# 1:29, 1:32 and the future...



## rcb (Jan 3, 2012)

I understand the size differences and I also know they aren't typically dramatic. However, it seems like 1/29 is more prevalent and has more diversity when it comes to engines. (particularly with USA Trains and others).

Are more manufacturers moving towards 1:32 in the US or towards 1:29 or about balanced? 

It reminds me a little of the N scale 1:144/1:160/1:150 issue. 

I don't have so much as a track nail yet, but I'd rather buy once.

I think I'd like to get passenger cars (having many in N and HO), so it's definitely something I want to match my engines. I also know if I end up buying G,GP30's and SD40-2s are both on the list.

Illumination on these concerns would be much appreciated. 
@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

I think that manufacturers will continue to build in both scales. Each scale seems to have a specific group of followers, and they all remain hardened to that position of 1/32 or 1/29. I guess the biggest question for you to answer is this; Does the track gauge make a big enough difference? If so then go with 1/32, or stay with 1/29 and handlay track and regauge all your equipment (that's what I'm doing). IF track gauge isn't a big issue, ignore the out of scale gauge and stay with 1/29. 
Having a 45mm gauge would allow friends to bring over equipment in other scales: 1.20.3, 1/22.5, 7/8ths, etc to run on your railroad. For me that's not a requirement, so I'm stepping into a new territory. 
Food for thought! I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion. 
Craig


----------



## rcb (Jan 3, 2012)

The track gauge doesn't bother me, just as long as everything is the same size. We have wee ones on the way right now, so I figure eventually (assuming we do go with a garden layout) they'll probably enjoy the larger narrow gauge scales for the sale of "playing". Thanks for the input!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

1/29 has a MUCH larger selection than 1/32, and I expect it will continue to do so.. 
The only niche where 1/32 "wins" is Live Steam..there is a better selection in 1/32 in live steam. 
but for electric, 1/29 beats 1/32 by a healthy margin. 

Aristocraft makes a large selection of 1/29 diesels and modern steam locos. 
USA Trains makes a large selction of 1/29 diesels and modern steam locos. 
MTH is the only major player in 1/32 scale diesels and modern steam locos. 

Over the past 5 years or so, two manufacturers have introduced new products in 1/29 scale: 

Accucraft/AMS has traditionally been a 1/32 scale player, but they introduced some new 1/29 scale rolling stock,
and a beautiful 1/29 scale PRR K4 locomotive over the past few years..
(and they also still produce their 1/32 scale line) So they were a manufacturer that was originally 1/32 only for many years,
and then chose to introduce some 1/29 as well..

LGB, who never made anything in 1/32 OR 1/29, introduced a new locomotive, the Amtrak Genesis passenger diesel. 
Traditionally LGB is not known for being too concerned with exact scale fidelity..but they chose to build the Genesis 
in 1/29 rather than 1/32..to me, that was a clear indication of which direction the hobby is going.. 

IMO, 1/29 is winning the battle, and has been for well over 10 years now.. 
Personally I plan to only purchase and run 1/29 scale..I would purchase some MTH locos, but only if they 
introduce some 1/29 scale models..which IMO, they should..it would be a smart move. 

Scot


----------



## Rod Fearnley (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree wholeheartedly with Scott. I buy mainly 1/29 from the makers above. Although I have to compromise with figures, vehicles and some buildings.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with Rod. 
plus, I run all 1:29th as a modern mainline RR. 

But I drive 20 mins to Richards all 1:20 scale steam RR and it all looks in proportion. Yet , even if I run my stuff on his RR its ok.


----------



## seadawg (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with Marty, when I first started I was all 1/29 using both Aristo and USA, but now I am way more live steam oriented. The narrow gauge (which throws a whole new monkey wrench in the mix) 3 foot modeled on 45mm track works out to 1:20.3. I also like running German narrow gauge which was either 1 meter or 900mm or even 600mm which is where the 1:22 comes from. 

LGB does what ever they want, sometimes they produce scale-like models to run behind 1:22 scaled locos or sometimes they've made boxcars that match my Aristo cars, sometimes they make some cars that they just decide need to be 20 scale feet shorter that the real car they are modeling and leave a couple of doors off, easily violating the ten-foot rule. (If it looks good from ten feet away, it looks good.)

Where you might begin to see diffreneces is running 1/32 mainline mixed with 1:20 narrow gauge. 
Just go with your gut and run the things you like, it's your RR, but like Scot says above, the is a huge selection of 1/29 rolloing stock and locos.


----------



## rcb (Jan 3, 2012)

Exactly the info I was looking for. 

I'm a steam nut, but strangely enough, I mainly see diesels in my mind every time I imagine an outdoor layout. No doubt live steam is cool... and pricey. Who knows though, maybe it'll be an affliction I'll pickup down the road. 

Going to the WGH Show this weekend in Indy. I'll have to really pay attention.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Also not mentioned, the selection of inexpensive rolling stock is much larger in 1:29, and almost non-existant in 1:32. 

I agree with Dave, who agreed with Marty, who agreed with Ron, who agreed with Scot !! 

Greg


----------



## Bob in Kalamazoo (Apr 2, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 06 Jan 2012 12:56 PM 
Also not mentioned, the selection of inexpensive rolling stock is much larger in 1:29, and almost non-existant in 1:32. 

I agree with Dave, who agreed with Marty, who agreed with Ron, who agreed with Scot !! 

Greg 

And I agree with Greg, who agreed with ......
Bob


----------



## rreiffer (Jan 14, 2009)

Now you didn't even bring up 1:20.3 as a scale, if your initial comparison is only based on 1:29 vs 1:32 then I too agree with Bob who agrees with Greg who... Anyway if you now add these other scales into the mix then don't forget 1:20.3. When it comes to buildings, cars and other items 1:24 is the scale.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

1/32 manufacturers in the past were Lionel and MDC. 

And MDC molds were obtained by Piko I believe. 

Personally, I am mostly LGB wirh some USA and Aristo 1/29.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Dan 

You have it reversed. MDC [Model Die Casting] was a long time producer of HO kits that were [surprise] die cast except for the wheels. You may be old enough to remember Roundhouse 'shake the box' plastic kits; same people. They made large scale cars starting in the late 1980s. The dies went to Piko only recently. In addition to the APPROXIMATELY 1:32 box car, reefer, ore car, and hoppers, they produced a 1:24 D&RGW short caboose, and a speeder and Lil' Critter industrial loco of indeterminate scale.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

1:29 is here to stay; it's what our RR is in for the most part. But if I were starting over I would go with either 1:32 or 1:20, and resign myself to doing more scratchbuilding. The more I do this the more 1:29 and code 332 looks "off" to me. 

But nobody who visits our RR seems to notice or care much about scale


----------



## GaugeOneLines (Feb 23, 2008)

I have heard (hopefully scurrilous) rumors that MTH is getting out of the 1:32 market. Is there anybody in this community with solid information on this......one way or the other. 
David M-K 
Ottawa Canada


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

there would be one reason to prefer 1:32 - Preiser! 
preiser got lots of nice (but not cheap) figures for 1:32 (and 1:24) 
but for my layout i agree with Rich, who agreed with Greg, who...


----------



## bcer960 (Dec 27, 2007)

I am running 1:29, including a lot of scratch building of engines and rolling stock in that scale. However, I do use 1:32 boxcars. The old Lionel box cars look great as 36' boxcars next to the USA Trains and Aristo 1:29 cars. I also have a 10 car train of the MDC ore cars behind an RS-3, again, do not look out of scale and make a great train. I am indoors and the layout is at 50" off the ground so you are very close. I have never had anyone say anything about the mix of scales. 

Ray


----------



## GaugeOneLines (Feb 23, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 07 Jan 2012 05:44 AM 
The more I do this the more 1:29 and code 332 looks "off" to me. 

But nobody who visits our RR seems to notice or care much about scale 

That, lownote, is because 1:29 IS "off". it's about 4'2" gauge rather than 4'8"1/2. As regards nobody noticing the difference or care much about scale, that's purely a commentary on the lack of knowledge and sophistication of most viewers. I would say that 90% of railway modellers would have a hard time explaining what the difference between scale and gauge is.......sad but true.
David M-K
Ottawa


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By GaugeOneLines on 07 Jan 2012 12:09 PM 


Posted By lownote on 07 Jan 2012 05:44 AM 
The more I do this the more 1:29 and code 332 looks "off" to me. 

But nobody who visits our RR seems to notice or care much about scale 

That, lownote, is because 1:29 IS "off". it's about 4'2" gauge rather than 4'8"1/2. As regards nobody noticing the difference or care much about scale, that's purely a commentary on the lack of knowledge and sophistication of most viewers. I would say that 90% of railway modellers would have a hard time explaining what the difference between scale and gauge is.......sad but true.
David M-K
Ottawa


and why should they? whilst they do what they like and like what they do, this lack of knowledge does not hinder them.
and i have the same experience as lownote has. friends, neighbours and guests either ignore the trains entirely or they admire them as they are.

korm


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I thought it was just because lownote's friends have manners and long ago realised it's not their job to correct the world... 

If you can't say something nice... 

John


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By GaugeOneLines on 07 Jan 2012 12:09 PM 

That, lownote, is because 1:29 IS "off". it's about 4'2" gauge rather than 4'8"1/2. 

David M-K
Ottawa





4 foot 3.4 inches actually..
thats a difference of 5.1 prototype inches.


in 1/29 scale the track is 45mm, when it should be 49.5mm.

a difference of 4.5mm.

I agree you can see it..but barely..most model railroaders or railfans wont even notice it!  

many years ago I did up a little graphic showing the difference..I think it was an animated gif..
I will see if I can find it..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

well, this isnt exactly what I was looking for, but its pretty close.. 
Marty posted this in another thread recently: 










In the back is "standard" 45mm track..too narrow for 1/29 scale. 
In the foreground is the track properly scaled for 1/29.. 

I say "meh"..big deal..it bothered me for about 10 minutes 10 years ago, when I first discovered it was wrong.. 
then I just got over it..and I would say I am more susceptible to "rivit-counter-itis" than most!  
and it still doesn't bother me.. 

Scot


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Why let something like that bother you? Hobbies are for fun, so play with your trains, regardless of scale.


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

What I would have liked was for 1:24 scale to have been adopted by all mfgs for both narrow gauge and standard gauge locos with properly gauged three rail track available. 

This will of course never happen now. I guess a 1:24 scale Pacific loco would be too large for most hobbyists. 

I simply ignore the gauge error of the 1:24 locos as I like the size of the 1:24 models. The Bachmann 1:20.3 4-4-0 blends in OK with the Delton 1:24 C-16 loco as the tender body and cabs of both locos are approximately the same size so they locos "look" OK together. 

Similarly the MTH 1:32 Hudson looks OK with the "1:29 " (maybe between 1:29 and 1:32 actual scale) Aristo Heavyweights. 

Norman


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 07 Jan 2012 03:51 PM 

Similarly the MTH 1:32 Hudson looks OK with the "1:29 " (maybe between 1:29 and 1:32 actual scale) Aristo Heavyweights. 

Norman 




hmm..never heard that before, (the the Aristo heavyweights are possibly not quite 1/29 scale)
and I happen to have one sitting on the shelf right next to me..so I hit google..
ok, google is not being helpful..but I have a book with drawings:
"_Lehigh Valley_ Railroad _Passenger Cars_ (Photo and Diagram Book No. 1): M. Mickey, D. Warfel"

Lehigh Valley Pullman Coach "Harriet",
built by Pullman in 1927. 

cant find a photo of he exact car, but she is a classic 1920's heavywight..looks just like the cars the aristo cars are modeled after..

LV Harriet Length - 83' (872 mm in 1/29 scale) (from coupler pull faces)

LV Harriet Height - 14' (147 mm in 1/29 scale) (from rail head)

LV Harriet Width - 10' 1" (106 mm in 1/29 scale) (at the roof overhang)


Aristocraft Pullman Coach
Length - 745mm

Height - 147mm (from rail head)

Width - 106mm


Height and Width are exact..
Length is short..Aristo coach is 71 feet..Harriet is 83 feet..

But there were prototype coaches that were shorter..different lengths..

Here is a prototype pullman coach that is exactly 71feet long (3rd and 4th photos on the top row) 

Prototype 71' coach 

So..Aristo coaches are spot-on for 1/29 scale..exact in fact.


Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Have to say that while often Aristo picks an unusual example of a prototype, their 1:29 stuff is usually exact (except for making diesels a bit too high)... It's really nice because it keeps USAT and AML on their toes also. Nice to have large scale with lots of choices in reasonable prices. 

As mismatched the gage is on the track, the rest looks great to me, and I like the "wow" factor. If it were available in reasonable cost and quantity, I'd go F scale for standard gage. 

However, I would like a close gander at the gentleman who is widening the wheels and trucks to match 1:29 gaged track. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 08 Jan 2012 01:04 PM 

However, I would like a close gander at the gentleman who is widening the wheels and trucks to match 1:29 gaged track. 

Regards, Greg 
You mean me? I've kind of stalled on progress right now in regards to my project, but as soon as I get going again, I will let you know. So far the USA 4 axle motor block seems to be a easy conversion, but I'm still trying to work it out.

If you want you can email me offline at [email protected]. 

Craig


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

"If it were available in reasonable cost and quantity, I'd go F scale for standard gage." 

Wasn't there an F unit being made for F scale? 

I'll be honest, the whole guage thing for me was a deal breaker when I found out about it. Same thing for Atlas and Rivarossi "O" scale. 

When I "discovered" Fn3, I was a happy camper! I live in Colorado, am a huge fan of the D&RGW narrow gauge, and bought some AMS cars and a Bachmann Connie to start out. When Bachmann announced the K's, I was ecstatic! I now own 2 of them. 

Now, if anyone does a plastic C-19... I almost talked myself into an On3 narrow gauge layout, but I'm a modeller on a budget, and I don't want to split my $$$ between two scales. Believe it or not, the cost is actually pretty comparable... 

Robert


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Wait, it was an S-1, Magnus, I remember now! 

Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes I mean you Craig... I'm impressed, and will be anxious to see progress! 

Actually, meant to say a close gander at your work, not you specifically ha ha! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 08 Jan 2012 01:31 PM 
Yes I mean you Craig... I'm impressed, and will be anxious to see progress! 

Actually, meant to say a close gander at your work, not you specifically ha ha! 

Regards, Greg 
When ever I finally get done, I wonder if GR would be interested in an article? Might be the first to try?

Craig


----------



## rcb (Jan 3, 2012)

Ok, made it to the WGH show this weekend and really took some time with the 1/29th and 1/32 stuff. I really have to say it's close enough for me. Funny enough, I stopped at talked at the Indy Large Scalers' modular layout and I didn't even notice the 1/32 engine pulling 1/29 cars until it was pointed out to me. And I definitely didn't have concerns on the gauge. I think, should we do this (I'm pretty sold on it, but I won't say definitely until it's in progress) I'll be content with 1/29th.


----------



## Skipford (Apr 23, 2012)

RCB, 

Did you ever begin your layout and are you still steadfast that 1/29th is still looking good? I am just getting my sea legs under me with G gauge and have been looking into the same debate over the past few weeks. If you could give some follow up I would appreciate your two cents. 

Thanks, 

Kyle Ware


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 07 Jan 2012 02:30 PM 
well, this isnt exactly what I was looking for, but its pretty close.. 
Marty posted this in another thread recently: 










In the back is "standard" 45mm track..too narrow for 1/29 scale. 
In the foreground is the track properly scaled for 1/29.. 

I say "meh"..big deal..it bothered me for about 10 minutes 10 years ago, when I first discovered it was wrong.. 
then I just got over it..and I would say I am more susceptible to "rivit-counter-itis" than most!  
and it still doesn't bother me.. 

Scot 

For me, I'm sorry but thats pretty hyper-anal if something that close causes so much gnashing of gauge teeth.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I just can't figure it out. For all you people that say "scale doesn't matter" I assume that you then would accept a scale of 1:30, 1:28, 1:35, 1:25, or anything. So 1:32 is just as good of a scale as 1:29... RIGHT?

Then there are those that say "scale does matter", so 1:32 is the only scale that is acceptable.

But it seems to me that there are actually 3 classes of toy train players:

1) Those that positively do not care about scale... they can tow an Aristo Heavy weight Passenger car behind an "N" scale locomotive on HO track and are perfectly happy.

2) Those that do not care what scale it is, as long as it is somewhat consistent... they bought one scale and want to continue to be able to buy that scale.

3) Those that care about scale and want to get nothing but the "correct" scale.

So if the manufacturers are going to satisfy some classes of customers, what can they do?

They can sell to the "Dont care at all" class no matter what they do.

So, they need to aim for the "Keep the size consistent" class, or "Make it Right" class.

Sure would have been a SMART thing to do way back when, to have decided to satisfy ALL the classes in one marketing decision! i.e.: Make it CORRECT SCALE and satisfy all three classes at once!

I have read a couple of lame excuses for 1:29 and they both are STUPID.

1) 1:29 is 3 times 1:87 so it was easy to convert HO designs to G by just multiplying by 3. In an age of calculators and computers (which were available when 1:29 was invented) they could do all the calculations correctly and 1:32 would have been just as easy to obtain by multiplying but 2.71875 (to get it EXACT, but 2.72 would have been close enough! HO was already made with a rubber ruller, so EXACT ain't possible anyway).

2) "We gotta make 'em 'big' so people will be WOW'd by them!". That smacks of "Madison Avenue Hype" and if anything turns me off of a product, it is HYPE! I puprosely avoid all product that advertise with loud-mouthed, fast-talking, hyper-active announcers. (Note to web advertisers... Does your advert "attract me" or "distract me"? If the latter, forget it! I will NOT buy your product.) I really feel like the excuse of "WOW the people" is insulting and belittling of me as a customer.

I would just as soon see 1:29 go the way of the Dodo bird! But, of course there is that class of toy train players that bought into the Hype of "WOW" and now are STUCK with that decision. If you TRUELY don''t care about scale, then buy only 1:32 scale engines and rolling stock and maybe the manufacturers will catch on and increase their sales by selling to those that don't care about scale and those that do and we will all get on the same page and get a greater diversity of product due to the larger market. AHHHhhhh Utopia! (yeah, I know... 2 chances of that -- Fat and Slim!)


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I totally agree with you Semper. 
The bottom line in all scales is that in the end SCALE models running on the correct gauge track will win out. For example, can anyone imagine any manufacturer offering 1:90 models of USA mainline prototype to run on H0 gauge track? I think not. 
If manufacturers do not do them correctly the Scale Model collector market will simply not buy them. 
However, Narrow gauge is another story. 
Perhaps they could do what Bachmann did early on with a couple of 1:22.5 models and simply relabel them as 1:20.3.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

2) "We gotta make 'em 'big' so people will be WOW'd by them!". That smacks of "Madison Avenue Hype" and if anything turns me off of a product, it is HYPE! 
That's precisely what happened, though. The early attempts by various manufacturers to popularize 1:32 in the US to the folks used to running LGB's stuff all fell horribly flat. The stuff simply wasn't as big as LGB's stuff, and didn't grab their attention. Look through the back issues of GR at the manufacturers who tried to make a go of 1:32. I think Great Trains was probably the longest-lived one, and they only lasted a few years at most. There's always been the Fine Art Models type of high-end market, but that doesn't do anything to popularize the scale. The average Joe didn't (and still doesn't) have $15,000 to spend on a locomotive. MTH has been the first manufacturer to actually make a decent go at popularizing affordable 1:32 scale plastic models, and the rumor mill periodically fills with reports of them shutting that line down. Purists can poo-poo the "Wow" factor all they want, but it's real and measurable. 

The bottom line in all scales is that in the end SCALE models running on the correct gauge track will win out. 
Nonsense. Look at O scale in the US and OO scale in the UK. My grandfather was doing what's known today as "Proto:48" way back in the mid 1930s. That movement's been around at least 80 years, yet O scale is still defined in the US as 1:48 running on 1.25" track. (To say nothing of "O scale" having three distinct scales depending on where you're sitting--1:48, 1:45, and 1:43. Only one of those--1:45--has the correct scale/gauge ratio.) 

I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty OC when it comes to scale. I switched from modeling 1:24 to 1:20.3 because the difference between the two scales and the proportions of the models relative to the width of the track _is_ very noticeable to me. The models I build have a specific "look" to them which doesn't appear unless the rails are right where they need to be. I'm all for supporting scale accuracy whenever I can. Logic would dictate that I should be out promoting 1:32 as the "right" scale, but the truth is, I can't. It is certainly the "accurate" scale for modeling standard gauge. But just as Proto:48 and "O scale" exist as two different entities, I think 1:29, simply by the very nature of its popularity over 1:32 cannot be discounted as being any less "right." 

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

We run nearly everything in 1:29, and I don't like it. I started in this hobby sort of accidentally--my father in law gave my son a bunch of starter sets, LGB and Bachmann. I had little or no experience with anything other than the HO set round the Christmas tree as a kid. I always liked the look of mainline 20th century stuff, and by the time I got into it, LGB was going bankrupt. 1:29 was cheap and readily available. Now I have a bunch of 1:29 stuff that bugs me because, the more time I spend on it, the more it looks wrong.

But it doesn't bug me enough to switch to 1:32. To my eyes, 1:29 makes the problem of oversize engines on tight curves worse, and over time I've been downsizing, turning Mikados into consolidations and Pacifics into Atlantics.

If I were starting from scratch I would probably commit to either 1:32 or 1:20, on code 250 rail. I'd probably end up trying to model the EBT, because there's more detail parts/building/figures available in 1:20. But I've kind of resigned myself to 1:29


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

I have a lot of 1/32 scale two bay hoppers. 
I also have LGB, Aristo, USAT and Bachmann all running together. 
I buy mostly 1/29 simply because there is a lot more to choose from. 

As for the track gauge and rail size not being to scale for 1/29th, I really don't care. 

Heck, if I was so worried about everything being to scale, I'd be a lot smaller. 
Round that is.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 24 Apr 2012 12:16 AM 


I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty OC when it comes to scale. I switched from modeling 1:24 to 1:20.3 because the difference between the two scales and the proportions of the models relative to the width of the track _is_ very noticeable to me. The models I build have a specific "look" to them which doesn't appear unless the rails are right where they need to be. I'm all for supporting scale accuracy whenever I can. Logic would dictate that I should be out promoting 1:32 as the "right" scale, but the truth is, I can't. It is certainly the "accurate" scale for modeling standard gauge. But just as Proto:48 and "O scale" exist as two different entities, I think 1:29, simply by the very nature of its popularity over 1:32 cannot be discounted as being any less "right." 

Later, 

K 
This the funny thing to me too Kevin, I'm all about scale modeling, and finally I realized why I wasn't happy with 1/29 on 45mm track. Visually I thought it wouldn't make a difference moving the rail out slightly, but man it has made a huge difference. This leads me to wonder is large scale finally able to move beyond the whole everything must run on 45mm track issue. 1/29 could continue production, but introduce something similar to Proto:48. Scale modelers can then move their track and wheels outward, but they don't lose the wow factor, its not required per say, but its an option. Is it finally time for Proto: Large scale? I would love to see F scale standard gauge equipment in the modern era, but it would be huge! Way to much room would be required, and I would feel like it would start to step on the toes of the smaller ride on scales.

Craig


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Its just this whole 1:29/1:32 thing is like the On30/On3 conversation when On30 began to take off and manufactures took notice and began making specific 3 foot gauge items form D&RG and EBT in On30 and the older On3 guys went nuts crying about incorrect gauge/sending wrong messages/insult to long time O narrow gaugers. Really? how about manufacturers paying their bills by offering what sells. On3 was a freaking expensive gauge done by a small niche group of modelers with almost everything brass/kit/scratched. On30 broke down the gates to what had previously been the realm of a very few finescale modelers, now the rags like the Gazette are full of beautiful finescale NG layouts...in On30, why On30? because its way more affordable and theres tons more stuff now available, On30 helped democrotized and expand what had previously been a closed off and not very user-freindly segment of the hobby. Do I care looking at the Gazette that the rails are a very small fraction of inch off gauge, **** no. Same with 1/29, for better or worse, 1/29 IS standard gauge in large scale, unless you want to run only MTH or spend a gazillion bucks on brass or imports. Why? because it sells, and it has worked its way into the mainstream so much now that there is no way its going to disappear just because a few scale/gauge guys have a burr under their saddles, just like On30, its here, its queer, and its not going away.


----------



## Skipford (Apr 23, 2012)

I thank you all for your views. What good company to be in that have good vocalized opinions and data. 

I am a newcomer to garden railroading. I definitely see all aspects of people's views as stated in these boards, and appreciate them all. I think nobody disagrees that it would have been most appropriate for the scale to meet the gauge. From my perspective, since there is imperfection in the current state of the gauge and the foreseeable future, I am somewhat forced into 1/29 scale to be able to appreciate the variety and majority of manufacturer's offerings. It is because of this that I accept 1/29, not because I want to or would prefer it. 

Having a limited experience in dealing with HO gauge I feel as though the G gauge is certainly stemmed from a "wow factor" casual inception where scale was not important. As time has gone on people like myself are interested in G gauge but only if there is consistency in the layout and stock. So in essence I am wanting to recreate the modeler's scale world I could appreciate in HO now in G. 

1/29 scale is close to a 10% difference in scale from 1/32. In the end I tentatively have decided to run with rare exception 1/29 scale trains due to availability at the right price point and then scale all surroundings at 1/32 due to availability and price point for those items. The modeling world is much more robust at 1/32 than 1/29; outside of G gauge railroading. 

So that's it in a nutshell. I compromise for the good of price point, variety, and ease of operation/implementation; NOT because I don't care.


----------



## cfra7 (Jan 2, 2008)

If one feels strongly about 1/32 vs. 1/29 they should refuse to buy 1/29 and only buy 1/32. If more people did this there would be more 1/32. However, if people are willing to be "ok" with 1/29 then that is what you will continue to have. For me, I have decided to move to 1/20 - not because of perfection of ratio but because I prefer steam and you can't beat the WOW factor of a 1/20 J&S coach....


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 23 Apr 2012 10:27 PM 


I have read a couple of lame excuses for 1:29 and they both are STUPID.

1) 1:29 is 3 times 1:87 so it was easy to convert HO designs to G by just multiplying by 3. In an age of calculators and computers (which were available when 1:29 was invented) they could do all the calculations correctly and 1:32 would have been just as easy to obtain by multiplying but 2.71875 (to get it EXACT, but 2.72 would have been close enough! HO was already made with a rubber ruller, so EXACT ain't possible anyway).

2) "We gotta make 'em 'big' so people will be WOW'd by them!". That smacks of "Madison Avenue Hype" and if anything turns me off of a product, it is HYPE! I puprosely avoid all product that advertise with loud-mouthed, fast-talking, hyper-active announcers. (Note to web advertisers... Does your advert "attract me" or "distract me"? If the latter, forget it! I will NOT buy your product.) I really feel like the excuse of "WOW the people" is insulting and belittling of me as a customer.






I agree those are stupid..but they are stupid because they are wrong! 
you are missing the third, and correct, "excuse" for 1/29:

3) 1:29 was created so that 1/29 scale *standard gauge* rolling stock would be the same size, visually compatible, with LGB 1/22.5 scale models of narrow gauge cars. 

At the time, LGB accounted for probably 90% of the large scale market, and introducing cars that were correct for 1/32 scale, but noticeably smaller than the cars everyone was already running, would have been a bad move..Everyone in the hobby already had LGB, (and virtually nothing but LGB) so "upscaling" the cars to 1/29 so they were visually compatible with LGB made a lot of sense from a marketing and sales perspective. This is the generally accepted theory for the origin of 1/29 scale.. the "wow" factor was just a happy accident of making them larger, but it wasn't a primary reason at all.

To this day, an Aristo 40-foot boxcar and a LGB 1/22.5 boxcar are very close in size..when running both in a train, few people will notice they are different prototypes or notice that one is standard gauge and one is narrow gauge (or meter gauge)..This was the whole point, and the reason for doing it..

Scot


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

1/29 came out in what, 1995? ..and now we are 16-17 years down the road and yet we're still having this discussion. I guess its not going away any time soon.


----------



## avlisk (Apr 27, 2012)

I care about scale. I mean, I won't run OO on my HO layout, so I don't want to run 1:32 on my 1:29 layout. Seems like the same rules to me. Even this forum is called G Scale Forum, when in practice, it covers many scales in G gauge. Seems to me it should be called the G Gauge Forum. Although I just encountered something called F Scale, which others are calling G scale 1:20.3!
I'm only 2 weeks into researching G gauge, and am finding the scale thing confusing. But this forum is pretty good sorting it all out. My major hang-ups at the 14 day mark are figuring out what scale to model, how to power the locos, and figuring out the coupler situation. But if the industry is going towards 1:29 as a standard, I guess we'll all have to accept it and be happy. You can't fight city haul.
Ken Silva
Phoenix, AZ
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken, welcome to MLS!  

I dont think its accurate to say "the industry is going towards 1:29 as a standard"..not the *whole* industry, 
just a portion of it..and even saying that portion is "going towards 1:29 as a standard" is debatable..because 1/32 is holding its own. 
I would say 1/29 has "won the war"..and 1/29 is increasing..but 1/32 hasn't yet accepted that it has lost, and it continues to carry on!  

yes, its true there is more selection in 1/29 than in 1/32, when it comes to US Standard Gauge modeling, 
but 1/29 and 1/32 represent maybe one third (my estimate/opinion) of the Large Scale hobby a whole.. 
Fn3 scale is probably a much larger segmant of the hobby..(thats 3-foot narrow gauge on 45mm track) 

I agree its probably best to "pick a scale" then stick with it.. 
If you like modern standard gauge, "late" steam and diesels, then 1/29 is the best choice. 
If you prefer narrow gauge steam, roughly 1870 to 1910's timeframe, then Fn3 scale (1/20.3 scale) is the way to go.. 

If you havent seen it yet, this chart might be helpful: 










Scot


----------



## avlisk (Apr 27, 2012)

Thank you Mr. S Chaos. That chart is great! I'm finding that another benefit to 1:29 is that it's cheaper than 1:32. And my brother lives about 5 miles from Charles Ro, and he says they are mostly 1:29, so, future Holiday Day presents will be easy for him. I've got another question, this one regarding roadbed. Some say let the track float on a 3 inch deep ballast. Some say imbed bricks in the ground and screw the track to the bricks. Some say pour a concrete sub roadbed. If it makes a difference, I live in Phoenix, so winters and water aren't much of a concern. Looks like the more I learn about garden railways, the more I know that I don't know. Ken [email protected] url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Providers/HtmlEditorProviders/CEHtmlEditorProvider/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There's a very active garden railway group in Phoenix, so I'd recommend hooking up with them (if you haven't already) and see how they each lay their track. I don't think there's any one "right" way for a given climate, but certainly they'll be able to give you solid firsthand experience of what worked (and what didn't) for them. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Ken, 

Welcome to the area and big trains! 

ABTO - "Arizona BIG Train Operators", have a website and also check with Dan Hoag - "Eagle Wings" Iron Craft.. He knows some of them!!!! He just had his 13th open house last weekend! 

I am using a modified ladder system here - South of you 3 hours!!! the DMS Ry., in Dragoon, AZ, in some pretty rough country to build an out door layout in!! 

Dirk 
DMS Ry.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Ken, 

What are your interests? Narrow Gauge or Mainline stuff...? How much room do you have to build a railroad?

Dirk 
DMS Ry.


----------



## Skipford (Apr 23, 2012)

To further flesh out Ken's sentiment; from my perspective, as I had posted before, it's not a big deal to me that the scale doesn't match the gauge track, but I plan on building a lot of models to accompany the railroad. Trucks and construction equipment and buildings. Is there a prevalent resource out there for these things in 1/29 that I am missing? I need to get a grasp on what is available to accompany the train as much as what I am doing with the trains.


----------



## avlisk (Apr 27, 2012)

I have about 40 feet of fence along the back wall, with space at each end to do about a 10 or 12 foot loop. It's mostly flat.Then, an equal area on each side of the house, but I only want to do the space along the back wall for a start, and see how it goes. (and how much it costs, too.) If I could do Australian trains, I would, but I'm not finding anything. Next in line is Maine Central standard gauge, having lived there a few years. However, living in Phoenix, I think I should not fight the scenery, and instead, embrace it. This would mean SF or UP or SP. I'm not that much of a fan of narrow gauge in the west, but I like Maine 2-footers and Puffy Billy Down Under. I'm so new to thinking about this that I haven't decided on what to model yet. . .probably it will depend on what is available, and I'm still finding that out. Ken S


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Well Ken , you have time at your advantage for now! It will be easier for you to "choose" your interested area of trains to model, then let that create a game plan, and go from there. 

If you really want a different layout, of course scenery and water should be considered in Phoenix and the heat volumne there!!!!! :~} 

Embracing the dry desert is not all bad either, many have that run trains in your area, and they are beautiful layouts. If you have a chance go to Dan's open house next year and look at the different layouts on the tour!! Lots of ideas.... 

Look on-line also. 

Dirk 
DMS Ry.


----------

