# Future of 1:24 & 1:22.5 scale ?



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi there:

What is the general concensus on the future of 1:24 and 1:22.5 scale?

Has 1:20.3 scale taken over OR do hobbyists find that 1:20.3 scale locomotives and rolling stock are physically too large?
Were 1:22.5 and 1:24 a better choice ( error in track gauge we know! ) but more of a manageable size for storage and minimum track radius?

So what is your scale preference for your future locomotive and rolling stock purchases? Personally, mine is 1:24 and 1:22.5.

Thank you

Norman


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Well as one of many who models the Rhatische Bahn (RhB) in IIm, where 1:22.5 is the correct scale for 45mm track, I think it has quite a bright future. Manufacturers such as Kiss, LGB/Maerklin & others continue to make very nice IIm models for fair prices, with more specialty manufacturers getting onboard all the time. Modern manufacturing methods mean new products can be developed with even better detail for less money in less time, so that's a positive too. The demand for 1:22.5 seems pretty strong from what I can see--maybe not as strong in N/A, though, as in some parts of the world, but still pretty good. Railroads such as the RhB run efficient modern railways with strong support for their historical rolling stock, which are very attractive points to modellers. 

Keith


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Norman, 

1:22.5 is probably safe as it's a perfect scale for meter gauge on 45 mm track in spite of LGB's troubles. My favorite, 1:24 though, is pretty much done so far as any new models ever coming out. Too, 45 mm track in 1:24 equals 42" gauge which although somewhat popular in other countries and used for a number of trolley lines in the U.S isn't generally a popular enough prototype gauge to garner a large following. I'm a bit of an odd ball also in that I would prefer not only 1:24 scale but also a corresponding correct track gauge for it of 1.5" to represent 3 foot gauge. 

Since LGB's 1:22.5 is nominal to allow for sharp curves the rolling stock comes out to almost exactly the same actual size as the closer to scale 1:24 ex-Delton (Aristo Heritage Series) the two can be used quite handily together for North American type railroads. The European prototypes are mostly better scaled to 1:22.5 I believe.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

While I haven't bought any 1:22.5 recently, I do have a lot of LGB cars of American style. I would buy a plastic K-27/28 that is well done in 1:22.5. My moguls only pull so many cars.

Chuck N


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Richard Smith on 18 Mar 2010 08:09 PM 
Norman, 

My favorite, 1:24 though, is pretty much done so far as any new models ever coming out. Too, 45 mm track in 1:24 equals 42" gauge which although somewhat popular in other countries and used for a number of trolley lines in the U.S isn't generally a popular enough prototype gauge to garner a large following. 

I have often wondered if anyone modeled the "Newfie" or any of the Canadian NG lines in large scale in this way? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrow..._in_Canada


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't see those two scales going away any time soon. The reality is that there hasn't been a whole lot of "new" product made for those two scales (in terms of US prototypes) in around 10 years. Yet there's certainly been no real waning of interest in the product lines. To my thinking, that bodes very well for its continuation down the road. Whether we'll see a renewed interest in producing new products, who knows? One would think that eventually, the manufacturers would realize the market hasn't gone away and somoene will step up to the plate with something. 

Later, 

K


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin:

I hope you are right. The problem for a company entering that niche in the market is that they have to have the price and detail of the AMS cars and the Bachmann Spectrum series, both engines and cars. Otherwise we will continue to gravitate to 1:20.3 where there is a lot of bang for the buck.



Chuck N


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't know if that's the case. When you look at the Bachmann, LGB, and Delton (Aristo-Classics) stuff, that seems to be an ample level of detail for many garden railroaders. I think the people who demand a higher level of detail tend to be pre-disposed towards accurate scale/gauge ratios as well, so the push for that level of detail in the "smaller" scales may not be quite that strong. Personally, I'd love to see that level of detailing in 1:24 and 1:22 products, but I don't see the market driving it there. 

Later, 

K


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By East Broad Top on 18 Mar 2010 11:27 PM 
I don't know if that's the case. When you look at the Bachmann, LGB, and Delton (Aristo-Classics) stuff, that seems to be an ample level of detail for many garden railroaders. I think the people who demand a higher level of detail tend to be pre-disposed towards accurate scale/gauge ratios as well, so the push for that level of detail in the "smaller" scales may not be quite that strong. Personally, I'd love to see that level of detailing in 1:24 and 1:22 products, but I don't see the market driving it there. 

Later, 

K
Kevin, perhaps you somehow missed Magnus, Aster, Kiss and Dingler 1:22.5 products? The market for high detail in this scale has been there for many years but it is not a mass market. True 1:22.5 is a pretty exclusive hobby so we are talking about metal not plastic. Best, Zubi


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

Posted By East Broad Top on 18 Mar 2010 11:27 PM 
I don't know if that's the case. When you look at the Bachmann, LGB, and Delton (Aristo-Classics) stuff, that seems to be an ample level of detail for many garden railroaders. I think the people who demand a higher level of detail tend to be pre-disposed towards accurate scale/gauge ratios as well, so the push for that level of detail in the "smaller" scales may not be quite that strong. Personally, I'd love to see that level of detailing in 1:24 and 1:22 products, but I don't see the market driving it there. 

Later, 

K 
Most of my rolling stock is Bachmann 1:22. It started that way because of the affordability of the products.
Recently I purchased a Bachmann 4-4-0 American, planning to upgrade slowly to 1:20.3. The American is a beautiful locomotive.
But I am now selling the American. I find it is just too fragile for outdoor use, because of all the beautiful detail. If I had an
indoor pike, I would go with 1:20.3
As things are now, an "Annie" is more practical for my RR, and very affordable as well.
I would love to see new products from Bachmann in 1:22, and even HLW in 1:24. 

Ralph


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

An interesting discussion. I am now modelling Fn3 (1:20.3) but I also have a number of engines and rolling stock in 1:24 and 1:22.5 and I have come to some conclusions: While it might be accurate to run Fn3 with body mounted couplers, it also requires that your trackwork be scaled up as well! I had what I thought were sweeping curves only to find that the AMS passenger cars were not running through without constantly derailing! My smaller scaled stuff had no problems whatsoever but they were also truck mounted couplers (the minimum radius that I ever use is 4 ft.) There is a place for both and so I am not selling my smaller stuff but I'm also not buying any more either!


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

I suppose, you are talking about 1 : 22,5 or 1 : 24 on 45mm gauge track. The Metre gauge modellers are working in 1 : 22,5. 

The 760/760mm modellers use 1 : 22,5 on 32 gauge model track. 
The 600mm modellers use 26,7 mm model track for 1 : 22,5 

The Gn15 Folks model 15 inch prototypes in 122,5 / 24 on 16,5mm track. 

So why worry about that that scale? A long a they don´t offer me "G" Sale I don´t worry about the future of any maker. They come and go. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## fhhindc (Dec 21, 2009)

I have been contemplating this subject a LOT lately. I'm just returning to the hobby after a 15 year hiatus. My how things have changed.

Here's the deal... I'm finishing a 22 x 9 foot interior layout for my adult son with autism. We have a TON of 332 brass LGB track and switches, two LGB engines, and about 15 pieces of rolling stock, which is a mix of Delton and LGB. The nominal location is Black Hawk, Colorado, (C&S) and the time is the 1930s. Based on quite a bit of research, I've decided to stick to 1:24 for the scale of the structures and all future engines and cars. The fact that HLW and Aristocraft are still making items from the original Delton molds has influenced my decision a lot. Since my son, Will, is pretty hard on things, I'm planning to make everything pretty rugged and will only leave certain items for his use when I'm not there. (He lives with my former wife.)

I have several sets of AMB (Saxton) Carter trucks and two LGB 0-4-0 Porters that work out to be pretty close to 1:20.3 scale. I've also acquired an AMS WSLCo. brass caboose (No. 6) and another built up from a Jeff Saxton kit. So, I'm going to construct some models in that scale as well. I will probably run those outdoors as a guest on local layouts.

Anyway, this is my first post, and I'm glad to be here!


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I think it really comes down to four things:

1. What do you like? 


a. If you like huge diesels pulling long trains over wide sweeping curves (and have room for it) that is one thing.
b. If you like prototypical accuracy and want to model Narrow Gauge and the size of 1:20.3 appeals to you that is another thing.
c. If you like the products from a wide variety of manufacturers that involve a mixture of scales that is also different.

2. How much room do you have?

a. No point in thinking about large locos or large trains or wide sweeping curves if you do not have the space for them. 

b. If you have the space but prefer complex operations in a limited area rather than a large walk around operation that too is different.


3. What is your operating (and storage) environment?

a. If you want all weather operations and equipment that is less subject to heat, humidity, rain, snow etc. some brands hold up better than others.

b. If you will take everything in at night or when inclement weather is forecast your options are less restricted. 

c. If you want prototypical accuracy you are more limited in choices but if it does not concern you less accurate models may be more durable. 


4. Then there is that little thing about how much disposable income you have (and your wife's opinion on where it can be spent).


In other words you can pretty much find something that will make you happy once you sort out your priorities.

For myself I tend to ignore scale (aside from not running mismatched scales on the same train) and instead I like the ability to buy/run 1:29 - 1:26 with LGB, Aristo and USA mainline trains, then I switch to 1:22.5 to run LGB/USA Narrow Gauge Steam or switch to 1:32 to run MTH Challengers and Big Boys (but non-MTH rolling stock does not look good to me with them). I may run Hartland 1:24 or LGB Streetcars together.


In spite of all this I believe most of the buildings and people are 1:24 which looks good to me with anything.

The reality is that we need a good imagination to enjoy this hobby in the first place so for me scales are less important than having stuff that is both small enough to run around my layout without hitting stuff or derailing yet large enough to fill my hands when I pick something up.

I think the manufacturers have too much invested in their existing scale molds. Bachmann may run two scales but I doubt they will drop their Annies and compatible rolling stock in favor of 1:20.3 and I suspect very few will run Annies along with their 1:20.3 K-27's and matching rolling stock. I think the size difference is simply too great for most people.


In my opinion the industry is in a go slow mode until the economy picks up.


Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By fhhindc on 19 Mar 2010 09:05 AM Here's the deal... I'm finishing a 22 x 9 foot interior layout for my adult son with autism.

Anyway, this is my first post, and I'm glad to be here! 

Welcome to MLS!

My granddaughter has severe autism and I have some opinions (with no facts to back them) regarding a positive relationship between those with autism and model trains. 


I would be interested in hearing (here or via private email) about your opinions and experiences regarding your son and your trains.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Reality on the ground... half the detail won't be seen... So ... I stumbled into 1:24. Sure makes mental calculations easier. 

After years in On3 I had my fill of super detailing, G offered a more relaxed approach. I even forgave Botchmann for their 'awful' On30 abomination, I was an On3 purist! Such as I'm finding in 1:20.3, yes I understand your fidelity to scale, but I burn when you all feverishly point out that my scale is wrong and then some mention On30! I couldn't go the Bachmann route with their tie dragging couplers, that screamed Toy Trains to me.... 
Yet after going for big diameter track, well it sounded big 10'd...10'd =5'r=60", merely doubled what I used on my On3 backwoods RR it didn't seem as big and that was reinforced when running 1:29 40' cars, the overhang was bad (to me) so I opted for shorter cars and thus entered 1:24 in earnest. Aristocraft's C-16, HLW 4-4-0 and Classic cars populate the road now. It looks better to me as unlimited space isn't available for larger curves. 

I don't need or want the level of details found in 1:20.3, I don't think most of the market does, those that do could always add that themselves, just like I used to do in On3. I would like to see a few more locos in smaller sizes; ie... 2-6-2, 4-6-0 and my favorite the Mastadon 4-8-0.... but I ain't holding my breath. 

This is a touchy subject to some... I got flamed when some * tried to tell me I was wrong to model in 1:24 and I objected. Before I knew what was happening this kid turned it so that it appeared that I was cutting him down... and a whole bunch of fools jumped on (I hope you know who you are). Then the kid says if he can afford it any body can....but in this economy all my handyman jobs dried up and that was my RR money! Last thing I want to do is come here and reveal my finances..... or lack there of! 

Let's see, just turned 60, so 1:24 should be alive and well for another 24 years here in my little corner of the world.... 

John


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

While I have been leaning toward 1/29 for the last 10 years or so, my initial foray in to large scale was with the LGB 1:22.5 and bachmann 1:22.5 trains. I have not been able to bring myself to sell off those items yet, but I am starting to think that I never run that black D&RGW gon or that EBT hopper car anymore. But, I did just purchase a Dogfish Head reefer by bachmann. I have to admit that I like the paint scheme (and the beer), and that it looks OK with my aristo craft cars. I have been tempted by the aristo c-16 because I like the colors. Finances have kept me away from it thus far. 

I think that the Bachmann starter sets, love em or hate em, are still a major way that people get in to this hobby. As those are nominally 1:22.5, I don't see that scale going away any time soon. The size is right, a big enough difference from O gauge, small enough to fit on 4' curves around a tree at Christmas. 

Also, USA Trains seems to make more 1:22.5 wood reefers than anything else in their lineup. Look at their catalog. I have several USA wood reefers and find them to be great for adding variety to my trains. And they tend to be reasonably affordable. Don't see that stopping anytime soon.

Mark


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

I sure hope it sticks around.

We pretty much only run 1:22.5 trains anymore. I still have an Accucraft C-16 and Goose #5, but both are smaller 1:20.3 items that fit well with 1:22.5 trains. 


There hasn't been much of any new "American" items in 1:22.5. for several years. And next to nothing in the way of locomotives. Probably the newest would be the K-36 by KISS. But this is an extremely expensive, highly detailed model not really suitable for most 1:22.5 layouts. And it is not the easiest of locos to find. It took me a very long time to save up for one and nearly as long to find one.

1:20.3 is big and impressive. And if you have the space, it is a logical choice since it is the correct scale and seems to be the way the market is going. However to me the smaller size of 1:22.5 is more pleasing to the eye. And it fits so well with Piko, POLA, and other structures, not to mention 1:24-1:25 vehicles.


If I was starting today would I still model in 1:22.5? Probably not. But when my dad got me started in G gauge back on Christmas 1983, LGB was pretty much the only game in town. Over the years our collection has grown and grown. But we've stayed with 1:22.5 all these years and plan to for many many more.

If anyone here has not visited our website, please do (link below) to see how we've made the best of what we can in 1:22.5 scale:

Snowshoe & San Juan Model Railroad


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Friends, 
I am a 1:22-1:24 scale guy. My trains represent American Narrow Gauge, specifically D&RGW. Matt stated my thoughts well above. However, I am still holding out for a reasonable priced K-series loco in 1:22.5 scale!


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

I mix 1:20.3, 1:22.5 and 1:24 stuff on my indoor layout as a normal circumstance. I have learned to accept the differences and look past them. I have tight curves so that the larger 1:20.3 stuff is not in the cards, the Bachmann Shay is as big as my stuff is going to get.


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

Posted By George Schreyer on 19 Mar 2010 01:31 PM 


I mix 1:20.3, 1:22.5 and 1:24 stuff on my indoor layout as a normal circumstance. I have learned to accept the differences and look past them. I have tight curves so that the larger 1:20.3 stuff is not in the cards, the Bachmann Shay is as big as my stuff is going to get. 


end of georges quote and here starts my response'



same with me (i tend to run short and smaller trains and equipment, of both US and euro, and a couple of live steam locos too-one is 1:24 and one is 1:22 except for my LGB mike and genesis-which i love)






i am admittedly a red box person-so my 1:20 LGB porter matches my Bachman shay-as do my 1:20 lgb davenports; 


the tiny field rwy stuff is entirely the wrong guage as is one of my live steam locos-the SRRL 2 ft guage-i dont bloody care so long as i can play trains and have fun






but i tend to run 'trains' that match within the consist-but a great variety of 'trains' like Colorado narrow guage -or german-or french etc






i have a very compromising attitude when it comes to this stuff-as a result im happier anot frustrated about things not being right-i do know the difference- i just look past it 






i have to admit i like 1;22.5 because i have so much invested in it


i love detail but i hate broken toys


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I am still holding out for a reasonable priced K-series loco in 1:22.5 scale! 

Isn't the Bachmann Fn3 Consolidation a fairly easy conversion to a K ? Or is 'easy' a relative term, as it usually is! 

I sold my 13 1:22.5-ish EBT hoppers assuming the Accucraft ones would arrive within a year or so. Silly me.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 19 Mar 2010 03:39 PM 
I sold my 13 1:22.5-ish EBT hoppers assuming the Accucraft ones would arrive within a year or so. Silly me. 

I wish I had known.









Those EBT hoppers would have looked great here.

I can't speak for Ted but for me the Bachmann K-whatever is just TOO LARGE to look right in fromt of my 1:22.5 rolling stock. I hope Ted eventually gets his wish.

Jerry


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 19 Mar 2010 03:39 PM 
I am still holding out for a reasonable priced K-series loco in 1:22.5 scale!Isn't the Bachmann Fn3 Consolidation a fairly easy conversion to a K ? Or is 'easy' a relative term, as it usually is! 

I sold my 13 1:22.5-ish EBT hoppers assuming the Accucraft ones would arrive within a year or so. Silly me. 

Well, Sir, IF your name is either Rod Hayward or David Fletcher then it's pretty easy. But if you are like the rest of us mere mortals I'd opine that it would be as easy as building one from scratch using fog.

tac
www.ovgrs.orf


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Tac, 
I agree with your statement above. Words are not available to adequately describe the fine work of Hayward and Fletcher. I suspect that if one could buy their work, it would be in the LGB/Aster price range, or at least the KISS range. I am not a modeler with those skills. I have changed a 'Connie' into a C-21 (see the bottom photos at http://home.windstream.net/traingarden/denver.htm). The Bachmann street price of $600-700 is what I call reasonable for a K. Would love to have the Bachmann 1:22.5 version!!!!


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry, 
I agree with you 100%. One should run what they like, and I know folks that run all sorts of trains together. It is their railroad, so I'm happy for them. For me, 1:20 is wonderful, but it will not clear some spots on my layout. I KNOW it is the CORRECT U.S. Narrow Gauge scale, but it is just to large for my layout. I also have a large investment in LGB, Hartland/Aristo, USA Woodsided cars, Bachmann 1:22.5 stuff like the 'Annie' etc. and plan to stick with that scale or size. 
I have stated this funny story before, but the Bachmann 'Connie' will not cross Bachmann's own A-Frame bridge! Loco and bridge made by same company! Funny!


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Ted,

Like you I am still hoping for a future K loco in 1:22.5. Those of us who model D&RGW will never be quite happy unless and until someone eventually makes it for us (at a price we can afford).

I suspect that if and when it happens there will be many of us who end up buying two of them (for northbound and southbound trains). 


One thing (for me anyway) is that it would have to be able to negotiate at least R2 curves and that could be a deal breaker.


Aside from the height and length of a 1:20.3 K loco there is also the significant width difference between 1:22.5 and 1:20.3 rolling stock. Even with R3 sidings there is not always enough clearance for cabooses with side marker lights to pass each other on adjacent sidings. Sidings for 1:20.3 would be prohibitively wide for my layout.

Another factor to be concerned with prototypical accuracy in 1:20.3 is that a coach that is truly to scale will likely have more windows because many semi-scale coaches have been shortened (by having fewer than the original number of windows) to fit around smaller curves.

I instantly gave up any thought of 1:20.5 (for me) when I saw an absolutely beautiful 1:20.3 K loco with a consist of six coaches. There is NO WAY it would ever fit on my layout. I wish I had a photo of it along with a LGB Mogul with six LGB coaches for a size comparison. 


Regards,

Jerry


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry:

Here is a picture of an LGB mogul and a Bachmann K-27. It is not passenger cars but it shows the engines.











Here is the K with a Bachmann Connie 











Here is a picture comparing LGB coaches with Accucraft coaches.



















Chuck N


----------



## llynrice (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't know how 1:24 will fare in today's market place; but, I really wish that it had prevailed! The most common scales have become 1:29 for standard gauge and 1:20.3 for 3ft narrow gauge and there are many fine railroad models available in both scales. But, how about all of the other items that go in a layout? Diecast cars are readily available in 1:24 while there is virtually nothing in 1:29 or 1:20.3. Offerings in buildings are quite limited and we are often offered 1:24 compromise buildings. I realize the garden railroad hobby grew up with 45 mm track and folks wanted models that suited their standard or narrow gauge tastes and which would run on the 45mm gauge track they had already laid. All of the samller scales have a common scale (1:87, 1:64, 1:48, etc.) and modelers lay track which is the approriate gauge for standard or narrow gauge modeling. If we were doing that in garden model railroading using 1:24 scale, we'd have a treasure trove of properly scaled accessories for our layouts. Oh well, I realize there is virtually no likelihood that we'll gravitate to 1:24, but I felt a need to rant a bit.

Llyn


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Llyn:

I agree with you, 1:24 should work in most applications. 


I think that 1:24 ish model buildings, trucks, cars, people, etc., work reasonably well with all of our common scales, 1:20.3 to 1:29. Unless a train is parked next to a house or building the difference isn't that noticeable. It is the overall effect. If you are a perfectionist a station might be the only type of building that could matter. Buildings come in all sizes and shapes. I would have to measure the door to determine the scale and the height of the real door. 


I don't run 1:32, but I think that all of our 1:24 accessories would probably look too big. That is, unless they were well away from the track and trains.

Chuck


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Personallly I think a small minority pushed the manufacturers around to get 1:20.3 into the mainstream at the detriment to established scales, and while I always agreed with the intent of scale accuracy/gauge that Mr 1:20.3 Farrero was on about, I dont agree with the method of delivery..it was extremely poorly thought out as a long term strategy. What we have now is a terribly fragmented largescale NG hobby, where the only really safe bet for manufactuers is to stick to the more single sellable scales, so 1:29 seems to get the nod (plastically speaking, not brass). As for 20.3, its becoming so very much a freelance, backwoods thing to so many, begs the question as to why it so imporant to go to 1:20.3 in the first place. Had I been able to say more in the late 90s, I would have pushed for multiple gauges to 1:24 scale, rather than different scales to 45mm gauge. Ours was a hobby already very fragile, we could ill-afford to create a whole new scale, completely unsupported by anything (no cars, no figures no building - zip at 20.3) to fragment what little we already had. Yes you could say 20.3 has been a great success. But from my perspective not even half of what it could have been had we stayed focused at 1:24 and 1:22.5 and offered easily regauge able locos and rolling stock for the purists. Afterall, look at what a penominan On30 has been..all 1:48 on HO gauge track or On3 track, most models regaugeable or offered up front in both gauges and a huge array of available support items, figures, buildings, cars etc. Thats how it should have been done in largescale, but at 1:24, and we could have had our EBT Mikes, D&RGW Ks etc, and not needed Cape Canaveral to run them! 

As for my work costing $1000s..nothing of the sort. Most of the bashes I did for people were free...and take it from me, when I even sell something I make, people barely want to part with more than the base loco cost....they dont consider hobby time as worth dollars. I have a modernised Bachmann 4-4-0 for sale on ebay at the moment, it probably wont sell. In Auz ebay we're not allowed to put in reserves, so we can either put it up for .99c and hope there is a bidding war (there never is in Auz), or put it up for what you want to sell it for, and hope to get 1 or 2 takers. If it doesn't sell, I'll just keep her: 

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/1900-era-mod...ys_Hobbies_Model_Railways?hash=item20b0108e6e 

I enjoy my 1:24 items and have a good collection of 20.3. I dont mix them, but run them all at different times. I see no future US scale offerings in 1:24 or 1:22.5 except in brass, and I see more freelance locomotives in plastic at 1:20.3, or at least very generic, belonged to no RR, but similar to many etc...not much prototypical scale either way. Rolling stock is doing OK in 20.3 plastic. 

David.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I found the pictures of the locomotive comparisons most interesting. I normally pull Aristo Sierra cars behind my LGB Mogul, and it works fine. Of course, whenever I go past a little park near my home, which has a mogul sitting there, I am amazed at how small the mogul really is!! Given the scale difference between my mogul and my Sierra cars, "my" mogul is much larger than that one!!!!

I agree with the comments about scenery, buildings, etc. All of my people and cars are 1:24 scale. My buildings are either 1:24 or 1:22.5 (PIKO), and I don't have a real problem with that. They look okay out in the yard unless, as others have said, I park a train right next to a building. Although to my uneducated eye, even my PIKO railroad station doesn't look too oversized with one of my passenger or freight trains parked in front of it.

Ed


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Hayward and Fletcher, 
I owe you a public appology. I have never priced your work. I have priced a few custom built items and found that the work is high priced for my pocket book. I am certainly not criticizing anyone or saying their work is not worth it, as these custom model builders are artist and should be respected as such. I will still stand by my request for us 1:22.5 scale guys that would LOVE to have a K-27, K-28, or any other reasonably priced (similar to Bachmann's plastic K) Rio Grande loco in 1:22.5 scale.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Dave, 

Although I could not afford LGB in 1973 when I first saw their product line, my first thought was 'what scale does 45mm equate to at 3'-0" narrow gauge?'. That would be 1:20.3. I am a narrow gauge modeler to the core, and if being a rogue or rebel in the hobby is what it takes, so be it. Job and children took me away from the hobby for many years, so I was excited in the extreme when I came back to the hobby and Bachmann had released a 1:20.3 D&RGW K27 (one of my favorite locos). 

I do agree with you it would have been better for the hobby as a whole had large scale followed the smaller scales and chosen a single scale and varied the track gauge. Unfortunately that is not what transpired, so we have what we have. It is somewhat unfortunate that the manufacturers seem to be gravitating to 1:32/1:29 and 1:20.3, leaving the 1:22.5/1:24 fall by the wayside (although Bachmann is still actively producing the Big Hauler line at 1:22.5/1:24). If you are a rivet counter, the only 'true' scales of the lot are 1:32 and 1:24 that have active 'support' items available. All others follow the 'Ten Foot Rule' - if it looks good at ten feet, it's all good. 

My tuppence worth. 

Bob C.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that sticking to one scale and varying the gauge to suit the scale would have been the "best" approach for the hobby. Garden railroading has always been a very social hobby, where bringing your "latest and greatest" over to the club meeting to run is very much the norm. Look at Marty's and Dr. Rivet's shin-digs. Trains of all different scales running together, bringing dozens of people together from near and far to do so. Neither would be remotely possible if the gauge of the track varied based on the scale. I think separating the trains by track gauge would have really fragmented the hobby. I understand the rationale behind the argument, but I think the social aspect would suffer. And I've always felt that's the one aspect that sets garden railroading apart from every other scale. You get rivet-counters running their trains right next to Thomas the Tank, and enjoying doing so. I'd hate to see the hobby lose that. If it means I've got to dig harder and deeper to find accessories to go with my 1:20.3 railroad, then so be it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I like having multiple scales that can run on a single track gauge. I have engines and cars in 1:20.3, 1:22.5, 1:24, and 1:29. I enjoy them all and run which scale that I feel like running on any given day. There is no way I would be able to have 3 or 4 different layouts in my backyard.

Chuck N


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

well i guess the fact is 45mm gauged track is the standard-regardless of scale 

but one thing, for me, is that even 1:22 is big (although the comparative loco pics make me eat my words) 
and 1:20 is huge-relatively-and also just beautiful 

i think 1:29 or even 1;32 scale models might be plenty large (if i ever got to start over-just a fantasy mind you) 

-it just seems that even medium or larger equipment just is so very big in 1:20-trains that are 15-25 feet long-very cool but takes a lot of space and radius-heck even my LGB Genesis with five cars and a materials car is almost twenty feet 

a bit more compact and it seems things suddenly become more-prototypical-and theres actually room in the garden as well as the basement 
(yes i know about o scale and even n scale) 

but well just have to muddle on 

i really do wonder if 1:20 will continue-obviously it wil if most makers use this scale-but i wonder how practical and popular it will be the average train lover - 


i love the Connie and the K, but havent bought them because of the need for 'wide' radius and they are simply huge compared to my LGB which,love it or hate it,can be used on a 4 ft diameter-in doors -my point being at what point will the sheer room necessary limit the market?-i have about a half acre garden and still feel like some of the space requirements for medium and larger locos are daunting


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 21 Mar 2010 11:41 AM 
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that sticking to one scale and varying the gauge to suit the scale would have been the "best" approach for the hobby. Garden railroading has always been a very social hobby, where bringing your "latest and greatest" over to the club meeting to run is very much the norm. Look at Marty's and Dr. Rivet's shin-digs. Trains of all different scales running together, bringing dozens of people together from near and far to do so. Neither would be remotely possible if the gauge of the track varied based on the scale. I think separating the trains by track gauge would have really fragmented the hobby. I understand the rationale behind the argument, but I think the social aspect would suffer. And I've always felt that's the one aspect that sets garden railroading apart from every other scale. You get rivet-counters running their trains right next to Thomas the Tank, and enjoying doing so. I'd hate to see the hobby lose that. If it means I've got to dig harder and deeper to find accessories to go with my 1:20.3 railroad, then so be it. 

Later, 

K 
What you say above is exactly the reason for the way scales have developed the way they are today. Unlike most other scales of recent times garden railroading owes its growth and popularity to toy train operators enjoying fun and socializing in the backyard. It wasn't until actual model railroaders began to migrate outdoors in some numbers that scale became much of an issue and then due to a comparatively limited market found themselves shackled to a common gauge. Under the circumstances I think 1:20.3 was the only realistic option for narrow gaugers wanting correct scale gauge. I must confess that I admire the models as well as the modelers work in this scale and if starting over would undoubtedly do so in 1:20.3 even though I wish 1:24 was the chosen one. 

As to 1:32 vs 1:29 if I can make an observation without starting a war, I think 1:29 scale is an anomaly scale wise that acquired popularity because , as a Confederate general said, "they got there the fustest with the mostest" and have been supported by two major producers. Had 1:32 been produced in the same quantity by those same manufacturers there would have been no wow comparison to be made and everyone would be used to the bit smaller size thus making things quite a bit more orderly. Too, there would be a third large manufacturer, MTH, producing in a common scale. This is not a criticism of 1:29 adherents but merely an observation.


Precision Scale as well as some very notable kit manufacturers early on produced a number of items in 1:24 before 1:20.3 became established. A Shay I had in brass was offered with either 45 mm gauge trucks or correctly gauged trucks of 1.5" so you could make the gauge choice. Two things to the detriment of the correct gauge were the cost of the locomotives and kits relative to later plastic stuff and the lack of track products available in 1.5" gauge. Only a relative few run multi-thousand dollar models outdoors plus have the skill or the will to handlay their track outdoors and have it look realistic making for a niche market in the extreme. On the other hand if Bachmann had offered 1:24 with the gauge option the earlier brass manufacturers did we'd have a much happier situation in my opinion although I perceive that now 1:20.3 adherents are in the same WOW factor trap as the 1:29 adherents.


Still in spite of all the very opinionated discourse I've spouted above I have to agree that the social aspect unique to G gauge would be sad to lose.


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

I think this photo is the best example that shows what a real 1:22.5 scale narrow gauge coach should look like:












Barry Bogs, who scratch built that impressive baggage car models in 1:22.5 scale. The photo above shows just how much LGB compressed the true length of the car. So when you use an LGB coach to compare the size with an Accucraft 1:20.3 coach, it is not the best comparison to do since the LGB car is considerably shortened. So while 1:22.5 is smaller then 1:20.3, it actually is not all that smaller when you compare true scale items in 1:22.5 with true scale items of 1:20.3. 


Take a look at Barry's impressive layout and collection of scratch built locos and rolling stock to get a better appreciation of what true length 1:22.5 should look like. Barry even models standard gauge in 1:22.5, so he runs dual gauge track.


Barry Bogs' Layout


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

thats a great photo-and your point is excellent 
a great deal if not everything lgb did was 'short and high' and a 'characature' if you will 

 that baggage car is gorgeous-and seemingly huge- 

the problem is i have come to accept the compromise-no matter how egregious- because it allows flexibility in space 

yet -and entirely inconsistently-i recall, at 13 yesars of age, loathing the shortened Rapido and Minitrix n scale passenger cars - 




but i guess these are 'the thing' if you have a small apt and want to model trains in a 2x4ft space and run mainline passenger trains






otoh-this AM i was looking through _Mexican Narrow Gauge_ and i swear i say a ten passenger open vestibule US style coach that was mighty close in length to what LGB produced-probably a very early small US style narrow gauge car-i mena some of them were 26-30 ft long


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By chuck n on 20 Mar 2010 06:31 PM 
Jerry:

Here is a picture of an LGB mogul and a Bachmann K-27. It is not passenger cars but it shows the engines.

Here is the K with a Bachmann Connie 


Here is a picture comparing LGB coaches with Accucraft coaches.

Chuck N 



Hi Chuck,

Thank you. Those photos perfectly explain what I was trying to say.

Jerry


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

My 2c, some will demand change... 

I muddle somewhere in the 1:22/1:24 range. For several reasons. 
1. Diecast cars, and architectural details are readily available in 1:24 (Funny how many people will quibble about 6" in gauge then use a big "fudge factor" with scenery) 
2. Lehmann Toytrain 2 axle cars look good on my R-1 and R-2 curves. Delton hoppers are about as big as I can get away with. 
3. As someone said, it simplifies the math when scratchbuilding. 

As for it 'going away', the prices of all those 'wrong scale, compressed, caricature' Lehmann/LGB items have gone UP, not down in the last few years. And somehow I doubt collectors are buying up all those banged up, but still running, Stainz and Moguls.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By David Fletcher on 21 Mar 2010 03:41 AM 
Personally I think a small minority pushed the manufacturers around to get 1:20.3 into the mainstream at the detriment to established scales

David. 

Hi David,

As usual you make a lot of sense.

As San Juan pointed out there is not as much difference between the scales of 1:22.5 and 1:20.3 as there is between rolling stock that is built to full size within a scale and that made with a sliding scale to fit smaller curves and smaller spaces.

I think we could have accomplished much of what has been done in 1:20.3 with simply having more prototypically accurate 1:22.5 models - if there were enough folks willing to pay the extra cost for larger, more detailed products. In my case they would not have been able run on my layout so I would not have bought them. 










I like my 1:32 Big Boy but I can only handle it in 1:32. In any other scale it would be too huge and heavy for me. I think there is a point within G Gauge that at a given scale some locos scale out too small to have that "Wow" factor while others scale out too huge to be manageable.

Even a LGB Mikado at 1:22.5 would have been somewhat massive so I tend to like LGB's sliding scale.

Jerry


----------



## fhhindc (Dec 21, 2009)

I recently dug out some of my old Outdoor Railroader magazines and Uncle Russ had it exactly right. We should have settled on 1:24 true scale, with the 3 foot narrow gauge track coming in at 1.50 inches. That would have been the sensible thing to do. As for me, after about four months back in to this hobby I have a strategy. I'm not going to share it widely or ya'll will just bid me up on eBay!


----------



## snowshoe (Jan 2, 2008)

Good topic. I personally chose the 1:22 and 1:24 scale because of affordablity and the size. 1:20 scale looks great but too big especially for my layout. With the price of track who can afford to have a large layout or spend X amount of dollars on a box car, especially someone starting out. Bachmann still has a great selection of 1:22 rolling stock at half the price of 1:20 stuff. They dont have much in the way of engines but some of the 1:20 stuff works with the 1:22 like the porter and the davenport. They have not come out with 1:22 scale stuff in a while but how much does one need. All I need is a flat car and box cars. If you want something that is not made then make it using a flatcar etc.... Same goes for HLW they have great engines from the Big John to the Mogule and comparable to the quality of LGB. They also have some nice rolling stock that can easily be kitbashed. Plus the mini series is a great idea it allows you to have a small layout at a reasonable price. HLW detaile is not great but its not difficult to do yourself. Im not one for making a big deal that 1:24 is not the correct narrow guage scale. The average person that sees my layout would never be able to tell. I dont care that HLW or Bachmann are not producing new 1:22 scale stuff. Just as long as they keep the current stuff in production. Im not looking for a hudge collection.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Barry Bogg's stuff is indeed awesome! I use him as a reference when I am trying to determine a detail for one of the 1:20 kits I am building. He's right up there with the other "Master Modellers" that keep impressing us with their museum quality work! As to 1:24 being the scale we should have modelled, the track was too wide and too big! All "WOW!" factors aside, it just didn't look quite right! 1:22.5 made perfect sense from LGB's perspective! They utilized a classic gauge - #1 and they used a (correct) metre scale for their "European" train models! The real fault (if any) lies in the unique solution that Large Scale manufacturers came up with: mainly, compatability! The used the same track gauge but began modelling US prototypes as well as European _and _Standard Gauge as well as Narrow gauge trains and they made it so they would all interconnect and run together! This is why 1:29 came about! It_ looks_, on a cursory examination, like it scales out exactly the same as LGB's 1:22.5 even though the prototypes were radically different in size! This is also one of the reasons that Large Scale (often inaccurately referred to as G Gauge) is criticized as being a "toy train" scale.

In defense of 1:20.3, which I prefer to refer to as "Fn3", it _is _the correct scale! The rolling stock is scaled correctly (i.e. not compressed) and they couple through body mounted couplers like the prototype! Yes, they are reaching the limits of easy use! In fact, as has been referenced, some 1:29 engines are almost too big for many layouts! If you looked at a UP Big Boy in _F Scale_ it would be running on a 2 3/4" gauge track and would be large enough for a person to ride on (assuming it was of brass construction and live steam!) but it wouldn't _begin _to navigate most people's layouts even _if_ they ran that gauge of track!

Check out an F Scale standard gauge modern steamer with a Fn3 narrow gauge Accucraft C-21 (slightly larger than the Bachmann Connie):










Have we gotten_ too_ big? Possibly. Unfortunately, this is the situation we are in that began with a business decision to utilize one particular scale and make everybody's products compatable!


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Steve 

There is a growing contingent of 7/8n2 modelers in both battery/electric and live steam. The scale is 1:13.71, which is between two of the EXISTING "RIDE BEHIND" scales of 3/4 in per foot (1:16) AND 1 in per foot (1:12). These cars (at least for the maine 2ft prototypes) dwarf anything in 1:20.3 /1:29 / 1:32. 

My Rishon SR&RL #6 Forney is as long as a 1:32 SP switcher and tender. The massive equipment looks pretty cool on 45mm gauge track though; just as amazing as looking at the real thing and wondering how it stays on the track. 

Regards


----------



## fhhindc (Dec 21, 2009)

Well, boys, this thread just about sums it all up, doesn't it? We still can't agree on anything. It all comes down to individual judgments about space limitations and budgets. As for me, long term? I'm thinking that 1:32 narrow gauge is my true interest. Scratchbuilding will be required, but heck that's the fun of this for me anyway!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, yes. You're right. There probably never will be complete agreement but that's okay! It's just too bad that one scale seems to get attention at the expense of another scale! In a perfect world we would all have everything available to us. Alas, that will never be so we have to make do with what is available! It's quite possible that we'll _have_ to come full circle and re-learn the art of scratchbuilding in order to have exactly what we want and would that be so bad?


----------

