# compounding an already confusing gauge



## aopagary (Jun 30, 2008)

how long has "F scale" been listed under "Model RR, Trains" on eBay?

it's pretty obvious sellers don't have a clue.
even that fount of semi-knowledge, Wikipedia, has no entry.

a wonder how many tornado-related items will eventually be listed there.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

it's pretty obvious sellers don't have a clue.... 

I don't believe that for even half a second. I think a lot of listings on eBay are deliberately cross-listed or whatever it is called, in multiple categories that the lister knows are NOT correct to obtain greater exposure. This seems very prevalent with toys and model trains specifically. I do not think it is a mistake at all. Most listings that start with "I don't know any thing about trains" are posted by folks who know EXACTLY what they are doing. 

As to your question about F scale as a category, I have no idea when it was established.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Given that only ONE item listed is actually 1/20.3, the $64 Question is WHY did they even bother to establish it?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

F scale and its derivative Fn3 are the only "official" scale designators that NMRA retained when they tried to assign scale designators to everything being sold in "Large Scale" 

There was M scale at 1:13.7 plus its derivatives like Mn2 
And A scale at 1:29 
And H scale at 1:24 

And what we know as G scale was renamed Gnm to reflect the fact it's 1:22,5 scale but for narrow gauge railraods running on Meter gauge - thus the n and the m. 

It's actually all very logical and follows the standard model train scale designator scheme but caused an uproar in the Large Scale community, so all except F and Fn3 was replaced by the LS designator. 

Knut


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Knut 

Too bad the Colonials refuse to just use the same designation as most of the known universe: Scale II for 1:22.5/1:22.6 and m for meter gauge. Everywhere else they just say IIm and everybody knows what it means.

Look at the KISS web site, the RhB equipment is IIm. Of course in some places Scale II is called Scale 3... makes me crazy.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I think "G-Scale" is the BEST nomenclature for the whole thing... the "G" stands for "GOOFY".

The only other letter that might fit the bill is "R"... which would stand for "RUBBER-SCALE"!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Too bad the Colonials refuse to just use the same designation as most of the known universe: Scale II for 1:22.5/1:22.6 and m for meter gauge. 
Blame the marketing department in a particular toy company formerly located in what used to be known as West Germany. They're the ones who coined "G" despite the existance of "Scale II." In fact, the early LGB catalogs drew a key distinction between Scale II at 1:22.*6* and "G" at 1:22.*5*. As a curious kid leafing through those early catalogs, I always found it peculiar that they would make such a distinction. 

(The "Colonials" originally were using "K" for "King Size" in early ads for LGB's stuff.) 

Knut, the devil was in the details of that proposal. On the face, a different letter for each scale makes a lot of sense. The NMRA proposal took that to the extreme, though, looking to codify complete individual standards--including n3, n30, etc. standards--for _each_ of the lettered scales. Since Large Scale is track-centric, it was the wrong model to use. I was happy to see to see that one wither and die on the vine. Early on in the standards process, I kicked around the idea of even dropping the "F scale" designator, but a few of the others involved with the process made F-standard gauge products, so that designator stayed as its own entity. To date, though, very few people actually use the letter designator to describe 3' narrow gauge prototypes running on 45mm track. Most manufacturers use the numeric label, as do many publciactions. 

Later, 

K


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 25 Aug 2012 04:24 PM 
Knut 

Too bad the Colonials refuse to just use the same designation as most of the known universe: Scale II for 1:22.5/1:22.6 and m for meter gauge. Everywhere else they just say IIm and everybody knows what it means.

Look at the KISS web site, the RhB equipment is IIm. Of course in some places Scale II is called Scale 3... makes me crazy.




























Jim,

That's probably because the "Colonials" never heard uf a model railroad gauge larger than O-scale.

I'm always blown away by the standard gauge II model trains in Europe, with functionality, capability and detail we can only dream of in North America....but also with an appropriate price.
I'm always thinking of adding one standard gauge 64mm track to my set up with a short section of 3-rail (45 and 64mm) rack and a matching turnout and buy one standard gauge 1:22.5 scale box car like this one:
http://www.gbdb.info/details.php?image_id=2590

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 25 Aug 2012 04:49 PM 
I think "G-Scale" is the BEST nomenclature for the whole thing... the "G" stands for "GOOFY".

The only other letter that might fit the bill is "R"... which would stand for "RUBBER-SCALE"!



That's because LGB started out as a toy for kids.
Ruggedness, easy of set up, layout on the Living Room carpet - these all were prime considerations, not scale.

Take a look at page 3 of the first LGB catalogue
http://www.gbdb.info/details.php?image_id=3240

Knut


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 
==> Since Large Scale is track-centric, it was the wrong model to use. 

That is true in North America... I do not believe the people in the UK and the Continent would necessarily agree. 

Your attitude shows that you still have a bias against those who wish to do scale modeling in larger scales, particularly outside, as opposed to "artistic compositions conveying an overall impression". The first requires products that actually are reasonable scale representations of particular objects, and in the case of railroad equipment, conform to certain standards to promote good operation. The second does not [necessarily] require these . Clearly, since the first group is in the minority in this country, we take large amounts of grief. We are chastised for trying to "ruin" the large scale hobby by "inflicting" standards on the rest of the 'if it looks like a train, it is good enough" crowd. I wish these people had been in the model railroad hobby BEFORE the NMRA started "inflicting" standards on HO scale. In the beginning the only two standards were the track gauge [16.5mm] and the scale [3.5mm/ft- sometimes ignored]. It was up to the modeler to buy replacement couplers, re-gauge the wheels to fit the guardrails on switches, and make sure that locomotives were wired so they ran in the same direction. It took about 20 years to get manufacturers to start using most of the standards. The NMRA recommended practice for using the X2f coupler was adopted only grudgingly, and many of us remember that 'X2f' couplers from Athearn, Roundhouse, Mantua/Tyco, and AHM did not really work together any better than the knuckles from Kadee, USAT, Aristo, LGB..... 

Unfortunately, for large scale it has now been MORE then 20 years, and we have not progressed very far. 

I liken the "scale model" vs "artistic rendering" argument to the difference between a properly scaled map with everything in nearly exact position vs. a "pictomap" that has all the essential elements required to convey the information in approximate relative relationships that may be more pleasing to the eye than the more accurate "cartographically correct" version. One is not necessarily better than the other, they are just vastly different. 

Just my highly biased 2 cents.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I simply tell for G is the gauge of track, (G garden) and what ever size of trains you want to run on it is the scale in proportion to the 1:1. 
I hate manufactures putting G scale on a box. G gauge trains simply tell what track it runs on.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 25 Aug 2012 05:34 PM 

Blame the marketing department in a particular toy company formerly located in what used to be known as West Germany. They're the ones who coined "G" despite the existance of "Scale II." In fact, the early LGB catalogs drew a key distinction between Scale II at 1:22.*6* and "G" at 1:22.*5*. As a curious kid leafing through those early catalogs, I always found it peculiar that they would make such a distinction. 


Scale II at 1:22.*6* is a typo/typesetting error.
II Scale was always 1:22.5 and is also shown like that in the NEM standards
http://www.morop.org/de/normes/nem010_d.pdf

LGB labeled their scale as 1:22 in their first catalogue, but I looked at this more like a simplistic way of showing the approximate scale for a kid's model/toy train.

The original US reference in 1968 to the scale was "Standard n3" coined by the importer.
http://www.gbdb.info/details.php?image_id=3241
"K gauge" was used in the English edition of the 1969/70 catalogue

And I think there was also another letter designation for the LGB trains in the US at that time.

Knut


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

IMO, the use of F scale and Fn3 scale helps to *decrease* confusion! 
because its one clear and meaningful scale designation within the larger conglomeration of "Large Scale".. 
if you say "this model is Fn3 scale" its very clear what it is..

of course, that is a separate issue from the use of F-scale on Ebay, which is of course utterly useless, 
because as others here said said, sellers will deliberately put *anything* into the F-scale category just to gain more eyeballs looking at their auction.. 
they don't care if its actually Fn3 scale or not..their aim is not to decrease confusion, their aim is to attract buyers.. 
but that's an ebay failing, not an Fn3 scale failing.. 

Scot


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Interestingly enough, my issue with the different large scales is that they all use G gauge track. 1/24th scale 3 foot gauge should have had it's own proper gauge track long ago. The proper trucks were around at least 15 years ago, and probably longer than that. PSC made them, Simpson made them, and Ryan Equipment Co made plastic ones that were quite good. I have a set of those. With code 125 or code 148 rail, they can be run with fine scale standards. There was even plastic 1/24th scale freight cars and engines, but they were gauged for G gauge. For the freight cars, swapping trucks isn't a big deal, but the engines are another problem. 

Then there's F scale, the only way you can measure it is with a special scale rule. Also, if you want it to look halfway right, code 215 rail is about as big of a rail as you should use for that. I'm a fan of Llagas Creek track for that reason. I realize that code 215 track is more delicate and damagable than code 332, but it certainly looks better. 

And what's with 1/29th scale anyway? Why didn't they do 1/32nd scale to start with? It's so much closer to the proper scale for G gauge track. 1/29th scale is basically a toy scale, the same as LGB. I'm not here to rain on your parade if you like 1/29th scale, but it could have been done better.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Your attitude shows that you still have a bias against those who wish to do scale modeling in larger scales, 
Not sure how you can possibly draw that conclusion given the models I build; clearly I can't be biased against my own personal primary interests. And given my work with the NMRA to _create_ the current set of large scale standards, (for which I took a tremendous amount of grief from the "we don't need no stinkin' standards" crowd), I'm definitely of the same mindset of you in terms of the need for them. No one suffers those slings and arrows unless they believe in the end result. 

Having said that, I _am not_ a proponent of discounting the "non-accurate" scale/gauge combinations as "artistic renderings" simply because they're not accurate scale/gauge combinations. I'm not going to re-hash that argument from another thread, suffice to say such variations in scale/gauge are rampant across all model railroading scales. If you're into accurate scale/gauge representation, good on you. There's product to support your efforts. Buy them and be happy (as I do). If--for whatever reason--you choose to run one of the "non-accurate" scales, good on you, too. You can do some phenomenal, inspirational modeling in those scales every bit as easily as you can do it in the so-called "accurate" scales. 

I liken the "scale model" vs "artistic rendering" argument to the difference between... 
Here's something to ponder. You run your 1:32 and 1:20.3 accurate scale models on an extensive loop of track set on Trex decking set above the ground. My dad runs his "inaccurate" 1:22.5 models (based on 3' gauge prototypes) on an extensive railroad with scale landscaping and buildings all done to a consistent scale and cohesive theme. Which is the "scale model," and which is the "artisitic rendering?" 

Knut, cool link! Thanks. I seem to recall seeing the ".6" in more than one catalog, so I'm not sure I'd believe it to be a typo, but it's always a possibility. 

And what's with 1/29th scale anyway? Why didn't they do 1/32nd scale to start with? [/ uote]
Size, Amber. "Proper" 1:32 trains were tried by various manufacturers, none caught on when compared to the LGB-sized trains because they just looked too small. 1:29 was a gamble that worked and we're left with what we have. Fortunately, we have Accucraft and MTH providing "proper" 1:32 trains, but they still lag in popularity compared to 1:29. For better or worse, it is what it is. 

As for "proper" 1:24 track to go with the PSC, Ryan, etc. 1.5" gauge stuff, it didn't catch on for the same reason there's not "accurate" 1:29 scale track and accessories for those trains--modelers by and large are accepting of the inherent compromise involved with using 45mm track. The advantage we have today is that those of us for whom scale accuacy is a concern have a good array of products to satisfy our needs, so we don't "have" to compromise in that regard if we don't want to. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

It does make me wonder if there would be a "niche" market for decent 1.5 inch gauge track with proper ties and rail, made to whatever the current fine scale standard there is for that scale. It hasn't been that long ago that someone finally came out with On3 flex track. That used to be mostly a hand laying gauge.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Amber, rather than reinvent a new guage, simply staying with 45mm track but switching to a smaller code rail (say from code 332rail to code 250) gives the visual effect that the track is wider and hence, at least visually, that the track is the correct guage. Afterall, we are only talking about a quarter of an inch difference in gauge.


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Well, the idea with 1/24th scale is that the track should be narrower, and the rails should be smaller than code 215. Code 215 is bigger than 60 pound rail in 1/24th scale. When I talked to Mr Ryan all those years ago when I ordered my set of D&RGW trucks from him, he told me that a lot of the finescale modellers in 1/24th scale were using code 148 rail, and even code 125, especially for the sidings. Code 100 is a good representation of the 30 to 40 pound rail that was originally laid and still in use at the end of operations on some branches of the D&RGW. 
I realize I'm just being picky about it, but 1/24th scale is probably the best scale for finescale standards in large scale, in my humble opinion, although, other than the need for a special scale rule, 1/20.3 scale is also a good choice for finescale work in large scale narrow gauge.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There's a good number of people share the notion that 1:24 is the "ideal" scale. Big enough to be well-detailed, but not quite so overpowering in terms of size as 1:20.3 to where you can fit a decent railroad inside a fairly small space. That, and there's a ton of half-inch scale dollhouse stuff, cars, etc. to use as accessories. (And 1:24 looks a lot better going around a 5' radius curve than 1:20.3) By and large, I agree with them. But without commercially available track, nothing's going to happen. You're not going to attract a whole bunch of converts if they have to spike their own track. That was "true" 1:24's big weakness, and when Bachmann came out with their 1:20.3 Shay, that pretty much nailed that coffin shut. Accucraft, Hartford... pretty much all the finescale 1:24 folks who would have likely supported 1.5" gauge 1:24 jumped to 1:20.3 virtually overnight. 

I will say that with 1:20.3, you don't need a special scale rule. Any ruler with imperial on one side and metric on the other will work. I just go through with a Sharpie and put a line every 15mm. Instant 1:20.3 scale rule. Many times when you go to conferences, people have little plastic ruler/bookmarks as give-a-ways. They're great! I grab a buncn of 'em. (_Finding_ them once I get them home is another story altogether.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

When I first started getting to large scale, 1/20.3 scale was starting to become popular. I bought a scale rule for it from The Scale Card company, along with their scale card in 1/20th scale. Those rules are still the best ones that I've personally seen. And of course, I jumped on the band wagon because of the track, and also because inexpensive engines were available. That would be the other problem with 1/24th scale finescale, a lack of motive power at a reasonable price. I know there were a number of brass engines made in that scale and gauge, but they don't fall into the category of "reasonably priced". I think a pretty decent engine could be made for that scale by using a Delton C-16 and refitting a properly gauged mechanism to it, perhaps using a n NWSL drive for reliability. The hard part would be getting proper drivers without them being expensive brass parts. The flanges on the Delton drivers would be too big for the track work.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Amber on 26 Aug 2012 12:22 AM 
When I first started getting to large scale, 1/20.3 scale was starting to become popular. I bought a scale rule for it from The Scale Card company, along with their scale card in 1/20th scale. Those rules are still the best ones that I've personally seen. And of course, I jumped on the band wagon because of the track, and also because inexpensive engines were available. That would be the other problem with 1/24th scale finescale, a lack of motive power at a reasonable price. I know there were a number of brass engines made in that scale and gauge, but they don't fall into the category of "reasonably priced". I think a pretty decent engine could be made for that scale by using a Delton C-16 and refitting a properly gauged mechanism to it, perhaps using a n NWSL drive for reliability. The hard part would be getting proper drivers without them being expensive brass parts. The flanges on the Delton drivers would be too big for the track work. 
No motive power at a reasonable price and no commercial track and switches in the right gauge for 1/24 scale - wouldn't that make it a non-starter?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

There was M scale at 1:13.7 plus its derivatives like Mn2 
I thought the 1:13.7 was supposed to be called "T" scale for Thirteen? That was before the Japanese T-scale was invented?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 26 Aug 2012 03:09 PM 
There was M scale at 1:13.7 plus its derivatives like Mn2 
I thought the 1:13.7 was supposed to be called "T" scale for Thirteen? That was before the Japanese T-scale was invented? 
1/13.7 scale has pretty much standardized to be referred to as "7/8n2 scale"..
that doesn't account for other gauges in 1/13.7 scale, such as standard gauge, but standard gauge modeling barely exists in that scale anyway..
the vast majority is 2-foot gauge modeling..(2-foot gauge models on 45mm track)

there has been a recent movement to attempt to get people to use SE24 and SE18 as a scale designation, for "Seven Eights 24 inch gauge" and "Seven Eights 18 inch gauge"..
but again, like standard gauge, the 18" gauge modeling appears to be a VERY tiny niche within the very tiny niche that is 1/13.7 scale modeling..
probably 95% of 1/13.7 scale modeling is 2-foot gauge.

personally I don't care for the SE24 designation, I think it's completely unnecessary and *creates* confusion rather than diminish it, so I never use it..
I just use 7/8n2 scale, which works perfectly fine, has been around the longest, and is completely understandable and descriptive..

Scot


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Are there any engines of any kind for 7/8n2, or is it a kitbash situation for that? I know there's several businesses that cast parts for that scale for building small cars, but I haven't seen any engines offered yet, not even the little gas mechanicals. Of course, I haven't really done a big search for an engine, so I don't really know if there is or not.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Not a whole lot. Accucraft just announced a live steam 7/8" scale loco, and there have been a smattering of others here and there, but it's mostly the playground for the modelbuilder. I've seen a few Bachmann Shays turned into pretty cool-looking 2' gauge Gilpin Tram-style Shays. (I had one slated for such a project, but opted not to head down that road.) If someone came out with a proper Maine 2' gauge Forney in 7/8" (especially if it were a Monson prototype) I'd probably be in a lot of trouble. In another life, I'm going to model the Monson end to end. (Hey, it's only 2400' of track in 1:13.7) 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

How about this 7/8" RTR critter:










From http://www.sierravalleyenterprises.com/78_plymouth.html


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 

Paul Travaskis [Rishon Locomotive Works in Australia] built a short run of the Portland ser#622 in 7/8n2. It is gas fiired live steam. This locomotive gained four different numbers over its 40+ year operational history: SRRR #5, Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes (SR&RL) #6 in 1908, Kennebec Central (KC) #4 in 1924, and finally WW&F #9 in 1933.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 

You said "In another life, I'm going to model the Monson end to end. (Hey, it's only 2400' of track in 1:13.7)." WOW!! 

Now where are you going to find the space to dig the BIG HOLES in the yard to represent the quarries. That would require some serious excavation.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Now where are you going to find the space to dig the BIG HOLES in the yard to represent the quarries. 
Ah, that's the beauty of model railroading! You needn't model the entire industry, just the part where it interfaces with the railroad. Although in another life, the space to do so properly wouldn't be an issue (nor would the permitting.) Alas, constrained to mass-suburbia, I'm afraid the HOA might have some concerns about me scraping off the neighbor's house to use the basement as a quarry. Maybe I'll do it in HOn30 instead. That's only 365' of track. In my basement, that'd be around 4 loops around the perimeter of my basement. That's doable, right? Something tells me if I were to suggest that to the other half, my time in _this_ life might be in jeopardy. I guess I'll just stick to dreaming... Much safer that way. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Unfortunately, for large scale it has now been MORE then 20 years, and we have not progressed very far. 
Well, NMRA keeps trying. They recently tried to get a coupler standard in place - one of them had both USAT and Aristo 1/29th stock and he wanted it to play nicely together. 

Unfortunately, there are some people around here who think any standards should be immediately squashed - even something as simple as couplers. 

[Now, if the NMRA had proposed just an "A" for American scale (1/29th) coupler standard, then they might have got somewhere..]


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Well, considering what you are getting with that Plymouth engine from Sierra Valley, I guess it's not too expensive, even though it's out of my price range. It's certainly no more expensive than a lot of the G scale engines. A die cast frame for something like that would lower the cost of it a bit, but nobody would do that unless they could sell a bunch of them. I'd bet that the NWSL Magic Carpet Drive would work well for a small engine like that, although I like the idea of a short fat motor with chain drive also. No worm gear involved.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Miss Amber, 

I grew up poor.... 

http://www.ipengineering.co.uk/page121.html 

http://www.ipengineering.co.uk/page18.html 

regards 

ralph


----------

