# Help with letters - FN3, G, IN3, ON30 etc.



## rreiffer (Jan 14, 2009)

All,

I see the various scales listed and I have looked at the NMRA standards listing but what I am looking for is an explanation of the various letters and what the combinations mean. Also of interest is what track do the various scales run on? I at least know that FN3 runs and Gauge #1 track.









It took me long enough to figure out the difference between gauge and scale!

Rich


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

See if this helps: 

 Model RR Scales


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Rich, 

Fn3 is the NMRA sign for 1:20.3n3 scale, which is 3 foot narrow gauge.. 
G is the NMRA sign for 1:22 scale, which is meter gauge.. 
O is the NMRA sign for 1:48 scale or 1/4 inch.. 
O scale is 2 rail track, but the common track is 3 rail.. 
On30 is the NMRA sign for O scale narrow gauge, 30 inches or 2.5 feet.. 
On30 track is HO track.. 
On3 is the NMRA sign for O scale narrow guage 3 feet.. 
Have never heard of In3.. 
Hope this helps.. 

BulletBob


----------



## rreiffer (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanks all for the information (and it was very helpful). Here are some of the questions I was trying to answer (be example):

- What does the "F" in Fn3 stand for? Why the letter "f"?
- What does the "n" in Fn3 stand for?
- What does the "3" in Fn3 stand for? 
- How do they come up with the "scale"? In other words, is there some sort of logic that helps explain why they are the way they are?








- Who came up with this crazy system anyway?!?!










Thanks


Rich


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

For Fn3, I believe F is for Fine scale, n is for narrow gauge, and 3 is for 3 foot (distance between rails).

For a more detailed explanation of F scale:  F Scale


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Road Foreman on 28 Jul 2010 02:40 PM 
Rich, 

Fn3 is the NMRA sign for 1:20.3n3 scale, which is 3 foot narrow gauge.. 
G is the NMRA sign for 1:22 scale, which is meter gauge.. 
O is the NMRA sign for 1:48 scale or 1/4 inch.. 
O scale is 2 rail track, but the common track is 3 rail.. 
On30 is the NMRA sign for O scale narrow gauge, 30 inches or 2.5 feet.. 
On30 track is HO track.. 
On3 is the NMRA sign for O scale narrow guage 3 feet.. 
Have never heard of In3.. 
Hope this helps.. 

BulletBob 
I would like to offer a slightly different explanation:

G scale is a collective term for anything that runs on 45mm track. This can go from Fn3 to I scale. G was introduced by by LGB to divert from often mentioned criticism of improper scales. If we stay in true scale then the nomenclature goes as follows:

Fn3 as mentioned above 3 gauge prototype running on 45mm track
II 1:22.5 Standard gauge (and this is only here fore completion it runs actually on 64 mm track)
IIm 1:22.5 Meter Gauge railroads running on 45mm track
IIe: 1:22.5 750m prototype running on 32mm track
IIf: 1:22.5 Field railway running on 16mm track
I 1:32 Standard gauge prototype running on 45 mm track

O 1:48 Standard Gauge running on 32mm track
Om 1:48 meter gauge prototype running on S-gauge track

Other gauge on the market are (just for completion - and I may even miss an exotic one)
S, Sm, HO, HOm, TT, N, Z


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rreiffer on 28 Jul 2010 02:58 PM 
Thanks all for the information (and it was very helpful). Here are some of the questions I was trying to answer (be example):

- What does the "F" in Fn3 stand for? Why the letter "f"?
- What does the "n" in Fn3 stand for?
- What does the "3" in Fn3 stand for? 
- How do they come up with the "scale"? In other words, is there some sort of logic that helps explain why they are the way they are?








- Who came up with this crazy system anyway?!?!










Thanks


Rich


I think I can answer your last two questions...

Question: Is there a logic to explain it? Answer: No!

Question: Who came up with it? Answer: Idiots!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The "F" came as part of a progression of letters once proposed by the NMRA (or someone, I forget exactly who put this forward) that set a letter to each of the various scales in large scale. 

#1 - 1:32 
A - 1:29, arguably because *A*risto-Craft was the big manufacturer at the time. 
H - 1:24, for *H*alf-inch 
G - 1:22.5, historically from LGB, the "G" for "Garten" or "Gross" (German for "garden" or "large.") 
F - 1:20.3, because it made sense to go up from H to G to F as the scales increased. 

"A" and "H" simply never caught on. "F" garnered some support, though its important to note that this proposal was floated over a decade ago and the major manufacturers still simply use the numerical designation. 

Under the current NMRA standards, All common large scales (1:32 to 1:20.3) fall under the generic "Large Scale" designation--no letters at all. 
"#1" and "F" exist as separate, specific designations, though the standards are largely redundant to those in the "Large Scale" standards. (This is done so to allow for "fine-scale" standards for #1 and F scales. 

It's also noteworthy that in terms of the NMRA's scale designations, normally the "-n3" or whatever appendix exists as an outgrowth of the root scale (i.e., On3, On30 grew out of O.) In the case of F, Fn3 existed first. F (standard gauge) is actually an outgrowth of "Fn3." It would not have existed had folks not wanted accurate 3' gauge models running on their gauge 1 track. 

(And as for the appendix, the "n" stands for "narrow," and the number reprents _either_ feet or inches. Ain't nuttin' like consistency and clarity, eh?) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 28 Jul 2010 06:23 PM 
and the number reprents _either_ feet or inches. ) 

And to make it even worse, sometimes the same scale gets feet AND inches!
99% of the model railroading world says On30, which is O scale running on HO scale track, representing 30 inch gauge in O scale.
On30 is basically the accepted standard..all the manufacturers use On30, big and small, including the biggest, Bachmann.

all magazines and webpages use On30..there is only one exception: 


Model Railroader magazine, who for some mysterious reason refuses to stop calling it On2 1/2.

two and one half feet versus 30 inches..

On2 1/2 and On30 mean the same thing.. 


Scot


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

And the sad thing is that, when somebody asks you what scale you model, do you tell them, "I model Fn3 which is scaled 1:20.3 running on #1 Gauge track which is 45mm wide." Which then leads you to try and clarify the difference between narrow gauge and standard gauge and F Scale vs G Scale vs #1 Scale (and the inevitable comparisons to Lionel O Gauge) etc, etc, etc...._ad nauseum!! _*OR *do you look at the person, smile and say "I run G Scale trains on track about_ this_ (hold your fingers about 1 3/4" apart) wide." Then hold your hands about 18" apart and say, "This is about how big the engine is! The trains are so big that I run them outside in my garden!" hmm? Of course, you could just punt all of the explanations and say, "I have large scale trains that I run outside!" and if anyone is interested enough to ask further, _then_ you can give them the full tour!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I hear you. So long as the hobby shops call it generically "G" scale and lump everything into the same aisle, I don't know there's a more accurate answer in terms of pointing people to the right section of the store should they be interested. Once they get going, they can learn the differences (should they so desire), but so many in this hobby simply don't worry about it. Good, bad? Depends on your perspective, I guess. 

Later, 

K


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

I know in the smaller scales, the letter is the designation for the scale ratio to the prototype.

However, with the near-universal of "G-Scale" to mean anything that runs on #1 or 45mm gauge track, I think there is room for a better solution:
Use the "G" to represent the gauge, and just tack on the scale used ie: G29 would be 1/29th scale running on 45mm track, hello Aristo? G32 would be MTH's designation. G24 for Delton & USA Classic, G20.3 for Bachmann, etc.

If You want to get REAL specific, one could even append a number to represent the prototype gauge: G29-56.5 


The nice thing is that this could be back-hauled to all the smaller scales as well: O48, HO87, etc. Even F would fit in, F22.5 would be 1/22.5 scale models on 64mm track... in this case, that means Standard gauge if I'm not wrong?


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

the whole confusion is aplied globalisation. 
numbering scales and gauges by numbers (written in roman numbers) was a german idea of nearly a hundred years ago. 
(therefore:I = 1:32 / II = 1:22.5 and LGB meter Gauge in 1:22.5 = IIm) 

the english/british had their 0 scale = (originally) 1:43 and their 00 = 1: 75 or similar. 
then somebody introduced "half 0" or H0. (with all its variations like H0m for meter spur and H0n3 for three foot Gauge... and so on) 

the north americans had their "S" Gauge. (i ignore the scale of this one ) 

then the S** hit the fan: 
Lehman Bros introduced a toy train line, they called LGB. on 45mm = german I Gauge, but with thicker rails, but in II scale. representing meter Gauge trains. 
so it should have been called IIm. but no, they called it "G" scale (for big and garden in german) 

when this "G" wave hit north america, soon the hobbyists and the manufacturers wanted spurs, that represented north american railroads and their Gauges. 
but the "G" stuck. so, instead of either introducing a northamerican scale system, or using one of the existing ones, at first everything running on 45mm track was called "G". 

later intentions to "standardisize" failed, because of the babilonean use of many different names, that had established itself. 

so today we got just one real answer to scales and gauges: "G" stands for gum scale.


----------



## Paulus (May 31, 2008)

Don't forget Gn15; mostly industrial railways in 1:25 or 1:22,5 scale operating on 16 mm. (H0) track! 
There are even some running G scale trains on 9 mm. (N scale) tracks...


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

and yet more!  

7/8n2 scale is 2-foot gauge on 45mm track.. 
7/8n2 as a "scale designation" is maybe a bit awkward, but it does the job.. 
it makes perfect sense once you understand it (and its easy to understand) 
7/8 is the scale, 7/8 of an inch = one foot, then you have the standard n2, n for 'narrow", 2 for 2-foot, 
same as the easily understood HOn3, On2, etc.. 

btu now there is a movement to change 7/8n2 to SE45 (and SE32 for 7/8n18) 
SE45 = *S*even *E*ighths scale on *45*mm track. 
I dont know..I can see the logic in SE45, it seems "simpler" I guess.. 
but IMO there was no real need to change from 7/8n2..that was fine as it was, 
SE45 and SE32 are solutions without a problem, and have just caused more unnecessary confusion 
and added to the glut of scale designations in Large Scale..

im going to continue to say 7/8n2..because I like it better, and IMO it "explains" the scale better than SE45.

Scot


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 29 Jul 2010 05:02 AM 
the whole confusion is aplied globalisation. 
numbering scales and gauges by numbers (written in roman numbers) was a german idea of nearly a hundred years ago. 
(therefore:I = 1:32 / II = 1:22.5 and LGB meter Gauge in 1:22.5 = IIm) 


the north americans had their "S" Gauge. (i ignore the scale of this one ) 

then the S** hit the fan: 
Lehman Bros introduced a toy train line, they called LGB. on 45mm = german I Gauge, but with thicker rails, but in II scale. representing meter Gauge trains. 
so it should have been called IIm. but no, they called it "G" scale (for big and garden in german) 

when this "G" wave hit north america, soon the hobbyists and the manufacturers wanted spurs, that represented north american railroads and their Gauges. 
but the "G" stuck. so, instead of either introducing a northamerican scale system, or using one of the existing ones, at first everything running on 45mm track was called "G". 

later intentions to "standardisize" failed, because of the babilonean use of many different names, that had established itself. 

so today we got just one real answer to scales and gauges: "G" stands for gum scale. 
Actually old LGB catalogs show prior to 2003 showed actually the IIm designation. When LGB started out they first want to one up Maerklin (Gauge I 1:32) (old story bigger is better). In 2003 they introdcued G and their catalog states 1:22.5, which was at the time already an oximoron because by then they had already 750mm rolling stock on 45mm track (1:16 however, artifically change to match the size of everything else) and of course American Standard guage (1.32) artifically blown up (1:25 - 1:27 with a wheel width of 1:32) and American Narrow Gauge (I think 2 and 3 foot prototypes). G in LGB's opinion stood for *G*arden-Scale. In Germany they jokingly said G=Gummi (the German word for Rubber, as in stretching the scale







). 
To my knowledge USA Trains and Airistocraft dabbled a bit in Gauge I (1:32) before they adapted the "rubber" and creatifly blew up the engines to match LGB rolling stock (at the time the standard for Gardenrailroading).

One other addition, the rail gauge (45mm) is actually referred to Gauge 1 rail (arabic numbers)


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jgallaway81 on 29 Jul 2010 02:43 AM 
I know in the smaller scales, the letter is the designation for the scale ratio to the prototype.

However, with the near-universal of "G-Scale" to mean anything that runs on #1 or 45mm gauge track, I think there is room for a better solution:
Use the "G" to represent the gauge, and just tack on the scale used ie: G29 would be 1/29th scale running on 45mm track, hello Aristo? G32 would be MTH's designation. G24 for Delton & USA Classic, G20.3 for Bachmann, etc.

If You want to get REAL specific, one could even append a number to represent the prototype gauge: G29-56.5 


The nice thing is that this could be back-hauled to all the smaller scales as well: O48, HO87, etc. Even F would fit in, F22.5 would be 1/22.5 scale models on 64mm track... in this case, that means Standard gauge if I'm not wrong? 



VERY NICE!

Best recommendation I have seen.

I get tired of saying "I run one thirty second scale on forty five millimeter track."

"G32" rolls off the tongue easily. Short and sweet.

Hereby adopted.

Thanks!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

In 2003 they introdcued G and their catalog states 1:22.5 
LGB used the "G" moniker from very early on, going back to when I first got involved in the mid 70s (and earlier.) _Model Railroader_ ads from the late 60s call it "K" scale for "King-sized," though that seems to be what the importer was calling it, not Lehmann. The "G" moniker replaced it fairly quickly thereafter in US advertising. In some of their early literature, they called themselves "G" at 1:22.5, while showing Scale II as 1:22.*6*. I wish I could find it now. It's one of my earliest memories in terms of a chart laying out the different model RR scales. Someone in their marketing department was hard at work that day...  

Neither Aristo nor USA ever did any 1:32 models, at least not in large numbers. USA started out making clones of LGB's box cars and refrigerator cars, tapping into the billboard car collector market. They referred to them as 1:24. Their work train was built to the same scale. They switched to 1:29 standard gauge models once Aristo demonstrated it would be commercially viable. Aristo's early stuff--to my recollection--was always referred to as 1:29. (The Rogers had a few 1:24 references here and there, too.) That was Aristo's shtick. They knew from other manufacturers' attempts to mainstream 1:32 in the US that the trains lacked that "wow" factor, so they simply bumped things up a bit. Hey, if LGB could broaden the gauge of 600mm and 760mm models to 1 meter and no one care, why would the same consumer bat an eye at narrowing the gauge from 56.5 to 51"? It proved wildly successful. The only "major" manufacturer who even made a go at commercial 1:32 at that point was MDC/Roundhouse, and we know how successful they were with that by the veritable plethora of MDC cars in our collections. 

G29 would be 1/29th scale running on 45mm track, hello Aristo? G32 would be MTH's designation. G24 for Delton & USA Classic, G20.3 for Bachmann, etc. 
There was a big push in the mid - late 90s promoting pretty much exactly that system. (It used "LS" instead of "G.") Each "scale" had its own color, and the numbers were big and easy to read. It made wonderful sense and really clarified things. It even showed up in some manufacturers' ads for a short period of time. Then for some reason, it just went away and was never seen again. I'm all for a revival. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ummm.....I'm confused (not an unusual occurence I'll admit!) I followed the whole G29 and G32, G24, G20.3 bit but what's this about F22.5 or F64 or whatever? It doesn't work! F is the scale 1:20.32 period. Fn3 runs on 45mm track (or said in another way 15mm scale.) This same ratio when applied to standard gauge (4' 8 1/2") works out to 70.64mm. Standard gauge in 1:22.5 is _really_ close to Scale II at 1:22.6 but the point I'm trying to make is where does "F" come into the picture in conjunction with 1:22.5? Sorry, an intriguing idea but it still needs work.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve Stockham on 29 Jul 2010 11:49 AM 
Ummm.....I'm confused (not an unusual occurence I'll admit!) I followed the whole G29 and G32, G24, G20.3 bit but what's this about F22.5 or F64 or whatever? It doesn't work! F is the scale 1:20.32 period. Fn3 runs on 45mm track (or said in another way 15mm scale.) This same ratio when applied to standard gauge (4' 8 1/2") works out to 70.64mm. Standard gauge in 1:22.5 is _really_ close to Scale II at 1:22.6 but the point I'm trying to make is where does "F" come into the picture in conjunction with 1:22.5? Sorry, an intriguing idea but it still needs work.


Steve, I was confused by that too..but after re-reading Jason's post:

Posted By jgallaway81 on 29 Jul 2010 02:43 AM I know in the smaller scales, the letter is the designation for the scale ratio to the prototype. However, with the near-universal of "G-Scale" to mean anything that runs on #1 or 45mm gauge track, I think there is room for a better solution: Use the "G" to represent the gauge, and just tack on the scale used ie: G29 would be 1/29th scale running on 45mm track, hello Aristo? G32 would be MTH's designation. G24 for Delton & USA Classic, G20.3 for Bachmann, etc If You want to get REAL specific, one could even append a number to represent the prototype gauge: G29-56.5 
The nice thing is that this could be back-hauled to all the smaller scales as well: O48, HO87, etc. Even F would fit in, F22.5 would be 1/22.5 scale models on 64mm track... in this case, that means Standard gauge if I'm not wrong? 


I think I understand it..I believe he is taking ANYthing that runs on 45mm track, and giving it a G designation..
under that system, Fn3 would no longer be Fn3, it would become G20.
that could be a good system, in theory, if everyone wanted to go that route..
but if we were going to go that route, it needed to be done 20 years ago..IMO its too late for that now..but continuing on with the theory:

Since Fn3 would longer exist in this system, the letter "F" would now refer to a track gauge only..not a scale..So F22 (im dropping the decimals, as was suggested back in the 1990's) would be 1/22.5 scale standard gauge models running on "F gauge" track, which has a gauge of 64mm. (which is a scale/gauge combination that doesnt exist anyway..)

(yes, we are taking the more modern F "standard gauge" track gauge and applying it to an older theory! 

So F becomes a gauge..but not a scale!
thats a bit much...
a bit *too* radical to change things that much now..
it could have worked years ago, before F scale was widely accepted..
but IMO we dont need to go there now.. 

(also, I dont see any reason for O48 or HO87..there is no problem with O and HO the way they are!  
those are the scale designations that *work*! 
thats the system we need to try to emulate IMO..F and Fn3 are the only ones in LS that works properly IMO..)

and also since F-scale is now well accepted as 1/20.3..IMO we should just keep it that way..
its at least one tiny bit of the LS scale/gauge mess that makes good sense..
F scale is standard gauge in 1/20.3, Fn3 is 3-foot gauge in 1/20.3.. 
that matches the long-established "other" scale designations..HO, HOn2, HOn3, O scale, On2..etc etc..which are fine as they are..

Scot


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Steve Stockham on 29 Jul 2010 11:49 AM 
....This same ratio when applied to standard gauge (4' 8 1/2") works out to 70.64mm. Standard gauge in 1:22.5 is _really_ close to Scale II at 1:22.6 


I don't know if your tried to say this or not. So for clarification, if you take 1435mm (that is standard gauge) and devide it by 22.5 you receive 63.7777777 mm hence the 64mm track width for gauge II (not 45mm).


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

AMEN!!! (I'n still not clear about using "F" for 1:22.5 even if 64mm is what the standard gauge would scale out to. How does that work? 45mm isn't even the correct gauge for 1:22.5!!) Better to leave what works alone and F Scale actually works! _Vive la Fn3!!!_


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Once, at the Garden, an NMRA official was asking me, "Why don't you follow the suggested nomenclature?" I didn't want to admit I didn't understand it and get a half-hour lecture, so I just said, "Just thick-headed, I guess."


----------



## Pete Chimney (Jan 12, 2008)

Actually when we use the term O scale (as in Oh scale) this is incorrect. Originally there were three scales of model trains with their own gause tracks, 1,2 & 3. #1 scale ad gauge has survived as our "garnden railroads, #2 and #3scales/ gauges have more or disappeared. The when manufacturers wanted to make something smaller than #1 they chose the next number down which was 0 (zero). So actually Lionel should be zero scale and not O scale.

Thus HO which is short for half O should really be H0 or half zero scale. But i guess HO roills off the tongue a bit easier.


----------



## Dwayne (Jun 10, 2010)

I play with 1:17n30... or D(wayne)n30 if a letter designation is neede. Since I'm the only person playing with this scale/gauge I get to determine what it's going to be called! LOL 

Seriously, the hangup to use a letter for every scale is ignorant. Use the scale followed by a 'n' (if modeling narrow gauge) and the full number of inches. Fn3 would simply be 13n36. So simply even a caveman can figure it out.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwayne on 29 Jul 2010 07:22 PM 
Use the scale followed by a 'n' (if modeling narrow gauge) and the full number of inches. Fn3 would simply be 13n36. So simply even a caveman can figure it out.  



you mean Fn3 would be 20n36 
7/8n2 would be 13n24..there isnt a 13n36.. 


Scot


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

F = 13? Ummm.......O kaaay. Uhh......hmmmm (*sigh) I give! It must be_ so_ simple that it's waaay beyond me!! How does F = 13?
Ah! After I posted I saw Scot's explanation. Okay, I can see that. F=20 (as in 1:*20*.3!) and n36 being the gauge of the prototype in inches. (Workable.)


----------



## Dwayne (Jun 10, 2010)

You're correct Scotty and I confuzzled myself thinking of 7/8ths scale. Plus I've been enjoying a few beers this evening.  
Fn3 equals 1:20.3n36 in my world.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Wasn't that what was behind the 1/2" scale movement (as in 1/2" to the foot). Only problem that #1 track (as in 45mm) was actually not correct but already established









Because 45mm = 2" which is no equivalent to 4' which is a prototype rail that exists nowhere in the world. The rail problem goes back to the the horses I was told. The rail-width something to do with the original horse waggon width and it evolved from there?

The story seemed to make sense because neither the Brits nor the Europeans could have been so "stupid". Europeans would probably have made a 1500mm Standard Gauge and not 1435mm and the Brits would have gone for 4 or 5 foot standard gauge. (Oh by the way other gauges include 1520mm, 1524=5', 1600, 1668, 1676)

Point in case European narrow gauge is 750mm and 1000mm (and not 783mm and 1013mm







) and American narrow gauge is 2' and 3' - of course the latter one could have been avoided if we wouldn't insist ont he archaic foot and inches but would have adapted the metric system









Interesting enough 1:24 = Pola and Piko Houses, 1:24 lots of die-cast models........ so if we dream this would be the result:
Standard Gauge: 60mm (59.79916666 but who is counting micometers)
Meter gauge: 42mm (41.66666666)
3': 38mm (38.0833333)
2':25mm (25.4)


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

45mm is not 2", I beleive it is closer to 1.77".. 
Also the "Brits" were the ones that came up with the 4' 8.5" guage.. 
After the Civil War the congress of the USA set 4' 8.5" as the standard for the transcontinental railway.. 

BulletBob


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

Hey guys, for my post, I may have messed up. I don't know enough about F to know what scale it is. When I said the scale, I was going with what I thought it was... I wasn't advocating changing the scale to letter relationship.

As for mentioning the other scales, I was just saying that the solution I suggested wouldn't HAVE to be a G-scale only solution, but that it COULD work for ALL scale combinations, IF people wanted to go that route and unify the entire system.


To me, (I freely & proudly admit that I am unique and have a much different viewpoint than many others), the most important thing in selecting a piece of rolling stock to add to my empire is "will it run on my rails?" Once I know that, then I can decide if i can live with the scale difference.


Hence, my suggestion: G29... I instantly know that it WILL run on my empire as is. I also know in this case that its the same scale as my current toys and therefore good to go. Because of this combination, I also know what the prototype's gauge was... granted, in this case, there wasn't a real prototype because of the scale/gauge relationship. Verily, G78 would be also easy to understand... G = 45mm gauge, 7/8 scale equipment. 


People who care would know if the item was the scale they wanted, and those who don't care, would instantly know if they could run the car on their tracks.


I challenge you to find a scale/gauge combination that doesn't work with this system.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jgallaway81 on 30 Jul 2010 10:47 AM tracks.

I challenge you to find a scale/gauge combination that doesn't work with this system.





Jason,
it is actually a good system! I like it..all the trains running on 45mm track would be:

G32
G29
G24
G22
G20
G13

(7/8n2 trains would have to be G13, not G78..because the scale is 1/13.7, not 1/78th) 


It *does* make sense.. 

the nice thing about that system is that it easily explains the whole "different scales running on the same track" issue..
its easily explainable to a someone new to the hobby:
"The G means all these trains will run on G gauge track..the different numbers after the G indicate the different scales, 32 and 29 are standard gauge,
22 is meter gauge, 20 is 3 foot gauge, etc.."

the only problem is, I think its too late..
Fn3 is already widely accepted, and its probably the largest and most common of all the scales..
then there is the historic concept that "G scale = 1/22.5 only"..so you would have to make "G" apply to everything..
which could be done of course..there are no "scale police" to stop us..
also 7/8n2 is already accepted, except for the SE45 movement..now we would have to add a third contender into the mix, G13..
I think the masses would just revolt..
and who has the authority to actually make such a system "official" anyway??
there is really no group that can do it..

maybe if all the manufacturers got together and adopted a system on their own, it would have to become "official" by default,
and eventually all the hobbiests would just change their thinking, and Fn3 and 7/8n2 and the others would just slowly die off..
so it could be done..but I dont know exactly *how* it could be done.. 


Scot


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

A pure G designation might be the easiest to understand for only 45mm enthusiasts but it truly is not a good general model. The main designator shouldn't be on what track it runs, but what scale it is.

In all scales poeple like to represent Main Lines, Narrow gauge lines, street cars, field railways, and mining operation all on the same layout. The all have to match in scale. Also the scales have been chosen in a way that the next lower scale's track fit the narrow gauge implementation. Here are a few examples:

II Standard Gauge 1:22.5 in II gauge track (Popular in Germany)
IIm Meter gauge 1:22.5 on I gauge track (Very Popular around the world - best know for two rail road lines HSB and RhB)
I Standard gauge 1:32 on I gauge track (Very Popular in Germany with DB rolling stock - MTH over here with limited penetration)
Im Meter Gauge 1:32 on O track (although this is theoretical because I have not found any evidence of Im products ever made)
O Standard gauge 1:48 on O gauge track (Mostly US)
Om Meter gauge 1:48 on S track (Very popular for outdoor layouts in Switzerland - RhB layouts)
S Standard Gauge on S track (a dying Artform)
Sm Meter Gauge 1:64 on HO track (there was only one major layout I know off that did this in Switzerland)
HO Standard Gauge 1:87 on HO track (Popular around the world)
HOm Meter Gauge 1:87 on TT track (Popular around the world among fans of Swiss railroads)

And yes once you figured out that O actually stood for 0 it almost makes sense:

II, I, 0, 1/2 0

Of course the abnormality is S, and the modern TT and Z scales.

In terms of O versus 0 (Zero) I remember when I was 16 and the first time in England on wanted to call home, I was asked for the phone number, so I said Zero Zero Four Nine.......

And the operator responded "Ok let me repeat - Oh, Oh, four nine.." and I said no you have that wrong its Zero, Zero ... there is no O in the number


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 31 Jul 2010 06:18 AM 
...
Im Meter Gauge 1:32 on O track (although this is theoretical because I have not found any evidence of Im products ever made)
...


one might add, there was something, that came near to "Im".
the german Faller company had for a couple of decades or so a line called "Toy-train" and "E-train".
0 scale track with rolling stock of 1:32/1:30 dimensions. they were selectively distorted to allow for higher doors and their playmobil-like 1:25 figures.
at least it come near enough, that i plan to incorporate some of this stuff as a plantation line for my 1:29 layout)

see the (some) pics from Mik's layout. he uses the stuff for his mine.
.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

The system is workable! Granted that I believe is too little waaay too late but it does make sense! At least it is_ logical! _From an aesthetic point of view though, I have to say that using "G" for everything from standard gauge trains in 1:32 scale to 2ft. gauge trains in 1:13.7 scale just leaves a bad taste in my mouth! The _only_ thing they all have in common is 45mm gauge track!! Wouldn't the designation "LS" work better than "G"? I know this is all just a discussion with no real hope of any action ever being taken but it would be nice if we could at least point to this discussion and tell the NMRA that, "Thanks but we already figured it out!"


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Post deleted.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Why Steve, wouldn't the 'G' nicely dovetail with the fact that you're running all those various scales on 'Gauge 1' track (i.e. 45mm gauge)?


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

but, Steve, our trains do NOT run on "Gauge 1" track. 
Gauge 1 and G-Gauge have one thing in common, the distance between rails of 45 mm. 
but does there exist a "G" scale producer, whose wheels can run on Gauge one, without rattling along the sleepers?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

A pure G designation might be the easiest to understand for only 45mm enthusiasts but it truly is not a good general model. The main designator shouldn't be on what track it runs, but what scale it is. 
Axel, with the utmost respect, you're sounding exactly like the NMRA sounded when I started working on wheel and track standards with them a few years ago. They couldn't wrap their heads around the simple fact that *in large scale, gauge is the common, unifying factor.* They were looking for complete sets of standards (including -n3, -n30, etc.) for _each_ of the scales we run in the garden. That was an absolutely ludicrous way to go about things. To look at large scale from that perspective completely ignores how large scale has evolved over the past 42 years in this country. It took a lot of work on our part, but the NMRA finally understood that you could have standards allowing trains of different scales to run on the same track without the known universe imploding. You didn't need to quantify every possible variant of gauge under a given scale when the gauge was the constant people cared about. 

The reality is that it's this universal gauge that gives large scale it's strength and character. Almost every one of us posting on this forum run trains on the same track, despite widely varied interests. If any one of the members were in my neck of the woods, they could bring their latest creation over and run it on my railroad regardless of its scale. The various steam-ups and get-togethers we enjoy through the year would be impossible if the hobby were segregated on the basis of scale. 

Model railroaders don't choose their trains based on specific scale. They don't choose to model HO _because_ it's 1:87, or choose O because it's 1:48 (or 1:45 or 1:43 depending on where you are). They choose their trains based on their overall size and the room they have available for them. That they are a specific scale is secondary to the physical size and space requirements of the models themselves. The choice between standard and narrow gauge is based on personal preference. A small scale modeler wanting models of a given physical size could choose S scale for standard gauge if that's where there preferences lie, or if they were narrow gauge enthusiasts, fit On3 in the same physical space. The models themselves are similar in overall size and physical requirements. Large scale is really no different. People get into large scale because the overall size of the trains appeals to them, not because they're a specific scale. They choose standard gauge vs. narrow based on what personally appeals to them. The advantage of large scale is that a modeler can lay 300' of track in the back yard, run standard gauge on it one day then turn around and run narrow gauge the next. 

We can sit and ponder how large scale should have evolved to better "fit the mold" for days and weeks on end, but it doesn't change the reality of what actually happened and the cards we hold in our hand today. Our only choice is to play that hand as it's been dealt and make it easier to navigate the waters within the large scale umbrella. The reality is that "the mold" is merely a matter of perspective. One need only to change that perspective to see the same things in a whole new light. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

but does there exist a "G" scale producer, whose wheels can run on Gauge one, without rattling along the sleepers? 
Yes. Many, if not all of them. None of the standards (NMRA, G1MRA, MOROP) specify a height of the rails. The closest is that they specify flange/flangeway depth to varying degrees. The determining factor in whether your flanges hit the ties is the distance between the railhead and the top of the spike/bolt/whatever detail. It's important to note that said distance is not necessarily greater with the taller rail, either. You can make your rails as tall or short as you'd like. So long as your flanges are never deeper than your flangeways (which extends to the distance between the railhead and spike detail), your trains won't bounce on the ties. Most major manufacturers' trains will run on G1MRA track, which is why when we did track standards for the NMRA, we borrowed heavily from--if not outright copied--G1MRA standards. 

Within certain organizations, there are "fine scale" and "normal" standards, and it doesn't necessarily follow that trains built to one will run smoothly on the other. There has never been a presumption that they would. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 31 Jul 2010 09:50 AM 
but, Steve, our trains do NOT run on "Gauge 1" track. 
Gauge 1 and G-Gauge have one thing in common, the distance between rails of 45 mm. 
but does there exist a "G" scale producer, whose wheels can run on Gauge one, without rattling along the sleepers? Kormsen

OK, you've forced me to learn something new, this is a good thing.







I now know that you can't properly refer to any model track with a gauge of 45mm as 'Gauge 1' unless it also has the proper rail code (i.e. code 200 (5.0mm) for bullhead rail & code 220 (5.5mm) for flat bottom rail) installed too.

Out of curisoity if you know, how does that align with the original Marklin #1 Gauge rail profile? Its got to be off by a fair amount because its said that the original railhead width was 3mm and they measured their gauge from railhead center-to-center, not inside edge to inside edge.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Steve, where are you finding set standard for rail height that dictates it (and only it) can be called "gauge 1?" 

Later, 

K


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 31 Jul 2010 01:21 PM 
Steve, where are you finding set standard for rail height that dictates it (and only it) can be called "gauge 1?" 

Later, 
K G1MRA - Standards Sheet 2[/b] (RG 17/04/09) 
_(However, I have no way of knowing if the '09' represents 1909 or 2009







)_ 

You might also take note that there are now three levels.
[*] Standard Gauge 1
[*] Fine Gauge 1
[*] ScaleOne32
[*] ScaleOne32 Wheel and Track Standards[/b]
[/list][/list]


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Sorry, Steve, no exact measurements. 
just old experience. in the '70ies, some neighbour boys and me wanted to join for a biiig layout. 
but while Maerklin Maxi stuff (G- one or "I" in 1:32) ran on LGB rails (with a tendency to fall into the frogs), the LGB stuff sounded on "I"track as if one waere operating an oldfashioned sewingmashine, and jumped the fence on switches. 
if i remember right, there was a hight problem too, for interconnecting the two sorts of track. 
to the eye the gauge 1 rails were less different from 0 gauge rails, than from the G-gauge ones.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Hehehe... thank you for recalling your memories and sharing. It's comforting to know that at least track gauge and rail profile follows the rest of the areas of model railroading, waxing, waning, and meandering as the whims of the modeling community dictate.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks, Steve. It's important to note that "gauge" is defined specifically as the distance between the inside edges of the rails. There is no component of that definition that has anything to do with any other aspect of track construction. While G1MRA might have a "standard" rail profile, there's nothing inherent in that standard that precludes any other track built to that same gauge from being called "gauge 1." Case in point, look at Sunset Valley, Llagas Creek and others who make 45mm track with standard-gauge tie profiles for use with 1:32 trains. They use either code 250 or code 215 rail--both "non-compliant" with G1MRA's standard rail profile. They build their track and switches to G1MRA track standards in terms of gauge, flangeways, etc. It's just that the rail is a different size. How would you not call that track "gauge 1?" 

In terms of the Marklin track example sited above, Marklin uses a very small rail (on the order of code 200 if I recall correctly). They built to a much finer standard than to what LGB built to. LGB eschewed G1MRA in pretty much every regard _except_ the 45mm distance between the rails (raising the question of why they bothered choosing an existing gauge in the first place, since their trains were only marginally compatible with existing track stock.) LGB early on used a VERY deep flange, often as deep as 3/16". That's .1875". Running on Marklin's track, that leaves .0125" for spike detail. Certainly, the deep flanges are going to go "bump." When you've got track built to a fine standard, and trains built to a much coarser standard, I'm not sure how you can expect the two to run well together. You can no more fault one vs. the other--the basic reality is that they're built to incompatible standards. It's much akin to expecting American Flyer track to match up with "scale" S-scale track. Both are "s-gauge," but that's where the similarity ends.

Today, many manufacturers use a smaller flange (between .090" and .120" deep), and most have gravitated toward's G1MRA's back-to-back spacing. If the track is built to G1MRA standards, the trains will run smoothly over them. Even on very low-profile rail such as Marklin's, there's a greater chance of things behaving themselves. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I understand what you're saying Kevin, but the argument that the mere existence of a specific rail profile being stipulated in the G1MRA standards supports the definaton of just what "Gauge 1" track is, and is just as valid.

I would think that a better argument against trying to further define just what constitues 'Gauge 1' track beyond its gauge, would be that it mimicks that which takes place in the real world of 1:1 prototypes, namely that the varience in the weight of the rail used (which of necessity then changes the rail profile) on any given railroad does not effect the fact that it's Standard, Narrow, Cape, or Broad Gauge etc. etc.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

I was out the whole day visiting friends so I have to combine a few responses:

Last post by Kevin about Sunset Valley:
I have an additional case in point, their rail height is code 250, however, their rail head is code 332, becasue we learned that customers have to use our code 332 rail bender to bend their track rather than our code 250 rail bender.

To Kevin's earlier argument:
My excerpt was not designed to argue for one or the other reason of sizes in G-scale - I could care less who is running what on his 45 mm layout. My point is that the entire railroad community is millions of poeple and gauge standards are not just the thing for the G-scale community. Whether the originators of the scale designations were wise or not, they exist and we won't change the world about that. For me they make sense the way they unfold. No point to get testy about this.

To Tac
Honestly with over 100.000 G-scalers around the world in sizes above 1:32 I believe a community of 3000 is limited penetration. Anything larger than 20% market share could surely be considered sizable. But of course my interpretation of statistics might be absolutely wrong. Sorry if any of my statements offended you!

The same thing is true for my O scale comment. I said "mostly" that implies that O scale in what ever shape or form is to be found elsewhere, but percentage wise not important.

And the reason why I left out N scale is simple. Below HOm on TT track I don't know of any TTm and Nm products that continue the designation example I tried to make. If you would have read my earlier post I included the lower scale all the way down to Z.

As far the other O and OO scales. I am so sorry that I overlooked this unique British implementation. Since I have never seen an OO scale magazine neither heard of 16mm 0 scale narrow gauge I plead ignorance. I love to see one, have to ask a friend over there to send me one. And before you say I am putting something down let me quote you a Wikipedia info I just found:
00 gauge[/b] or 00 scale[/b] (also spelled OO gauge[/b] and OO scale[/b]) model railways are the most popular standard-gauge model railway tracks in the U.K. 
But nonetheless thank you for pointing this out.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I understand what you're saying Kevin, but the argument that the mere existence of a specific rail profile being stipulated in the G1MRA standards supports the definaton of just what "Gauge 1" track is, and is just as valid. 
You'd have to accept the premise that any one particular standards organization is responsible for defining every aspect of a scale/gauge. With three distinct standards groups, I don't think you can support that argument. The gauges predate the standards organizations (by quite a few decades). Each set of standards arose from these established gauges as organizations in the various modeling communities sought to bring some semblance of order out of whatever chaos may have existed. (And if large scale is any indication, there's a lot of chaos.) Any of the groups can define things within the confines of their membership, but to claim one group's definition or standard is the "real" thing relative to the others, that's a claim that any one group simply cannot make. 

Later, 

K


----------



## John Galt Line (Dec 12, 2012)

So, before I spend a mess of money, how screwed up will Marklin 1:32 DB Fad-50 cars look being schlepped behind a Piko BR218?


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Why the heck did you hide your unrelated question on the back end of this old thread?


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

JGL 

I am with TW, you need to repost your query in the European Trains forum or it will probably go unanswered and unnoticed by those who could answer it. 

I presume the car is this one ===> http://www.dybas.de/dybas/gw/gw_f_1/g167.html 
and the locomotive is this one ===> http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?locomotive=BR 218 

Just look at the Piko site and find the LuP dimension, divide it into the length for the full sized one. if the ratio is between 1:30.5 and 1:32 you are probably going to be happy, if it is 1:22.5 the loco will dwarf the cars.


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

The F in Fn3 is from 15mm. The track is 45 mm gauge, of it represents 3 foot then each foot is fifteen mm. The n is for narrower than standard gauge. The 3 is the real life, that is 1:1 gauge. 

1:24 is labeled H for 1/2 inch. In 1:24 1/2 inch represents 1 foot in real life. Thus our track would be for Hn2.5 as stated above. 

See, does make sense.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So, how about those Dodgers?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ya and also how about Gage. Someday maybe get it right for the right terms for track.







Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*Gauge:*











Gage:[/b]


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

RJ, gage/gauge I'm afraid will be a loosing battle. I have seen both spellings in the same book. If an author and editor cannot adopt a single spelling, what chance do we have? I believe the book with both spellings is by Beebe and Clegg NARROW GAUGE IN THE ROCKIES. Of the 6 books that I have on Colorado NG the word in question is always spelled GAUGE in the title. Hilton's compendium AMERICAN NARROW G........ RAILROADS spells it gauge. By any chance, is the spelling "gage" a British spelling like "centre and colour"? 



Chuck

PS I just checked my American Heritage Dictionary. Under "gauge", among a number of definitions, is width between two rails and the distance between two wheels on an axle. Under "gage" it says a variant of gauge. Nothing is mentioned about distance between rails or wheels on an axle.


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Merrim-Webster's view of Gauge versus Gage, but hey, they're not the OED!


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Dictionary dot com entry for "GAGE":

noun
1. something, as a glove, thrown down by a medieval knight in token of challenge to combat.
2. Archaic. a challenge.
3. Archaic. a pledge or pawn; security.

verb (used with object)
4. Archaic. to pledge, stake, or wager.

a VARIANT of GAUGE.


Dictionary dot com entry for "GAUGE":

verb (used with object)
1. to determine the exact dimensions, capacity, quantity, or force of; measure.
2. to appraise, estimate, or judge.
3. to make conformable to a standard.
4. to mark or measure off; delineate.
5. to prepare or mix (plaster) with a definite proportion of plaster of Paris and mortar.
6. to chip or rub (bricks or stones) to a uniform size or shape.

noun
7. a standard of measure or measurement.
8. a standard dimension, size, or quantity.
9. any device or instrument for measuring, registering measurements, or testing something, especially for measuring a dimension, quantity, or mechanical accuracy: pressure gauge; marking gauge.
10. a means of estimating or judging; criterion; test.
11. extent; scope; capacity: trying to determine the gauge of his own strength.
12. Ordnance . a unit of measure of the internal diameter of a shotgun barrel, determined by the number of spherical lead bullets of a diameter equal to that of the bore that are required to make one pound: a twelve-gauge shotgun.

13. Railroads. the distance between the inner edges of the heads of the rails in a track, usually 4 feet 8.5 inches (1.4 meters) (standard gauge) but sometimes more (broad gauge) and sometimes less (narrow gauge)

14. the distance between a pair of wheels on an axle.
15. the thickness or diameter of various, usually thin, objects, as the thickness of sheet metal or the diameter of a wire or screw.
16. the fineness of a knitted fabric as expressed in loops per every 1.5 inches (3.8 cm): 15 denier, 60 gauge stockings.
17. Nautical. the position of one vessel as being to the windward (weather gauge) or to the leeward (lee gauge) of another vessel on an approximately parallel course.
18. Building Trades. the portion of the length of a slate, tile, etc., left exposed when laid in place.
19. the amount of plaster of Paris mixed with mortar or common plaster to hasten the set.

also, especially in technical use, gage.



SOOOOoooo.... GIVEN that "gage" is a variant of "gauge" and that "gauge", by definition 13, is, "...the distance between the inner edges of the heads of the rails in a track...", I'd say that "GAUGE" is the proper spelling for either a meter to measure the pressure of steam or to talk about the distance between the rail of a RR track, but if you want to be "technical sounding" you can use "GAGE", but that would be true for either the steam pressure meter or the distance between rails.

But then who'd believe anything on the internet, try your own dictionary. My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary substantially agrees with the above, but I can't copy and paste from the paper book and am way too lazy to type it in.

I tend to use GAUGE most of the time, but will use GAGE when communicating with one of my fine English friends just like I spell aluminum, "Aluminium", and color, "Colour", and flavor, "Flavour", out of deference to his superior intellect.


I also find it interesting that in spellchecking this posting, the built-in spell checker didn't like "GAUGE", but did like "GAGE".


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Semper, I had the same problem with the spell checker. I clicked on add, we will see what it does the next time. Chuck


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

The overwhelming use in railroading, model and prototype, is gauge, not gage. 
So much so, that whenever I see "gage" being used, I consider it a misspelling. 
IMO, they are not interchangeable, gauge is correct, gage is wrong. 

Scot


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Scot, I agree. This has come up on occasion over the past few years. I have occasionally, seen, gage,but it never looked correct. I am glad this has come up and we have actually looked at a dictionary. May gage remain a ??? And not involve our track. Chuck 


At least I will no longer feel guilty using gauge.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

is gauge, not gage. 
Yes I cringe when I see 'gage'. It belongs with Greengage an english fruit like a plum.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Well I now live in the UK and even before that I understood that GAUGE was a size measurement, (as in a glass gauge block), and that GAGE was a fruit, as in Green Gage. In my orchard I have both Gages and Plums. If you want to know -Plums have no "bloom" but Gages do -it is exactly the same difference between a Peach and a Nectarine. As to taste... Plums make it to the kitchen -Gages NEVER do!!! Fresh from the tree on summer evening they are a taste of heaven.... 

regards 

ralph


----------



## aopagary (Jun 30, 2008)

with large Gage fruit at about 4.5cm, ...G gauge?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I guess these are narrow gage then:


















My site has been updated, no mention of "gage" any more, all is "gauge"

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I thought spelling wasn't corrected heer ..... hee hee ... just peoples...


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Hah! easier to correct spelling than people!


----------



## avlisk (Apr 27, 2012)

jgalloway81 , your suggestion is GREAT! I've been in #1 gauge for a little less than a year, and trying to buy something in the proper scale is soooo difficult. Even the manufacturers' ads try so hard to get me to NOT buy anything because they usually refuse to say what scale they are selling. It's all part of the idiocy of Large Scale that I'm learning about. And there's a lot of that. 
The only thing I can say about scale/gauge is, in keeping with the K.I.S.S. principle, always think of gauge as distance between the rails, and go from there. 1:32 and 1:29 run on the same gauge track, just as HO and OO do in the smaller scales. In Large Scale, the gauge is always 45mm, or #1 gauge track. 

And, jgalloway, I now model G29.


----------

