# Size Really Does Matter !!!!!!!!!



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

I thought id take the time to post some photos showing the differernce in size between 1/29th and 1/32nd Diesel locos. Granted one is a dash 9 and one is a dash 8 but basicly the same. Ive never really notice that the size difference is pritty big when you look at these photos. For me im glad i stuck with 1/29th becuase i like the WOW factor Myself...Thanks to Chuckstrains for taking the photos and emailing them to me.


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 28 Dec 2009 06:25 PM 
Size Really Does Matter !!!!!!!!!



Your girlfriend has been lying to you if she told you otherwise.

-Brian

Why do you set me up so!


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Amazing, eh? 

If you keep the 1/32 equipment together, and the 1/29th on the opposite side of the layout, nobody will notice


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Nice comparison. And two very nice looking locos.


One question though. And please don't use this to start the typical proper scale rant. 


But does 1:29 suffer like my 1:22.5 scale where the truck dimensions are not right for the track? I would guess it does since 1:32 scale is right for standard gauge (4' 8 1/2") and 1:20.3 for narrow gauge (3') when used on G gauge track.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By San Juan on 28 Dec 2009 06:46 PM 
Nice comparison. And two very nice looking locos.


One question though. And please don't use this to start the typical proper scale rant. 


But does 1:29 suffer like my 1:22.5 scale where the truck dimensions are not right for the track? I would guess it does since 1:32 scale is right for standard gauge (4' 8 1/2") and 1:20.3 for narrow gauge (3') when used on G gauge track.


Matt, Only if your a rivit counter, I tend to do what looks good to ME


----------



## CLRRNG (Sep 26, 2008)

Wow that is a big difference. Imagine what a F scale Dash 9/8 would like like. You would need a bigger bench. 
Glen


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By altterrain on 28 Dec 2009 06:37 PM 
Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 28 Dec 2009 06:25 PM 
Size Really Does Matter !!!!!!!!!



Your girlfriend has been lying to you if she told you otherwise.

-Brian

Why do you set me up so!










HE HE HE...........







HA HA HA


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

We are off track here. 

This is not about size, but simply functional impact and effect. That sleek 1:32 will go places where no train has gone before...









I like the quality side. Size is not everything... Everything in perspective. Read between the lines on that one. 

Now Brian, you have me going.... 

gg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The post was about the size. I'll grant you that an MTH is made better than an Aristo, and has more features out of the box. 

But, back to the point of the thread... coming from HO and N, when I found out that there was a scale that was "wrong" for the track, I was confused... 

Then I read more, and looked at the 1:32 vs. 1:29.... the wow factor got me. I can live with the narrower sideframes. 

It really hit me when I had them side by side like Nick. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 28 Dec 2009 08:34 PM 
The post was about the size. I'll grant you that an MTH is made better than an Aristo, and has more features out of the box. 

But, back to the point of the thread... coming from HO and N, when I found out that there was a scale that was "wrong" for the track, I was confused... 

Then I read more, and looked at the 1:32 vs. 1:29.... the wow factor got me. I can live with the narrower sideframes. 

It really hit me when I had them side by side like Nick. 

Regards, Greg 
oops. 

No one mentioned Manufacturers here and this thread rotates around relative size and the associated WOW bit. 

And yes there was a bit of sideline levity thrown in. 

So, back to basics.... size is not everything...









gg


----------



## coyote97 (Apr 5, 2009)

its a relatively simple calculation:

1:32 is about 10% smaller than 1:29.

While in small dimensions the absolute difference isnt that bad, especailly in length it is.. Like shown on the photos...(and not to be diskussed the other way...







....







) 
Seems that both engines are quite ecaxt. 

its nearly the same with 1:22,5 and 1: 20,3 (btw: BOTH are nearly correct, because the 1:22,5 is based on European 1000mm Gauge while the Fn 1:20,3 is based on 3feet Gauge!!!) 

When we hear the difference, we may think its marginal, but when u calculate it, its quite much! 
And when u SEE it, it IS much!!!!
I sold all my Bachmann 1:22,5-stuff to convert to F-Scale. It looked BAD.


Greetings

Frank


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Yup. In 1:29, the rails should be just a hair under 50mm apart.


----------

