trying to design an elevated layout to run my new 1/20.3 equipment. I'm 66 years old and I can't get down on the ground like I could thirty years ago! I invested wisely and was able to retire at 59, I now can afford to purchase rolling stock and a locomotive (one Accucraft C19 with sound and Airwire). I certainly would not call LGB "toy-like", BUT I see no need to apologize for being able to afford my passion for Colorado narrow gauge in 1/20.3. I still have my LGB 2018D Mogul, circa 1985 with the red and green boiler and all the rolling stock. Lots of Delton and other manufacturers that don't even exist anymore. 

I really appreciate what Steve Stockham has done with his layout. He runs 1/20 on his pike and it really looks nice. His layout isn't much larger than what I had for my first outdoor pike. I think if you look back at some of Steve's posts regarding his layout, he ran into problems with clearance on trackside structures and radii of track. I have visited Jonathan's layout and it is not large by any means, but it encompasses the spirit and feel of backwoods narrow gauge. You have to make use of what area you have AND compromize. 

As far as being expensive to purchase 1/20.3 rolling stock: I paid LESS for that AMS gon than what LGB was asking for their 4073, at the time. AMS has made it possible for many of us that like 1/20.3, to be able to afford it. The J&S cars are about $175 on the street. LGB is STILL getting upwards of a hundred bucks or more, for their 3080 and 3081 coaches.


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Friends, 
I am a certified 1:22.5 guy. Don't know why this market was deserted by the manufacturers. I know the large scale market is small, and that the 'correct' scale for American narrow gauge is 1:20.3. There are some WONDERFUL products produced at reasonable prices (AMS/Bachmann) in that scale. However, I am happy with my rather nice collection of 1:22.5 LGB, Bachmann, Aristo, USA Trains, Hartland, etc. I am NOT a math person, but I run 1:24 (Hartland/Aristo Classics) with 1:22.5 (LGB/Bachmann/USA Trains) and they seem to match up well. It would seem that the same 2 units of measure difference in the 1:22.5 would not be much noticable in compared to the 1:20.3 stuff. WRONG, as the photos posted above shows. 
I am still hopeful of someone someday offering a reasonable priced plastic K-27 or K-28 in 1:22.5 
Just a note or two: 
My favorite passenger cars are the Bachmann J & S cars (don't know why LGB put that window in the combine's baggage section?) 
Favorite caboose is USA Trains woodside (even thought the door is ridiculously wide and short in scale size). 
Favorite freight cars are the Aristo Classics (former Delton). The Aristo have better paint. 
Like the Hartland Railbus. 
Aristo C-16 is a very good narrow gauge loco, although I have more LGB Moguls and Bachmann 'Annie's'. It is hard to pick a favorite that I own. I think the LGB Forney is about the best loco for the money. I LOVE THE LGB/ASTER K-28. 
Bridge-Masters make some nice trestles and portals. 
Garden Texture make fantastic kits for buildings that are easily customized by the builder.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By gary Armitstead on 28 Oct 2009 09:26 AM 
Jerry, 

I think I understand where you are coming from on the size of 1/20.3. BUT, no where did I ever post that LGB was toylike. 

Hi Gary, 

I did not mean to imply anything negative about your comments and I was not referring to you when I used the words toy like.

The point I was trying to make is that when the model size gets larger such as with 1:20.3, the things that we might not have noticed on smaller scales, such as the number of windows in coaches, become much more noticeable when they do not accurately reflect the original.

LGB called itself a toy company and I consider my trains to be toys (because I play with them). If they were 1:20.3 I would still consider them to be toys. Actually I consider my '98 Jeep to also be a toy because I do not use it for transportation but rather I use it to play with the same as I do my 4 wheeler.

Jerry


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Norman,
How did 1:24 scale get replaced? Simple---The only 1:24 scale manufacturer, Delton Trains, went out of business. (It would have been the end of the story, except that the Delton line has been preserved by AristoCraft and by HLW. Very commendable products.)

Since then, few other 1:24 trains have been made, as 1:24 did not catch on with other manufacturers.
My guess is that the 45 mm track did not scale out well for either American Narrow or standard gauge.


----------



## TJH (Dec 27, 2007)

In a perfect world where I had either unlimited funds and talent or was starting from scratch in this hobby, I'd go with 1:20.3. For better or for worse, though, I got my start as a 5 year old 20 years ago when my parents got me my first LGB engine, and all subsequent purchases were guided by that. No matter how affordable 1:20.3 rolling stock is now, its still a lot more expensive that what you already have, and I don't have the thousands of dollars availble that it would take to completely replace my current 1:22.5 collection, not to mention, the comments about the reliability and dependability of the Bachmann 1:20.3 motive power (which is all that I could afford) is not encouraging. Also, to switch scales would mean scrapping the current layout my grandfather has been working on for years and starting over, as anything Bachmann Connie sized and larger will not physically clear scenery, bridges, tunnels, etc, much less make it around the tighter turns.


----------

