# Will production of large scale move from China?



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Guys:

With the latest price increases of large scale, for example the Bachmann 1:20.3 new releases, will production remain in China or move to a lower production cost region?

Are the new prices too high to sell a typical minimum quantity production run of each item from a China factory?

Given the history of previous low large scale train pricing, is there a sufficient customer base who will pay the new higher product pricing?

What is the future of large scale sales?


Norman


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Viet Nam is coming into play, I've seen more and more consumer items from there lately. 

China is shipping all their lead an pollutants there in anticipation. 

Greg


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Norman, yes we may see it. I have bought a couple H0/H0e items made in Slovakia by Roco in lieu of Austria, cost move for sure.....LGB and Audi in Hungary.... So with that theory, the trickle down would move to Asia as well. 

When my father was in Poland, he was told by his host that you could not find a Polish native house painter there. They all went to work in the UK. If you wanted your house painted in Poland, you had to hire a Romanian, and I would imagine there are no Romanian house painters in Romania... 

Honestly, I would love to see it move to India. I went to school and worked with a lot of guys from India, and they were all stand up guys with a good grades and a good work ethic....


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

If the market is there and they are willing to pay the current price point I don't see any reason why production couldn't come back to Japan Korea or even here in the US. India,Vietnam, sure maybe? I think that the way prices are going we risk seeing a MAJOR contraction in LS with the major emphasis on the influential but very small deep pocket crowd (Accucraft has had problems selling apparently) with a secondary entry/Toytrain/holiday crowd. This is very much how O evolved and to a smaller extent in HO& N. Kitbashing and scratchbuilding are becoming a lost art form in ALL scales with RTR taking over. I know that outside of HLW Bmanns low end stuff and the used market I am very very much priced out of the mainstream in LS already.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I cannot see the production of Large Scale items moving anywhere. 

In fact I can envisage a significant reduction in the production of Large Scale items period. 

The consumer base is shrinking and it would only be profitable to move from China if the numbers were there. Which they are not. 

Get set for lots of repaints and reruns using existing tooling. But don't expect to see them selling in any quantity. 
Already there have been lots of delays in delivery of electronics, a situation that is only going to get worse. 
Expect some Companies to fall over and others to merge in a desperate attempt to survive. 

The ratings agencies caused the GFC Mk1 and they still have not been brought to justice. Until that happens don't expect any improvements as long as the financial crooks that run our economic system are allowed to keep running it. 
Those same ratings agencies are the root cause of this latest version of the GFC Mk 2.


----------



## Allan W. Miller (Jan 2, 2008)

My guess--strictly a guess--is that Tony is right. Not the time in this segment of the hobby for anyone to be moving anywhere. WAY too much uncertainty involved.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with Tony. If there is something you like now, better buy it, or figure on making it yourself later. I doubt any new products will be out in the future. Re-paints/badges is the best you can hope for, but few and far between.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

You all need to get into live steam. More choices on the market now then ever before! SG, NG, Gas, Alcohol, Coal, something for everyone!


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

India is not an option. 

There is too many there that refuse to work for nothing. That is the appeal of China, there are a lot of workers who would work for next to nothing. Now those workers are wiseing up and refuse to work for low wages. 

I too also believe that Tony is right. LS is a niche of a niche market. Model Railroading is not what it used to be. The older generation is dieing off and the younger generation is not interested.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

The younger generation could be interested, if the manufacturers worked out a way of making the hobby competitive with *control* of our locos in at least three dimensions instead of just two 

Children are simply not interested in forward, reverse and faster and slower. They want up, down and side to side as well. Like, UM ERR, Helicopters. The fastest growing element of all hobbies. 
Even sound systems leave the kids cold. Unless it is a tank or some such. 

Apart from those who gain immense pleasure from switching a train set on and watching it run around in circles ad nauseum, our hobby is a passive one. Most of the pleasure is in the building. Or well, it used to be in the building. Todays generation wants instant gratification and the ability to *compete* with their peers.


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

I have to admit. I've never seen a train go "up". 

As an official Gen X'r, I blame video games.... 

All jokes aside I think you hit the nail on the head. The speed of today's world has increased dramatically. No one wants to enjoy the process to get to the goal. They just want the goal to get that instant gratification and then move on to the next goal.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Perhaps Aristo-craft's China manufacturing would consider moving its production to North Korea in an arrangement sort of like US and Mexican maquiladoras!











See: North Korea to set up the Hwanggumphyong and Wihwa Islands* economic zone* on China border.

-Ted


----------



## cape cod Todd (Jan 3, 2008)

It is true that large scale is a "niche in a niche" and people today most don't want to be bothered to work for something. We have a real estate company here on the cape and the amount of people that will not even consider a house that isn't turn key is crazy. Of course they want to get it for the price of a fixer upper. I would say that one of the best things about this hobby is that there are so many aspects of it to keep us busy for years. Actually running trains is only a percentage of my time spent. 
It is a shame that the prices keep going up and up and pricing many out of the hobby. I don't know if moving the manufacturers would help that. I for one will continue to buy used stuff and build my own since that is what I can afford.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The real estate reference is a good one, and illustrates the dangers of ever increasing prices, eventually you reach a point where no-one can afford it anymore and the market collapses. Thats the worry I have, Bmann I think has learned that lesson the hard way, I think AC is trying not to make Bmanns 'Plastic for Brass $' mistake, USA is getting dangerously close to getting burned with its diecast prices, but Marklin just doesnt have a clue.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Guys: 

What amazes me is how fast the Bachmann product pricing rose. 
Their K-27 is great value for the money, although I cannot buy one due to its large size, but then the Bachmann product pricing shot up with their release of the Forney at the same pricing level as their K-27. 
Aristo Craft's heavyweights also rose quickly to a presently very high pricing level. 
Five years ago was a very exciting time to wait and see what the latest Bachmann locomotive model would be. In retrospect, hobbyists should not have given Lee Riley such a hard time regarding their release of the Vulcan locomotive. I do not know what the Vulcan locomotive is, but only that we have lost a potential model to purchase at what would have been an affordable price point. The Bachmann Anniversary loco was basically being given away at a very low mail order price. 

As per the rest of you, I was lucky to have been interested in Large Scale when the product was affordable with some of it at basically give away pricing. 

Other than some low cost HLW items, the remaining manufactures have no future sales to make to me unless they readjust their pricing. 


Norman


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Bmanns Lyn is a great little engine as well as the Indy. The Climax is also a move back to center. I think their reappearance has everything to do with the crap-conomy than anything else. I do think Bmann will make large engines again, namely a C class and EBT. Mike but that wont happen until there is a big enough market again. That may not be for another 5 years though.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

........if ever. 

The only markets in the World for Large Scale model trains are in the countries that are being, or will be, affected by any Global Financial Downturn. 
The available markets in the "West" for our toys has always been marginal and it is now shrinking. 

Whilst R/C products such as Planes, Choppers, Cars, Trucks, Boats and tanks etc have a fairly good prospect of being sold in developing markets to the emerging "middle classes", it is wishful thinking for any manufacturer to expect being able to do the same with Large Scale Trains. The consumers in developing countries simply do not have the space available.


----------



## Udo (Nov 5, 2010)

Hey all !
I don't think, that they move out of China.
But, I think, they all (Accucraft, Bachmann etc.) don't consider their "homeland".
China is a big market....
You only have to make things available here....
I am German and living in China.
I have some Large Scale equipment...
But, it is very very difficult to get these items in China....
Bachmann has 3 shops in Shanghai and some dealers all over the mainland...
As I see, because I always look at the chiense homepage of Bachmann, there are a lot of "fans" for HO scale...
E.g. they make very nice models in that scale form the Xinghai Tibet railway...
I also know the Bachmann club in Shanghai...
there are a lot of "enthusiasts"...
But..... to get some Large scale equipment is very difficult...
They have with Bachmann Shanghai only a limited choice... I think, they have to order something at the "main factory"...
that means. if they don't order at the beginning of a production run, they will not get it.
My Bachmann dealer asked for some equipment, which is available in US, e.g. the new Climax ... cannot get it !
I say. "my dealer"... it is a Bachmann Dealer in another city, he is also one of the two Accucraft dealers in China ! 
Two Dealers for a country like this !!!!
One of the two is "Bachmann Shanghai"... the other one is he....
Accucraft has on their homepage a "distributor Asia"... sitting in Shanghai...
If you call them... they even don't know the name "Accucraft"...
I tried with the help of a HK friend....
Very very low success.....
OK, my "dealer" just reimports the items from Accucraft from the US. That is working very well for me.

*Now, I think, you would ask, what this all has to do with this topic?*

*Answer:*
*All the "global" companies look at the chinese market as a very fast develloping one...*
*Make it easy to buy some Large Scale equipment in China and you ahev a lot of more business !*
*My friend... a Chinese... he bought a new house and also considered to have a garden with some train running in it....*
*I have the plan of the designer... Grate!!!!*

So far from China !

Udo


----------



## Udo (Nov 5, 2010)

Hey all !
I forgot to say one thing:
If there is a bigger market, you can sell more items, so it will be cheaper to make them...
This should be an advantage also for the "outside"!

Udo


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

i think, moving production from dhina to smewhere cheaper will not be the first step, but the second. 

the first step will be/is cutting out the expensive part. that is the "distributing" companies of the west. 

as we all can see for ourselves, by looking at Newqida, cutting out western intermediaries and using a shortcut in quality (or two) results in products, that cost less than half of the former prices. 

edit: if i look at the map on the mainpage of my site, i can see clearly, that largescale is a pure european and northamerican thing.
at the moment i am buying everything, i might need in the next five years. just because i fear, that these markets will not exist anymore in the near future, bringing production to a complete stop.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 13 Aug 2011 07:50 AM 
if i look at the map on the mainpage of my site, i can see clearly, that largescale is a pure european and northamerican thing.



I wouldn't say that - sure, Large Scale (and I think model trains in general) have a high concentration in Europe and North America but the interest is sprinkled all over the world if you take a larger sample.
The cluster map at the bottom left of the Large Scale database can give you a better indication:
http://www.gbdb.info/

If you click on it you get a larger image.
And this map was reset less than a year ago, if it hadn't been the visits outside of Europe and North America would have been more.

As to Large Scale manufacturing moving out of China, who knows - there are a lot of Large Scale manufacturers today that don't even manufacture in China, actually pretty much all of them except Aristocraft, USA Trains and Bachmann.

I won't include Newqida here - they are in a class by itself copying other manufacturers designs.
Piko has their own factory in China but all their Large Scale items are manufactured in Germany, Marklin manufactures LGB in Hungary and their other lines, Z scale, H0, 1-scale in both Germany and Hungary, Kiss manufactures (and manufactured) in a number of East European countries, Train Line manufactures their cars and locos in Germany, Hartland still manufacturs in the US, Large Scale live-steam locos are manufactures in the UK, Germany and also China.


The higher prices are mostly driven by lower volume I believe and the Large Scale market is still shrinking.

If I look at the volume of Large Scale that LGB was shipping in the 70's and 80's - 40,000 of just one type of starter set, and that was repeated many times during those years - today production runs seem to be in the 500 to 1000 range.

Manufacturers can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling, I have seen number of over a million for tooling for a complicated steam loco, tooling costs for a diesel are probably much less, but still.


Trouble is that we are in a bit of a 'spiral' as far as prices are concerned - higher prices equals fewer sales which in turn drives prices even higher. 


Knut

PS: I don't think it's very healthy for both Aristocraft and USA Trains to have their products manufactured in a facility owned by Kader since Kader also owns Bachmann.
If push comes to shove for whatever reason - which of the three do you think gets preferential treatment?


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

edit: if i look at the map on the mainpage of my site, i can see clearly, that largescale is a pure european and northamerican thing. 

No surprise that N.A. and Europe are the biggest markets for model _anything _. (We should add Japan and U.A.E. to the list.) We're the ones with discretionary income. The rest of the world spends their days struggling to find something to eat. 

JackM


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);
"live-steam locos are manufactures in the UK, Germany and also China.," You forgot Japan, where the best come from.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By jake3404 on 11 Aug 2011 03:32 PM 


...LS is a niche of a niche market. 
Is part of the "volume problem" pointed out earlier the fact G gauge is so very much associated with outdoor model railroading? Case in point: our main magazine has "Garden" in the title. I'm not complaining at all; but since I've seen evidence of excellent layouts (big to micro) in G or #1 gauge that are indoors, I wonder if there could and should be a better emphasis in the hobby in Large Scale, regardless of the environment. 

For example: getting older, with decreasing eyesight, I'd want to stick with large scale even if I didn't have (outdoor) real estate to work with. Further: the whole outdoor thing (which I'm doing) is pretty tough, and in many senses seasonal. At least for me! 

I know, you're going to tell me that I should have gone with Gauge 1 / MTH, if I wanted to go indoors. But if MTH (with their wonderful product line, all made in the US as far as I know) can keep their prices so low, and their offerings so vast, it seems to me that there could have been a better mix of product on the market. As it stands though, it's primarily indoors vs. outdoors, and a major scale difference in between.

If I were MTH, I'd start offering products with SS components, but also add products in the scales we (in the great outdoors) are used to. That would open up a lot of choices. And it wouldn't matter where you ran them. In summary: take the "garden" out of LS, because that should be an option, not a requirement.

Just random thoughts....

===Cliff


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 13 Aug 2011 11:10 AM 
You forgot Japan, where the best come from. 
Sorry - I just rattled off a number of countries where I know Large Scale equipment was manufactured.
My point was that it's a lot more than just China

knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 13 Aug 2011 01:58 PM 
But if MTH (with their wonderful product line, all made in the US as far as I know) can keep their prices so low, and their offerings so vast........

I don't think MTH is a good example.
They received a huge, multi-million dollar, influx of cash when they won the law suit against Lionel.

I'm sure they invested that into the design and tooling of new models. They could have set pricing that didn't reflect recovery of their total investment.


Knut


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Hey Knut, hope all goes well with you. 

I didn't know about that Lionel issue, thank you.

But even so, my point (in regards to popularity / volume) remains the same: LS has seemed to me characterized by "outdoor" and "garden," echoing Jake's point of being a niche (garden/outdoor model railroading) within a niche (model railroading in general). I'm raising the point that our LS industry might have been, in terms of volume / pricing, confined in its breadth with the garden/outdoor association, and at the same time splitting it off perhaps too severely from the indoor LS counterpart (of which there are numerous examples) and smaller-scale brethren.

I admit it's a small point, but I'll stand behind it because there seems to be too much of an arbitrary distinction, yet that distinction infuses the industry. 

But who cannot drool over (made-in-US) MTH's products and prices, and not be dismayed at (e.g.) (made-in-China) Bachmann's? Lawsuit outcomes (which in any other company wouldn't be passed on to the consumers, else why bother to win the lawsuit?) notwithstanding? 

Just my two ignorant cents worth, and best regards,
===Cliff


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Cliff, 

MTH was awarded just over $40 million in that lawsuit. 
http://www.modelgeeks.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/rail/2814/MTH-wins-lawsuit-against-Lionel 

I read somewhere else that they finally settled for a lot less - but still in the millions, somewhere between 5 and 10. 

Anyway, I would say about half of the people I know with Large Scale run outdoors, the rest indoors and I count the "indoor" ones as people who just "collect" and don't have an operating layout. 

That ratio, outdoor vs. indoor gets probably skewed heavily towards outdoor for 'standard gauge' trains like Aristo and USA Trains since one needs much larger curves compared to narrow gauge. 

In general, nobody seems to have a real good handle on market demographics of Large Scale railroads - every once in a while even the basic question comes up in some train magazine as to the number of Large Scale modellers and the answer is always an educated guess with numbers varying widely. 
And that is just the most basic total number - then trying to get a good handle on percentages indoor vs outdoor; the various power options people use, the actual scales, the make of models they have, preferences North America vs. Europe in general, etc. etc. 
I at least have never seen a credible market study on Large Scale Trains. 

Knut


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Might be able to get some data from

Hobby Manufacturers Assoc. 



The specific division of Model Railroads could have insight:

B. To unite, coordinate, evaluate, analyze and communicate on matters of common interest to its members and to promote and advance programs of the hobby through the model railroad industry and others in similar work.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Interesting that HMA classifies 1/29 scale trains, ie USAT and Aristo and others, as 1-scale not G-scale.
That would sure distort the picture if the had a breakdown by scale


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 13 Aug 2011 03:00 PM 
BIG SNIP 
But who cannot drool over (made-in-US) MTH's products and prices, and not be dismayed at (e.g.) (made-in-China) Bachmann's? Lawsuit outcomes (which in any other company wouldn't be passed on to the consumers, else why bother to win the lawsuit?) notwithstanding? 

Just my two ignorant cents worth, and best regards,
===Cliff


What MTH products are made in the USA?

To the best of my knowledge MTH Trains are made in Korea and/or China.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

What's an HMA please ?


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 13 Aug 2011 05:15 PM 
What's an HMA please ? 
Might be able to get some data from HMA


Hobby Manufacturers Assoc.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Another try with google brought this up - unfortunately in German:

http://modelleisenbahn.info/marktanteile.html

This is the graph related mostly to LGB in Germany, peak around 2004












For the US, they define "G" as anything running on 45mm track:










If I look at the 2001 US numbers on that site, I get:

H0 at 58%
0 at 35%
N at 18%
G at 27%
S at 3%

Hmmm - adds up to a lot more than 100%; assuming the numbers are reasonably accurate, that means a good percentage of model railroaders operate two or more scales - I think that is reasonable.


Would be nice to get some more current data; it's probably on the net if one looks long enough.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi again: 

This evening I was listening to a radio financial investment program up here in Canada. The CEO of WALMART United States was interviewed. 

Interview quote: " The American consumer has ran out of money. Our highest volume of sales is one hour after Americans receive their welfare cheques. " 

That said, I guess model train sales of any scale / gauge must be weak. 

The Lionel Standard Gauge died out and then came back years later as a retro collectors scale to be manufactured by MTH under the Lionel name! 
Possibly this is what we are witnessing with Large Scale. The present large scale manufacturers can always produce O or HO scale models for the market place. Accucraft is now producing ON3 models and Aristo Craft has entered the O Gauge market. The latest MTH HO locomotive models are great featuring lighted marker lamps and synchronised puffing smoke with sound ( all the bells and whistles ! ), but I am not returning to that scale at least for the foreseeable future. 

Norman


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 13 Aug 2011 07:32 PM 

Hi again: 

SNIP
The Lionel Standard Gauge died out and then came back years later as a retro collectors scale to be manufactured by MTH under the Lionel name! 
SNIP
Norman 








Since when has MTH been making and selling equipment under the Lionel name?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By norman on 13 Aug 2011 07:32 PM 

This evening I was listening to a radio financial investment program up here in Canada. The CEO of WALMART United States was interviewed. 

Interview quote: " The American consumer has ran out of money. Our highest volume of sales is one hour after Americans receive their welfare cheques. "






That is so true.

I live in a small town in Ontario - population about 55 000 - traffic is relatively light all the time except for the day the welfare cheques are received.
Then there are giant traffic jams with it seems every one and his uncle out shopping.

But that downturn seems to apply mostly to North America.
The Large Scale dealer friends I have in Germany tell me that last year was an absolute bumper year for Large Scale, best year ever and 2011 is shaping up just as good or better.
A lot of sales go to Eastern Europe and Russia and the Scandinavian countries.


Idee+Spiel which is a large German Toystore chain (including model trains) had their largest sales volume (reported in 2009) in their 32-year history.

Total ales were the equivalent of about 700 million dollars; classical toys (which includes model trains) provided the largest gain at 6.2%; video game dollar sales dropped by more than 12% even though the volume sold increased by 5% over the previous year. That was due to a large drop in unit prices.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 13 Aug 2011 07:58 PM
Since when has MTH been making and selling equipment under the Lionel name? 

Since 2009?

Press Release:

LIONEL LICENSES M.T.H. FOR TINPLATE

New York City, NY, Dec. 31, 2008 -- Lionel Electric Trains announced today that it has entered into a multi-year licensing agreement with M.T.H. Electric Trains, in which the Columbia, MD, model train maker will create a new line of tinplate Lionel Standard and O gauge products. The license will also include tinplate Standard and O gauge offerings for American Flyer, which has been part of Lionel since its acquisition in 1967.
Using its extensive collection of tinplate tooling, M.T.H. plans to issue new versions of Lionel and American Flyer classic tinplate trains and accessories that were originally released between 1900 and 1942. These products will be packaged in all-new boxes with iconic Lionel and American Flyer advertising images and logos from the prewar tinplate era. Promotion of new tinplate Lionel and American Flyer products will begin in early 2009, with full-color catalogs. A Web site, dedicated to the new product line, will also offer product videos, sound clips and other information not available in print catalogs. 
“I’m very pleased that M.T.H. and Lionel will be working together on this new Lionel and American Flyer tinplate line,” said Jerry Calabrese, Lionel CEO. Calabrese went on to say, “In times as difficult and challenging as these, I hope it’s reassuring to all model train fans that both our companies will be joining forces to write a productive new chapter in our hobby’s history. There is no better way to express our mutual belief and commitment to the future of model railroading than for Lionel and M.T.H. to collaborate on something as imaginative and exciting as these new Tinplate products. 
“This collaboration builds on what we’ve accomplished with our Tinplate Traditions line over the past three decades,” noted M.T.H. President Mike Wolf. “It is no secret to those who know me that Lionel’s history has inspired me since my youth.” Wolf went on to say, “By working together, our two companies will be able to offer products that even more faithfully evoke the beauty and artistry of the toys that Lionel and American Flyer turned out in the prewar years, as well as make those trains available to a wider audience. 
Wolf added, “Putting aside the differences our firms have had over the years, Jerry and I have always recognized how much synergy exists between Lionel and M.T.H. Together we sat down and worked out this agreement with the express goal of expanding on both firms’ longstanding commitments to grow our hobby.”
Based in New York City, Lionel has been making model trains and accessories since 1900. It is one of the world's leading model train companies, and among the most widely recognized brands in America. 
Based in Columbia, Maryland, M.T.H. Electric Trains is a seasoned model train manufacturer with a long history of innovation. In little more than a quarter century, M.T.H. has created an appealing multi-gauge product line.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Knut. 

Now I now something I didn't know before.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony, 

I found a fairly detailed history about Loinel on the web a few weeks back. 
That company, or better the name "Lionel" has taken so many twists and turns over the years, it's almost unreal. 
Seems the 'Lionel' of today has little if anything to do with the Lionel of their hay days regardless of the spin the current CEO tries to give it. 

Knut


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

I do agree with Vic about a rough division between a 'small, influential deep pockets group' and a 'much larger holiday/toy train crowd'. Even here in my corner of Alaska I see large scale holidaze sets on the racks at Home Depot of all places, and it looks like there is quite a market yet for large scale Thomas stuff. And by and large it is priced reasonably well. 

I also agree with Vic that apart from Bachmann, one or two other outfits, and the take-your-chances used market, decent equipment is...spendy. Brass track prices are enough to make one pause, especially once you get past R1. Wide radius switches cost enough to induce heart failure; you can buy a fair quality used car for the cost of eight or ten of them. 

Then there is the 'space' issue: Large scale, unless your real creative or happen to have a fair sized yard or basement or some such, takes up a lot of room...quite possibly more room than the person just starting out past the toy train level has available. 

All of this also factors in with Udo's comments about the major manufacturers seeing China not just as a labor source, but as a potential market. Yes, these people are making more money, and some might have enough of an interest in LS to try for a layout of some sort...but they will almost certainly be looking at major cash and space restrictions. 

So I find myself wondering: maybe the smart thing for these manufacturers to do would be to make smaller quality equipment that doesn't cost a mint, stuff that will run on the still (barely) affordable R1 curves and switches? For the kind of layouts you could wedge into a spare room or back of the garage or odd shaped corner of the yard or some such.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

maybe the smart thing for these manufacturers to do would be to make smaller quality equipment 
And what did Bachmann do recently? Put a new chassis under the 2-4-2T and the 2-6-0 "Indy" plus add lots of Thomas stuff. Sounds just like your recipe!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

If I didnt already have too much I would love to get a Lyn. Adding to T's comments I have spent the last 5years experimenting with small space LS. It is definetly doable. I had to laugh a little at the GR Small Layout contest winner as much as I liked it. It was bigger than my big (too me) indoor garage layout! Thats what is considered "small" these days and we wonder why the market is shrinking? For the last 5-8 years the constant drum beat has been Go Bigger Go Wider until you needed almost a 1000sq. ft. before anyone took you seriously and ALL the manufacturers reinforced this mindset by issueing stock that needed ever wider radiuses to work on. The most recent example being Aristos Connie which SHOULD have had blind center flanges so it could run on smaller radius track but instead now requires EIGHT FOOT diameter curves, for an engine not that much larger than an LGB Mogul or Bmann Connie which will operate on as small as FIVE FOOT diameter. It doesn't matter a hill of beans if you don't like the way it looks doing so, its that it is accessable to a much wider audience than the Aristo Connie. Aristo shot a good chunk of sales when they went full flanged. That was stupid on thier part to knowingly exclude the smaller layout guys.


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

If I didnt already have too much I would love to get a Lyn. Adding to T's comments I have spent the last 5years experimenting with small space LS. It is definetly doable. 

Reminds me. A couple years back, as a sort of abstract exercise, I worked out a track plan for a layout that would have on the order of 80 feet of mainline trackage, *one* duckunder or lift out section, option of one or two loops, and with R1 curves should fit in a 12 X 12 room without appearing particularly cluttered. With a 15x15 space it might be workable with (mostly) R2 curves and would have something on the order of 100+ feet of mainline track. Later on this fall, I think I'll use this plan for a temporary test layout (make use of all that Lionel track I aquired incidentally/accidentally) and maybe take a few pics.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Knut and Tony:

1)
Yes, the Lionel of today has absolutely no historical link to the original Lionel which really is a loss to American heritage. 

In reality, Lionel is a Chinese mfg firm with corporate office in the United States.

I had once emailed Lionel head office to ask if they would know where I could obtain a copy of the famous photograph featuring the just released 1930's scale Lionel Hudson sitting on the NYC track railhead, just infront of the in service prototype Hudson 5344 in New York City. What a classic iconic photo at the peak of steam locomotive service in the US. 

The head office reply was that they have no photographic archival material! 

Bachmann Trains (Kader) might just as well own Lionel as the American heritage link is long gone.

2)
On the Bachmann website I had suggested several times,with links to prototype locos of Forney type Baldwin locos, to request a Forney version of the 1:22.5 Indy freelance model.
Their response was the 1:20.3 Forney at 650.00 mail order price. 
So instead of the latest Bachmann Indy, I bought the latest retooled HLW Forney at less than half price with a reliable drive. 
A Forney version of the Indy was such an obvious future product and several modellors had posted photos of their kitbashed Indies into Forneys. 
Of course Bachmann will not now produce a 1:22.5 Indy Forney as they need to sell their 1:20.3 Forney.
Looks like the HLW product, Aristo Classics and the USA 1:24 product line will remain the only source for small layouts.
The original LGB folks clearly knew what they were doing by designing product for small radius curves.


Norman


----------



## Allan W. Miller (Jan 2, 2008)

A couple of points of clarification: 

1. No MTH trains--Large Scale or any other scale--are made in the U.S. 

2. MTH does, indeed, produce the "Lionel Corporation Tinplate" line (Std. Gauge and O gauge) under license from Lionel. 

3. Lionel, which has indeed undergone a variety of ownership changes over its 111-year history, still enjoys a commanding share of the O gauge market. 


It appears that MTH is planning to phase itself out of Large Scale in favor of its more recent focus on their HO and European O gauge/scale lines.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By Allan W. Miller on 15 Aug 2011 03:40 AM 
A couple of points of clarification: 

1. No MTH trains--Large Scale or any other scale--are made in the U.S. 

2. MTH does, indeed, produce the "Lionel Corporation Tinplate" line (Std. Gauge and O gauge) under license from Lionel. 

3. Lionel, which has indeed undergone a variety of ownership changes over its 111-year history, still enjoys a commanding share of the O gauge market. 


It appears that MTH is planning to phase itself out of Large Scale in favor of its more recent focus on their HO and European O gauge/scale lines. 


Allan, 

I stand corrected, thank you. I live a few minutes from their headquarters in Columbia MD, and I thought by its size it was a manufacturing facility. 

My other point though was their reasonable prices plus breadth of product line (in #1 gauge). In my mind, if they can do it, so can B'mann.

So even though I can't use their stuff, it's dismaying to hear that they're shrinking their offerings, rather than expanding them (e.g., into robust outdoor equipment, and scales we are used to). Bummer. 

BTW, I emailed them a few days ago, inquiring whether they are considering going in that direction. Most likely not, but what the heck. No response yet, but I'll post it if they do.

Regards,
Cliff


----------



## Allan W. Miller (Jan 2, 2008)

Cliff: I have no inside information regarding their future plans for their Large Scale trains, but am just speculating based on their "factory direct sales" initiative and other second-hand information. I could be wrong--and hope I am--but it just seems to me that they are heading in that direction. Back when they were just considering getting into Large Scale (about the time I was working on my garden railroading book), I tried to gently caution them about the selection of 1:32, even though that is the correct scale for modeling standard gauge on 45mm track. There simply was so much 1:29 scale stuff around at that time (just as today), and going head-to-head in that size with a quality product seemed to me to be a more logical course to follow.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

MTH kinda shot themselves in the foot by going 1/32, I mean for all the trouble they put up with going toe to toe again 1/29, they might as well have gone F scale and made code 332 70.6mm gauge track, they would have cornered the market.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

The one thing Large Scale model Railroaders do not care about is accurate scale to gauge ratios. 
MTH kinda shot themselves in the foot like LGB did, by only offering their models equipped with a proprietary control systems, when the punters wanted them sans controls and sound so they could fit whatever they wanted themselves. 

LGB realised too late what a big mistake they had made and went back to making their equipment flexible. Now it seems, it is the turn of MTH to fall over, largely for the same reason. 

With all their faults, at least AristoCraft have been smart enough to make their products flexible enough to use pretty well anything by way of power and sound. 
All AristoCraft really need to do is make the wiring in the locos consistently the same and improve their level of QC.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Allan W. Miller on 15 Aug 2011 04:54 PM 
Cliff: I have no inside information regarding their future plans for their Large Scale trains, but am just speculating based on their "factory direct sales" initiative and other second-hand information. I could be wrong--and hope I am--but it just seems to me that they are heading in that direction. Back when they were just considering getting into Large Scale (about the time I was working on my garden railroading book), I tried to gently caution them about the selection of 1:32, even though that is the correct scale for modeling standard gauge on 45mm track. There simply was so much 1:29 scale stuff around at that time (just as today), and going head-to-head in that size with a quality product seemed to me to be a more logical course to follow 
I have heard the same 'rumblings' for a while now that MTH is getting out of Large Scale completely and will only offer the smaller scales, same as Brawa, their entry into Large Scale only lasted a few short years.


And I also agree that MTH should have gone with 1:29 scale when they started in Large Scale but the equipment would have had to be a bit less "tin-plate' like for my taste.
Gauge 1 1:32 equipment seems to be much more prototypical, more geared towards indoor layouts and much more expensive like the Marklin Gauge 1, Dingler, the old Huebner and a bunch of others - can't even think of a large manufacturer of 1:32 scale trains that has a solid market position in the US.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 15 Aug 2011 05:33 PM 
LGB realised too late what a big mistake they had made and went back to making their equipment flexible.
That had really nothing to do with their bankruptcy.

The "old" LGB actually offered a few items three ways - pure analogue, with a Decoder interface and also with a built in decoder, so they had a pretty good handle on what customers wanted.

One big issue I still see with Large Scale in that area is that there was never a viable stadardized Large Scale decoder interface that all Large Scale manufactures would use in their equipment if they did provide a decoder interface.

USA Trains still doesn't provide any type of decoder interface in any of their locos - the one Aristocraft uses is proprietary, so is the one LGB uses.
In a German magazine I read just recently that there is some new "standard" Large Scale decoder interface but I didn't follow up on that to see if it's real.


I don't really understand why it seems so difficult for the industry to come up with a standardized Large Scale decoder interface - not that there haven't been a few attempts to do so.

I guess Large Scale manufacturers are all pig-headed and want their current proprietary interface to become the "standard" - I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. There are many, many more H0 and N-scale manufacturers than Large Scale and they all use one of the standardized decoder interfaces.

getting off track here, so I better shut up.

Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 

Yes: 
*The "old" LGB actually offered a few items three ways - pure analogue, with a Decoder interface and also with a built in decoder, so they had a pretty good handle on what customers wanted. 
*
Then in their "wisdom" LGB made it mandatory that DCC decoders were fitted to pretty well all of what they offered RTR. 
After awhile they realised that this was a big time mistake and went back to the more sensible way of doing it like they did earlier. 
Then they went broke. 
Work it out yourself. 

BTW, the PnP socket used by AristoCraft was designed by them and Digitrax may years ago. It has since been adopted by Bachmann, albeit wired back to front to the the way the AC one is wired. So it is hardly proprietary.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony, 

We seem to have different ideas what "proprietary" means; just because a couple of manufacturers use the samesocket doesn't make something non-proprietary. To me the item has to be an industry standard with a detailed publicly available specification to qualify as "non-proprietary. 
The Kiss Large Scale locos include a DCC connector that that accepts an ESU Large Scale decoder, same as Aristocraft accepting the Digitrax one, but that doesn't make that Kiss/ESU DCC connector "non-proprietary" in my mind - it's still very much manufacture specific. 
I didn't know that Bachmann has adapted the Aristocraft decoder interface, not sure what you mean by wirde back to front, can a Digitrax decoder designed for the Aristocraft connector actually plug into a bachmann engine and everything works the way it should? 
Digitrax doesn't think so: 
http://www.digitrax.com/decsel.php#G 

Are there any other Large Scale decoders from any other manufacturer that plug into the "Aristocraft" interface? 
Digitrax has exactly one it seems - that's it. 
Not very "non-proprietary in my books. 

As to LGB - yeah, the perception was that most of the LGB locos had on-board DCC decoders, but I went through an LGB catalog a few years back to check that and at that time just less than half the locos came with an on-board decoder. 
I just looked through the 2010 LGB catalog and of the 36 powered units offered that year, 16 come with an on-board decoder - still pretty much the same ratio as before, a bit less than half. 
Most of the locos without an on-board decoder provide a decoder interface that an LGB decoder will plug into directly - really no different in concept than the Aristo/Digitrax arrangement. 
But in addition one can also buy adapter boards to use other manufactures decoders like Zimo or Massoth, so that arrangement is even more flexible than the Aristo PnP connector but I still wouldn't call it non-proprietary. 

Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

When AristoCraft implemented the DigiTrax co-designed socket, they got it wrong. The pins were a mirror image which meant the common + and common - were wrong. This caused no end of problems the only solution for which seemed to be to bend one pin out of the way. 
When Bachmann were designing the PnP socket for the K-27 Stan Ames sent me the papers he had prepared for approval by the NMRA so that I could design my PnP ESC to suit. There was also a heavier duty version of the design. 
For whatever reason, the proposal for NMRA approval never went ahead. 
Bachmann reversed the motor output pins and lighting output pins relative to the AristoCraft socket. That means if you set up an ESC to suit an AristoCraft loco the direction and lighting pins have to be reversed for Bachmann locos. 

Given that it got as close as nearly being reviewed for approval by the NMRA I would say it was non proprietary. Even though the two main users implemented the design differently.


----------



## Allan W. Miller (Jan 2, 2008)

from krs: And I also agree that MTH should have gone with 1:29 scale when they started in Large Scale but the equipment would have had to be a bit less "tin-plate' like for my taste. 

I'm not sure how you came up with the "tinplate like" observation. The MTH Large Scale (1:32) trains I've seen are most definitely not "tinplate like" in any respect as far as I can tell. They do manufacture a large and growing line of tinplate Standard Gauge and O gauge trains for operation on 3-rail track (under the name Lionel Corporation Tinplate), but those are entirely different than their 1 Gauge offerings.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

There are some of us that LIKE the correct 1:32 scale trains. There are plenty of manufacturers doing the 1:29 off scale stuff, so I see no reason to criticize MTH for doing to right. All that would do is reducing sales for the other manufactures. Maybe putting them out of Large Scale , Which is fine with me I buy their OOSS. Now go off and run your SG looks like NG trains, and leave the scale model trains alone.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Allan, 
Knut was quite possibly referring to the swiveling pilots/couplers mounted on the trucks of diesels. They do look a bit "tin plate" like. 
What he may not have realised is, I believe they could be mounted on the chassis instead. 

I'm with you Jeff. 
Scale proportions are always better. Not necessarily scale flanges on scale wheels, but certainly the basic dimensions. 
You don't find too many scale model collectors buying non scale models.


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

This topic has kind of gotten off track from the original question, but I like the discussion. 

I think Tony hit the nail on the head about MTH. I like thier product, but it makes me mad that I can only run their product "effectively" if I use their proprietary system. MTH has ventured into HO market and their equipment is nothing like that. You can use all their features with most any system. I watched one of thier new HO cab forwards run through its paces on the club layout, we use NCE. Why has MTH been so strict on large scale??? I blame them partially for there not being a real good, simple smoke system in large scale. From what I've gathered, no one has developed a simple system for fear of getting sued by MTH because it might be close to their system. Which is really nice, but again I gotta use the MTH system to run it. 

Something else that makes Large scale hard to nail down. How many scales do we have in this area, 1:22.5, 1:20.3, 1:29 1:32? It makes a manufacturor hard to nail down what they are going to produce. 

The reality, the NMRA is dropping the ball here. In all other scales they have worked to create a standard. We all know what HO scale is, we also know what O scale is or even On30. In large scale there are too many. The scales do not need to be eliminated, but they need to be separated. We dont refer HO, N, Z as small scale. We refer to them as their scale nomencature. I know that the NMRA started with the F scale nomencature, but they didnt go far enough. I model Fn3, but we all call it 1:20.3. If I tell people I model Fn3, most have no idea what I'm talking about. The NMRA needs to take the lead here. 

The universal pnp for DCC that Bachmann submitted to the NMRA...HO, N and O all have it. That is a step in the right direction, standarization of stuff. All the other scales have it. Why not large scale? It should be easier to standarize because there are a lot less players in the game. Where has the proposal gone? Is the NMRA dragging their feet? I have no idea, but I can say that it needs to get done. 

I have to admit, having been in HO for many years, I was confused on scale of large scale and I refered to it as G scale for a long time. There was so many I didnt at first understand the diffference and why. I still dont understand the why. Again, NMRA needs to take the lead on this. There shouldnt be a why. 

As far as price goes, it sucks that stuff is so high. But large scale is not the only one. Have you priced the new HO locomotives on the market. I just bought an Blackstone HOn3 C-19, I paid $425. That was sound equiped, but the non sound is around $325. That cost is not far off from large scale considering the size. And I see other HO models for much higher prices. 

In the end the manufactures are in business. Business is just that, it is not about trying to make people happy without turning a profit. In this economy it is hard to turn a profit, until it turns around we wont see new products, just re-releases. Its the only way to sell product without a lot of cost in it. As the economy turns around, and it will, then the manufactures will start to product more stuff. But it will always be based on the amount of extra money in the pocket of the consumer.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

The first time I saw MTH Large Scale trains was at the Garden Railroad convention in Cincinnati quite a few years ago. 
At the time we borrowed sone cars from Aristocraft and USA Trains and coupled them to the MTH locos that were running in a loop at the MTH stand to see how MTH equipment would fit into the existing Large Scale rolling stock people had already. 
The scale was a pretty obvious problem but somehow the appearance of the MTH locos reminded people of the old Lionel tin-plate trains, MTH just didn't seem to fit in with the Aristocraft and USA Trains euipment - thus my comment. 
I don't know what MTH's marketing strategy was or if they even had one. But if they wanted to play in the Large Scale standard Gauge Market, not matching the existing scale even if it is wrong and overall appearance was definitely a mistake in my opinion. 
Although I know quite a few people who run MTH along with 1/29 equipment and are happy doing so, I think their sales would have been much, much higher than they actually were. 
MTH received a large, multi-million dollar influx of cash because of the lawsuit they won against Lionel so their business model is distorted and it seems no reality has caught up with them if they actually do get out of the Large Scale market. 
The only other manufacturer in Large Scale that I can think of that offered 1/32 equipment was MDC and we know what happened to them. Some Piko items are in 1/32 (old MDC molds) and those items are very poor sellers. 
Don't know if any of the other now defunct manufacturers used 1/32 scale, I think 'Great Trains' by American Standard Car Company was. 
Sure, 1/32 scale would have been preferred for SG Garden Railroads but that is not where the market is at - most people running that scale/gauge run more prototypically correct trains indoors. 

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 15 Aug 2011 10:23 PM 
Given that it got as close as nearly being reviewed for approval by the NMRA I would say it was non proprietary. Even though the two main users implemented the design differently. 
Tony,

I had to chuckle when I read that.
We have a saying "Close only counts in horse-shoes (the game).

Seems we have to agree to disagree on the proprietary (or not) aspect of the Aristocraft interface.


What I remember about Stan Ames' very valiant effort to bring the Large Scale industry and users together to agree on a Large Scale DCC interface were a lot of objections by the battery folks that the connector proposal didn't take their needs into account and then there was also the technical issue of current carrying capacity of the actual connector chosen - using multiple pins in parallel o increase current carrying capacity is just not a proper acceptable technical solution.

I thought that patient dies on the operating table, didn't realize that it went as far as being 'nearly reviewed' by NMRA.


I guess I never followed that activity right to the end.

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By jake3404 on 16 Aug 2011 09:10 AM 
I have to admit, having been in HO for many years, I was confused on scale of large scale and I refered to it as G scale for a long time. There was so many I didnt at first understand the diffference and why.
Very good post overall in my opinion.

As to how we got to where we are, running different scales on the same gauge track and calling it "G" (or even some other terms) - if you look at the history from the early LGB days in 1968 with narrow gauge "toy" trains marketed as 1:22.5 scale meter gauge (which is actually a valid and recognized scale/gauge combination) to 3-ft narrow gauge to 1:24 scale equipment, then Standard Gauge 1:29 scale equipment, the 1:20.3 scale equipment, you can see that it was all a normal, typical evolution but with the drivers being business focussed with the scale/gauge modeling aspect taking a back seat.

I know some people blame the NMRA for not taking an active role in Large Scale much earlier but I don't think anyone in the Model Railroad industry expected for Large Scale to take off as it did. For some period a few years back, Large Scale sales exceeded 10% of the Model Train market.

Standardizing anything in Large Scale now will be tough because each manufacturer will defend his choice of component or parameter. This may be what 'killed' the standard DCC interface initiative - NMRA couldn't get a consensus of the major players since as Tony so nicely explained, everyone ended up doing 'own thing'.


Knut


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 07:59 AM 
There are some of us that LIKE the correct 1:32 scale trains. There are plenty of manufacturers doing the 1:29 off scale stuff, so I see no reason to criticize MTH for doing to right. All that would do is reducing sales for the other manufactures. Maybe putting them out of Large Scale , Which is fine with me I buy their OOSS. Now go off and run your SG looks like NG trains, and leave the scale model trains alone. 
I might of missed this in the posts and am not sure why Jeff did not mention Aster as one with offerings mainly in the 1:32 scale (so Japanese models 1:30 and a few other variants). Aster is high quality, well detailed high end offerings of live steam(/electric) models since 1975. If one wants to see a proper steam locomotive then click on the site link below:

Aster USA 


BTW- deadline for final orders on the UP Challenger is Sept. 9th.


Here is a company that does not produce product in China.

As for running indoors..... Aster Bigboy


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Jake, In large scale we are all running on gauge one track, Unlike all the model train scales (HO,N, Z), you referenced I'll stick to North American offerings here, We are representing 2' NG, 3' NG and 4'-8 1/2" Standard gauge , on gauge one tracks ( 1:13, 1:20.3, 1:32) MTH correctly identifies their product as ONE GAUGE and marks everything 1:32 They want their customer to know what they are buying. So many manufactures just mark the box "G" which must stands for GUESS the scale. 

Knut, You stated: "The only other manufacturer in Large Scale that I can think of that offered 1/32 equipment was MDC and we know what happened to them." While MDC cars were not very good scale or quality products. For a long time they were the only thing not grossly oversized. Then came along MTH One Gauge and Accucraft with there very nicely detailed 1:32 offerings, there are also a few companies out there doing some brass in 1:32. These are scale model not Toy Trains. You could call a scale model a toy train but in most cases a toy train is not a scale model. There are many examples of the 1:32 vs 1:29. Look at American Flyer vs Modern "S" gauge & Lionel vs "O" scale.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Jeff, 
If I'm reading your posts correctly the ONLY thing that makes 1:29 a toy train (compared to a scale model) is the track gauge? So if theoretically some one was to model, or manufacturer a correct 1:29 gauge track then suddenly 1:29 would be considered a scale model? Just wondering? Further more if you wish to claim that any scale 1.20.3-1:32 is a scale model then why don't people use prototypical sized rail? Isn't the track a model too? 
In HO we have moved from code 100 (way oversized, could be compared to 332 in my opinion) to people starting to model using code 55 or smaller. And I don't want to hear people say its outside so we can't use small rail. 
Craig


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Charles, I failed to mention Aster because I was thinking more about rolling stack as opposed to motive power.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 10:45 AM 

Jake, In large scale we are all running on gauge one track, Unlike all the model train scales (HO,N, Z), you referenced I'll stick to North American offerings here, We are representing 2' NG, 3' NG and 4'-8 1/2" Standard gauge , on gauge one tracks ( 1:13, 1:20.3, 1:32) MTH correctly identifies their product as ONE GAUGE and marks everything 1:32 They want their customer to know what they are buying. So many manufactures just mark the box "G" which must stands for GUESS the scale. 

Knut, You stated: "The only other manufacturer in Large Scale that I can think of that offered 1/32 equipment was MDC and we know what happened to them." While MDC cars were not very good scale or quality products. For a long time they were the only thing not grossly oversized. Then came along MTH One Gauge and Accucraft with there very nicely detailed 1:32 offerings, there are also a few companies out there doing some brass in 1:32. These are scale model not Toy Trains. You could call a scale model a toy train but in most cases a toy train is not a scale model. There are many examples of the 1:32 vs 1:29. Look at American Flyer vs Modern "S" gauge & Lionel vs "O" scale.


Jeff,

I was limiting my comments specifically to "Large Scale" trains. 

For me, "Large Scale" does not include Scale 1 equipment (or of course the other scales you mentioned) by definition.
Large Scale is anything that runs on 45mm track that is not 1 scale (Why call 1-Scale "Large Scale", 1-Scale has been around for a ****'s age and has always been (well for many years anyway, 1"32 scale trains running on 45mm track.


Aster and Accucraft (in 1:32) are at a different price point than 1:29 scale Large Scale, different market segment; Accucraft have come out with 1:29 scale equipment, I would call that Large Scale and I assume the Accucraft pricing reflects that, MTH, again in my opinion, is sort of a cross between the two - the models I relate to "Large Scale" rugged and suitable for outdoor operation, not as finely detailed as Scale 1 equipment, also priced to compete in the Large Scale market, but then they decided to use 1:32 scale which sort of makes them unique in the Large Scale arena.


I guess it's all a matter of definition of "Large Scale" - I think in that area, the NMRA definition is pretty good.

Knut


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Craig, Point 1, Yes I am referencing the model vs track gauge. When viewed straight on from front or rear, 1:29 looks more like a NG then it does SG. And no I would never consider a 1:29 that runs on gauge one track a scale model. A 1:29 scale model will be on 1.95" gauge track. 
This is not the only thing, look at the gigantic couplers they hang on them? whats up with that? 
Point 2, Many have gone down to code 250 or code 215 for outdoor use, going any smaller becomes impractical . Not sure what is commercially available in gauge one. However one can hand lay track in much smaller code rail. The other factor is material. 
Let me know how you HO track ( code 55) holds up when you walk on it? Remember the old LGB ads with the elephant standing on the track? again they were toy trains.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 16 Aug 2011 10:54 AM 
Jeff, 
If I'm reading your posts correctly the ONLY thing that makes 1:29 a toy train (compared to a scale model) is the track gauge? So if theoretically some one was to model, or manufacturer a correct 1:29 gauge track then suddenly 1:29 would be considered a scale model? Just wondering? Further more if you wish to claim that any scale 1.20.3-1:32 is a scale model then why don't people use prototypical sized rail? Isn't the track a model too? 
In HO we have moved from code 100 (way oversized, could be compared to 332 in my opinion) to people starting to model using code 55 or smaller. And I don't want to hear people say its outside so we can't use small rail. 
Craig 
"It's outside so we can't use smaller rail".................Couldn't resist.

Actually, I find that more and more people in Large Scale are moving to smaller code rail - code 250 is catching on, maybe more so in Europe than here, but a friend of mine in Canada actually uses code 215 rail specially designed to allow for the very large flanges of typical outdoor equipment.
Code 250 and code 215 rail would both be prototypically correct size-wise I believe - no need to go smaller for 1:22.5 scale trains that I run.

Knut


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut, Most have considered Gauge One part of "large scale" but if you want to exempt them thats fine, but you included them (MTH and others) in the earlier posts. I am one of many who put their 1:32 rolling stock behind my Aster live steam engines.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 11:20 AM 
Craig, Point 1, Yes I am referencing the model vs track gauge. When viewed straight on from front or rear, 1:29 looks more like a NG then it does SG. And no I would never consider a 1:29 that runs on gauge one track a scale model. A 1:29 scale model will be on 1.95" gauge track. 
This is not the only thing, look at the gigantic couplers they hang on them? whats up with that? 
Point 2, Many have gone down to code 250 or code 215 for outdoor use, going any smaller becomes impractical . Not sure what is commercially available in gauge one. However one can hand lay track in much smaller code rail. The other factor is material. 
Let me know how you HO track ( code 55) holds up when you walk on it? Remember the old LGB ads with the elephant standing on the track? again they were toy trains. 
Jeff, 
I wasn't trying to refer to 1:29 running on 45mm track. If fact that was my point if 1:29 was on the correct track/gauge combination it still in your mind would be a toy train? That seems to be a bias, is it not? As for couplers I would agree, we all need 1:20.3-1:32 correctly scaled and prototypical working couplers. Time will come. Kadee is just know starting to work on that but has a long way to go (we need type E, F upper and lower shelf, & H). 

My point 2. I wasn't suggesting that you walk on code 55 rail or any other rail. I was simply pointing out that any scale if they do not use the correct rail height should also be considered a toy train (again this falls under my assumption that you believe 1:29 is not a scale model when removed from the track). But each to his own. 

Personally I would like to try and build some 1.95" track using scale rail and 45 mm using 332 and see the visual difference. It would be interesting.

(As a side note I'm using 215 rail for my layout because it represents 100-110lb rail that was used on the subdivision that I'm modeling. I would like to try something smaller like 197 or even 180 (equal to 90lb rail)

Craig


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Craig, you asked if the 1:29 was a determining factor of toy vs scale model? no not at all, just put a correct gauge wheel set under it ( and change the couplers ) then you could look at it and determine what you want to consider a given product. Does it measure up to YOUR standards for a scale model, or is it a toy train? My guess is if you go through the trouble to hand lay scale 1:29 track, very little of the 1:29 offerings are going to meet your standards without some major kitbashing! 

My real point here is these manufactures chose the 1:29 for the WOW factor, well that great if you market is 5 to 10 year old kids, but now you have excluded your self from the scale modeler. They ( manufactures of 1:29 products) have split the SG market into two camps, I can not think of any other move that has done more to hurt the large scale hobby. NG looks like it is moving toward the correct 1:20.3 away from 1:24 and what ever other odd scales are out there. 

Gauge one ( 1:32) is NOT going to go away, it's been around for over 100 years and many other gauges have come and gone. There is a reason you don't see $5000. engines in 1:29, if your going to spend big money, you want it right.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 11:29 AM 
Knut, Most have considered Gauge One part of "large scale" but if you want to exempt them thats fine, but you included them (MTH and others) in the earlier posts. I am one of many who put their 1:32 rolling stock behind my Aster live steam engines. 
I distinguish between Scale 1 and Large Scale because they are not the same and not fully interchangeable.
It also doesn't make sense to me to have two different scale/gauge designators for the same scale and gauge.


Interestingly enough, I just looked at the NMRA standards pages and the Alpha-Numeric scale name "1" has disappeared completely which is rather strange.
On the Proto model page NMRA calls it "Proto:32, on the "Standards" page (S-1.2) NMRA goes directly from O to LS and then to F.
On that page, there is a note that MOROP maintains other popular scale standards, they mention N0. II as an example, I assume Scale 1 or I falls into the same category. 


I include MTH in the LS category since that's what it is, larger flanges, designed to run on larger rails, meant for outdoor operation (or indoor).
Equipment like the Marklin Gauge 1 equipment on the other hand is 1-Scale, not really meant to run outside, not as rugged as LS, less detail, much smaller flanges that won't pick up track power at the edge of the flanges when running yhrough an insulated frog - also a different price category.
Other differences between LS and scale 1 would include the maximum DC voltage the locos are designed for and the minimum radius the can navigate 

So to me, it's not just the scale itself that is the distinguishing factor between LS and 1 scale, but other parameters as well.

Brawa was another company that failed to see the difference.
They came up with very detailed models in Large Scale, those were RhB in 1:22.5 scale to run on 45mm track, but they were not suited for the Large Scale environment and after a many customer complaints and poor sales they packed it in again after a few years and got out of the Large Scale arena.

Knut


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

I can not speak for the international community, but in North America, Gauge One is considered part of the Large Scale/Garden Railroad community, But Small Scale in terms of our Live Steam.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 16 Aug 2011 01:20 PM 
Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 11:29 AM 
Knut, Most have considered Gauge One part of "large scale" but if you want to exempt them thats fine, but you included them (MTH and others) in the earlier posts. I am one of many who put their 1:32 rolling stock behind my Aster live steam engines. 
I distinguish between Scale 1 and Large Scale because they are not the same and not fully interchangeable.
It also doesn't make sense to me to have two different scale/gauge designators for the same scale and gauge.


Interestingly enough, I just looked at the NMRA standards pages and the Alpha-Numeric scale name "1" has disappeared completely which is rather strange.
On the Proto model page NMRA calls it "Proto:32, on the "Standards" page (S-1.2) NMRA goes directly from O to LS and then to F.
On that page, there is a note that MOROP maintains other popular scale standards, they mention N0. II as an example, I assume Scale 1 or I falls into the same category. 


I include MTH in the LS category since that's what it is, larger flanges, designed to run on larger rails, meant for outdoor operation (or indoor).
Equipment like the Marklin Gauge 1 equipment on the other hand is 1-Scale, not really meant to run outside, not as rugged as LS, less detail, much smaller flanges that won't pick up track power at the edge of the flanges when running yhrough an insulated frog - also a different price category.
Other differences between LS and scale 1 would include the maximum DC voltage the locos are designed for and the minimum radius the can navigate 

So to me, it's not just the scale itself that is the distinguishing factor between LS and 1 scale, but other parameters as well.

Brawa was another company that failed to see the difference.
They came up with very detailed models in Large Scale, those were RhB in 1:22.5 scale to run on 45mm track, but they were not suited for the Large Scale environment and after a many customer complaints and poor sales they packed it in again after a few years and got out of the Large Scale arena.

Knut 


Knut
"Equipment like the Marklin Gauge 1 equipment on the other hand is 1-Scale, not really meant to run outside, not as rugged as LS, less detail, much smaller flanges that won't pick up track power at the edge of the flanges when running yhrough an insulated frog - also a different price category."

Please better education yourself about gauge one. Here is a list of meets on annual basis that we run outdoors but do so in all types of weather:

PLS (4 Sunday of each month)
NJLS (one a month)
I&EW twice a year
SR&W annually
Tuckahoe(annually) for four days




As to fine scale running outdoor (electric included in our experience on a ground layout with Aster) we have run the finest of fine scale with Fine Arts Models:GG1, M1a along with Samhongsa N &W J611.

So, debunk the concept that gauge one quality and highly detailed locomotive cannot run in the environment of 1:29, that is non-sense!

Finally, introduce yourself to G1MRA and the "true" meaning of a "garden railway" as there has been ongoing backyard garden running gauge one for much longer than you might image. 

G1MRA 


There is little doubt that a Gauge One Model Railway is the perfect place to run live-steam scenic models. Most locos are fuelled by methylated (meths) spirits, but coal is practicable and impressive and butane gas firing has a strong following too. The sheer pleasure of running a loco that really resembles its full size brother is a thrill that cannot be described, but has to be experienced! It is not just the running of course, the preparation, maintenance and performance improvement adds to the fascination.
The best place for a Live Steam Gauge One Model Railway is undoubtedly the *Garden*. Layouts can be as simple or complex as the builder wishes or can afford. Simple single track arrangements give much pleasure and fellow members in your locality are always happy to advise the novice and maybe lend a hand with the construction and maintenance. But don’t think that it’s just live steam; electric propulsion is very popular in two rail, stud-contact and on-board rechargeable battery formats. Electric operation is gaining interest for indoor exhibition running, with a number of layouts being developed.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Given that I, as much as anyone else, am guilty of derailing this thread, I guess I should bring it back in line. 

The one thing we did not mention earlier is the likely fate of the (relatively) highly priced Gauge One and 1:20.3 NG models. 
Currently the majority of the all metal models are made in China. 
The expertise to make these models has been developed over the years and I believe it is unlikely that the production of them will be moving anywhere else. 
Whilst the sale of these models will likely fall from a not very high base anyway, there is always a quite reasonable market for them Worldwide. I doubt the slight drop, if any drop at all, in sales will deter the Chinese makers. Unlike injected moulded and die cast models, fabricated brass models, either live steam or electric, do not require huge numbers of sales to make them profitable. 
They are being sold into a small discerning market, a market that has been, and will probably always, be around. Worldwide. 
This brand and type loyalty extends to Aster as well as the bigger selling Accucraft models.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmm.... 

Ames Super Socket, LGB banktruptcy, Brawa pulling out of the LS market, no new 1:22.5/1:24 outline US products, battery, proprietary DCC/control, battery power, 215/250 code rail, small vs large layouts, high prices, production in China vs. US, HLW being bulletproof, economy, 1:29 Vs. 1:32, live steam Vs. sparkies, MTH lawsuit, Lionel... 

...if someone can add the dislike for eBay and PayPal, shipping costs, spamers and someone's health issues, this single thread would cover about every topic ever posted on MLS!


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Garrett, 
I'd hate to admit it, but I think you might be right! LOL 
Craig


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 04:32 PM 
Hmm.... 

Ames Super Socket, LGB banktruptcy, Brawa pulling out of the LS market, no new 1:22.5/1:24 outline US products, battery, proprietary DCC/control, battery power, 215/250 code rail, small vs large layouts, high prices, production in China vs. US, HLW being bulletproof, economy, 1:29 Vs. 1:32, live steam Vs. sparkies, MTH lawsuit, Lionel... 

...if someone can add the dislike for eBay and PayPal, shipping costs, spamers and someone's health issues, this single thread would cover about every topic ever posted on MLS! 
Errr....you forgot the Newqida hyper-foaming LOL


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Well it IS in the "public forum" section...


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 16 Aug 2011 02:17 PM
Please better education yourself about gauge one. Here is a list of meets on annual basis that we run outdoors but do so in all types of weather:

PLS (4 Sunday of each month)
NJLS (one a month)
I&EW twice a year
SR&W annually
Tuckahoe(annually) for four days

As to fine scale running outdoor (electric included in our experience on a ground layout with Aster) we have run the finest of fine scale with Fine Arts Models:GG1, M1a along with Samhongsa N &W J611.

So, debunk the concept that gauge one quality and highly detailed locomotive cannot run in the environment of 1:29, that is non-sense!



I never said that Gauge 1 quality and highly detailed locos *cannot* run outdoors, I said they are not meant to be run outdoors.
Big difference.

I have seen outdoor H0 layouts, but the smaller the scale and the more prototypical the track and equipment the harder it is to run reliably in an outdoor environment where nature stays at scale 1:1.

With ,ich smaller prototypical flanges for instance and much smaller railheads, the track has to be kept more level rail to rail and small imperfections in the track geometry or small pebbles in the track can cause derailments whereas "Large Scale" trains with deeper flanges running on code 332 or code 250 rail would just ignore.


The equipment itself is much more rugged, paint finishes are UV stabilized, that's the type of things I'm thinking of when I said that Scale 1 trains are *not meant to be run outside*.

The biggest problem Brawa had with their Garden trains was that they were simply not rugged enough - they went for the fine detailing common in Scale 1 (even though their trains were scale 2, even larger) and they finally withdrew from the Large Scale market.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 01:51 PM 
I can not speak for the international community, but in North America, Gauge One is considered part of the Large Scale/Garden Railroad community......


What makes you say that?
NMRA is as North American as you can get in model railroading and they do not include Scale 1 in thdeir definition of Large Scale.
BTW - you said "Gauge One", let's not mix up scale and gauge....... this happens a lot in Large Scale, probably because the track gauge in Large Scale stays constant at 45mm and the scale of the trains varies whereas with all the other model railroad scales the opposite is true, the scale stays the same (for each designator, Z, N, H0, S etc) and the track gauge varies which is the way it should really be since that is what happens with the prototype.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 04:32 PM 
Hmm.... 

Ames Super Socket, LGB banktruptcy, Brawa pulling out of the LS market, no new 1:22.5/1:24 outline US products, battery, proprietary DCC/control, battery power, 215/250 code rail, small vs large layouts, high prices, production in China vs. US, HLW being bulletproof, economy, 1:29 Vs. 1:32, live steam Vs. sparkies, MTH lawsuit, Lionel... 

...if someone can add the dislike for eBay and PayPal, shipping costs, spamers and someone's health issues, this single thread would cover about every topic ever posted on MLS! 
True enough - but in a sense that's also the fun in Large Scale.
I don't think that wide a range of topics would apply to any of the smaller scales.


I mean in which other scale can you have a gauge vs scale discussion, or are still struggling on and off to come up with a viable decoder socket, or argue about different scales?
H0 is a scale of 1:87.1, end of story, for other even minor scale differences a new designator was invented - scale 1:76.2 for instance is called 00 scale.

In "Large Scale" we happily combine a wide variety of different scales and the designator suddenly becomes the track gauge rather than the scale. 


Knut


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

NMRA is as North American as you can get in model railroading and they do not include Scale 1 in thdeir definition of Large Scale. 
Yes they do. The "Large Scale" standards for both "standard" and "hi-rail" cover all common large scale scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3. The NMRA decided to forego the alphabet soup that had previously been attempted at defining all the individual scales since the common denominator was the track. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 16 Aug 2011 07:51 PM 
Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 04:32 PM 
Hmm.... 

Ames Super Socket, LGB banktruptcy, Brawa pulling out of the LS market, no new 1:22.5/1:24 outline US products, battery, proprietary DCC/control, battery power, 215/250 code rail, small vs large layouts, high prices, production in China vs. US, HLW being bulletproof, economy, 1:29 Vs. 1:32, live steam Vs. sparkies, MTH lawsuit, Lionel... 

...if someone can add the dislike for eBay and PayPal, shipping costs, spamers and someone's health issues, this single thread would cover about every topic ever posted on MLS! 
True enough - but in a sense that's also the fun in Large Scale.
I don't think that wide a range of topics would apply to any of the smaller scales.


I mean in which other scale can you have a gauge vs scale discussion, or are still struggling on and off to come up with a viable decoder socket, or argue about different scales?
H0 is a scale of 1:87.1, end of story, for other even minor scale differences a new designator was invented - scale 1:76.2 for instance is called 00 scale.

In "Large Scale" we happily combine a wide variety of different scales and the designator suddenly becomes the track gauge rather than the scale. 


Knut 


Unfortunately no, guess again. 1:100 scale coaching stock for the European H0 guys to make it look better on small radia turns for starters....

....and if you get into FiNESCALE HO prototype modelling in the US, then you have some real "bi**h fests" over trivial details. Case in point "Atlas produced the GSC pulpwood racks in NC&StL markings but did not observe that these N&C cars built with GSC castings in the Nashville shops used the shorter ladder/grabs of the later GSC design".... I know because I wrote that statement for a publication a few years back documenting these cars. At least you could fix the Bowser covered hopper doors with less fuss....but every small USRA hopper ever made in HO is incorrect in panel size to allow for HO type truck swing, some are even off by a few scale inches!!!

But as you say Knut, it is the fun factor, why I gave up the finescale HO stuff excluding a few pet projects. Now I am honestly glad that the HLW loco I just bought is absolutely prototypically incorrect, so it will be fine at home on a European garden railway!


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 16 Aug 2011 08:48 PM 
NMRA is as North American as you can get in model railroading and they do not include Scale 1 in thdeir definition of Large Scale. 
Yes they do. The "Large Scale" standards for both "standard" and "hi-rail" cover all common large scale scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3.
Read the note about LS in NMRA Standard S-1.2 


_The term LS (Large Scales) is used to refer to range of scales developed to be able to
be operated together, typically in an outdoors setting, for example a garden. LS models
all use the same wheel and track profiles to facilitate interchange._

Scale 1 according to the NEM 120 standard calls for code 148 rail and the flange depth needs to be between 1.0 and 1.6mm


Large Scale equipment won't even run on code 148 rail or anything close to that and the flange depth of the typical Large Scale equipment is around 3.0mm.
I have actually measured some wheels as the cars come from the manufacturer as high as 3.5mm but 2.5 to 3.0mm is more typical.

So both Large Scale and Scale 1 can be 1:32 scale but the equipment is not interchangeable and won't even run reliably on the others trackwork.

I just looked at the various NMRA standards pages and I still can't find anything called scale 1.
They list all the others from Z all the way to O-scale but then the next scale is "LS" 


I'm not having much luck finding the NMRA spec for the code of the rails for #1 Scale.
For Fn3 they specify code 250 (S-3.2), but that is a totally different scale, about 60% larger so the rail height should be larger.


I think I'll give up, the updated NMRA standards trying to cover Large Scale just give me a headache,


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 09:07 PM 
Unfortunately no, guess again. 1:100 scale coaching stock for the European H0 guys to make it look better on small radia turns for starters....








I only remember these 1:100 scale coaches by a tiny handful of H0 manufacturers and only for a very short period of time.
Are you saying that these are still being manufactured?

In any case, I'm trying to look at the 'big picture' there will always be some anomalies like that.


Knut


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Here are the coaches, 1:87, 1:100, 1:93. etc:

http://www.marklin-users.net/forum/...-Piko.aspx

Roco may have discontinued the 1:100 according to some, but time will tell on other makers.

A lot of things get stretched in HO too,see my USRA hopper commnet, and a friend is still having fits with HO diesel frames, but a Canadian outfit is looking at scale traction motors in HO....Athern is slowly getting away from the wide body shells (buying RPP was a help).

Brass stuff was worse, compare the brass PRR R50Bs that were imported to the ones Walthers released...I have a brass baldwin H0 steam loco from Japan that scales out to closer to 1:70 than 1:87.

So yes, even HO is a bit "Gummi".


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 11:20 AM 
Many have gone down to code 250 or code 215 for outdoor use, going any smaller becomes impractical . Not sure what is commercially available in gauge one. 



Jeff - I'm surprised at you, Sir. Cliff Barker here in UK, who has an advertisement in every copy of the G1MRA NL&J since the year dot, makes Gauge 1 Code 180 track.

He also makes his track in either standard or finescale, brass, nickel silver or stainless steel, ready-made or in component form.

See - http://www.cliffbarker.me.uk/

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By krs on 16 Aug 2011 07:12 PM 
I never said that Gauge 1 quality and highly detailed locos *cannot* run outdoors, I said they are not meant to be run outdoors.
Knut 






Sir - I totally and unreservedly disagree with that statement Unless, of course, you live in a house that has spare rooms the size of a backyard.

Even Mr Stapleton is 'forced' to run his trains outside for lack of space in his house...that or your name happens to be Staver. Gauge 1 model trains have been run outdoors since the turn of the last century but one. Queen Victoria was still the Empress of India when Gauge 1 trains began running in gardens, and powered flight was years in the future. 

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 17 Aug 2011 12:24 AM 
Posted By East Broad Top on 16 Aug 2011 08:48 PM 
NMRA is as North American as you can get in model railroading and they do not include Scale 1 in thdeir definition of Large Scale. 
Yes they do. The "Large Scale" standards for both "standard" and "hi-rail" cover all common large scale scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3.
Read the note about LS in NMRA Standard S-1.2 


_The term LS (Large Scales) is used to refer to range of scales developed to be able to
be operated together, typically in an outdoors setting, for example a garden. LS models
all use the same wheel and track profiles to facilitate interchange._

Scale 1 according to the NEM 120 standard calls for code 148 rail and the flange depth needs to be between 1.0 and 1.6mm


Large Scale equipment won't even run on code 148 rail or anything close to that and the flange depth of the typical Large Scale equipment is around 3.0mm.
I have actually measured some wheels as the cars come from the manufacturer as high as 3.5mm but 2.5 to 3.0mm is more typical.

So both Large Scale and Scale 1 can be 1:32 scale but the equipment is not interchangeable and won't even run reliably on the others trackwork.

I just looked at the various NMRA standards pages and I still can't find anything called scale 1.
They list all the others from Z all the way to O-scale but then the next scale is "LS" 


I'm not having much luck finding the NMRA spec for the code of the rails for #1 Scale.
For Fn3 they specify code 250 (S-3.2), but that is a totally different scale, about 60% larger so the rail height should be larger.


I think I'll give up, the updated NMRA standards trying to cover Large Scale just give me a headache,

Knut
If you reference G1MRA and the established gauge one standards (world wide) then one can find specs:

G1MRA spec


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 17 Aug 2011 05:19 AM 

So yes, even HO is a bit "Gummi".

Thanks, Garrett

I haven't followed H0 since I switched from that to Large Scale (actually specifically IIm) in 1986.
Seems we have been a bit too hung up about "Gummi" in Large Scale.

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 17 Aug 2011 07:08 Sir - I totally and unreservedly disagree with that statement Unless, of course, you live in a house that has spare rooms the size of a backyard.

Even Mr Stapleton is 'forced' to run his trains outside for lack of space in his house...that or your name happens to be Staver. Gauge 1 model trains have been run outdoors since the turn of the last century but one. Queen Victoria was still the Empress of India when Gauge 1 trains began running in gardens, and powered flight was years in the future. 







Great - just lost my somewhat detailed post again with this shitty forum software.

In a nutshell - my comment if you go back to my post on that was about "Scale 1" not "Gauge 1", I also explained what makes a model train suitable for outdoor operation, UV resistant paint is one factor that I commented on in the post that I had typed and that just vanished.

"Gauge 1" trains are equivalent to "Large Scale" trains but that is not the same as "1 scale" trains - big difference all around.


I better post before this disappears on me as well. 


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 17 Aug 2011 07:09 AM I think I'll give up, the updated NMRA standards trying to cover Large Scale just give me a headache,

Knut
If you reference G1MRA and the established gauge one standards (world wide) then one can find specs:

G1MRA spec 


Charles -

There is nothing "world wide" about the G1MRA specs.
G1MRA is a UK organization - the specs they create carry no more weight than the specs any other club craetes foor their members.
There are two standards groups in the world that cover model railroads and tha is NMRA, North American focussed, and MOROP with the NEM specs which focuses on the rest of the world.
Those two organizations work together, NMRA refers users to MOROP for Scale II for instance.

If I look at the G1MRA spec page that you posted the link for - the parameters they specify don't match either NMRA or NEM specs.
And I'm sure if I did out the latest specs other clubs that run trains on gauge 45mm track, they won't match any of the previous specs either.

I just dug out my most recent USA Trains car and checked just one parameter, the flange depth - it's still 3mm whereas G1MRA specifies a maximum of 2mm - are any of the large LS manufacturers actually jumping on the G1MRA bandwagon?
That is: state that their equipment conforms to G1MRA specifications.


Knut


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 09:07 PM 

....and if you get into FiNESCALE HO prototype modelling in the US, then you have some real "bi**h fests" over trivial details. Case in point "Atlas produced the GSC pulpwood racks in NC&StL markings but did not observe that these N&C cars built with GSC castings in the Nashville shops used the shorter ladder/grabs of the later GSC design".... I know because I wrote that statement for a publication a few years back documenting these cars. At least you could fix the Bowser covered hopper doors with less fuss....but every small USRA hopper ever made in HO is incorrect in panel size to allow for HO type truck swing, some are even off by a few scale inches!!!





OH MY GOD! I came from HO narrow gauge (HOn30), wanna talk about anal retentiveness???? Some of those HOn3 guys are so tight a$$ed they crap Top Ramen. They make the HO guys look rational. Memories of this kind of *Insanity* is exactly WHY I now go out of my way to make stuff like this:










Just love waving stuff like this at those scale/prototype fanatic guys eyes, its a way of saying: hi guys, having fun yet? ....unfortunatly as they get older and when their eyes can no longer focus on building that rigidly correct scale brake wheel and undercarraige detail on an Nn3 RGS flatcar, they tend to migrate to LS, its one reason that 1/20.3 has seen such rapid growth in recent years, and also unfortunatly why alot of the "fun factor" that made LS so appealing to guys like me in the old days is going right out the window, replaced by the same stale conformity to scale/prototype that drove me away from the smaller scales. How else did the Aristo Connie end up with full flanged drivers? because Lewis said that was what people said they wanted, so they got it and a minimum radius requirement wider than God.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut, "my comment if you go back to my post on that was about "Scale 1" not "Gauge 1",,,, You are the ONLY one talking about "scale 1" Everyone else is referring to "gauge one" I think this is comparing apples to oranges? 

Tac, Guess I need to borrow someones copy of a G1MRA publication... then I'll know about this stuff.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Great looking loco. 

Looks perfectly prototypical and to scale to me. 

Nobody can argue otherwise until they find the prototype which probably no longer exists. 

A number of people in Germany are into that type of modelling - J. Zirner comes to mind, he occasionally posts here 

Knut


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 17 Aug 2011 06:45 AM 


Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 16 Aug 2011 11:20 AM 
Many have gone down to code 250 or code 215 for outdoor use, going any smaller becomes impractical . Not sure what is commercially available in gauge one. 



Jeff - I'm surprised at you, Sir. Cliff Barker here in UK, who has an advertisement in every copy of the G1MRA NL&J since the year dot, makes Gauge 1 Code 180 track.

He also makes his track in either standard or finescale, brass, nickel silver or stainless steel, ready-made or in component form.

See - http://www.cliffbarker.me.uk/

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/ 


Tac,


Thanks for the interesting information. That track work looks amazingly good. I can only strive to build a turnout that is not only functional, but seems to capture all the prototypical nuts, bults, etc! It 's an encouragement to anyone who wants to model scale track. To bad it's not American rail  As a side note does anyone know if anyone makes code 180 in American style rail head?
Craig


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 17 Aug 2011 09:14 AM 
Knut, "my comment if you go back to my post on that was about "Scale 1" not "Gauge 1",,,, You are the ONLY one talking about "scale 1" Everyone else is referring to "gauge one" I think this is comparing apples to oranges?


Jeff,

The message I'm trying to get across, and obviously failing miserably, is that Scale 1 and Gauge 1 trains are two different types of models, and I use the word model here loosely.


Scale 1 are models where the scale ratio is always 1:32 regardless of the track gauge. A NG Scale 1 model will still be at a scale ratio of 1:32 but the track gauge will be smaller than 45mm

Gauge 1 trains is actually rather strange terminology if you think about it. I assume it means any "model" (in quotation marks) that run on 45mm track regardless of scale.

Not a terminology used for any of the smaller model railroad scales - I think if someone was to refer to H0 gauge trains they would be corrected, H0 is a designator for a scale, not a gauge.

Knut


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Scale 1 according to the NEM 120 standard calls for code 148 rail and the flange depth needs to be between 1.0 and 1.6mm 

Large Scale equipment won't even run on code 148 rail or anything close to that and the flange depth of the typical Large Scale equipment is around 3.0mm. 
I have actually measured some wheels as the cars come from the manufacturer as high as 3.5mm but 2.5 to 3.0mm is more typical. 

So both Large Scale and Scale 1 can be 1:32 scale but the equipment is not interchangeable and won't even run reliably on the others trackwork. 

Knut, I'm familiar with MOROP's "Scale 1" standards (NEM 110, 120, and 310). They're finescale standards, much like the NMRA's "Proto:32" and G1MRA's "Fine Gauge 1" standards (and the values are somewhat similar, as well). Within the NMRA and G1MRA, there's absolutely ZERO presumption that wheels and track designed for the "proto" standards would be compatible with the respective groups' "standard" standards. That's precisely the reason _why_ there are multiple sets of standards within those two groups. So when you say most large scale equipment won't run on NEM "Scale 1" track, well, no. It's not designed to anymore than Lionel is supposed to be able to run on Proto48 track. 

I just looked at the various NMRA standards pages and I still can't find anything called scale 1. 
They list all the others from Z all the way to O-scale but then the next scale is "LS" 
You're not going to. That was intentional, since "#1 scale", AKA 1:32 is one of the many scales that run on 45mm track, and those are lumped universally under the "LS" heading. You'll find "Proto:32" for specific standards as they relate to 1:32 finescale (similar to your NEM standards) but that's it. ("F scale" has its own heading because of the emergence of 70mm standard gauge 1:20 models, and Fn3 specifically is a subset of that, though the "Fn3" and "LS" wheel and track standards are the same.) 

I'm not having much luck finding the NMRA spec for the code of the rails for #1 Scale 
Rail height doesn't enter the equation in any of the NMRA's standards. Even in the "Proto" standards, they don't specify rail heights, since rail heights varied greatly in the prototype. The "Wheel" standard in the 3.2 standards, while expressed in "code," relates to the width of the wheel. (i.e, an HO scale wheel is .110" wide, thus "code 110." Don't ask me why they did that; it _is_ strange). It is _not_ a standard rail height. Those don't exist anywhere in either the NMRA or G1MRA standards. 

Later, 

K


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 17 Aug 2011 06:45 AM Jeff - I'm surprised at you, Sir. Cliff Barker here in UK, who has an advertisement in every copy of the G1MRA NL&J since the year dot, makes Gauge 1 Code 180 track.

He also makes his track in either standard or finescale, brass, nickel silver or stainless steel, ready-made or in component form.

See - http://www.cliffbarker.me.uk/


Nice looking track but typical LS trains wo't run on that unless one changes all the wheel sets for ones with smaller flanges.
Not so easy for some equipment like steam locos and one also has a problem when friends come over to run their trains.


I have had new production of code 250 SS track for evaluation which couldn't handle standard LS wheel flanges because the simulated spikes were too high.
The code 215 track a friend of mine has which will handle standard 3mm deep flanges had special very short spikes on the inside of the rail to clear the deep flanges.

Cliff Barker states on his web site:

A maximum flange depth of 2.5 mm (without wheel coning) can be used.

Great that this is stated, I can't think of any high volume track manufacturer in LS or "One Gauge" that actually states the maximum wheel flange depth thats' usable with their track.


BTW - I just read in Greenberg that LGB made 12000 pieces of curved track rvery single day all year round back in 1986 - that's mind-boggling........ just a tid bit of info since we're miles off topic anyway.


Knut


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

You are inventing a whole new terminology - am I alone here in never having heard of your term 'scale 1'? To most folks I know, including my 2500 fellow members of the G1MRA that you so disparage, the term Gauge 1 also incoporates the 1/32nd/10mm scale that goes with that rail gauge of 45mm. 

Else it would be called the 'Scale 1 Model Railway Association' and not the 'Gauge 1 Model Railway Association'. 

Do me a favour and google 'Gauge 1' and see what you come up with. 

You are also missing MY point - Mr Barker's Gauge 1 track is intended for the use of the associated Gauge 1, 1/32nd or 10mm scale locomotives and rolling stock, and not for toy train flanges. It is also a fact that my 1/20.3 and 16mm models, both steam and electric, run over it very well - see many of my 80+ videos on Youtube. 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

am I alone here in never having heard of your term 'scale 1' 
Tac, I think Scale I and Scale II are common in Germany. LGB used to advertise it was "Scale IIm". Apparently Scale II is 'our' (the UK's) Gauge 3 or 1:22.5 - they just skipped Gauge 2 and renamed Gauge 3 to confuse things! 

But when you think about it, "Scale 1" makes a LOT more sense than assuming everyone knows Gauge One is 1/32nd scale.


----------



## pfdx (Jan 2, 2008)

To address the original question the answer should be broken down into a handful of questions:

Will production from tooling currently in China move to another nation? No.

Will additional tooling and production be moved to China? Possibly.

Will production begin in other "cheaper" nations as things progress? Yes.

It was explained to me several years ago that any investment in Chinese production be it monetary, equipment, tooling shipped to or made on site, production capacity or otherwise would be considered a complete write off if the product produced did not meet specifications or if the numbers didn't work out to an "acceptable profit. Anything that exists withing the boundaries of China belongs to the people and there is no legal recourse to sue for damages, return of property or if your Chinese business partners turn out to be corrupt. Because of this the profit margins had to be high to make the balance sheet work and maintain the requirements for companies to post profits and pay dividends.

The next question to ask is will production of large scale continue in any capacity? Yes.

Most likely it will continue on a decreasing pace until the economy does rebound. In that respect it will follow most of the other specialty markets with limited demand like many industrial products.

I do think that if and when the economy begins to grow we will see a larger number of small on shore manufactures begin to produce specialty products for niche markets including large scale.

To address the scale and gauge arguments, we are our own worst enemy, and be careful what you wish for. The development of 1:20.3 has produced a number of impressive models but it has deeply divided the market, effectively cutting off many of the older modelers who are heavily invested in 1:22.5 and sizing out the entry level and younger modelers who do not have the spare cash or the space required for the curves required by Fn3. So the loop around the Christmas tree doesn't fit in the living room anymore, and RC becomes very attractive because one has nothing invested in the space to play: a parking lot, a park with no trees and any duck pond.

And now a log (or gas) for the fire. How much different would the market be, ignoring the economy, if 1:20.3 had remained an oddity and manufactures had built properly scaled american 3 foot gauge on gauge one at 1:22.5? Would have maintaining the ability for a started set to circle the tree to slowly grow and convert the owner(s) into a model railroader without the current large investment to "get serious?" Or asking the question from another direction, how much damage has the "mine is bigger and more prototypical than yours" attitude done to the industry?

Seriously how many people on this board would realize the difference if a K-27 or otherwise was setting on meter gauge track? 

It's only 0.150" at 1:22.5... 


@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Let's move it to Greg E's garage, then everything would be perfect! ha ha


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 17 Aug 2011 10:24 AM 
am I alone here in never having heard of your term 'scale 1'
Tac, I think Scale I and Scale II are common in Germany. LGB used to advertise it was "Scale IIm". Apparently Scale II is 'our' (the UK's) Gauge 3 or 1:22.5 - they just skipped Gauge 2 and renamed Gauge 3 to confuse things! 

But when you think about it, "Scale 1" makes a LOT more sense than assuming everyone knows Gauge One is 1/32nd scale. 
Sir - I'll confirm your long-held opinion that I am simply a nit-picking pedant by noting that the Germans do NOT call it 'Scale 1'. They call it 'Spur 1' - German for Gauge, not scale, Masstab is German for scale, as I'm pretty much certain you already know. 

At this point, I'll leave the discussion to the re-railers. I'm off to run some of my Gauge 1 trains.

tac


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By tacfoley on 17 Aug 2011 10:44 AM 
Posted By Pete Thornton on 17 Aug 2011 10:24 AM 
Sir - I'll confirm your long-held opinion that I am simply a nit-picking pedant by noting that the Germans do NOT call it 'Scale 1'. They call it 'Spur 1' - German for Gauge, not scale, Masstab is German for scale, as I'm pretty much certain you already know. 


Sorry, but that is not true.

The German word for 'gauge' is 'Spurweite', not "Spur"
The term "Spur" was created as a term to cover a combination of 'scale designator' and 'gauge'
Take a look at NEM 010 for the explanation, available in German and French, the English translation has not yet been done.

All of this is a MOROP standard, not a specific German or French standard.

Here is a nice summary table of all the scale designators, actual scale and the model gauge of the track for the various prototype gauges copied from NEM 010:











Pretty much self explanatory. Pity that this NEM standard hasn't been translated into English yet.


Column at left - Vorbild-Spurweiten = Prototype gauges (in mm)

Across the top - Modell-Maßstäbe = Scales of the models (1:220 all the way to 1:5.5)

In the main section of the table are tthe Baugrössen or 'Scale designators (for want of a better term), the letter designation and the roman numeral designation always refers to a specific scale (and not to a specific gauge)

Across the bottom - Modell-Spurweiten = Gauges of the model

Here, very nicely and compact summarized, you can see that 1:32 scale is called "I" or "1" and uses 45mm gauge track *if the model represents standard gauge (1435mm) prototype.*


It also shows the "IIm" designator which LGB has used, "II" represents a scale of 1:22.5, the "m" indicates that the prototype is meter gauge (prototype gauge range of 850 to 1250mm) and that this also uses 45mm gauge track.


Anyone modelling in the smaller scales, Z to O is very familiar with this terminology and how scale, gauge and scale designators (or what NMRA calls alpha-numeric name of scale) relate, there is no reason why this shouldn't be extended to any scale.

Gauge One (I think) used to refer to scale designator "I", ie 1:32 scale trains running on 45mm track representing SG trains, but today it covers everything that can run on 45mm track regardless of the scale.

With Large Scale trains every large volumemanufacturer just focused on the track gauge, kept that as a standard since there was so much around, and modified the scale of the models they created.

Knut


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Seriously how many people on this board would realize the difference if a K-27 or otherwise was setting on meter gauge track? 
One need only look at Matt's 1:22.5 railroad near Durango, CO for a prime example. It's easy to look at those massive K-series locos and mistake them for 1:20.3. 

And I think if we "only" had 1:22.5 models, we'd have likely seen it establish the same foothold on the market that 1:29 has over 1:32. Alas, the 1:22.5 models were paired with 1:24 models, for which the scale/gauge discrepancy is much more noticeable. I really think that those of us who were modeling in that scale did so with a bit of reluctance, so when 1:20.3 came around, it was very easy to switch gears. Finally, our models captured that missing aesthetic that we didn't have in 1:24. I think if we had faithfully been in 1:22.5 all the while, we wouldn't have noticed, but 1:24 was stretching the envelope just a bit too far. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 17 Aug 2011 08:58 AM 
Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 09:07 PM 

....and if you get into FiNESCALE HO prototype modelling in the US, then you have some real "bi**h fests" over trivial details. Case in point "Atlas produced the GSC pulpwood racks in NC&StL markings but did not observe that these N&C cars built with GSC castings in the Nashville shops used the shorter ladder/grabs of the later GSC design".... I know because I wrote that statement for a publication a few years back documenting these cars. At least you could fix the Bowser covered hopper doors with less fuss....but every small USRA hopper ever made in HO is incorrect in panel size to allow for HO type truck swing, some are even off by a few scale inches!!!





OH MY GOD! I came from HO narrow gauge (HOn30), wanna talk about anal retentiveness???? 




My impression was the opposite with HOn30 (ten years ago mind you), basically it was a scale of cheap a$$es that really wanted to model 3 foot and not 30 inch gauge stuff, but the problem is HOn3 stuff costs more than old Tyco at garage sales, and often times they would slap an HO-ish body on an N scale frame or (worse) car on normal N scale trucks.

Now, H0e on the other hand...nice, expensive, and often well done and to scale (unless it was a H0m/H0e re gauge ala Bemo, Weinert, Tillig et al). Things get really bad when you compare an Austrian H0e coach with an LGB one!


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

threads like this one always make me think, if i will live long enough to experience inspectors coming into my home, obligating me to dismantle my layout, because it is not to standard...


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 18 Aug 2011 10:40 AM 
threads like this one always make me think, if i will live long enough to experience inspectors coming into my home, obligating me to dismantle my layout, because it is not to standard... 
Amen to that!!!!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 17 Aug 2011 04:16 PM 
Posted By vsmith on 17 Aug 2011 08:58 AM 
Posted By Spule 4 on 16 Aug 2011 09:07 PM 

....and if you get into FiNESCALE HO prototype modelling in the US, then you have some real "bi**h fests" over trivial details. Case in point "Atlas produced the GSC pulpwood racks in NC&StL markings but did not observe that these N&C cars built with GSC castings in the Nashville shops used the shorter ladder/grabs of the later GSC design".... I know because I wrote that statement for a publication a few years back documenting these cars. At least you could fix the Bowser covered hopper doors with less fuss....but every small USRA hopper ever made in HO is incorrect in panel size to allow for HO type truck swing, some are even off by a few scale inches!!!





OH MY GOD! I came from HO narrow gauge (HOn30), wanna talk about anal retentiveness???? 




My impression was the opposite with HOn30 (ten years ago mind you), basically it was a scale of cheap a$$es that really wanted to model 3 foot and not 30 inch gauge stuff, but the problem is HOn3 stuff costs more than old Tyco at garage sales, and often times they would slap an HO-ish body on an N scale frame or (worse) car on normal N scale trucks.

Now, H0e on the other hand...nice, expensive, and often well done and to scale (unless it was a H0m/H0e re gauge ala Bemo, Weinert, Tillig et al). Things get really bad when you compare an Austrian H0e coach with an LGB one!
You needed to be around the Maine 2 footers types, I 'll admit I have done what you wrote, namely using Roundhouse car kits to build NG cars. My favorites were Sierra passenger cars that were sawcut and narrowed to 2 foot guage practice, I used passenger trucks that closely approximated the 2 foot trucks (This was back before there was a whole lot on the market, oh wait theres STILL not a whole lot on the market) mostly because I could use Kadee couplers. They looked really good when finished. But some of the guys in there you got the feeling they were not interested in model trains at all, just being a royal pita to anyone they could get within earshot. I went back to lone wolfing it rather quickly but eventually bailed on the whole scale because small N mechanisms needed to model the small Maine-ish locomotives were just plain junk as far as I was concerned. I dropped out of trains for a few years then saw Lane Stewarts "Empire & District" in the Gazette in '96 and tried again, his was On30 I beleive but since I had HOn30 stuff I tried that again, still crap, gave up, and about 4 years later (thad be 12 years ago) got into LS and havent looked back, although I did rebuild and reuse the last remnants of my HOn30 stuff to build my first micro layout. Its in here somewhere...ah here it is:










Just a simple Pizza, and the engine is still a PITA but its the best one I had, runs good as long as you have NO turnouts, Heres Lane Stewarts layout, now at Caboose Hobbies.










Tempted...tempted...ahh but I really dont need yet another layout ...Anyway, Back to your regularly scheduled argument.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

kormsen;

Just show the inspectors your modelers license.









AND they will be forced to back down.

Best,
David Meashey


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Dave they wouldnt give me that one, they gave me this on instead:










Not sure which one is more usefull...


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, yes, the Maine 2' guys, but I think they had bailed earlier on the HOn30 folks, there were some NICE railways done, but again, the kits cost $$. Yes, the N mechanisims were garbage that were to be used on the conversion kits. Today, things are somewhat better, the Minitrains are being re-made (in Asia instead of Europe) and actually run well.. 

Not to worry, I had an MDC Sierra car cut down for HOn3 use....then built the Labelle kit for a combine, much nicer.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

David & Vic, 

that was one of the reasons, that i emigrated 33 years ago. 
i hated, that in civilized countries everything is forbidden, what is not expressively licensed.


----------

