# 1:20 vs 1:24: A problem I need to resolve



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

There might be a few who remember my struggle to come to grips with Scales in G gauge. I eventually decided on 1:20, to be modelled as Fn3 NG. Then some good folks helped me with the dual trackage, O ga. That would be Fn2(?). (My memory sucks.) And lastly, forthe mine and engine yard applications, some bright spark put me onto S ga. (0.808") as an ideal tramway for 1:20, which would result in three gauges, 1 Scale. (This is because I harbor a loathing for HO ga. Don't ask why. Well, okay: so much money squandered pre-retirement on items I couldn't even _see_ and wouldn't stay on the track if you put a brick on 'em. I found this out after retirement.)

To return to subject: Having spent more than two years reading, asking questions, buying books, I finally got the lumber for the first section of my indoor layout. A rather narrow affair, generally 36" wide but able to be extended slightly here 'n there, by abt 22' long, U-shaped. It's suitable. About then, while actually beginning to put the first section up, it dawned on me that 1:20 might be a tad ... large. The buildings. The engine house, for example will be a rough copy of Larry Imosher's (I hope I spelled that right) excellent piece of work. Now, that's going to be quite a large building, measured in feet and inches. Real feet and inches. Some very rough figuring on the mine site will also be a number of feet long. For the O and 18" gauges I see no particular problem so far as trackage is concerned.

I've already settled on short-wheelbase engines and 2 axle cars--I happen to like them. But still, curve radii in for the G will be relatively large. Now, I've become conscious of HLW and its offerings, in 1:24 scale. (Approximately.) Also, after following the crane thread (1:25), and the 'cow thread', I think 'accessories' are easier to find than in 1:20 scale. At least, items which can be 'bashed rather than scratchbuilt.

Since I still don't trust myself to do calculations in scale sizes--though I'm going to buy Stan's calculator tomorrow--I'd like to pose some general questions:

1) Would I save much space for more buildings by switching to 1:24 scale, or is the difference too small to sweat? From some cardboard & tape mockups, I can't see that a major revision in my planning will realize much gain. But there might be considerations I'm not seeing.

2) Since I'm handlaying my own track, is it practicable to tighten the radii? (G ga only.)

3) When building/bashing in O and 18" gauges, would the items become too small for aged fingers? I know that's an iffy question with a lot of 'depends' but I'm finding it more difficult to work with small parts.

I can't think it'd be that different, but I'd like some informed opinions. I have little invested in 1:20 scale, and just a few bucks in O and S, so the HO disaster will not be repeated.

Comments appreciated.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Les, 
This scale for me is all about compromises. My evolution went from 1:29 (Aristo starter set) to 1:24 because I like older smaller loco's and older cars are smaller by nature, wood has limitations. 
I was trying to explain diameters and raduii and it occurred to me that my 'broad' 10 diameter curves were the same as 15"r in HO!...(1:24 -60"r, O 1:48 - 30"r, HO -15"r). The catch with one size fits all track is that equipment follows the opposit of logic.... Narrow ga, will give you greater overhangs, whereas; the shorter and smaller Olde Tyme Std ga. stuff stays between the rails better and looks better snaking through curves. My Opinion of course... 
1:24 is a very easy scale to model, you don't need no stinking badges... scaleconverters... One inch = 2 scale feet...1/2" = 1', 1/4 = 6" 

For the budget minded; many doll houses are 1:24 so there are other sources for scenery... I saw a list sumwhere that showed a good many buildings in the compromise scale that woodworkers could use... 1:24 ........Millimeters equal feet???? how? With the 10' fudge factor 1:24 can be used by both scales. (1:20.5 and 1:29)I think the smaller scale will allow you more options. Less equipment overhang will open up the space you have. There may be less plastic kits avail. but I don't think I ever built a wood kit exactly to plan... 

Your milage may vary. 

My new C-16 is in OR as batteries are going in the boiler. Hesitation... they weigh half the weight they replace! Found an easy solution... for $25 I got 20#s of lead shot. The source; stores that sell reloading supplies (ammo). This should last a lifetime! Pour and set with glue in all the nooks and crannies.... 

Later gotta go my ride's here to On 'n On Anonymous.... 

John


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

The issues are several here. 

First, if you want 3' gauge prototypes, then 45mm track being something of a constant, 1:20.3 correctly makes your "G" track 3 foot gauge. It also makes your 32mm track 2 foot gauge (sort of.... as you can already see, 15x2 is 30, so you're off by 2mm scale/ ~40mm actual.) Same changes for S .... in 1:24, the 45mm track becomes 3'6 gauge, popular in a lot of places, but not often seen on this continent. Your O and S tracks now represent wider gauges too. 

On the plus side, your buildings are now smaller. Hopefully Randy won't mind me borrowing his photo to illustrate this.... 










That's my 1:20 depot with the same depot in 1:24 next to it. 

Track radius is really more a function of the equipment you run ON the track. For example, if you want to run 0-4-0's and critters, the impossibly tight lower "R" curves are OK ... and even prototypical in a lot of cases. For a K-27, you need larger radii ... much larger. Even in 1:24, though, once you get away from small equipment, you're going to need larger radius curves, and while you might not need five and eight foot radius .... it looks to me like you're going for something where you can use two and three foot radius curves, and that's really going to be more a function of your equipment. Even when the equipment can be MADE to run on smaller curves, its still going to look strange to you; the largest LGB locomotive will take an R-1 curve, but you can see the whole front of the car behind it and see the trucks or mechanisim swing way out when it does..... which bothers some. (Hold up with the rocks, LGB fans... I'm aware this is perfectly fine to many people.) 

Which is to say, if you're going to use 2 and 3 foot curves, your 1:20.3 porter and gas mechanical will probably run just as well as your Hartland stuff. You can even get the geared Bachmann stuff around R-1, assuming truck mounted couplers. Your buildings will be smaller, and you'll be able to get more cars in a siding, but your math will be a bit off, with respect to scale and gauge. 

So, it's a tradeoff. I've seen layouts that have even mixed 1:24 buildings with 1:20.3 equipment and done very well with it ... and most people have 1:24 vehicles someplace too, just not right up next to the 1:20 equipment. "Forced Perspective" plays a big role ... for an extreme example, I think it's Knut on this forum who had a 1:87 (HO!) castle in the background of a 1:22 railroad, up on a mountainside, and it looked just exactly right the way he did it. 

So, if you're more confused then when you started, ask yourself this: 

1.) What is the most important part of this for me? (Scale fidelity? Equipment type? Prototype Fidelity? Overal scenic impact? Technical operation?) Be honest .. no "right" answer here. 

2.) Once you've chosen #1, what fits best to make that the primary focus of your layout? For example, if prototype fidelity is important, and you're limited to tight curves, you can choose 1:20 or 1:24 small mining equipment, critters, and tippers, and it'll all be OK. if on the other hand, you just HAVE to have a 2-6-0, you may have to choose a maker that builds a 2-6-0 that will run on your track, and that may determine the scale for you (for example, Bachmann's 2-6-0 really needs a 4 foot radius, but LGB's will run on a 2' radius ... so that might determine your scale at 1:22.5.) But if you're going for overall scenic impact, and want scales to match, then the scale of available animals, cars, buildings, etc will also figure in your decision.... but your math may be off, or your choice of rail prototypes may be limited by that choice. 

3.) You can also build a more generic layout, scenerywise, that will accomodate multiple sizes. If it's mostly trees and rocks, and the mine is a tunnel in the ground, the "size" of those things will be determined by the trains you run around them. A very large mine tunnel in 1:32 will be a very small one in 1:20.3 ... but for either, it's basically a hole in the ground until you add miners, and mine cars ... and depending on where you put the "shack" you can get away with a lot, simply because a big shack in the background can be a small shack in the foreground until you put scale specific accessories (signs, hardware, etc) on it. 

Clear as mud? 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Les, here's the thing. If you're chea...er frugal, and don't really mind that the math says your layout is now Cape Gauge (42" gauge, they used a lot of it in South Africa), then go 1:24. The cheapy Piko houses are 1:24, a LOT of the Aristo buildings as well. There are a BUNCH of diecast cars & trucks in 1:24, even if they are getting scarcer at the big box stores. Depending on how "G"ummi your ruler is you can get away with selectively using 1:22.5 and 1:25 stuff as well. 

IMO F seems to be more for the scale purists (they hate the term 'rivet counter'). and people willing to build most of what they need. 

Edit: No matter which scale you go with, "selective compression" is usually needed for many, if not most, structures. There is simply NO way most of us would have room to model a building 120 feet wide by 300 feet long (an engine backshop for instance) 


My mine has a very small footprint, mostly because mosy of it is off the edge of the layout and not modelled (It bothers some people the way it is cut off, but it was either that or not have one....


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

1) Would I save much space for more buildings by switching to 1:24 scale, or is the difference too small to sweat? From some cardboard & tape mockups, I can't see that a major revision in my planning will realize much gain. But there might be considerations I'm not seeing. 

If you're going with small 4-wheeled locos, etc., the difference between 1:24 and 1:20 is negligible. When you get into large equipment like mikados, passenger cars, etc., the difference becomes much more of an issue. Recall that the HLW stuff--while theoretically scaled to 1:24--works for industrial stuff in 1:20, so you can still easily avail yourself of it. 

2) Since I'm handlaying my own track, is it practicable to tighten the radii? (G ga only.) 

Absolutely, but within reason. You can probably get away with an 18" or 20" radius for small industrial stuff (4-wheeled cars, etc.,) but I wouldn't go much tighter. 

3) When building/bashing in O and 18" gauges, would the items become too small for aged fingers? I know that's an iffy question with a lot of 'depends' but I'm finding it more difficult to work with small parts. 

It doesn't really matter. I find it doesn't matter the scale, you work in details as small as you'd like to. For instance, if I were working in 1:48, I probably wouldn't worry about making sure the keyhole on the door plate is the right shape. I do that small stuff in 1:20.3. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Matt

Thanks for posting the pictures. I think the 1:20 building is better looking--a purely subjective statement. And thanks for pointing out the 'gauge' error induced by switching to 1:24 scale. I'd totally overlooked that factor, because I _still_ don't get the relationship between gauge and scale in terms of prototypes.

I think my cardboard approximations were off, judging by the two stations.

Thanks for taking time to post.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Here's the problem: I'm not broke, financially, but I'm badly bent.







For me, building my stuff is part of the attraction, always was. I got a nasty shock when I mocked up that engine house, howsumever. I don't want much in the way of non-rr buildings. The town will be 'mocked up' on a cliff. (Don't ask.) Definitely no vehicles other than wagons. (Ca 1875.)

I have no intention of following 'pure-ism'. I do want to stay with reasonable limits in that direction.

It was the cardboard and lack of understanding of the gauge problem that got me going. Thanks for taking time to post.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

You can even get the geared Bachmann stuff around R-1
While that's true as far as it goes, keep in mind that not all of them will negotiate an R1 reverse S curve. I had such curves on my old SCLCo RR (with no straight section between the reversal due to space limitations), and while the Climax didn't mind it, the 2-truck Shay did and its drive line would bind up. 

1:24 is roughly 85% the size of 1:20.3, so a 12" long building in 1:24 will be 14.1" long in 1:20.3 - not that much difference really - only 2.1". Total square footprint will be roughly 138% larger for 1:20.3 as opposed to 1:24. 

If you can manage R3 (4' radius) curves, just about any Fn3 loco will run around it - even Accucraft's K-27, though it won't look all that good doing it. 

My biggest mistake when I built my original railroad was to go with R1 and R2 curves and small turnouts. They severely limited what I could run, and when I got into live steam, the only thing that could handle them was a Ruby (and that didn't like the steep grades). Even my live steam Shay couldn't take them. I ultimately tore the layout out as I couldn't grow into it - or it couldn't grow with me... same difference. 

Go with as large of radii and turnouts as you possible can. You'll be glad you did and less frustrated later on. 

Just MHO for whatever it's worth.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Thank you for taking time to post. The 'working in detail' part got my attention. Something akin to a smack on the forehead.







Of course, that's reasonable. There's my lack of building experience showing up.


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

1:24 is only 20% smaller than 1:20, it won't have a serious impact either way. Your tightest curves should still be 4' diameter therefore you can't do a return loop on 3' wide benchwork. You'll need bubbles at either end unless you are intending on point to point operation. 

There is lots more accessory stuff available in 1:24 than in 1:20. However, the nicest narrow gauge stuff is usually 1:20. 

Either way you go, you have to make some compromises.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Um, horses and donkeys then, Breyer 'Paddock Pals' are 1:24, 'Stablemates' are 1:32, Schliech are 1:16, I think?


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Eventually, in the far future, I want to build or buy a kit and put together a 15T T boiler Shay. I believe that's the smallest Ephriam ever made, other than his wood-hauler. (Actually he didn't make them, one of the factories did, but I forget which. It's that 'late hour' thing again.

I had guesstimated about 20%, based on measurements and some very suspect math. That didn't seem serious enough to uproot two years of planning, but I wasn't sure, and just lately HLW has become mentioned a lot on the board.

I understand the desire for tight curves. I'm infested with it. But if possible I'll open up the radii. There's just too many unknowns for every advance I make.

Thanks for taking time to post your thoughts.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

My operation will be PP. I'd decided that from the start, because I like yard shuttling, transfers, etc far above watching a train move in a continuous circle, no matter how convoluted. That's just me, however.

Thank you for taking time to offer your perspective.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Mik,

Here I am on solid ground, having owned, worked and ridden horses. Even broke a few to saddle. Critters (the 4-ftd kind) vary in size. Within limits, of course. Even then, there are extremes: think of a Percheron as opposed to a runty mustang or even a common workhorse of no particular pedigree.

I intend to build several wagons & teams, and at least one ox-pulled 8 wheel log wagon. I often rode on the last iron-tired log wagon still used for that purpose that was left in my neck of the woods. I'd ride with this old man down to the sawmill, he'd make me get far away, then they'd unload the timber and we'd get on the rear bolster and ride home. Noisy and rattly on a gravel road? Sheesh. The ride would knock the fillings loose in your teeth. 

I just wish I'dve started building 'stuff' months ago, instead of focusing on getting a bench and some track up.

I can say that with the inputs from each of you, my mind is much easier than it was earlier. Thank you for posting your thoughts, and to all the rest who did, 'THANK Y'ALL!"


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Les on 04/03/2009 8:25 PM

I had guesstimated about 20%, based on measurements and some very suspect math. That didn't seem serious enough to uproot two years of planning, but I wasn't sure, and just lately HLW has become mentioned a lot on the board.


Ain't nuthin a larger cab and wider pilot beams won't cure... I upscaled that 1:24 Aristo C-16 to a 1:22.5 c-godknowswhat by grafting on a big hauler cab and putting a shortened b'mann tender on the Aristo trucks. Likewise about any 1:24 10-12 ton loco can be made into a nice 8-10 tonner in 1:20 (or vice versa) just by changing a few details. 

As for building stuff before laying track, I find it easier to (re)make a building fit the space than try to reroute the track around a prefabbed building.. besides, playing trains as you go helps keep the interest up


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

I like 1/24th scale, and since I'm modeling a fictional railroad, it makes no difference to me if my narrow gauge is 6 scale inches "too wide". 

My reasons: 

1. Extremely limited space. Not just for trains but even more so for structures. With so much of the layout being near-vertical, there's very little room left after deducting space for the track and access pathways. Every 1/8" saved by not modeling in 1:20.3 counts! 

2. Less overhang on locos and rolling stock, thus reducing the clearances and saving more precious space. 

3. LOTS of structural detail parts, vehicles, and other accessories available in 1/24th scale. 

4. Ease of figuring out the scale -- 1/2" = a foot, etc. Also easy to scale up plans from O scale if I so desire. 

As I see it there are plenty of advantages to 1/24th scale, and there are only two disadvantages: 

1. The slight gauge "discrepency" for those who like their narrow gauge to be 3 feet between the rails. 
2. So much rolling stock now is being produced in 1:20.3 these days.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Les,

I would say that you keep with 1:20 (AKA 15mm scale). If the curves need tightening to get around the layout -there are two easy solutions. The first is to widen the gauge at the corners to 46mm and the second is to close up the spacing on the wheels. The other options are far more complex -such as the Klose and Klein Lindener locomotives... 

Have a look here:


http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/kitchen4.html
http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/cornering.html


regards

ralph


----------



## Eric M. (Jan 3, 2008)

I just want to point out one quick thing about the scale/gauge relationship of 1:24 / 45mm.  As people have mentioned it scales out to be six inches "too wide".  So that would make it 42" gauge.  42" gauge was used on street railroads and logging lines all throughout the western states.  Granted 3' gauge was more common but most street railroads were 42".  That is why the Accucraft San Francisco cable car is 1:24 scale-- because it is 100% correct.  In fact most folks who model street cars and trolleys build in 1:24.


It turns out that many small logging companies bought up old 42" steam locomotives and steam tram engines  for use in the woods once the street railroads sold them off.  Actually these are some of my favorite logging locos.  One such company was Yeon & Pelton Lumber Co.  They had a handfull of really cool 0-4-0 and 0-4-2 locos  that had been adapted for use in the woods.  In the end Yeon & Pelton grew to the point that they had a brand new Climax built for their line and it too was 42" gauge.


My point is, if you want to model in 1:24 and still be "correct", you can do that. Especially for a logging line.


I think it is fair to say that 1:20.3 seems to be the most popular scale for American narrow gauge, and that appeals to me.  I like going to steamups and being able steal--- er, um, that is to say, BORROW Dwight's rolling stock for a run with my engines.


Regards,


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Mik,

Very definitely on that bigger cab & details. On the scenery/buildings/stuff, my wife & son are doing those things, (though my son has happened on a young lady, thus his mind is sorta blank) so the method of track planning then building won't fly. Anyway, I am of the opinion that if--within limits--track is laid to service pre-existing structures, an element of randomness is inserted. Obviously, that's not going to work in every instance. But yeah, I see your point.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Ray Dunakin on 04/03/2009 10:58 PM
I like 1/24th scale, and since I'm modeling a fictional railroad, it makes no difference to me if my narrow gauge is 6 scale inches "too wide". 


/// I am faced with the same problems, except as an old machinist, it 'bothers' me if something's off and I know it. I don't care a bit what other folks do, that's fine by me. I'm sure I'll be building unprototypically through ignorance and force of circumstances, and prob'ly, just plain 'cause I want to for some good-enough reason to me. A purist I am not.

My reasons: 

1. Extremely limited space. Not just for trains but even more so for structures. With so much of the layout being near-vertical, there's very little room left after deducting space for the track and access pathways. Every 1/8" saved by not modeling in 1:20.3 counts! 

///Exactly what triggered my initial concern.

2. Less overhang on locos and rolling stock, thus reducing the clearances and saving more precious space. 

/// Ditto.

3. LOTS of structural detail parts, vehicles, and other accessories available in 1/24th scale. 

/// Ditto. Have you been following the crane project?

4. Ease of figuring out the scale -- 1/2" = a foot, etc. Also easy to scale up plans from O scale if I so desire.

/// That's a serious plus. 

As I see it there are plenty of advantages to 1/24th scale, and there are only two disadvantages: 

1. The slight gauge "discrepancy" for those who like their narrow gauge to be 3 feet between the rails. 

/// This is the major fly in the ointment for me.

2. So much rolling stock now is being produced in 1:20.3 these days. 

/// Since I intend to build 'most everything possible, this is not such a problem. 

Thanks for your thoughts.

Les


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Les, 

Successful modeling is all about illusion. The eye will often see what it wants to see. Many buildings on Disneyland's Main St. are not full size, especially the upper unused floors on some that are there for looks mostly. 

1) If size is a problem as it always is indoors there are three things I would consider. 
a) Use building flats as opposed to full structures when possible as Rick Marty has done alongside his shed and Mik has done with his mine. Also the OVRGS group up in Canada have made use of flats....see Doug Matheson and Fred Mills. 
b) From what you say you want to construct your own models. Doorways are the most important indicators of scale. Selective compression has already been mentioned. In most cases you can construct the buildings to 1:24 size and use doorways at or close to 1:20 so figures will look okay next to them while the overall structure size makes 1:24 vehicles look good. 
c) Build track clearances to accomodate 1:20 equipment even if you are planning on running only 1:24/1:22. That will allow for running whatever you might later decide you want to. A bit discouraging to run a new or a guest's loco on the RR only to have it tumble to the floor because it hits something or won't fit through a bridge or tunnel. 

I'm still using a lot of 1:24/1:22 stuff on the POC and will continue to do so at least until the RR is finished. All clearances however will accomodate 1:20 except possibly the D&RGW Mikes which I don't plan on anyway.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

just for giggles -- Once people get out of Colorado, many old 42" gauge lines can be found in the US -- in fact, even though they weren't quite as 'popular' as 3 footers, they're all over. (The "narrow gauge craze" hit it's peak in the 1870s and 80s, and if you try hard enough, you can find a prototype for a line in just about every half inch increments from 18" on up.... many were later standard gauged or abandoned -- My semi-fictitious Allegheny Valley is based upon the REAL AV which was originally NG before being regauged and absorbed by the Pennsy. In my alternate little world it remained independent and NG into the '60s) AND if you enjoy being "colorful" I've seen several references to 42" as "******* Gauge"

Reichley Brothers Logging in Central Pa 
http://davecathell.tripod.com/wells.html
http://davecathell.tripod.com/wells4.jpg
http://davecathell.tripod.com/wells5.jpg
(edit note: don't you hate it when a server won't let you hot link a pic you need to make a point?) 

http://davecathell.tripod.com/wells.html

Also a Mr Webster Griffith had a couple sawmills and used a 42" 17 ton Heisler near Ebensberg and Nanty Glo (about 30 miles from here), from 1903 to 1923, but I couldn't find any pictures. 

New Castle R.R. & Mining Co., New Castle, Pa had the distinction of buying Porter 0-4-0T #1 in 1867 

Dravo Corp used this gauge during a lot of Army Corps of Engineers projects, like dams 


The Big Sandy & Cumberland in Virginia had Shays 









Cowell Portland Cement Company in California ran 0-4-0 saddle tank Baldwin loks and wooden side dump gons 









Independent Coal & Coke Co in Utah had 28 ton 2 truck Shays









And then there were numerous logging lines in the Pacific Northwest - Oregon, Washington, and Northern California, and the southern pine forests - Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, that used a lot of 2nd hand municipal railway stuff (cute little 0-4-2Ts and 0-4-4Ts - the NY El was SG, but this will give you the general outline of the things http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/plate096.jpg )

Also, the Newfoundland Railway in Canada ran heavy stuff (up to 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s)


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2009)

Successful modeling is all about illusion.

i think, that should be repeated in bold! 

*Successful modeling is all about illusion* 
one can't to do everything "right". 

Les, 
if one puts - let us say - ten cows in the layout, on pasture... 
does one make a pasture of two and a half by five real foot big pasture? 
most of us would make a couple of square inches of pasture, a piece of fence and paint some green on the background. 
the imagination of the observer does the rest. 
or would you sacrifice four squarefoot of your layout just for a corral in correct scale? 
or a foot and a half width for a barn? 

each and every layout is a compromise of scale, space and the eye of the observer. 

if you make your trains too big, you got not enough space left, to make your buildings and landscape to scale too. 

korm


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

even MORE 42" gauge lokies 
Lehigh Valley Coal's Vulcans 

















US Army 1923 









Elk & Little Kanawha #7 









Lehigh Coal & Navigation


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Les

I realize that this is absolutely no help on the scale decision, but I thought maybe with the tight curves you might be interested in the following rather unique flatcar design that Steve Seitel worked out.

*Articulated Flatcar*
*Steve Seitel*
*File Format: PDF - File Size: 2.2MB*
*Left-click to open / Right-click to download*


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Les. I'm thinking aloud here, so humor me. I'm basing these on rereading your various posts-


Preferences:
2 axle cars

building rather than buying
T boilered shays and other small geared locos

mines
logging 

cliffs 

1870s 1880s era

point to point

3 foot gauge=1:20 scale 



Limiting factors

tight curves

36" depth on benchwork

prefer to route track around most features after they are installed (more "natural" in some ways, but can complicate design and trackwork) 


I'm ASSuming you're planning your line based upon an area somewhat regional to where you live? Or is it to be more of a northern California/Sierra Nevada theme? IMO this is the part of planning that actually breathes life into a layout. To me the 'story' is often more important than the 'stuff'....It also will have impact on what kinds of architecture, flora, fauna, and even equipment will look "right" (What am I trying to tell you for? I'm the one who has a dinosaur, gnomes, Pooh & Piglet and even some Daleks on my layout







-- but those are more just little whimsical hidden features for guests to stumble over than reflecting the overall theme) Part of the draw for the AV to me was that it hauled oil, coal, limestone, brick, timber, and even produce DOWN to Pittsburgh, plus machinery, finished goods, and workers (and rich folks to their vacation homes along the river) the other way.


Feel free to add/correct.


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Mik, great pics, thanks for posting them! BTW, that Army loco is sure odd looking. I wonder why they put the boiler up so high??


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Ray Dunakin on 04/04/2009 11:01 PM
Mik, great pics, thanks for posting them! BTW, that Army loco is sure odd looking. I wonder why they put the boiler up so high?? 




My guess is the firebox was too wide to fit down between the frames and therefore had to go on top of them. That lifted the boiler, which tends to come out of the top portion of the firebox, even higher. The locomotive is probably an unholy marriage of an available wider boiler and an available narrower frame to suit a need....and then a survival story.

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Dang! Now my tracks are 6" too narrow! 

Here I was happily running Olde Tyme Standard ga. short lines and now that dream is gone....... Dang Purists!


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/05/2009 6:36 AM
Posted By Ray Dunakin on 04/04/2009 11:01 PM
Mik, great pics, thanks for posting them! BTW, that Army loco is sure odd looking. I wonder why they put the boiler up so high?? 




My guess is the firebox was too wide to fit down between the frames and therefore had to go on top of them. That lifted the boiler, which tends to come out of the top portion of the firebox, even higher. The locomotive is probably an unholy marriage of an available wider boiler and an available narrower frame to suit a need....and then a survival story.

Matthew (OV)


From what I know of Army supply procedures, the thing PROBABLY had a MIL SPEC sheet an inch thick with the only things changed from a SG lok being the rail gauge and loading gauge. So it only cost three times as much as a "normal" NG lok to build it that way. Unless, as Matthew says, the Motor Pool built it from two different engines.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Ralph,

Apologies for being slow to reply. I got my first load of firewood delivered late last week, and found out that I am, in fact, a year older.







(This has an upside, if one considers a moment.) Heh. Anyway, those links you sent are valuable in the case of the curve discussion, and mind-boggling in the case of the articulated engines. 'Stunning', in the case of the last, wherein an entire mass of linkage is employed. I usually run my mail right after breakfast, but today elected to start with but a single cup of coffee, so the effect of that last linkage pic affected me far beyond your finest imagining.









That ... linkage ... (I forget the name, lack of coffee) is something I must look into once I get some track up.

Thank you for taking time to send those links.

Wife is rattling food dish!

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Eric,

Thank you for posting your perspective. In giving a background for the questions I posted, I was forced to be selective. When I start doing the 0 ga, it'll be for a logging RR. That'll make it 2', but it gauges well with the 45mm, and since I first discovered dual gauging as a kid with a Lionel, I've wanted a stretch of dual & a couple of switches. Every time I see dual gauge, I remember the awe of first becoming aware of its existence.

For the 42" ga, I _thought_ I'd heard of it before, used in this country, but I've read so much I can't keep it straight. (That's my excuse anyway, and I'm stickin' with it.







Age is another related factor. But minor, you understand.







) But I've read a lot of stuff, books and on the web.

The S ga will be for as complex a mine layout as I can accommodate, and will also be included in the engine house area. I don't know what else to call an engine repair/maintenance facility.) Point of fact, that small ga has absorbed a lot of my thinking of late, due to the space limitations.

Les


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Les

I know your interest in 42 inch gauge railroads was focussed on industrial lines. However, the largest and just about longest lasting narrow gauge railroad in North America was built to 42 inch gauge. The Newfoundland Railroad had a long mainline, ran overnight passenger service, had both steam and diesel locos, ran wooden and heavyweight and streamlined passenger cars plus had a large freight car fleet. It also traversed some of the most rugged and beautiful terrain on the continent. As a plus it owned Pacifics and Mikados as well as diesels that appeared close to GP7's. All in all, a very interesting but seldom thought about narrow gauge railroad.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Mik,

Thanks for the link(s). Only got one to open, but it was classic. The B&W's looked so similiar to the area I grew up in that I could almost smell the landscape.

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Doug,

My entire layout will focus on industry of some sort. I've just come in from working awhile in intermittent snow (in St.L. no less) so my vocabulary is a tad exhausted: passenger service will be limited to a stretch caboose. I guess I'm just an ol' country boy. In the far distant future, I want to put a trolley/light rail line around the back edge, but that's another story. I might do it on an upper level, even.

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 04/04/2009 1:09 PM

Successful modeling is all about illusion.

i think, that should be repeated in bold! 

*Successful modeling is all about illusion* 
one can't to do everything "right". 

Les, 
if one puts - let us say - ten cows in the layout, on pasture... 
does one make a pasture of two and a half by five real foot big pasture? 

/// Nope. But one can put in a siding stockyard. In the case of my logging lashup, the only part modelled will be the sawmill site itself. As I've posted elsewhere, the logs will come in from 'off scene'. You do make a solid point, though.


most of us would make a couple of square inches of pasture, a piece of fence and paint some green on the background. 
the imagination of the observer does the rest. 
or would you sacrifice four squarefoot of your layout just for a corral in correct scale? 
or a foot and a half width for a barn? 


/// There's the rub: that's where _selective compression_ gets hairy: to me, seeing ten cows in a patch the size of a holding pen that is not fenced like one, is jangling. Barbed wire retaining a lot of cattle in a small space is just not believable, because like you, I've seen the real thing. Building a large barn is an easier call, because not many folks expect to see a detailed barn on a model RR. Not so with an engine house, though a good argument could be made by many that it could be indicated off scene, because a smithy/machine shop isn't directly related to modelling trains. 

Les
korm


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Thanks for the pixes, Mik. If I had the money, I'd donate to get those O/S ones back in running shape. Or at minimum, a shed put over each one.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Steve:

Way to go! I'd never have thought of something like that. I'm gonna do one of those, I am nuts for oddball-looking engines & rolling stock. It is in my file. Thank you

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 04/04/2009 5:37 PM
Les. I'm thinking aloud here, so humor me. I'm basing these on rereading your various posts-


Preferences:
2 axle cars

building rather than buying
T boilered shays and other small geared locos

mines
logging 

cliffs 

1870s 1880s era

point to point

3 foot gauge=1:20 scale 


Limiting factors

tight curves

36" depth on benchwork

prefer to route track around most features after they are installed (more "natural" in some ways, but can complicate design and trackwork) 


/// Right on all counts. Cliffs are called 'bluffs' in the Ozarks. Not so tall, I suppose. Lots of red granite and limestone. Small creeks, abrupt, small hills, heavily wooded. (The land is very poor.) The location is in the St. Francois Mtns, a range of high, broken ground much older than the Ozarks, geologically. 


I'm ASSuming you're planning your line based upon an area somewhat regional to where you live? Or is it to be more of a northern California/Sierra Nevada theme? IMO this is the part of planning that actually breathes life into a layout. To me the 'story' is often more important than the 'stuff'....It also will have impact on what kinds of architecture, flora, fauna, and even equipment will look "right" (What am I trying to tell you for? I'm the one who has a dinosaur, gnomes, Pooh & Piglet and even some Daleks on my layout







-- but those are more just little whimsical hidden features for guests to stumble over than reflecting the overall theme) Part of the draw for the AV to me was that it hauled oil, coal, limestone, brick, timber, and even produce DOWN to Pittsburgh, plus machinery, finished goods, and workers (and rich folks to their vacation homes along the river) the other way.


Feel free to add/correct.

Nothing to correct. I will add that the only RR that came close to our place was the MOPAC, and before that it was called the Iron Mnt. Ry, and before that (I think) the St. Louis-Cape Girardeau Ry.

I have created in my mind a place that is really a compilation of several places. There were small one-man lead mines all over, family-owned sawmills about every ten miles before the fifties, a hub factory, a chloride-processing plant--all about seven to ten miles apart. I asked an old man (the one with iron-tired log wagon) why that was. He said, "So you could get up before daylight, take care of your livestock, feed your team and hitch up, have breakfast, load the wagon with whatever you wanted to sell, and get to town about daylight. You spent all day doing your business, then you hitched up and came home in time to do the evening chores." I also wondered why the creek crossed the road (fords) so often. It was so they could stop and soak the wooden wheels a little, to tighten 'em up. Little things like that I intend to put into the layout. The Pig River Ry will haul lead (galena), lumber, livestock and (maybe) cut limestone and or granite to connect to the IMRy, and haul coal, hard goods, non-locally produced food (sugar, flour, etc) in, plus whatever else I can think of. The interchange between the PRRy and the Iron Mtn will be off-scene. Just a box at the end of the spur behind a hill that the train goes into and comes out of. (Hidden). The excuse is, the Iron Mtn is a Class 1 rr and won't run its equipment on strap-iron rails.

Ain't model RRing fun?

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Rich,

I know I posted earlier, but I don't see it here in the string. Of your several points, the flat is one I'm certainly going to use. I don't have any interest in town scenes, for instance. In another case, some few non-essential industrial buildings will be 'flats'. The logging lashup will get its timber 'delivered' from what essentially will be two conjoining walls, with painted/mocked-up landscaping flats. (That's the wife's job.







). For another, I have my mind set upon a working ball signal (on a SL??) and thus there'll be a line shanty with a peglegged guy--er, 'locomotion impaired'. That one might end up as a flat, depends.

Les


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Les on 04/06/2009 1:39 PM
Rich,

I know I posted earlier, but I don't see it here in the string. Of your several points, the flat is one I'm certainly going to use. I don't have any interest in town scenes, for instance. In another case, some few non-essential industrial buildings will be 'flats'. The logging lashup will get its timber 'delivered' from what essentially will be two conjoining walls, with painted/mocked-up landscaping flats. (That's the wife's job.







). For another, I have my mind set upon a working ball signal (on a SL??) and thus there'll be a line shanty with a peglegged guy--er, 'locomotion impaired'. That one might end up as a flat, depends.

Les



It sounds as if you've already got a good handle on what you want to do. Sounds great! A major industry (Foley's Fast Freight Forwarders) on my line is a flat and adds a lot of ops to a 3 foot wide section of benchwork. Being on raised benchwork outdoors I have many of the same issues you will have indoors pertaining to modeling space.

As to the ball signal; I've considered installing a manually operated one on the POC, maybe a double one. I love the look even though they are primarily an east coast item and my RR's on the west coast. I hope you'll post pix and info on the ball signal when you build it. I'd be most interested in seeing your take on it.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Rich,

If you go to the archives for the 'real railroad operations' forum on this site and do a search, you should turn up a thread I had with a remarkably nice individual who provided me with photos. Now, if I can find them in my mix of stuff called 'train folder' I'll post them here for you. He got them from a prototype somewhere back east. It's a two-ball type. Basically, there is no set color scheme, if memory serves. His is manually operated using the 'skyhook' method; I want to build either a mechanical or electrically operated one. The reason his has two ball is because there's a fork, er switch track. I've also found the identical pixes on the web, searching under 'early train signals' if memory serves.

There are some things I want to do as prototypically as practicable, other things I'm gonna throw in because they please me. The signal is one of the latter cases.

Les


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Just some imagination stimulus.... 

Ball Signal in 2008

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Matt,

Right on, right on. That is exactly the pix I was talking about. Thanks for posting it. (I couldn't find mine.) 

Les


----------



## Big John (Jan 4, 2008)

I love the older narrow gauge steam locomotives. Bachmann makes a lot of relatively inexpensive excellent looking steam engines in 1:20.3 which is why I have five of them. I have an elevated layout on benches that are 4' wide so I can reach in from both sides. I stayed with 4' minimum radius curves and #4 and #6 switches. I hand build all my structures. Since buildings could be any size I don't worry about what scale they are except for the windows and doors. I make them to fit in the area available on the layout. As far as converting scale it is really simple once you have the conversion factors figured to go from HO, O or any olther scale to 1:20.3. Just build what looks good to you and have fun. 

John


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

John,

Most of the buildings I'll freelance in the board and batten--or just plain board--style of the era and place I grew up.

I don't have the scale conversion factors, that's why I'm going to buy Stan's calculator program. I was going to do it today and discovered I'd drained my Paypal funds buying the occasional NGSLG back issues off ebay. So wife's got to transfer some more $$ into it, about a 4-day process (so the banks get to keep the float.)

The only B'mann engine I have is the Indie Spectrum, which is far too large for my layout but serves as a 'scale guide'.

I got stopped on the benchwork again. This guy brought me a whole dump truck full of firewood and dropped it in my front yard. He couldn't get up the slight slope due to mud and rain. (He couldn't drive a duck to water, either.) So I've been trying to get _that _cleaned up. Then back to the benchwork.

Yeah, the old-time stuf is what I like, too. Wish I could start on some of it.

Les


----------



## Paradise (Jan 9, 2008)

Hey Les, 

Here is another Calculator I put together today. 
It should resolve some issues regarding prototype gauges, scales and model gauges. 
I still need to add more prototype video links and what not but it all seems to work OK. 

I have probably opened a can of worms ...
Enjoy

http://locobuilder.com/scale_gauge_calc.htm

Andrew


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2009)

thanks, Andrew. 
that is a handy little tool.


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Andrew, that is a very nice video. Thanks for sharing it. 

gg


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Andrew,

I am not ignoring you, I've been struggling to get a big truckload of firewood moved from my front yard to my back yard before the local House Beautiful gestapos show up and give me grief like last year. Will get in touch soon, thanks for thinking of me.

Les


----------

