# Anyone still running 1:22.5?



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

I just posted a classified ad for a string of LGB passenger cars, and it occurred to me that perhaps I should do a little market research. I had them listed in the local club's newsletter last month and didn't get any inquiries. I thought maybe the bad economy still has people spooked.

So, having given the locals their shot, I decided to offer them to MLS folks, before they go to eBay.


Than, it occurred to me that maybe everyone has moved to 1:20.3 scale for narrow gauge. True? I know a few people who are still modeling 3-foot narrow gauge in 1:24 scale. Are there still people using 1:22.5, or an I wasting my time?


Just curious....


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Absolutely. 

We originally had a lot of 1:22.5 scale rolling stock that prohibited a conversion to the accurate scale of 1:20.3. Now we have too much. 

I try hard at making this incorrect scale as correct as I can. Take a look at our layout website to see photos of all the 1:22.5 sized trains:

Snowshoe & San Juan Model Railroad Website


So at least I'm still running 1:22.5. I think a lot out there are still running it too.


----------



## Peter Osborne (Jan 5, 2008)

You bet.

I have too many clearance issues and too much invested in 1:22.5 to swap now. I accomdoate some of the smaller, debateable models (the new Bachmann Forney will find a home) but the K-27 and the like are not going to be feasible. Insead I downsized a Connie to a C-25. Turned out pretty good. I notice that Bachmann is introducing some new rolling stock in 1:22.4 (an RGS stock car) so i think there's still some life in the scale.

Peter.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The follow-up question--of those still running it, who is actively looking for more equipment? Most of the folks I know who are running it (beyond those who run anything regardless of scale) have been in the hobby for quite some time, and have already amassed enough for their railroads. My dad's even to the point of thinning out the 1:22 stuff he has, because he just doesn't need quite so much of it. (Vance, if you find a ripe market, let me know. Dad's tasked me to be the used equipment dealer.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

You could say we are actively looking for more equipment. I wanted a pipe train, so I purchased two LGB gondolas from eBay not too long ago. I've also been kitbashing some of my existing fleet into more realistic models.


Lately I've been updating our locomotive fleet. 


We got a K-28 about a year ago, and I just acquired a 1:22.5 K-36. And I'm currently/actively looking at either converting one of my Bachmann 2-8-0s into a 1:22.5 (David Fletcher Style) K-27 #463 or finding one already constructed.

Because of these new and planned loco additions, I guess I'll try to sell off the few remaining 1:20.3 equipment we have...Bachmann 2-8-0s (Silverton Northern, and a custom bashed Rio Grande C-25 #375), and an Accucraft C-16 #278.


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Vance, 
I am like many of the folks that have been around awhile (started large scale in 1990 when only 1:22.5 was available and NO ONE was saying it was the wrong scale) and still run 1:22.5 stuff. I enjoy my LGB, Bachmann, Aristo Classics, USA Trains, and Hartland locos and rolling stock. I have plenty and even offer some for sale or door prizes at our club meetings, banquets, etc. I do occasionally buy specific pieces but am very selective. Storage was not a problem in HO scale, but this G stuff is big! I am still waiting for a good K-series Rio Grande loco in 1:22.5 scale!


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

I have twenty two Bachmann 1:22.5 cars, one of which has been repainted and around half of them carry heralds and name of my RR. Some of these cars were my first large scale purchases. I have two 'Annies' that go with them.


One thing I find good about these cars is that they do not, to my eyes, look out of scale with my 1:29 stock. Luckily being in England I have no model rivet counters around here.









I have thought about selling some items but most likely, as they do not command a high reselling price, I may convert one or two to become grounded storage sheds and of course the wheels will be used as plastic wheel replacements on my newly awaited 1:29 coal hoppers. As they are low cost items I believe am not afraid of kitbashing one or two as well.


----------



## Jeff Livingston (Jan 2, 2008)

Vance, 

Save some of the flats and gons, they're very close to the type and size used on plantations. Boxcars are good for shortening into 4-wheel plantation boxcars and the width and height are good.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Ted, of course, you have to remember that for those modelling meter gauge stock, 1/22.5 IS correct.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 27 Sep 2009 02:42 PM 
Ted, of course, you have to remember that for those modelling meter gauge stock, 1/22.5 IS correct.

tac
www.ovgrs.org

You are correct, but the Bachmann 4-6-0 Big Hauler and LGB Mogul are not 'meter gauge' locos! However, I am very happy with the way they look.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By FH&PB on 26 Sep 2009 11:13 PM 
[...] Are there still people using 1:22.5, or an I wasting my time?

Just curious....


Vance, what do you mean by "still"?? 1:22.5 is an ideal scale for large scale trains and I am one of the people who are looking forward to new 1:22.5 models. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll just reiterate my statement and add a little bit more - 'for the vast majority of modellers in continental Europe and UK who model meter gauge, 1/22.5 IS correct.'

A quick look at a German model railway magazine, or any of the sites that deal with larger scales, shows that 1/22.5, or IIm as it is called on the continent, is alive and kicking. There were, at the last count, over three hundred manufacturers, large and small, making models and accessories for this popular scale. The meter-gauge Rhaetische Bahn continues to be the most popular railway in model form for the year 2008, as indeed it has been since the early 1990's. There are layouts on the continent, and a few here as well [hidden away from public view] that would give any of your humungous Californian layouts a run for their money. I was actually in a store when a guy and his grandson came in and bought everything that was Rhb in store, and track to match - he spent over $40k on the spot - I helped them load every piece of LGB track in the store into their hire truck. 

The parochial view that 1/22.5 is dying for lack of interest is based on the understandable lack of US prototypes in a scale that suits that particular track gauge, something that in real life does not exist. Don't base your experiences in just the USA - there is another world out there called NOT the USA!









tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Terry, not only that, but 1:22.5 on 45mm model track is also *ideally suited* to cover prototype gauges down to 750mm, including 914mm otherwise known as 3ft gauge. In the case of live steam, larger scales are often more suitable due to physics and mechanics involved but electric models really do not need to be larger than 1:22.5. Best, Zubi


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Ted Yarbrough on 27 Sep 2009 01:29 PM 
started large scale in 1990 when only 1:22.5 was available and NO ONE was saying it was the wrong scale
Just for the record, Tony Ferraro has been "Mr 1:20" since the late '80s, IIRC. His calculator worked better than ours? No, but he was willing to scratchbuild to get the accurate proportions. I think we can thank him for the movement that eventually led to Bachmann producing the Shay, which led to the 1:20 boom we now enjoy.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Despite what Bachmann or the 1/20 crowd will tell you, there are 10,000's of 1/22.5 items still out there -vs- a couple 1000's of 1/20.3 peices. 1/20 is still relativley new to the crowd and still not very well stocked, thats begun changing but LGB has been in the market for over 30 years so theres a ton of stuff still out there and judging Evilbay prices still in demand, especially after EPLs demise.


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

The great majority of my stuff is 1:22.5. 

Like many others, I started in Large Scale when everything [/i]was 1:22.5.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually over FORTY years making their large scale trains - 1968.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Vsmith, 10.000's is an underestimate by at least one order of magnitude. I remember 50.000 mentioned in the context of the Mogul alone. Still, it is a pity that so few new things appear in 1:22.5 these days. Best, Zubi


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Vance, it is a pity that Mr Ferraro did not keep his 1:20 restricted to his own scratchbuilding. The Shay and all other pieces by Bachmann since, could have been produced to 1:22.5 with the same level of detail. But perhaps with fewer mechanical problems, faults and issues;-))... Best, Zubi


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By FH&PB on 28 Sep 2009 10:34 AM 

Tony Ferraro has been "Mr 1:20" since the late '80s. I think we can thank him for the movement that eventually led to Bachmann producing the Shay, which led to the 1:20 boom we now enjoy. Thanks a bunch Tony


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, I do thank Tony! That's why I'm selling off the 1:22.5 stuff. If LGB's equipment had been scale models, rather than compressed caricatures, I might have been tempted to stay on, but that's water under the bridge. (Not to pick on them alone -- all the other 1:22.5 mfrs did the same thing.) I'm quite happy about it, and you guys who are sticking with 1:22.5 should be, too. There will be used equipment for you to snatch up.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Vance, we wish you all the best in your new hobby! As for your statement "Not to pick on them alone -- all the other 1:22.5 mfrs did the same thing.", everyone with even passing knowledge of 1:22.5 knows that it is false. In plastic, Bachmann's Big-Hauler is not "compressed", neither are any of the 1:22.5 engines by LGB; the C&S Mogul or the D&RGW#50. All the Swiss and all Harz engines by LGB are 1:22.5. In metal, several LGB/Aster engines, Aster C&S, all Magnus models including standard gauge, Brawa, Dingler, Regner, Reppingen, Herrmann, Scheba, Schiede, Kiss including their magnificent K-36 are "uncompressed", scale 1:22.5. Even the KTM/Sunset C-16 is essentially 1:22.5 although it is a hybrid of features of both #268 and #278 of D&RGW. If we are looking for caricatures in large scales, Bachmann's new 1:20.3 Forney and their classic 2-8-0 Consolidation are perfect examples of ultimately confused "correctness";-)))... Best wishes, Zubi


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes. and this is why. These are 1.22.5 and I'm not going to bin them for want of 3" out of gauge. Sure they are wrong, but 1.20.3 would be too big for my loading gauge.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

not only that, but 1:22.5 on 45mm model track is also *ideally suited* to cover prototype gauges down to 750mm, including 914mm otherwise known as 3ft gauge. 

1.22,5 on 45 mm represents metre gauge. 750 mm in 1 : 22,5 needs 33,3 mm track, 3 ft gauge in 1 : 22,5 needs 40,6 mm track. 
At least from a modellers point of view. The 4,4mm difference "wrong track" might not be too noticable outdoors, but a Saxon or Ruegen loco on 45mm track looks silly. If they are made by LGB they are much too wide. 

The "invention" of 1 : 20 scale for 45mm track to represent 3 ft. was a clever move, to isolate the foreign 22,5 US Narrow gauge proto makers like LGB from the US market. 

Most customers, maybe not even LGB themselves, did realize, the LGB Porter, the Forneys, the logging trucks etc were offered in (more or less) 1 : 20 scale quite early in the nineties of last Century. 

Regards 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Fritz, you are right that the invention of the 1:20.3 was mainly a strategical, commercial move. And also a successful one too, finally American persons can buy locomotives made by American companies;-))) rather than European. Additionally, they are told to believe that they do a correct thing, and don't forget the "wow" factor, when they see things sooo much bigger, they must be sooo much better too...;-)! 

As for LGB, they produced to G-scale not to 1:22.5 and they perfectly knew what they were doing. The definition of G-scale is somewhat more complicated than a single scale ratio. But in many cases which already I mentioned above, 1:22.5 was used also by LGB. 

Finally, thanks for listing a few abstract gauges, but I guess you perfectly well realise that other than for the purpose of displaying a static model, noone in their right mind would be hand-laying track to an abstract gauge (I know there were a few people who did this but their sanity is not obvious to me). 

Please note that I state that 1:22.5 is *ideally suited* which implies the existence of an optimal scenario. This optimal scenario is provable. 

Quite frankly, I see no reason to complain. To the contrary! I am looking forward to get some more 'silly looking' 1:22.5 cheap from all those people who decided it is not worth much to them anymore;-)))).... 

Best wishes, Zubi


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By zubi on 29 Sep 2009 06:15 AM 

As for LGB, they produced to G-scale not to 1:22.5 and they perfectly knew what they were doing. The definition of G-scale is somewhat more complicated than a single scale ratio.



As Zubi said, LGB did a lot more than just use a single scale. The Mogul is a great example and in my opinion the best G Scale US type locomotive ever built. Many Moguls were built in standard gauge as well as narrow gauge and many narrow gauge Moguls were converted to standard gauge. I am sure that Jackson-Sharpe etc. built their coaches both for standard scale and narrow gauge. LGB and similar people look perfectly fine next to LGB Moguls and Mikados as do most G Scale buildings.

What LGB achieved was to build Moguls (and Forneys etc.) to a size large enough to be appreciated but that could still be run along with Mikados, F7s etc. without appearing to be diminutive.










Aristo-Craft, USAT, original Bachmann etc. were made to run along with (or compete with) LGB by being sized such that they could attract LGB customers away from LGB. What some have since done is to attempt to build incompatible scales to build their own markets. 

MTH is simply too small (in my opinion) to run along with LGB rolling stock and Bachmann 1:20.3 is not only too large to run with LGB rolling stock - it is also way to big to run on many LGB layouts because it demands wider curves and higher clearances. I would not and cannot consider Bachmann or other 1:20.3 because I would have to cut new holes in my house for those trains to get through the walls from inside to outside.

Someone once resized a photo of mine to show LGB Moguls and Mikados in an accurate relative scale and the simple truth is that I would not want Moguls that were properly scaled to my LGB Mikados.

Personally I love the very things that others have criticized about LGB. Their universality of interchangeable parts (due to lack of prototypical accuracy) means that I can get and use most of the parts I occasionally need since there are only a few variations of LGB Moguls, Mikados, F7s etc. to keep parts for. The lack of finely detailed parts means that I am not continually looking for little parts that broke or fell off.

I don't know what the future for LGB is in terms of new product manufacturing but I think that the future demand for LGB rolling stock is not dependent on 1:22.5 scale as much as it is on future availability of future 1:22.5 locomotives for people to buy and then want to buy rolling stock to match.

To my mind (which is the only mind that concerns my buying habits) 1:22.5 translates to "wood sided" and as long as I can buy wood sided rolling stock such as passenger cars, freight cars and cabooses I will always be on the lookout for 1:22.5 products. 

I don't think that 1:22.5 is dead or dying but the hobby (like always happens in a recession) is in a slow down mode and 1:22.5 will recover along with the hobby as the economy gets better.

A lot was made about the LGB bankruptcy but as the world economy since tanked (big time) my personal opinion is that LGB simply went bankrupt from the same thing (lack of credit) that has since caused the bankruptcy of many other companies world wide.

Perhaps the smartest thing that LGB did was not to model any specific scale but rather to model space - customer space. By that I mean that there simply are a LOT of people who can build layouts (including indoors) with 1:22.5 trains running on 4' (R1) curves but as the scale gets larger the number of customers who have the space to build layouts to accommodate larger curves and larger scaled locomotives shrinks.

Just guessing I would think that a layout to accommodate a 1:20.3 K-27 would cost at FOUR TIMES as much (because it would take up 4 times the space) as a similar layout to accommodate a 1:22.5 LGB Mogul and a layout to accommodate a 1:29 modern 6 axle diesel locomotive requiring at least 8' (R3) diameter curves would cost at least double that of a layout for 1:22.5 Moguls running on R1 curves.

Just my opinion (I sent you an email about your coaches and I would love to find a full set of LGB UP streamliners that someone wants to get rid of).

Jerry


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

thanks for listing a few abstract gauges, but I guess you perfectly well realise that other than for the purpose of displaying a static model, noone in their right mind would be hand-laying track to an abstract gauge (I know there were a few people who did this but their sanity is not obvious to me). 

I know quite a few people building their own track with 26,7 mm to model 600mm gauge (Feldbahn) in 1 : 22,5. A small group yet, but constantly growing. 
Others use what is on the market and what comes close. The 750/760mm folks use 32mm track, the Gn15 modellers HO/OO 16mm track. In Britain 1:19 scale on 32 mm track to represent 2 ft. railways, is very common. 

LGB decided to use 45mm gauge modell track, which had a long tradition in Europe (Maerklin, Bing etc tinplate) to introduce a narrow gauge toytrain. That´s how they got to this unusual scale of 1 : 22,5. They choose an Austrian (760mm) prototype, because in those days, Austria was the most popular holiday place for Germans. In 1968 there were not many narrow gauge lines running anymore in Western Germany. 

For many years, they were the only affordable large scale train makers on the market. Things changed, when the Chinese made Wow Factor makers, Bachmann and USA trains appeared on stage in the Nineties. LGB suddenly seemed to be very expensive in comparison. LGB sales in the US went down very fast. 

Meanwhile mainstream in the US seems to be 1/29th for standard gauge and 1:20,3 for US narrow gauge. MTH´s 1/32th seem to aim at a different liga of customers. 

I think, todays customers must be very happy. There never was the possibility to choose from so many diferent makers. If you miss something, simply design it and ask the next lasershop to make it for you. They don´t care, which scale you want, as long as you lay the money on the counter. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Fritz on 29 Sep 2009 05:33 AM 

The "invention" of 1 : 20 scale for 45mm track to represent 3 ft. was a clever move, to isolate the foreign 22,5 US Narrow gauge proto makers like LGB from the US market. 


Regards 

Fritz / Juergen 

Hahaha..and now that they've gotten LGB out of the way (not by there own doing but by circumstance) what do they do? Start pricing themselves right out of that same US market by offering ever more expensive offerings, cram their models with electronics no one wants, all without changing the problem plagued production system! thats 3 toes shot off, will they shoot off the other 2?

Please by all means sell off the 1/22.5 stuff... the more people buy into the 1/20.3 the more 1/22.5 finds its way to the market, the more 1/22.5 guys like me can buy what were still looking for


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Vance 

Like you I have a lot of 1:22.5 models that will go on the block shortly. Like most, our railroad grew up on LBG and 1:22.5 equipment. At one time February was our favorite month as that was when LGB announced their new products and there was always something to drool over. 

Over time I became much more interested in 3 ft narrow gauge and fell in love with the way these cars look in the wild and we gradually made the transition to 1:20.3. This move was encouraged with the lack of new 1:22.5 narrow gauge models being introduced and the introduction of several great lines of 1:20.3 new equipment. 

This summer we reached a major milestone as for the first time we operated our railroad exclusively with 1:20.3 locomotives and rolling stock. Yes indeed we had to make modifications to the railroad to accommodate some of the larger equipment but that is now mostly done (still one tunnel left that needs more height clearance) and we had fun in modifying the layout. 

We still run 1:22.5 equipment when we need extra cars for an operating session but as we add equipment that is becoming less and less frequent and over time we expect to sell most all of our remaining 1:22.5 equipment. 

As for cost, most of the cars I now purchase cost less than I used to spend for LGB cars and I like the extra detail and the way the cars look on our layout. As for size there are both large and small 1:20.3 models in the market. And the smaller models look right at home next to 1:22.5 equipment. 

There are a lot of great scales in Large Scale and each of us have found a class of models we like to model. For Deb and I that is 1:20.3. 

Stan Ames
http://www.tttrains.com/sjrp/


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

'for the vast majority of modellers in continental Europe and UK who model meter gauge, 1/22.5 IS correct.'

You know, I just *LOVE* that statement by Tac... and I totally agree with it. Allow me please, to make a similar one...

'for ALL modelers EVERYWHERE who model 3ft Narrow Gauge (on 45mm rails), 1/20.3 IS correct.'[/i]

Ahhhh... feels so good.









You know, I'm tired of the bitching and the moaning - the BS - there is absolutely NO WAY to refute this statement, as it is simply the fact of the mathematics. Scream all you want about "_characteristics_"... bitch all you'd like about who made what first, and to what pseudo scale... it doesn't change the MATH.









I'm not out here telling people they're wrong for liking 1/22.5 - ****, I own some of it myself - but almost everyone in this hobby got into it from another scale... and the truth is, for MODEL RAILROADERS the goal is accuracy - that's the who'll point of being "model" railroaders in the first place... if we didn't give a flip about the _scale_, about the _authenticity_, the _*accuracy*_ - then we wouldn't bother with the word model - we could just say *TOY*. Because without fidelity to the prototype - and not just where it is easy, like paint, or "style" or "overall feel" - but in the very difficult, sometime painful places, like length, and width, we might as well just throw the word "model" right out the window.

To me, 1/20.3 is the greatest testament to those that came before us, as it is yet another, in a line of many, evolutions as the hobby of MODEL railroading has strived to be better... just as I have, in no way, EVER maligned someone for modeling meter gauge in 1/22.5 nor 1/32 for standard gaugers... as these show the very depths to which dedicated modelers will go to hone their craft.

Zubi - you are a man of science - an educator as I recall, no? Then by no means can you possibly deny the basic underpinnings of the *math*, the *science*, of the scale. Go ahead, like 1/22.5... like 1/24 - ****, I don't care... like 1/3.141592 for all that matters - say it's all cute, say it all "looks better" to you on 45mm track than anything else, but* DO NOT* belittle or insult someone who seeks out the more accurate, the more authentic model, just because you like the look of a toy.

You sir, owe Mr. Ferraro an apology. How dare you attack him for helping bring our models (_not toys_, but MODELS) out of the wandering wilderness of ambiguous German "scale" and into the cold, factual realities of 1:20.3.

For someone who is so adamant, at this very moment, of begging for a bit of "respect" for the passing Rolf Richter over on the LSC forum for, how did you put it? - for others to _"just shut up"_ - perhaps you should do the same here before you begin to insult the rest of those in the 1:20.3 community, and not just Mr. Ferraro.

Maybe it's time to just go back to playing with your toys for awhile, and let those of us who have a grasp of basic arithmetic get back to modeling... unless you really think you can show us here, on the forum, how anything other than 1:20.3 is the correct and accurate scale for those of us modeling 3ft Narrow Gauge railroads on 45mm track.


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Parkdesigner & others, 
I think Zubi and others, including myself, understand that correct 3 foot American Narrow Gauge should be 1:20.3 in scale. What I am saying, and I do not speak for anyone else, is that when LGB with their mogul, passenger cars, etc [including a very fine 2-8-2 narrow gauge brass creation with Aster]; Bachmann with its 4-6-0 and assorted rolling stock; as well as USA Trains and the woodsided box, reefer, and caboose introduced these products to the market, they were rather well accepted by thousands, if not millions of people in the hobby. The makers of these trains did not tell us we are producing these but they are the wrong scale! They marked them as models of American Narrow Gauge Rolling locos and stock. It was all that was COMMERCIALLY available. Yes, many have made their own and they may be the correct scale, but everyone, INCLUDING ME, does not have the ability [talent] to create these ourselves or money to purchase these one of a kind masterpieces. I have a rather large investment in a layout that accomodates the 1:22.5 versions of American Narrow Gauge trains that date back to when no one else was producing anything else but 1:22.5 on a mass produced basis. If I were starting today, I would certainly go with the correct 1:20.3 scale. However, I am not starting today. I have seen some FANTASTIC 1:20.3 layouts and some FANTASTIC 1:22.5 layouts. Both of which are SUPERB models. Technically, a model is something that represents an object in the real world, as models are used to recreate traffic accidents, represent new buildings to potential clients, etc. These LGB, Bachmann, and USA Trains are models of trains. They may NOT be correct scale, but they are models. I suppose the guys that run the 7/8 guage ride on trains say they have models. The 1:20.5 guys say they have models. The HO guys have models. We also could be said to have 'Toys' by some. It is what it is and I DO NOT WISH TO REOPEN THE SCALE WAR! I enjoy my trains in 1:22.5 and run American Narrow Gauge representations that will run on LGB track that is metric and not American gauged. I guess, I am most upset not with the modelers, but with the manufacturers that introduced 1:22.5 scale American Narrow Gauge, developed a market, and then left the current customer for a new market. I do feel there is still a market for 1:22.5. I am waiting for LGB, Marklin, or whomever, to produce an affordable 1:22.5 scale K-series loco and yes, I may be waiting awhile, but I have been waiting since 1990. Bachmann and AMS are selling the 1:20 trains, but just think what they might have been able to sell in 1:22.5 since it would have fit in with all the other rolling stock and locos produced by them. I have rambled on, but there are still folks in 1:22.5. I am one of them.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Hahaha..and now that they've gotten LGB out of the way (not by there own doing but by circumstance) what do they do? Start pricing themselves right out of that same US market by offering ever more expensive offerings, cram their models with electronics no one wants, all without changing the problem plagued production system! thats 3 toes shot off, will they shoot off the other 2?


Vsmith, the other two toes will pretty soon simply die of old age, or even earlier, of a heart attack when trying to keep up with the over-geared Bachmann K-27, hahaha, Zubi


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

I know quite a few people building their own track with 26,7 mm to model 600mm gauge (Feldbahn) in 1 : 22,5. A small group yet, but constantly growing. 
Others use what is on the market and what comes close. The 750/760mm folks use 32mm track, the Gn15 modellers HO/OO 16mm track. 

Fritz, Feldbahn is usually just a few meters of what is essentially a display track or a small operation indoors. as for 750/750 prototypes, I have recently seen a IK released or about to be, but could you please list a few manufacturers with substantial production volume? I agree about Gn15 of course. Best, Zubi


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Ted - Kudos to you... you will notice I, in no way, have issue with what people choose to model, nor in which scale... my anger lies with the suggestion that we would be better off without 1:20.3... that 


it is a pity that Mr Ferraro did not keep his 1:20 restricted to his own scratchbuilding


Or even more so with...


the invention of the 1:20.3 was mainly a strategical, commercial move. And also a successful one too 
and
Additionally, they are told to believe that they do a correct thing 


Unacceptable.


They aren't _TOLD_ they are doing the right thing... the *ARE* doing the "right thing" - the MATH PROVES IT[/b].


This isn't a "scale war" Ted. This is simple math. I'm very sorry for those that got into 1/22.5 and now wish to move to 1/20.3. I'm happy for those that are in 1/22.5 and are *STILL* happy. The choice is purely up to the individual... and before you, or anyone else, starts to float the fallacy of "it cost too much, too much invested, etc..." *I was one of you too!* I had every car that Vance has listed... and _more_! I'm pretty sure I had every single piece of yellow passenger D&RGW stuff LGB made - including variants, uncataloged items, etc.. I had moguls, I had Delton and Bachmann too... and then, one day, I saw an Accucraft High Side Gondola at a train show. End of story.


People can change scales, to accurate models, if they choose. I did it, others did it, so can you. That said, I'm *NOT* saying you have to... FAR FROM IT. Please, run what you like, but don't DARE attack those in this hobby that have done SO much for it... truth is, I would have been LONG GONE from large scale, most likely for On3 had it not been for the very efforts of Mr. Ferraro. 


This isn't about who's right and who's wrong Ted. Please, please, _please_ understand that. Everyone run what you like.. buy I WILL NOT stand for those that are unwilling to accept that they have chosen to model in an inaccurate scale (again, for 3ft NG prototypes) that I and my fellow 1:20ers are in the wrong for wanting, and following, the hobby towards accuracy. 


1+1 = 2. Period. Stating that it is a pity that Mr Ferraro did not keep his 1:20 restricted to his own scratchbuilding is unbelievably naive, or arrogant. 


You tell me which.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By parkdesigner on 29 Sep 2009 04:15 PM 

Zubi - you are a man of science - an educator as I recall, no? Then by no means can you possibly deny the basic underpinnings of the *math*, the *science*, of the scale. Go ahead, like 1/22.5... like 1/24 - ****, I don't care... like 1/3.141592 for all that matters - say it's all cute, say it all "looks better" to you on 45mm track than anything else, but* DO NOT* belittle or insult someone who seeks out the more accurate, the more authentic model, just because you like the look of a toy.

You sir, owe Mr. Ferraro an apology. How dare you attack him for helping bring our models (_not toys_, but MODELS) out of the wandering wilderness of ambiguous German "scale" and into the cold, factual realities of 1:20.3.

For someone who is so adamant, at this very moment, of begging for a bit of "respect" for the passing Rolf Richter over on the LSC forum for, how did you put it? - for others to _"just shut up"_ - perhaps you should do the same here before you begin to insult the rest of those in the 1:20.3 community, and not just Mr. Ferraro.

Maybe it's time to just go back to playing with your toys for awhile, and let those of us who have a grasp of basic arithmetic get back to modeling... unless you really think you can show us here, on the forum, how anything other than 1:20.3 is the correct and accurate scale for those of us modeling 3ft Narrow Gauge railroads on 45mm track.
Mr Parkdesigner, Thank you for addressing me personally. It appears that you, along with many others, do not understand the very essence of the concept of scale in model railroading. Scale is not a simple ratio of prototype gauge to model gauge. This is 'proto-scale' used exclusively for one prototype gauge, an altogether different concept. We are talking about *scale* where ALL prototype gauges are mapped onto a few existing model gauges. If you want to use a proto-scale, that is fine, and you should keep it in your attic, garage or back-yard but not try to impose it on all others who want to use a model railroading *scale*. Coincidentally, following mathematics of minimisation of error, 1:22.5 comes out as an optimal scale ratio for gauges 0-3 (and even including HO). 1:20.3 is much poorer. Sure I can show you the calculation, it is quite elementary and should be perfectly accessible to anyone with even basic training in mathematics. As for toys and models, well, you just make me laugh, of course these are all toys if you play with them. They may become 'models' tough, or even real things(!) if you place them on an altar and pray to them;-)... And please do not mix up threads and forums. I do not owe anyone any apology. Sorry, Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

1:20.3 isn't some "proto scale" - it is the CORRECT scale. End of discussion. 

ALL gauges MY ASS. You pick a prototype and then model it. If you want to mix and match so be it - but scale, and accuracy just died, right there, on the spot. 

And yes, you still, by God, owe an apology... and from what I'm seeing - maybe more than one. 



Ted - don't worry about it, I figured it out - it's the second of the two.


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Parkdesigner, 
I guess we can all wonder what if... What if LGB and others would have produced 1:20.3 scale models originally? What if Bachmann and AMS would have never produced any 1:20.3 models? What if Bachmann produced the same models in 1:22.5 and 1:20.3 (kind of like the 0n3 or 0n30 stuff in 1:20.3)? What if ... and we could go on and on. However, reality sets in and we have what we have. I still want a 1:22.5 affordable K-series loco (and some how, I don't think I am alone). This loco was on the design table before LGB went through all the problems. Someday maybe? I enjoy my 1:22.5 trains. I know that even some limited run brass, such as Sunset Models, produced some 1:22.5 scale American Narrow Gauge early on, so LGB, Bachmann, and USA Trains were not alone. What if...


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Dear Mr Parkdesigner, just because you and a few others with a limited view of the (railroading) world, can only manage to comprehend a ratio of two numbers, that does not make anything either "CORRECT" or "end of discussion". Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi 
PS I advise not to refer to deities in your postings unless you are not feeling well and require urgent assistance


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Everyone,

How about if we forget about scales and apologies and get back to the topic which was nothing more or less than whether any of us are still running 1:22.5?

The less we get along with each other the less likely we are going to attract anyone to 1:20.3, 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:29, 1:32 or anything.

I'm still waiting to hear from Vance about my buying his coaches (I hope he has not gone away with the bickering).

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry, 
OK, the hobby is fun. I'm still in 1:22.5 scale.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

you and a few others 


Ha!!







I think you need to learn to count - let's see... number of manufacturers making NEW items in 1/22.5... hmm.... number in 1/20.3... Uh huh...
Look - I have *NEVER* told you, or anyone else, _what_ to run, or _what_ to like... but your holier than thou attitude that *YOU* and your version of "scale" is correct, and mine is not - well... lets just say, what I just said... I'm not the one telling YOU what to run - but I thank you for the suggestion that I should keep it in your attic, garage or back-yard but not try to impose it on all others who want to use a model railroading *scale*. 

I'm simply telling you the math... but apparently all those years in the theoretical classroom has allowed you to have a "loose" view of 1+1... or have Model Railroader plans - and Garden Railway plans - and, well for that matter, ALL plans just been "guidelines" Geez, I never knew that! Good to know... 


Thanks - that's great... I'll remember that the next time someone says we shouldn't have "scale wars" - guess that applies to everyone but you, huh Zubi? 



We are talking about *scale* where ALL prototype gauges are mapped onto a few existing model gauges. 


Really?! Who's talking about that? Not me. Not Accucraft. Not Bachmann. Not Rich Yoder. Not Phil Dippel. Not RGM UK. Not Berlyn. Sheesh! I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror Zubi... because that line of reasoning is just about the most flawed thing I've ever heard... Thank God you're not a chef... 

_"Let's see, is that two eggs or three for the recipe? Ah - what's it really matter - it's "close""_

or a map maker... 

_"Now, was that 4 miles, or 4.5 miles? Guess it's all 'close enough'!"_

or pilot... 

_"Maintain an altitude of 3,000 ft. Or 2,900 ft, or 3,100 ft, or... you know what - close should be good enough"_

or, well... I think you (and everyone here) gets the picture.

(Oh, and tell me Zubi - should I buy something from you on the classifieds - I guess a 10% deviation is price you ask from the check I send is ok - right?)


You're right Jerry. 
And so are you Ted, trains are fun!









Sorry Vance.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Ted Yarbrough on 29 Sep 2009 06:23 PM 
Jerry, 
OK, the hobby is fun. I'm still in 1:22.5 scale. 

Hi Ted,

You forgot to mention (again







) that you are still waiting for a 1:22.5 K-27. I finally saw a Bachmann K-27 (boy is it big) and I decided to wait (like you) for a 1:22.5 K-whatever.









Actually I love the idea that some folks think that 1:22.5 is dying. I just picked up a LGB SP Mogul WITH SOUND on eBay for only $326. OK - so it has the funky tender but for that price I could not resist it and I expected to be outbid anyway. Perhaps that SP Mogul will end up pulling Vance's LGB coaches.

If and when Marklin ever gets their act together and get US styled LGB 1:22.5 models back into production I suspect some folks who sold their 1:22.5 stuff might end up regretting selling them.

Jerry


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Holy Bat Poop.
Zubi, I hope (and pray) your idea of mathematics and scale-to-gauge ratios never gets incorporated into a new reactor design.
It will make TMI look like peanuts.

Hopefully, it will never get incorporated into mapmaking, either.
Imagine:

"Oh, the scale-to-gauge ratio does not apply to this map of the North Rim of the Grand Canyon.
We'll just make this "close enough" and nobody will know".

So, pea-soup fog, somebody has said map in use and drives right over the edge.

1:20.3 for gauge one is 3'.
1:22.5 is metre gauge.
1:29 is who knows?
1:32 is 4' 8-1/2".

Lionel was a "toy".
Not so much anymore, but it USED to be about (and I reiterate "about") 1:52 or 1:53 on "0" gauge track.

Nobody TOLD any of you you HAD to do anything OTHER THAN quit being stew.
Pid.

1:22.5 has it's "pluses", but to-scale in US prototype is NOT one of them.

I have a 1:22.5 K-27, and somewhere a 1:20 K-27.

I know first-hand what works in my environment, Northeast Corridor Acela Gearing notwithstanding.

It is truly amazing when we all read someone spouting inanities for the entire community to see.


Now to log back off so my "active topics" works normally.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I've spent the last hour and a half trying to write something intelligent and thought provoking. 

I get as far as 12 x 3 = 39.3700787 and I have trouble going any further. 

I shouldn't be surprised. Zubi and Ted have beaten their respective drums for years. Loudly. It's a forum, they're allowed to, and we're allowed to draw our own conclusions and make up our own minds on what they have to say. I know I have. 

But at this point, I'm not sure how to engage either in discussion. 

Parkman, personally, I think you got it right. I hope so. I have a lot invested in 1:20.3, and I try to model railroads with my model railroad. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for that, either. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

Holy smoke. 

I guess I should apologize for bringing it up. 

Sorry


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Guys:

Personally I find it amusing how people get so bent out of shape over scale. We can all do basic arithmetic!

I found that the HO scale brass types sucked all the fun out of the hobby. A non-prototypical roadname on a beautiful mass produced passenger car was laughed at. Yet no mention would be made of the can motor filling the whole cab interior of a remotored brass locomotive.

Dear Mr Cumudgeon, you forgot to mention 1:24 scale. Should I be insulted? Just teasing.

Seriously though, I like the size of the Delton 1:24 scale C-16 and cars the best. The Bachmann 1:22.5 J&S coaches look great with the 1:24 scale C-16.
Still I don't understand why the high end price point brass Delton locomotive firm would have chosen 1:24 scale.

I also prefer the 1:29 scale for standard gauge. It just looks more impressive than 1:32 and the wheel gauge error is not noticeable to me. The "toy"1:29 scale USA Trains Hudson is magnificent. 

The 1:20.3 model physical size is just way too large. The Bachmann small prototype Baldwin 4-4-0 scaled out ok but a K-27 is just too massive a 1:20.3 model for myself. Even the Connie is too large for my tastes. The Accucraft 1:20.3 J&S coaches are almost the size of the 1:29 Aristo heavyweights. The coach detail is really tempting but this could also be done in 1:22.5 if Bachmann chose to. The Bachmann new 1:20.3 caboose is magnificent but again is physically a very very large model.

It would have been best if one *common* scale had been chosen for both standard and narrow gauge using two track gauges but it wasn't.

When we look the present situation, it is hard to believe that the various manufactures could have done such an excellent job of messing everything up.

In summary, for an outdoor layout 1:20.3 would be the most visually impressive. Yet, the super fine detail on the 1:20.3 models is too fragile for the outdoor environment and who has room for a 1:20.3 indoor layout? 

So no matter what scale one choses there is always comprmise.

My only big annoyance in all this is to see the low prices for which even very expensive models resell for on ebay. Once we buy into a scale we basically have to stay in that scale unless one wants to take a big financial loss.

Norman


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Vance - no need to apologize... I'll say it again... I'm sorry to have been a bit, er... _forceful_... but I'm just not going to stand by and wait any longer while others claim to "know" what is right and wrong. There is only, as far as I can tell,* one absolute* in model railroading - and that is the *scale*. If you're modeling meter gauge at 1/22.5 then you're "in scale"... anything else and you're not. Same with modeling US standard gauge, 3ft NG, or even two foot for that matter - they all have one, and _only one_ option if you want to be accurate with the space between rails... not that you aren't free to model in whatever scale/gauge looks "good to you" - but what "looks good" does not invalidate the math behind the scale.

Now - just to beat the drum one last time, I have *NOT* and *AM NOT* saying the other scale options are good _or_ bad... let me say that again....* RUN WHAT YOU LIKE*... seriously!







Myself, I have 1:19, 1:20.3, 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:29, and 1:32 ALL sitting on the shelves behind me as I type... Why? Because I like them all... it's good for the hobby, and it's good for me... it's what I like... and everyone should do the same.

My anger and my frustration comes form the VERY vocal, annoyingly persistent _minority_ that somehow feel the adoption or movement towards more accurate models in our hobby in some way denigrates their chosen modeling medium. Only a moron would tell you that anything other than 1:20.3 is the _accurate_ scale to model the RGS on 45mm track... and yet, for some reason, the man (and the people) credited for embracing, adopting, and ultimately helping usher in an era of higher fidelity modeling is *attacked* here, in public. (And it goes unchecked.) Then, when those that (and I would refer you to the lines I have already quoted in past posts here) claim to know better, and that all those who have embraced this widely expanding scale are somehow "duped" and, in fact, modeling in the wrong scale... well, enough is enough.

*Ted* - I gots no problems with ya brother... you model in 1:22.5? Cool beans.









*OV* - I hope you like 1:20.3, not because you have a lot invested (though I understand







), but because it's what YOU like. I trust you model it because you went looking for a higher level of accuracy... and to each his own.

*Vance* - don't even worry about it... this has been boiling here on this site, and on others, for quite some time (I just never thought I'd be the one to bring it to a head!







)

*Norman* - well said. And yeah, don't the ebay prices just give ya hearburn!?









*Zubi* - please.... pleeeeeeeeeeease... can you stop with the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" nonsense.... it's getting old. Really - I mean never, *NEVER* can anything come up about 1:20.3 that it doesn't seem to have you come riding in to bang the 1:22.5 drum. _WHY_? I get it, you like 1:22.5. Great. Good. I'm happy for you... let's try not to rewrite the basic tenants of math over it, ok?! I see 12 year olds all day long in and out of train show booths and _even the_y grasp the difference between the scales... is 1:20.3 expensive? Depends on who you are I guess... as someone above so rightly pointed out - I, like many, spent_ far more_ on pieces of 1:22.5 LGB D&RGW over the years than on the current crop of AMS that I have. My most expensive boxcar to date - an LGB one. The most expensive passenger car I ever owned - an LGB one (and I have *THREE* Accucraft Brass Parlor cars behind me!! Tell me the LGB collectors didn't drive the price up on that one!!







)

The point is... run what you like, like what you run. The peacemakers have been saying that here all along and I totally agree... but enough is enough - and I for one am not going to stand around any longer and be bullied into letting you say whatever hateful, spiteful, mean spirited things about *MY* chosen scale. I don't bitch and moan about 1:22.5... ****, I own that scale too! You can be respectful enough not to goose step all over 1:20.3, it's manufacturers, and Mr. Ferraro and still run your 1:22.5 trains. Please try it.


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

If you play with it, its a toy....


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

...in my teeny backyard I have two concentric circles of track - no switches connecting them, just two circles of track. Elevated a couple of feet above the ground, so that our wheelchair-user daughter can operate it, is 25 feet across at its widest dimension. 

It is 45mm in gauge and uses AristoCraft track that I bought cheaply before the mighty UK price hike a couple of years ago, nad replaces a single-track version that had been in place for years. 

On this simple little track I operate on a daily basis with - 

a. Gauge 1 Live steam - 1/32nd and 10mm - Accucraft, Aster, Maerklin and the odd teeny Regner . 

b. 1/29th stuff - modern-image dismals form AristoCraft and USA Trains. 

c. 1/24th stuff from Delton. 

d. 1/22.5 from LGB, Aster/LGB and Bachmann. 

e. 1/20.3 from Bachmann, AccuCraft, some home-built rolling stock and the solitary LGB Forney, also, as has been already pointed out, as near as dammit to 1/20.3 scale. 

f. 16mm/1/19th British NG from Accucraft and Roundhouse running on the WRONG gauge track [sharp intake of breath] - it SHOULD be 32mm, of course. 

..not all together, but whatever I feel like running - one scale on each track. 

But whatever it is that I am running for my delight and delectation, each track has stuff of the same scale running on it. 

I agree with my old mucka Rod - if you play with it, it's a toy. Expensive, but still a toy. And as a matter of fact, last week, running over at main131's great track, nobody could tell the difference between the $3750 AccuCraft mudhen and the $850 Bachmann mudhen. 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Terry, out of plain curiosity, because I do not remember, do you also run any Japanese Aster? 1:30 that is;-) Best wishes from the country of the just released Boldwins, Zubi


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Vance, no need to apologise, this is pure fun;-))) Even Curmee came out from the woods...!! Mr Parkdesigner, please calm down, noone is stealing your 1:20.3. Actually, the subject of scale is and will likely remain a very exciting one as this very thread once again illustrates that apparently not many folks grasps the very concept of scale in model railroading. And in particular, in large scales. I guess one day, when I find enough time, I will need to explain it. Until then, best wishes and do not forget to have some fun running trains! Zubi


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Zub - Yus, a pal comes over from The Netherlands and brings his Aster C-57 with him - 'Noble Lady' - what a beautiful and graceful model it is, too!

I think it is the best -looking of all Aster's 10mm scale locomotives - those big drivers hardly seem to move at all!

Best

tac & the birdies
http://www.ovgrs.orge/


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

1:22.5 has it's "pluses", but to-scale in US prototype is NOT one of them. 


Many US-Loco builders exported their products all over the world. I have seen Baldwins on Metre Gauge track in Chile, 2 feet in France, 750 mm in Russia, 760 mm in Bulgaria. 


Yes, over here in Old Europe we still run trains in 1 : 22,5 scale 












In this example on 32mm track on the left, 16mm in the middle (Gn15) and 45mm in the background. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Before this thread slipped into a major scale flame war, Please gentleman remember: 









I run 1/22.5 for space reasons, 1/20.3 is simply too large, even if I was outdoors, the situation is the same, I JUST DONT HAVE ROOM for 8' diameter curves, and I have heard this from other people interested in large scale but who have been convinced that they need a 1/2 acre just to consider garden railroading, so our hobby losses potential participants. In the past I have also unbeleivably heard people actively disuading newbies from opting for small scale layouts using R1 curves, telling them they have to have 8' or 12' or even 20' diameter curves to be "accurate" and "prototypical", and always skewing the discussion favorably towards their own particular scale and interests. 

Well folks these newbies doent go out and buy a bigger house and yard to accomodate these wider curves, they shake their heads, go to Hobby Lobby and buy an R/C racecar and take the kids to the park. I have never understood this, it shouldnt matter whether you choose 1/20.3, 1/22.5/ 1/29 or 1/24. It should be about activlty getting people INTO the hobby in whatever way that meets there A: Interests, B, Space avalaible. If that means a large non-scale Thomas running on yellow R1 tracks around the potted plants makes you happy, thats fine with me. People get way too caught up in there own thing and forget ITS JUST A HOBBY.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...If LGB's equipment had been scale models, rather than compressed caricatures, I might have been tempted to stay on, but that's water under the bridge. (Not to pick on them alone -- all the other 1:22.5 mfrs did the same thing.) 
I'm not sure I fully agree with that assessment of the 1:22.5 models. LGB definitely played fast and loose with the scale ruler, even for their small European stuff, but there's a lot of stuff out there from them, Bachmann and others (even more when you consider Delton and Hartford's 1:24 stuff) that is very credible and accurate for the scale; the only compromise being the "incorrect" gauge. When you look at what Rod and Matt have done, as well as folks like Dutton Foster and my dad in terms of building credible narrow gauge railroads around the 1:22.5 and 1:24 equipment, the gauge issue disappears. 

I think it's only those who "expect" narrow gauge models to have a certain proportion between the width of the models and the rails that find the scale/gauge discrepancy to be jarring. That predisposition comes largely from being so familiar with a particular genre of railroading that anything else just looks odd. It's not limited to 3' gauge modelers. Standard gauge aficionados look at 1:29 models with the same uneasy eye. Two-foot gauge modelers look at all of our models and think the rails are too far apart. The problem with that paradigm is that the more you dig into your particular genre of railroading the more you realize the prototype came in all shapes and sizes, and the "proportions" between the width of the equipment and the rails isn't as fixed as one would imagine. For instance, consider the two photos: 









This is a consolidation built to 1:22.5/1:24 running on 45mm track. With no predisposition to the rails being 3' apart, this is a very credible narrow gauge railroading scene. The "1:20.3 purist" would look at this and decry it for the rails being too far apart. 









Now, consider this scene. The locomotive is proportionately similar in overall size to the rolling stock behind it, as is the 2-8-0 in the first photo. That same "purist" will look at this equipment and still think them ill-proportioned to the rails. The entire train, however, is accurate for 1:20.3. 

What, then, is the real catalyst behind the 1:20.3 movement? Is it a quest for more accuracy, or is it a quest merely for a better reinforcement of our visual ideal of "narrow gauge?" 

Later, 

K


----------



## post oak and otter lake (Dec 27, 2007)

I run Bachmann Big Haulers and Annies. Most of my rolling stock is Bachmann. I own some 1/29. It blends in well with the Bachmann, even if coupling is a bear. My layout is not huge, 17 X40 feet. I use 4 ft radius curves. I do have space for a much larger layout, 1/2 acre. I even dreamed about building there and running long Santa Fe trains like I did in HO, N, & Z scales. Reality set in; I can't afford it and I don't have the time to build or maintain it. I'm happy with what I have. It fulfills my objectives: Fun and enjoyment. That's what a hobby is suppose to do. 

Roger 
Post Oak & Otter Lake RR 
Caddo Mills, TX


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

as i recall the question was who still runs 22.5 
i do 


for the reasons articulated especially by zubi and jerry-


i like LGB 'scale'-not accurate and not my preference for models-which i admire-i always lust after 'models'-but my experience with those 'models' hasnt always been happy


LGB scale imho is more practical for space and 


i accept the compromise/inaccuracy because it allows me greater freedom to run all sorts of equipment -and i dont have to build it, i dont have to re-work my little train world


and 


i am fully invested in it-too much so to change over solely for accuracy-and it is this POV that makes things work for me


the real issue is I am so happy 'playing trains' -i can play inside on my rather tightly curved layout, around the living room at x-mas, or in the garden


i enjoy running and playing trains more than i enjoy counting rivets-(yes i do model as well)


i have half an acre of garden and i still find LGB to require a lot of room using 8 ft diameter curves


if i want accuracy and scope of models -ill go HO or O


that's how it is now in g scale -i think very analogous to n scale in the late sixties-


i predict it will not change -it is too expensive and the demographic is too small and shrinking due to age, costs, and economics


not saying it will go awy-just that it will never have the volume of sales of other scales


so i have learned to like what is available, and i chose not to focus upon the imperfections


to be honest, i perceive the scale issue to be a 'political movement', as observed in a previous post-


the issue of scale is being pursued with the same type of intolerance often reserved for plitics and religion-


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I have come full circle. I started with a 1:22.5 Bachmann Big Hauler lettered for the AT&SF (which never ran narrow gauge!) I bought everything I could that was steam and looked good running together. As my interests grew I began to be more discriminating. I gravitated toward Colorado narrow gauge roads and eventually toward the D&RGW. When 1:20.3 (Fn3) came out I immediately embraced it and bought everything I could afford (which wasn't much!) but I found that finescale isn't nearly as forgiving as is 1:22.5 with overlarge flanges and truck mounted couplers!
I eventually modified my layout so that I can run my Fn3 stuff but I didn't get rid of my 1:22.5 stuff either! My son has about half of it now and the other half I'm still trying to decide what to do with. I have decided to make a battery r/c car that will be my power block for all my small engines. They will have their power leads isolated from their wheels and a connector added either from the back of the switcher or the back of the tender of the smaller locomotives so that they all can be r/c battery controlled! There are times when I like running smaller engines and times when I prefer my K-27 and Connie. I don't mix the stuff anymore but I still like running it!


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

In actual fact just what does "scale" mean?

Moguls, Mikados, 10 Wheelers etc. were made in about as wide a variety of sizes as people are.










Size varies according to one's perception of size.

Jerry


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 30 Sep 2009 10:37 AM 
...If LGB's equipment had been scale models, rather than compressed caricatures, I might have been tempted to stay on, but that's water under the bridge. (Not to pick on them alone -- all the other 1:22.5 mfrs did the same thing.) 
I'm not sure I fully agree with that assessment of the 1:22.5 models. LGB definitely played fast and loose with the scale ruler, even for their small European stuff, but there's a lot of stuff out there from them, Bachmann and others (even more when you consider Delton and Hartford's 1:24 stuff) that is very credible and accurate for the scale; the only compromise being the "incorrect" gauge.

... 
This is a consolidation built to 1:22.5/1:24 running on 45mm track. 

OK, so which is it, 1:22.5 or 1:24? That's exactly my beef: an awful lot of "middle period" large-scale stuff was deliberately designed and marketed to be "scale free", so it could be sold as "standard gauge" equipment to some and "narrow gauge" to others. What do Bachmann's coaches scale out to ... 26' or something? And the boxcars/reefers/stock cars? 24' or so? And lettered "Southern Pacific"? That's what turned me off.

Yes, your dad's railroad is a jewel, and many very nice railroads have been built using that equipment. But with a lot of modification, repainting/relettering and general undoing of the manufacturer's nefarious intent. And don't get me started on 1:29 "scale". Or LGB's diesels, which had a different proportion in length, width and height.

Anyway, the root of my original question (which was NOT, I note, "let's have a flame war") was that almost all of the "serious" modelers I know use 1:20 scale. I know there are some established and lovely model railroads that stick with 1:22.5, but they weren't built in the last year or two. I know there are plenty of people who will run anything that stays on gauge 1 track and has a coupler, but I don't consider them "serious modelers". That's not meant in a snide sense; they do something different than scale modeling and it's perfectly enjoyable and legitimate in its own right. That's all. Over and out.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By FH&PB on 30 Sep 2009 02:17 PM 

OK, so which is it, 1:22.5 or 1:24? That's exactly my beef: an awful lot of "middle period" large-scale stuff was deliberately designed and marketed to be "scale free", so it could be sold as "standard gauge" equipment to some and "narrow gauge" to others. What do Bachmann's coaches scale out to ... 26' or something? And the boxcars/reefers/stock cars? 24' or so? And lettered "Southern Pacific"? That's what turned me off.



Hi Vance,

You are not alone. Other "serious modelers" have been turned off about the lack of scale accuracy in G Gauge. This is nothing new to model railroading.

Lionel (O-27 - Hi Rail etc.) made both scale and not to scale models as does MTH (Premier - Rail King) in O Gauge - even now in 2 rail . Invariably the not to scale models sell in much higher quantities and at much lower cost.

I suspect that the facts are relatively easy to understand from a manufacturers viewpoint which is that (I believe) as the scale accuracy goes up so does the price and the quantity of potential buyers goes down.

There is no point and no reason to get mad at the manufacturers for not making something that we want because they are simply trying to make whatever will earn them the best rate of return on their investment in engineering, manufacturing, distribution etc.

Not only is it hard for a manufacturer to know where to spend his limited investment funds but then he is faced with a shrinking number of hobby shops that are willing and able to stock and display the various products in various gauges.

That to a significant extent leaves us, the buyers, in competition with each other trying to convince the manufacturers to make what we personally want. Since scale accuracy is not important to me a manufacturer can make less expensive and less accurate models (I will even buy locos with railroad names that never owned those locos such as UP Hudsons). I will even buy multiple LGB Moguls that have little attention to the details that differentiate one railroad from another (just paint the railroad name on the tender and I am happy).

Bachmann was smart. First they flooded the market with $99 or less Big Haulers and when that market was saturated they switched to producing Shays and other geared locos. Then they added to their Spectrum line and now have come out with a much larger 1:20.3 line that sells for much higher amounts than anyone would ever have paid for a ten wheeler.

Kalamazoo went bankrupt. Delton went bankrupt. Marklin went bankrupt. LGB went bankrupt. All manufacturers are trying to make a profit from a constantly shrinking and more demanding market.

I wonder how long before Bachmann fills the 1:20.3 market with their current offerings and we start to see them show up on closeout sales for 25% of MSRP or less? I might even buy some 1:20.3 then.

Sure it is a hobby to have fun with but the hobby involves a lot of money (our money) so it is natural and easy to get into disagreements over what manufacturers should do. 

Me? I can't and won't pay top dollar for the newest and best but instead I often look for the sales and closeouts where I will settle for multiple brands in multiple railroads. It is easier for me to be happy when I am saving money than when I am paying top dollar for something that may eventually be going at closeout prices.

To each his own and I am happy for anyone to buy whatever he/she wants. If I miss a bargain today there will be another one tomorrow.

Some of us are toy players while others are model railroaders (actually we are all model railroaders including the little kid with his wooden train on wooden track). I am just as serious about my layouts as a finescale modeler is about his - we just see and value things differently.

You choose to go for quality while I choose quantity. We are both right and neither of us are wrong. The manufacturers just have to sort out which of our groups they can make the most profit from.

Jerry


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...OK, so which is it, 1:22.5 or 1:24? 
That's exactly the point I'm making. Scale is an ambiguous concept, especially when doing freelance narrow gauge. The rolling stock shown in the photos are accurately scaled for prototypes in both 1:20 and 1:24 (give or take a few inches). The 2-8-0 has a tender that's accurate for a 1:24 model of an EBT mikado tender, but it looks perfectly in place behind a locomotive with a cab from a 1:22.5 model of an ET&WNC locomotive. Since it's a freelance design, who's to say what scale it actually is? It's built to be comparable in size to the other 1:22.5 and 1:24 locomotives on dad's roster. Dad's railroad runs both scales, in that the models chosen for the railroad are manufactured to those two scales, and chosen for service because they look completely plausible when sitting next to each other, and physical elements like cabs, etc, are comparably sized. If you can navigate the waters, you can use what's available in many of the scales to build a railroad around any one singular scale. Doesn't matter which one. Pick your scale based on your particular environment. The quagmire we have in large scale is both blessing and curse. 

That's exactly my beef: an awful lot of "middle period" large-scale stuff was deliberately designed and marketed to be "scale free", so it could be sold as "standard gauge" equipment to some and "narrow gauge" to others. 
I fully understand the argument relative to what I call the "overhead compartment" mentality of rolling stock production, whereby everything is made to a similar generic size, regardless of the prototype. LGB's "Queen Mary" series made my stomach churn. It certainly didn't help the perception that large scale is anything but plastic toys through the petunias. But if I can get a 1:22 box car running in a train with a 1:24 box car, and the train looks like something out of a photo in one of my narrow gauge books, is that good or bad? An educated railroader can build an impressive railroad by intelligently picking and choosing. 

Yes, your dad's railroad is a jewel, and many very nice railroads have been built using that equipment. But with a lot of modification, repainting/relettering and general undoing of the manufacturer's nefarious intent. 
Repainting and relettering, yes. Modification and undoing? Not really. Only when I was looking to reproduce a specific prototype did I really dig out the razor saw. Most cars just got paint and lettering. I personally found it rather simple to create a cohesive look to the railroad. No, it couldn't be done "out of the box," but seldom can it be--in any scale. 

Anyway, the root of my original question (which was NOT, I note, "let's have a flame war") was that almost all of the "serious" modelers I know use 1:20 scale. I know there are some established and lovely model railroads that stick with 1:22.5, but they weren't built in the last year or two. 
I definitely agree there. If I were to do a completely freelance railroad today, I'd simply paint and reletter the Bachmann and AMS equipment much the same way as I did the Delton, Bachmann, and LGB equipment 20+ years ago. For me, though, it would not be for any reasons relative to accuracy unattainable in the smaller scales, it'd merely be because the proportions between the rails and the width of the equipment matches my sense of what "should be" narrow gauge. The truth is, even though my smaller 1:20 equipment is accurate, it still doesn't "look" narrow gauge the way my larger equipment does. And that--I suspect--is the quintessential appeal of narrow gauge. 

Later, 

K


----------



## andrewhamblyn (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, from an absolute novice like myself the scale thing is right pain in the arse!! 

Wishing to run 1:24 due to 45mm being darn close to a scale 3foot6inch which is our "standard" gauge here in NZ. 

I have spent HOURS sifting through magazines and internet trying to figure out who makes what in what scale, and to be fair I am in no better off than when I started. 

In the Garden Railway mag, some companies put a little symbol at the top of their ad's so you know what scale they are pushing, and personally I think it should be compulsory for all manufacturers to label the scale of their models on every box and every ad, as the term "G scale" is sooooo loose! 

Imagine your local G scale vendor's shop displays nicely and clearly divided into each scale. Then you could just walk right up to your chosen scale and even compare sizes with other scales to mix n match, instead of having guess all the time. 

Vent over - as you were.... carry on the good work everybody. 

Cheers 
Andrew in New Zealand


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Imagine your local G scale vendor's shop displays nicely and clearly divided into each scale. Then you could just walk right up to your chosen scale and even compare sizes with other scales to mix n match, instead of having guess all the time. 

What is a local G scale vendor? During the past 20 years I have seen many toy shops closing, but not a single one opening. 
New companies are called mail order fims now and very often reside in some basement or garage. If they happen to be successful, they have a warehouse or maybe a small shop way out in a remote place where the rent is cheap. 

So my shop is as far away as my telephone or PC. I have to believe what they write in their catalogues . I must be prepared, to control and tighten the screws, work on the locos to get them running. Meanwhile I prefer kits. I trust my own skills more than some underpaid labourers. 

It helps to speak a few language, because today you can shop in Japan, China, India, USA, Europe, as a matter of fact, all over the world. The postman does not care, where the stuff comes from, he carries to your door. I even received 1 : 22,5 kits made in Argentinia recently. 

If somebody offers me something in G-Scale (Germania-Scale?) the alarm bells in my brain start ringing. Either the vendor is a complete idiot or he / she thinks I am one. Not a good base to do business. 

BTW, I still run trains in 1 : 22,5. Mainly European prototypes. If I feel like running 3 ft.protos, I use my Bachmann Climax or Shay with homegrewn 20 feet wooden wagons. 
Unfortunately I have to use European style 250 track and sleepers. But I know, I am in good company. Most of the US 1 : 20,3 people still run their 3 feet scale stuff on overseized LGB type brass rails, which looks like a funny combination to me. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

You know Scott Lawrence (Scottychaos here on MLS) posted a great graphic a few years ago showing the relationship of the various scales and the sizes of full size standard gauge and narrow gauge including meter gauge. I kept it on file for all these years because when someone asks me about the various scales, I just get this graphic out and it all makes sense. THX Scotty. If I have his permission, I will post it again.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Andrew - welcome to the mad-house of scales and gauges that is Large Scale Trains! Sadly, as you have no doubt discovered, there is absolutely NOTHING of New Zealand Railways in LS. Of course, that does not stop you from converting your own stuff, bearing in mind that first of all you have to get hold of it. I have been a long-distance fan of the older NZR, and one collector over there has a substantial number of locos and rolling stock which he even gets to run, according to Marcus Lush in his programm 'For love of Trains'. 

Don't fret, we are all here to help you out in any way that we can, bearing in mind the distances involved - this is when the internet can be your best pal!

Whinemeal, see your PM... 
Best wishes

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 01 Oct 2009 09:08 AM 
Andrew - welcome to the mad-house of scales and gauges that is Large Scale Trains! Sadly, *as you have no doubt discovered, there is absolutely NOTHING of New Zealand Railways in LS*. Of course, that does not stop you from converting your own stuff, bearing in mind that first of all you have to get hold of it. I have been a long-distance fan of the older NZR, and one collector over there has a substantial number of locos and rolling stock which he even gets to run, according to Marcus Lush in his programm 'For love of Trains'. 

Don't fret, we are all here to help you out in any way that we can, bearing in mind the distances involved - this is when the internet can be your best pal!

Whinemeal, see your PM... 
Best wishes

tac
www.ovgrs.org










errr...well....there is if you can wield a razorsaw


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

So by extention, I am not a "serious modeller".  

I mean it is my understanding that despite making all this by hand from brass to scale, with a file and a soldering iron, and that its not 1.20.3 it was obvoiusly not constrcted "seriously" cos its on the wrong gauge track.. 

Ok fair enough. Interesting observation, if somewhat perochial. Here is my case. 





































later


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Here's the graphic that Scottychaos posted a few years ago regarding scale. It's the best one I have ever seen. One look, explains it all.










Thanks Scotty.


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

Congratulations! Very nice work, Rod. So now I know *one* serious n.g. modeler who doesn't work in 1:20. (What scale IS it, BTW?) I would never criticize a railroad built to those standards on the basis of "wrong scale", as long as the scale was consistent. 

One swallow doesn't make it spring, however. You're still the exception, rather than the rule. 

Kevin: how many of those first alleged 1:20 Bachmann cars do you run? I bought a couple, pulled them out of the box and immediately returned them. They are 1:24 scale models of 24-foot cars (NZ modelers take note!), not 1:20 models or 20-foot cars, and I dug up the plans they were built from. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference when you repaint them.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Rod Hayward on 01 Oct 2009 01:11 PM 
So by extention, I am not a "serious modeller".  

Keep in mind Rod that although you base your models on Colorado prototypes, you letter them for your own fictional road. Who's to say that the "real" San Paulo and Alexander Falls wasn't meter gauge? Either way, that certainly looks like some serious modeling to me!


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By FH&PB on 01 Oct 2009 03:30 PM 
So now I know *one* serious n.g. modeler who doesn't work in 1:20. I would never criticize a railroad built to those standards on the basis of "wrong scale", as long as the scale was consistent.
I'd think our layout would be considered a "serious" narrow gauge line when it comes to keeping consistent with one scale. We are sticking with 1:22.5. 

But I'm also well aware that no matter what I do, the trucks, wheels, frames, etc... are always going to be wrong on G gauge track.


I'd also consider Barry Bogs a serious narrow gauge and standard gauge modeler who doesn't model 1:20.3. He too models in 1:22.5. Here's a link to his layout website:

Barry's Layout 

Take a look at his layout and tell me if it wouldn't be considered serious.

I take it you think all 1:29 scale modelers are also not serious since 1:32 is the correct scale for standard gauge on G gauge track?


Describing modelers who don't use the correct scale for G gauge track as not being serious is pretty ill informed. Incorrect might be a better term to use, but saying we're not serious is down right insulting.


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

I'm just starting in this; so, to paraphrase John Paul Jones, _"I have not yet begun to run 1:22.5!"_ 
But I will. 
That and 1/24.


----------



## andrewhamblyn (Oct 27, 2008)

Posted By FH&PB on 01 Oct 2009 03:30 PM 
Congratulations! Very nice work, Rod. So now I know *one* serious n.g. modeler who doesn't work in 1:20. (What scale IS it, BTW?) I would never criticize a railroad built to those standards on the basis of "wrong scale", as long as the scale was consistent. 

One swallow doesn't make it spring, however. You're still the exception, rather than the rule. 

Kevin: how many of those first alleged 1:20 Bachmann cars do you run? I bought a couple, pulled them out of the box and immediately returned them. They are 1:24 scale models of 24-foot cars (NZ modelers take note!), not 1:20 models or 20-foot cars, and I dug up the plans they were built from. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference when you repaint them. 
Well by gosh!! I rattled off out to the shed and pulled out my old Bachmann "kit" boxcar, and sat it next to a 1:24 scale plan of a NZ boxcar and whaddya know... they are same height and all!

In 1:24 the Bachmann car scales out to be 30 feet long exactly.... 

Sweet.. good news for this Kiwi 

Does anyone have a Bachmann stock code or part number for the above mentioned cars?? Thanks

Thanks
Andrew


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...Kevin: how many of those first alleged 1:20 Bachmann cars do you run? I bought a couple, pulled them out of the box and immediately returned them. They are 1:24 scale models of 24-foot cars (NZ modelers take note!), not 1:20 models or 20-foot cars, and I dug up the plans they were built from. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference when you repaint them... 
So far as I recall, in the run-up to these cars coming out, they were originally talked about as being 1:24 models, and models of very small prototypes similar in size to the early c. 1870 rolling stock. (It was either in the run-up or shortly after they were released when it was quite evident they were definitely not 1:20.) They would have looked great behind the 2-4-2 Columbia, which was something of a micro-locomotive in its own right. Bachmann changed the labeling to 1:20 to coinside with the just-released Shay, calling them 20' cars. Recall that they had also just come out with the skeleton log car and short ore hopper, which are also models of very short cars, but far more plausible for 1:20. Why they never changed the micro-cars' labeling back to reflect their "real" scale is anyone's guess. Probably marketing. 

How many did I buy? None. Even though I was still heavily involved in 1:22.5/1:24 at that point, they were too small for what I was modeling (the EBT c. 1920s) Had I been modeling the early EBT as I do now, they would have fit right in, similar to how the "normal sized" 1:24 Delton hoppers and 1:22 Bachmann box cars fit into my c. 1910 TRR operating scheme in 1:20.3. I suspect when compared to a regular 1:22 box car, they would have looked something akin to this: 










I was actually a fairly late convert to the world of 1:20.3. I had bought the shay with the notion of downsizing it to model a 50-ton 2-truck shay that ran on a logging line based out of Orbisonia. I already had quite a few EBT cars built to 1:24, a few scratchbuilt and kitbashed locos, and a dozen or more of Bachmann's 3-bay steel hoppers. It wasn't until I moved to Colorado in 2002 that I decided to start fresh with new locos and rolling stock. 

BTW, for you 1:29 modelers, the Bachmann "1:20" micro cars scale out fairly well for narrow gauge cars. All you need to do is narrow the gauge of the trucks.  

Later, 

K


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi again:

Does anyone know what the Bachmann J&S cars scale out to? Are they 1:22.5 or actually 1:24 ?

Thank you
Norman


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

They're 1:22.5, though a touch foreshortened (essentially by eliminating a window). They measure around 34' long over the ends in 1:22.5, and right aroun 8' wide. That's right on par with typical narrow gauge coaches, though a touch short. Most were around 40' long over the end platforms, though they also had a 13th window (or space for one occupied by the stove, such as modeled by Accucraft's coach) which would add about 2.5' to the length. 

Later, 

K


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Dear K and others:

Has anyone attempted to install USA Trains Overton or Aristo Craft Sierra trucks on the Bachmann J&S coaches?
I would like to upgrade the detail level of the Bachmann passenger trucks with working springs.
Is any modification required to fit the different brand of trucks?

Thank you
Norman


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

To tell the truth they look just fine if you make up a good-sized consist - six behind the White Pass 'Annie' or eight behind either an LGB Alco or the Aster/LGB mike.

Works for me.

BTW - there was an article in GR a few years back about lenghtening them, but you need a few to hack around to do it. They may be pretty cheap to buy in the US, but at around $100 or more here it was not an option for me, so I didn't bother. I'm still happy with them out of the box. They are also the older style with the under-floor battery box, rather than the apallling drag-y PB pick-ups they have now.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

I wonder, why the worker is turning the brake wheel on EBT´s boxcars.. Can´t see any brakes on those trucks. Someting most 1 :22,5 makers omitted on their US-models. 

The Bachmann micro models are suitable for smaller plantation locos 











The small boxcars look a bit like the type, the US expedition corps brought along to Europe during WW 1 for the 600 mm / 2 ft. battlefield lines in Nomansland. 



I removed the roof walking board and mounted 32mm bogies (IP Engineering or Binnies) to use one on my freelance 750mm line 










Which left me with a set 25mm wheels. Mounted those under a Bachmann skeleton to lower it. 










Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I find it simply amazing that here we are with this topic having had been viewed (so far) 2,581 times and this is the 80th reply yet all the discussion has been about accuracy of scale and why people do or do not buy stuff because it is or is not accurate to scale.

Perhaps this calls for an alternative viewpoint.

Just for the heck of it I am going to suggest that LGB is the most prototypical of all models.









Impossible you say?

How is that possible?

Very simple.

It is because LGB best meets the standards of EVERY railroad:

1. I can run my LGB trains in ANY WEATHER. I run and store them in an unheated and uncooled crawl space. On the other hand I remove my more prototypically accurate MTH Challengers and Big Boy and even the LGB/Aster Mikado and store them in the house where they are protected. What railroad would own a locomotive that could not run in the rain and had to be stored indoors?

2. LGB is unquestionably the most capable of any brand for its ability to stay on the track even through sharp curves, uneven track and the humps and dips of my various ramps.

It is a simple fact that I had to slowly remove Bachmann and other steam locos from my layouts and sell them because:

1. they derailed on curves
2. they shorted out on turnouts
3. they started to show signs of rust (they could NOT be run in the rain)
4. they proved less durable 
5. they often had inoperative brushes failing to maintain contact with the tracks
6. even LGB couplers (both hook & loop and knuckle) couplers are better (more dependable)

This is NOT a slam against Bachmann or any other brand. I paid less for them and it was not unreasonable that they had less expensive construction including rigid frames that limited their ability to stay on and maintain contact with the track when the track was not perfectly level. Rigid frame locos tend to rock on the rails resulting in intermittent electrical contact where the LGB loco wheels tend to ride the rails and maintain electrical contact.

Even when looking at the coaches - I can take my LGB coaches apart as often as necessary but to take a Bachmann coach apart is a challenge and to put it together is an even greater challenge. The means Bachmann uses to maintain electrical contact with the wheels (and the wheels themselves) are a far cry from the quality method LGB uses. Changing or installing a light bulb in a LGB coach is simple. Changing a light bulb in a Bachmann coach (and some other brands) can be next to impossible.

Would ANYONE compare a Bachmann 10 wheeler or Annie or even a Spectrum 4-4-0 or 2-6-0 with the bullet proof ability of a LGB Mogul (I have had them all and the only ones that remain on my layout are the LGB Moguls).

While a few railroads made some of their own locomotives and a few even made some of their rolling stock MOST bought their trains from manufacturers who had proven records of quality, ability and durability.

One reason I don't concern myself with scale beyond running things together that look good (to me) is because my first priority when buying anything is whether it will run to my satisfaction on my layouts.

I own one LGB Mogul that I bought on eBay that was advertised as factory original. It had received a FANTASTIC job of repainting and customizing and looked MUCH better than my other LGB Moguls. On receipt I contacted the seller and demanded (and received) a substantial REDUCTION in price (he was unaware that he had misrepresented the loco). While the loco looks great the tiniest scratch shows the green underneath and the added on prototypically accurate parts are delicate and can easily be knocked off.

Others have commented that they are offended when someone suggests that they are not serious modelers and I join them because I pay serious money for my trains and I take this hobby just as serious as anyone else - I just use a different scale of measurement and I NEVER criticize anyone or evaluate anyone according to how they choose to enjoy the hobby.

I don't criticize anyone for choosing 1:20.3 but I totally reject any concept that somehow 1:20.3 is IN ANY WAY better than 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:29, 1:32 or any other scale. If someone needs a ruler to be able to enjoy this hobby they are just using a tool that is of no value in my enjoyment of this hobby. Whatever happened to the 10 foot (or 20 foot) rule?

No criticism is intended toward anyone by these comments but rather they are intended for anyone new to this hobby to point out that there are many things that are important when buying G Scale trains that are every bit as important (and perhaps more important) than prototypically accurate scales.

Going back to the original post on this topic I think the question has been resolved.

I contacted Vance to buy his coaches when he first posted this topic only to discover that his coaches had already been sold - so the answer is simple and proven - people STILL ARE USING AND MORE IMPORTANT THEY ARE STILL BUYING 1:22.5

Cheers,

Jerry


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

... I wonder, why the worker is turning the brake wheel on EBT´s boxcars.. Can´t see any brakes on those trucks. ... 

Well, he knows that _now._ Had he known that when the car was still on the rails, he would have jumped to a car that had brake shoes, and the train wouldn't have run off onto the big blue sheet.  Seriously, much of the EBT's early rolling stock had brakes only on one end of the car. Not that I can use that as a "defense" here, since the brakes were always on the truck closest to the brake wheel. Actually, that ties well into Jerry's post about compromises. I generally don't model brake gear on my freight equipment because in most photographs you'll never see it, and it's just one more thing to snag on the ever-reaching vegetation on the railroad. 

...Just for the heck of it I am going to suggest that LGB is the most prototypical of all models... 
1... 
2... 

3. LGB went bankrupt after a period of mismanagement. Son of a gun, Jerry, you may be right!  

Sorry, that was too easy. In all seriousness, you draw a very interesting perspective from the utilitarian side of the equation. 

Later, 

K


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

ill add



not all of us who play with trains, model, no less with with 'accuracy'-there is the POV that accuracy must be the rule 

as long as i have had trains-theres always something 'wrong' - 
i can remember lamenting hand rails that were molded on, class lights that didnt, drive rods with straight slot screws instead of bolts, etc, ad nauseum- 

ive become accustomed to a mental acceptance and compromise-or-ive given up stressing over the stuff 

 
my point -the hobby can be approached as a creative and artistic endeavor rather than an exercise in museum quality dioramas-and still be fun-we all have different hot buttons-as i age i have fewer in many areas- 

i, like jerry, prize function and reliability more than other factors


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

As long as 'serious' modellers continue to look down their noses at other people's efforts because it doesn't meet _their _standards, I'll joyfully continue to say I 'play with toy trains'. If it 'works' visually, and has enough detail that it looks okay from 2-3 feet away, then I'm happy. And if I'm happy, with my stuff, then it really doesn't matter a fig if you're not.


My stuff is all in the 1:22.5 - 1:24 range for a couple good reasons. 1. I'm limited to R-1 curves and both 1:20.3 NG AND 1:32 SG look ridiculous on them, even when they manage to stay on. 2. There's a wealth of detail stuff in 1:24 that there just isn't available in those other scales (I do find it kinda funny how often 'serious' modellers use lots of scenic items that are_ seriously_ out of scale, but are _seriously_ offended by that almost unnoticable 6 inches of gauge. -- BTW hobbies are supposed to be fun!)


Here are some of my more recent 'wrong' scale 'toy' projects. We _un_serious types just pull stuff out of the box and slap it on the layout doncha know---

Scratchbuilt 2-4-4-2 
Scratchbuilt Frick Sawmill 
Kitbashed Erie crawler crane 

Scratchbuilt Flour City 40-70 tractor 
Kitbashed Cletrac cable lift dozer 
Scratchbuilt 8 ton Climax
Kitbashed Consolidation
Kitbashed steam dummy 
Kitbashed 10 wheeler 
Kitbashed 2-4-0 


Plus about 8 other projects just in the last year alone. Too bad I'm not _serious_ , isn't it?


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

You know the big ride-on stuff has had this same debate for years. I have a Gene Allen, 1/8th scale ten-wheeler steamer and a 1/8th scale Baldwin Pacific Electric frieght motor and lots of rolling stock for them. AND guess what? None of it is to "scale" because we run on 7.5 inch track. The ONLY guy that had it right was Walt Disney on his home layout- 7.125 inches between rails. But nobody could run on it. They were all 7.5 inch. Some guys found a way to get scale locomotives and rolling stock by going to 1.6 inches per foot. Now that stuff is massive! Until you put a 1.6 loco next to a 1.5 loco, you can't see the difference. Large scale(45mm track) equipment can be expensive. But when you have a VERY large scale loco at $30K to $ and 100K and more and railroad cars at $1500 each and up (mostly up), you stop the moaning and groaning. The BIG guys rarely argue about this scale stuff much anymore. We just enjoy the hobby! Then guess what? A monsterous 2.5" narrow gauge K36 comes up next to your 1.6 Northern. Even at 3000#, it looks a little puny next to this narrow gauge loco. Oh well.....such is the world of scale railroading.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Just a follow-up to my previous post. Hope you enjoy the videos.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/...-livesteam


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Come to think of it one (more) reason why I like 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:26 and 1:29 scales is that they all look perfectly OK to me with my Pola, Piko, Aristo-Craft, Model Power and other brands of buildings and accessories. Even the Bachmann Annie, 4-4-0 and 2-4-0 looked great with them. I have never tried 1:20.3 but my 1:32 just squeak by and tend to look too little. I cannot match any of my rolling stock to MTH other than with the Challenger and Big Boy which are OK since they were such huge locomotives.

I don't know who if anyone makes 1:20.3 buildings.

Don't get me wrong. I love 1:20.3 and 1:32 also. I just tend to like them better on someone else's layout where that someone has gone to the time and expense of building a layout to accommodate them. Just because I do not buy or build something has no bearing on the appreciation I have for someone else who does.

I once came home from Knoxville with 19 assorted pre-assembled (used) buildings in a Ford Contour. Everyone got a big laugh as I loaded up with my new found goodies. Had the buildings been 1:20.3 they probably would not have even fit into a Suburban and I probably could not have afforded them anyway.

In a way I sort of feel sorry for a guy or gal who only models in any particular scale because they are locking themselves out of such a huge portion of all the G Scale goodies out there. By not worrying about scale I could afford a 1:32 Big Boy and a 1:24 Consolidation and a 1:? LGB Mikado and F7 and a 1:29 E8 and even a Fortuna Flyer. Sticking to a specific scale would be like taking a kid to Toys-R-Us at Christmas and telling him/her they could only look at one aisle in the entire store.









All of my first buildings were $9.99 bird houses. I wonder what scale they were.









Cheers,

Jerry


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...In a way I sort of feel sorry for a guy or gal who only models in any particular scale because they are locking themselves out of such a huge portion of all the G Scale goodies out there. ... 

It's not anything to "feel sorry" for, though. It's a conscious decision to model one scale, one railroad, one small branchline, even one date in history. For folks who travel down that path (and I'm very much in that crowd) the journey isn't about variety, but specificity; about focus. For me, at least, my energies surround creating a sense of place and time in the garden, a specific feeling, an ongoing storyline. I certainly enjoy other scales and genres of railroading, but I can enjoy them vicariously through others, and at club events. My interests lie in thoroughly understanding the history and environment of the railroad, and recreating that in miniature. I'm doing exactly what I enjoy. 

The truth is, it's not so much limiting as it is liberating. I'm free from distractions that other scales may present. It allows me to focus solely on my vision of what I'm working to create. I'm free from the temptation to buy "one of everything" just because it fits on the rails. There's lots of stuff out there that I'd love to own, but doesn't fit within my theme. I'm not "locked out" of buying anything at all. If I really want something, I'm free to purchase it. I just have little desire to because of being so single purposed in my goals. 

...Don't get me wrong. I love 1:20.3 and 1:32 also. I just tend to like them better on someone else's layout where that someone has gone to the time and expense of building a layout to accommodate them. Just because I do not buy or build something has no bearing on the appreciation I have for someone else who does. ... 
That sentiment is exactly how I feel relative to those who don't have as single a focus as I do. So, when you consider that statement with the roles reversed, you can understand why it is I say there's no reason to feel sorry for those of us who stick to any one scale. We live vicariously through your efforts as much as you live vicariously through ours. 

Later, 

K


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By FH&PB on 01 Oct 2009 03:30 PM 
Congratulations! Very nice work, Rod. So now I know *one* serious n.g. modeler who doesn't work in 1:20. (What scale IS it, BTW?) I would never criticize a railroad built to those standards on the basis of "wrong scale", as long as the scale was consistent. 

Vance, how do you define "serious"? Is the definition given in the next sentence as "scale consistency"? Just curious, Zubi


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Jerry, I think that your comments are essentially aiming at distinguishing between "modelling" and "railroading". Large scales are precisely at the lower boundary of real world railroading where miniature trains become large toys (I guess all gauges from 32mm to 12inch fall within this boundary). If you consider large scale trains to be full size trains, but somewhat small in size, you are effectively running your own railway company. Apart from some local law regulations, there is only one person who can determine where you can lay your track and to tell you whether a particular locomotive or piece of rolling stock will be useful for your railroad. And that person is the railway manager - probably you yourself. It is no surprise that you want to invest your money well - every good railway manager would do that. On the other hand, the bunch aiming at "modeling", follows completely different set of criteria. For them size and reliability are marginal issues, their sole purpose is historical accuracy and imitation of reality. Their miniatures of the real world do not even have to run, I have seen spectacular miniature copies of railroading equipment made from paper for that matter. Yes, there exist modellers who develop interesting techniques to achieve a high level of imitation. But imitation minded "modelling" and unconstrained "railroading" are the two extremes which have been polarising large scale since I remember, but particularly strongly in the most recent years. Yes, there are large scale artists too, who are creative enough to find the middle road, but absolute majority of large scalers tend to drift to either of the extreme poles. Best wishes, Zubi


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

(What scale IS it, BTW?) 

1.22.5 Vance. The SPAFRR runs on "39" gauge rails. As alluded to above, its a fictitious RR, and we know how vast the Loco catalogues were in those days. You could have virtually any guage you wanted made. 

Seriously....


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 02 Oct 2009 10:06 PM 

It's not anything to "feel sorry" for, though. It's a conscious decision to model one scale, one railroad, one small branchline, even one date in history. 

Sorry was more an expression than a statement. Perhaps it was not a good choice of words on my part. Naturally I would not feel sorry for anyone who is having a good time.

I suspect the difference between us is that I have a very limited personal railroad history. I don't even remember the trains I rode on in England for 3 years so I model whatever appeals to me rather than anything specific from my personal history.

Additionally I have no talent for craftsmanship (and little desire to improved myself in that area) so it is both easier and more practical for me to enjoy the craftsmanship of others without concerning myself with building my own things. 

Some people are builders while others are fixers. I am the latter. I am good at getting what others create to work to my expectations.

I have developed a love for railroad history and operations yet I would never have enjoyed working on the railroads I enjoy reading about.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By zubi on 02 Oct 2009 11:38 PM 
Jerry, I think that your comments are essentially aiming at distinguishing between "modelling" and "railroading".
imitation minded "modelling" and unconstrained "railroading" are the two extremes which have been polarising large scale since I remember, but particularly strongly in the most recent years. 

Yes, there are large scale artists too, who are creative enough to find the middle road, but absolute majority of large scalers tend to drift to either of the extreme poles. Best wishes, Zubi 


Hi Zubi,

I agree with you completely and I think it is unfortunate that not only does it tend to polarize our hobby but I think it tends to destroy it. There seems to be a high lack of tolerance and understanding within the hobby (and just about every other hobby I have been involved with). I am unable to understand it.

My absolute favorite locomotive is the Big Boy and my favorite G Scale loco is the live steam Aster Big Boy. The best loco I own is a LGB/Aster Mikado. They have one thing in common. I have never run (and probably never will run) my LGB/Aster Mike and I would never buy an Aster Big Boy because if I did I would never run it either because if I ever ran (or dropped) either one and broke it I don't know what I would do to fix it. I simply don't want to buy something that I would be afraid to or unable to run.

Actually I doubt the controversy is any stronger now than before as I remember being very strongly criticized for my apparent misuse of the terms G Scale and G Gauge and for calling my FA-1s and FB-1s an F1 ABBA. I still don't remember or care which term is correct because I use the phrase or term that comes to mind and suits me. if it upsets someone else who takes my words as offensive then as far as I am concerned it is their problem and not mine because if no offense is intended then there is no excuse for offense being taken. I may be incorrect but they are impolite and in my book incorrect is impersonal and acceptable while impolite is personal and unacceptable.

I used to build and fly RC airplanes (WWII fighters). I would spend all week building and fixing and every weekend I would fly until something broke. I had a favorite P40 that I hardly ever flew for fear of breaking it and ended up selling it rather than risk breaking it. That probably had a lot to do with why I will not even attempt to build anything on my railroad. Actually I once bought and built a Lionel train station. I worked hard to build it right it only to have it literally fall apart within months. Now its Pola and Piko for me.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Richard Weatherby (Jan 3, 2008)

I have spent a lot of time reading this, so I can’t resist adding my few cents worth. Notice I didn’t say two cents worth. 

It appears that many folks look at the world through a telescope. There appears to “purists” and “generalists”. The reality is there are too many variables that you can NOT control. 

Most of the verbiage so far has been based solely on locomotives and rolling stock. Only Jerry has mentioned the world beyond. I know the topic is “anyone still running 1:22,” but it seems to have left the track for a discussion of scale. 

SO, if scale it is, then NONE OF YOU can control your own scale environment to that scale. If you have a railroad outside, you can not scale your plants or control the scale of sunlight or weather (it IS 1:1). If you are inside, you have similar problems with non-natural materials, plants, fluorescent lights, and no weather. Do you also deal in scale mass or weight? Even the trains are made from brass or plastic or paper. The trains are powered in different ways. 

There is no complete line of products (buildings, cars, people, plants, etc.) in any scale. 

It is entirely up to the individual as to what they want and how they wanted it displayed. I have all larges scales (and some small scales) and run them in my own circumstances to suit myself. If someone else likes it, fine. If not, fine. 

There is no right or wrong way!! This is a hobby!! Maybe we need to get a life and not worry about everyone elses perceptions.


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

As for different boxcar sizes: 
http://www.shorpy.com/node/6924?size=_original


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By on30gn15 on 03 Oct 2009 08:37 AM 
As for different boxcar sizes: 
http://www.shorpy.com/node/6924?size=_original 

Fantastic photo.

Jerry


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By on30gn15 on 03 Oct 2009 08:37 AM 
As for different boxcar sizes: 
http://www.shorpy.com/node/6924?size=_original 

If that was a "model layout" I am sure "I" would be upset with the various scales of boxcars!!!!

Thanks for the chuckle at myself.


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

One of the best photos I have seen in a long time. I am doing Duluth Superior In N "BNSF" so that is of special interest. 

Notwithstanding that, the depth of field and the clarity make it an exceptional picture even if one leaves aside the historical aspect. 

A big thanks for that. 

Ps , as with a lot of pics from this era not the absense of litter, yunno, drink cans, fast food wrappers etc.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

It's a conscious decision to model one scale, one railroad, one small branchline, even one date in history. 

This is an attidude I really like. I ´d even add an area or a purpose for the line. E.G. bring vegetables out, bring coal in. Transport wood, springs, linen , coal in, bring furniture out. If you happen to have a furniture factory. In /out is a place outside the railroad, maybe a station with standard gauge and loading facilities. 

As EBT expressed, you don´t have to pile up everything the trade offers or the catalogues tell you, but it is a challenge, to find or build exactly the stuff which fits the picture you have in your mind. You don´t have to buy Porsches or a cell phone, if your modelling world is in the late Twenties. 
On the other hand, if you model the Diesel area, many Ford T´s might be look out of place and time. 

There might be different seizes of boxcars or other rolling stock in the real world. But when it comes down to details like the hardware, you can tell the difference quite clearly. I don´t think, larger boxcars had larger door handles or brake wheels. At least the modell figures operating them should have a chance. 

Have Fun 

Fritz / Juergen


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

My toy trains are more accurate than yours! Because my compromises are less noticible than yours! Neener neener lol!! 

Serious? Not me, you win hands down! Yet why the need to assign levels of passion I don't know! Do you feel superior yet? Nice can 'o worms.... 

This hobby is a mass of compromises; Unrealistic curves and track geometry in switches, shorter cars that might couple on a curve, originally a rich man's hobby and designed to tuck into small back yard gardens or elevated indoors, a 10' rule eased the details... like couplers dragging the ties (B'mann's underslung ones)... 

I hate the idea that track determines our scales, ties must be the easiest thing to mold, so gauge should be more flexible. Yet being niche markets, interchangability was necessary for survival. 

Less 'serious' than others because I could *afford * 1:24? I think not! I think it's what you do with what you've got, not what you buy. 

*Where can I get outside braced wooden boxcars in 1:24? Those of you that can cross compare, what cars would be suitable as old time boxcars with slightly narrow bodies? I could add the bracing and extend the roofs... ooops derail....* apologies. 

Where were you when B'mann wounded On3 with On30 on HO track? I was scratchbuilding and spiking rail.... lol 

I think this was a silly topic and semi-insulting. I hope you are very serious when you play with your trains. Me? I'll be having great fun! Seriously! lol 

I hope everybody has a good day... 

John


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

John,

Thank you.


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

I didn't say YOU weren't "serious". I didn't say there are no "serious" 1:22.5 (or 1:24) railroads. I said I didn't know of anyone with a garden railroad less than 10 years old who was doing "serious" modeling in those scales. Now I do. That's why I asked. Thank you for your thoughtful answers, those who answered that question thoughtfully. 

What's "serious"? In my book, it's attempting to replicate prototypically realistic equipment, buildings, etc. Obviously, 1:24 modelers in New Zealand and 1:22.5 modelers in Germany get a pass. People who make the conscious decision to punt the scale question in deference to other considerations get a pass. 

What's "not serious"? Playing trains with shiny plastic equipment right out of the box, on 4' diameter curves, with no regard to what a real railroad would look like. This is an enjoyable hobby in its own right, but not what is generally accepted as railroad modeling. Yes, you have to build some stuff yourself if you model in 1:20 - that IS railroad modeling. 

Where's the dividing line between those extremes? Danged if I know. Or care. I didn't start the thread to question your seriousness or make you feel insecure about your choices. I was just curious. I should know better.


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh Vance, if thats for me, I was kidding BTW, it was supposed to be a pun. 

Did nt work, ah well. back to the wings....


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Norman, 

I'm not sure about the other trucks you mention, but the stock Bachmann trucks can be turned into really nice looking trucks with just a bit of effort. 



















The springs don't work, and the trucks are still rigid, but they certainly look a lot better than the stock trucks. 

Later, 

K


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

Those look good - will have to _"go ye forth and do likewise"_ with mine! 

Even though the Bachmann trucks aren't sprung the plastic on mine seems flexible enough to take minor track irregularities.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Guys, here's the thing. I got OUT of the smaller scales because of, to put it bluntly, the scale and prototype police. One thing I loved about LGB, they never really claimed to make anything but great running toy trains. 

To ME, modelling is about the creative process, not just fidelity to some formula. I know a guy who is trying to build a perfect scale model of the V&T's Carson City shop building in HO all 130 x 323 feet of it..... no selective compression for him. Knowing his penchant for minute details, it will be impressive. Not my cup of tea, but impressive. Think anybody is going to build one soon in 1:20.3? (got a spare 6.4039408899665 x 15.9113300492610837 foot area doing nothing in the middle of your layout?) 
http://www.virginiaandtruckee.com/C...p://www.virginiaandtruckee.com/A...onCity.jpg



I guess if large scale becomes any more like the smaller scales I'll have to retreat even further (Standard Gauge tinplate maybe?) Honestly, would you tell your best friend that his wife is ugly? There's a time to respect other people's choices. And there's no 'wrong' way to have fun with toy trains -- unless you're some kind of weird perv.


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

As explained earlier, most of my stuff is 1:22.5 because that's all there was when I started.


Along the way I've added some 1:20.3 and 1:29. Many of you are rolling your eyes, however what's important to me about my layout is:
(1) I enjoy it
(2) Visitors of all ages enjoy it


----------

