# 1:24 scale Renaissance from Dark Ages of 1:20.3 ?



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi there:

An earlier post mentioned things are far too quiet on mylargescale. I agree so lets see if I can wake us up!

Is there any possibility of a 1:24 scale Renaissance to free us from the Dark Ages of 1:20.3 ?

1:24 scale: Gauge One track represents 3' - 6" ( narrow gauge is 3' - 0" )

1:24 scale: Gauge Three track represents 5' - 0" ( standard gauge is 4' - 8 1/2" )

Therefore , 1:24 scale permits modeling dual gauge trackage using a common scale.

The "massive" track gauge error of 1:24 scale:

narrow gauge error: 6" x 1/24 = 1/4" Therefore, the drivers on each side of the narrow guage locomotive axle sit outward 1/8" too far 

standard guage error: 3 - 1/2" x 1/24 = 1/8" approx Therefore, the drivers on each side of the standard guage locomotive axle sit outward 1/16" to far

A K-27 loco in 1:20.3 scale is far too large a physical size for many hobbyists. 
A K-27 loco in 1:24 scale is a manageable size.

Aristo Craft recently had a massive warehouse clearance of their 1:24 scale Delton classic line.

Is 1:24 scale extinct?


Thank you

Norman


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Since there is no rail / track interconnection with any another railroad in the world from my backyard , all of my 1/24th trains still do not know of a dark age , or 1/20.3 , they just continue to operate and serve just as they did when new . 
Sometimes ignorance really is bliss . 


overheard someone say 1 20 point WHAT ?


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

The answer to your question is NO.

1:24 scale is the perfect scale for modelling Cape Gauge locomotives on Gauge 1 track. 
1:24 scale is the perfect scale for modelling Irish, Iberian, Indian, Russian and Chinese locomotives on Gauge '3' track .

It is also the *original* scale for Gauge '3'...

regards

ralph


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Will folks will abandon 1:20.blah, blah to go back to 1/24... I doubt it.Will any brand new US outline models will be produced in 1/24, or even 1:22.5... I doubt that too. The vocal minority would raise too big of a stink - It has to be 'correct' even if they have to completely redo their layout to run it.

I do think 1/24 US outline will remain as a niche as long as it is available commercially. 
1/24 also has lots and lots of non-train support - from dollhouse stuff to architectural details to diecast.... and the math is easy.

Personally, I can live with the 'odd' gauge. Others prefer everything else to be out of scale.

Life is a compromise, to each his/her own.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By ralphbrades on 27 Jan 2011 08:57 PM 
[...]
It is also the *original* scale for Gauge '3'...

regards

ralph 

Ralph, that is not the case, although close enough, the original and current (and future) scale for Gauge 3 is 1:22.6, effectively identical to 1:22.5 - the optimal 'large' scale. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

1:24 scale is the perfect scale for modelling Irish 

I'm pretty sure there were some 3 foot Irish railways... so 1/24 would not be "perfect" per se... rather, 1/20.3 *would*!


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry Zubi -but 1/2 inch per foot *is* the *ORIGINAL* scale for Gauge '3' . If you check the books by Henry Greenly (and I am looking at "Model Railways" pub. 1924) on page 4 you will see that Gauge '3' is quoted as being 1/2 inch to the foot. It was not until after WW2 that the scale moved to 13.5mm to the foot giving 1:22.6 as the scale factor.

Irish narrow gauge is 3 foot -however the rest of Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) use 5 feet 3 inches for the gauge.

regards

ralph


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

I am quite happy with 1 : 22,5 scale. I can buy or built 64mm for standard gauge, 45mm for Metre gauge, 32mm for 30 Inch (750mm) and 16,5mm for 15 Inch protoypes.


[url="


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Well since my wide raduis ...er diameter 10' d track is the rough equivelent of 15"r in HO scale some fricken compromise had to be met. 
I like the smaller G24 as my locos and cars are mostly between the rails. 
The upgrade AC did to the C-16 makes it rerliable and shows signs to me that G24 will continue for Olde Tyme Railroading. It's niche that fits me well. 
I don't plan on buying much more rolling stock, nor need or like dismals... and long trains, so as long as I'm alive G24 lives on. 

1:24 10'd = 60"r 
1:48 half of 60" =30"r 
1:87 rougher half of O =15" Oh Boy!!!!!.... other than a few most locos needed 18"r or more... 

As to whether it's narrow, std or cape, what ever you think it is, is fine with me. 

John


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

1/87 scale narrow gauge locos - HOn3 - commonly use 15" curves. They're quite a bit smaller than the average standard gauge locomotive. I was planning on using 15' or 20' curves on my permanent layout, but they don't look too bad on the 10' curves. Also, in 1:20.3, code 250 rail equals 80 pound prototype rail, much more realistic, even slightly undersized for some areas of the D&RGW. 

Thanks! Robert


----------



## Nutz-n-Bolts (Aug 12, 2010)

"A K-27 loco in 1:20.3 scale is far too large a physical size for many hobbyists. A K-27 loco in 1:24 scale is a manageable size. "


The size of 1:20.3 is what attracted me to the scale. I wanted an outdoor layout, and if it's outside it might as well be big ! Just my 2 cents.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

For what it is worth, I definitely would buy a K-27 or 28 in 1:22.5/24 (of comparable quality and price to the Bachmann Ks). I have a lot of LGB cars and after running Bachmann and Accucraft Ks (27 and 28) with 1:20.3 rolling stock, I would like a larger (than a Mogul) steamer to pull the 1:22.5/24 rolling stock. I do use the LGB Uintah and Sumpter Valley Mallets to pull the LGB, Delton and USAT cars, but they never ran on D&RGW tracks. I'm not a rivet counter, so I'm not bothered by the 1:22.5/24 engines and cars not being correct for 3' narrow gauge. It is the overall look that I'm seeking.


I also run 1:29 on my railroad. It all depends upon what I feel like taking out. 


Chuck


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

It's kinda funny, I keep hearing how we Fn3 (1:20.3) people are killing the hobby because were just too d*mn big! The K-27 is almost always used as the example and, compared to an Aristo/Delton Classics C-16, it _is! _However, the K-27 is large compared to a C-16 in Fn3 as well! (Okay, we've established that the K is big so what's my point?) Compare the K-27 to an LGB Mikado and the size differences are not so apparent! How about a Dash 9 complete with double stack containers or how about a PA+PB diesel consist with streamliners? In case you didn't realize, those things are huge but they are also 1:29 so nobody seems to mind! It's all relative!


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

A 2-8-8-8-2 Triplex is just as big as a K-27, as a Big Boy. And the K-27 isn't the ONLY choice in 1:20.3. And, as several of us have discussed, a C-19 would be an EXCELLENT addition in 1:20.3. 

BTW, interestingly enough, this same debate takes place among the On3 vs On30 vs P55 crowd... 

Robert


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Steve:

I think that there is a place for 1:20.3 as the correct scale for Colorado (and other regions) 3' gauge trains. I also think that the 1:29 offerings have a large following, including me. One is correct and the other is off by about 10%. Likewise with 1:22.5/24 and 1:32 are represented in the hobby. One is correct for standard gauge and the other isn't correct for narrow gauge. We buy what we like and for me I will buy 1:20.3, 1:22.5/24 and 1:29. Even though 1:32 is correct for our track, I would have to make a major investment to be able to run anything in 1:32. That is something I'm not going to do. Perhaps others have sworn off 1:22.5/24. With new and exciting offerings, I would continue to buy items in 1:22.5/24.

I don't think that 1:20.3 is killing the hobby, it is only stifling the 1:22.5/24 part of the hobby.

Chuck N


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 27 Jan 2011 08:15 PM 
Hi there:

An earlier post mentioned things are far too quiet on mylargescale. I agree so lets see if I can wake us up!

Is there any possibility of a 1:24 scale Renaissance to free us from the Dark Ages of 1:20.3 ?

1:24 scale: Gauge One track represents 3' - 6" ( narrow gauge is 3' - 0" )

1:24 scale: Gauge Three track represents 5' - 0" ( standard gauge is 4' - 8 1/2" )

Therefore , 1:24 scale permits modeling dual gauge trackage using a common scale.

The "massive" track gauge error of 1:24 scale:

narrow gauge error: 6" x 1/24 = 1/4" Therefore, the drivers on each side of the narrow guage locomotive axle sit outward 1/8" too far 

standard guage error: 3 - 1/2" x 1/24 = 1/8" approx Therefore, the drivers on each side of the standard guage locomotive axle sit outward 1/16" to far

A K-27 loco in 1:20.3 scale is far too large a physical size for many hobbyists. 
A K-27 loco in 1:24 scale is a manageable size.

Aristo Craft recently had a massive warehouse clearance of their 1:24 scale Delton classic line.

Is 1:24 scale extinct?


Thank you

Norman






It should be extinct along with 1:29 scale.


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd say if Largescale model train stock was available, I'd invest heavily in Spectrum and Accucraft!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Well John F. I guess I won't play trains with you! 

Take what works for you and leave the rest alone... 

John C


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By ralphbrades on 28 Jan 2011 09:14 AM 
Sorry Zubi -but 1/2 inch per foot *is* the *ORIGINAL* scale for Gauge '3' . If you check the books by Henry Greenly (and I am looking at "Model Railways" pub. 1924) on page 4 you will see that Gauge '3' is quoted as being 1/2 inch to the foot. It was not until after WW2 that the scale moved to 13.5mm to the foot giving 1:22.6 as the scale factor.

[...] 
regards

ralph 

Ralph, that must be some kind of a misconception by MR and/or Mr H. Greenly. Gauge '3' is defined not through scale but through gauge. And this gauge is precisely 2.5 inch, in two days from now, on 1 February, it will be defined as gauge '3' for as long as 112 years. As it happens, standard gauge is defined as 4ft 8 1/2inch for even longer and the ratio of the two gives 1.22.6. So we do not need to worry about WW2 at all in this context. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, John Frank does bring up an interesting point: Can 1/29th and 1/24th really be called "scale?" 

Part of the problem is, as I see it, is that nobody wants to make track. Seriously. In ANY scale from Z all the way up to 3 gauge! Maybe it's too expensive? Not sexy enough? I dunno. Why do switches cost over $100 for decent scale ones? How many scales only have ONE manufacturer of track? Z; N (maybe three or four); HO, (Still, only a half dozen brands, and not much variety, try finding a #10 switch in either HO or N...); HOn3, Sn3, On3, only one for all three; S, maybe two; O scale, only one, "G", seriously, Aristocraft, USA (I've never seen any...), AMS (OK, three pieces, two rail sizes?), and Piko. LGB gone, and Bachmann track really isn't suitable for anything. No 1, No 2 gauge? Yeah, right... 

So, what do we have in "G" gauge? Two actual #6 switches, no 4's, 4 1/2's, 5's, and nothing bigger other than "tinplate" switches with curves through the frogs. Ever wonder WHY the prototype never curves a turnout through the frog? And one brand of "flex" track. The rest require rail benders. 

And NOBODY in ANY SCALE makes prototype track. Shinohara probably comes the closest (can you even get that anymore?), but everything else is way too big! How hard is it to make scale size ties with scale size rail and scale size flanges to run on them? OK, OK, may not work in N scale, but why not "G"? There are people who run Proto 87, and I scratchbuilt a timesaver one time with Campbell ties and code 55 rail and never had a problem with Kato locos and Kadee wheelsets on the cars. So, it CAN be done. 

I hope this didn't derail the subject or disrupt anyone's train of thought... 

Robert


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

So do you think all of the heavy snows all over the place , is causeing any cabin fever / stir crazy thoughts ?


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

I hope not! I guess it's just a pet peeve I've had in place since I started in model railroading back in the '70s. After all, isn't track a model, too? 

Robert


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Posted By norman on 27 Jan 2011 08:15 PM 

1:24 scale: Gauge One track represents 3' - 6" ( narrow gauge is 3' - 0" )








Just a minor quibble: 

ANY gauge less than 4' 8.5" is narrow gauge. Three-foot gauge may have been the most common of the narrow gauges in the US, but it certainly wasn't the only one. There were some 3' 6" gauge RR's, though mostly industrial stuff. Lots of interurban used that gauge too. Canada had at least one good-sized common carrier railroad running on that gauge.

Then of course there were the really slim gauge RR's -- two-foot gauge was very common in the Northeast, and showed up in a few other areas of the country. There were also 30" gauge RR's too, and even 20" gauge. 

So "narrow gauge" does not automatically mean "three feet between the rails". It's just what people are most familiar with. But unless someone wants to model a specific RR, any slim gauge could be considered "correct".


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

missionaries.... they are all the same. no matter, if they preach religion or gauge or scale.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry Zubi.....

*I am the former Secretary of the Gauge '3' Society in the UK*. The standards of the Gauge '3' Society are defined as a gauge of 63.5mm and a scale of 13.5mm to the foot. Modern locomotives running on that are built to a scale of 1:22.6. However pre WW2 the main designers for Gauge '3' locomotives, Lillian Lawrence, Henry Greenly, Cpt Masklyn, R.W.Dunn etc all used a scale of 1:24 for their plans. The first Gauge '3' locomotive that I built was from plans originally from 1927 and at a scale of 1:24. 

 [url]http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/neref1.html [/url] 

As to Henry Greenly making a mistake on the scale -I doubt it. He was the main designer for Bassett-Lowke. Most of his books are still in print. I have a reproduction copy of "Model Engineering" from 1904 and his 1956 edition of "Steam Locomotives" has yet to be beaten by anybody. After WW2 the scenic aspect of Gauge '3' diminished and people towing became more common allowing the production of more powerful locomotives. Most of the plans are held by "The National 2.5 inch Gauge Society" from which the Gauge '3' Society is an offshoot. Dual membership of both organisations is common. 

You are correct in saying that the gauge for Gauge '3' will be 112 years old soon, and that the modern scale for Gauge '3' locos is 1:22.6. But that has not always been the case and people are still lovingly building locos from the old 1/2 inch scale plans -long may it continue!!!


regards

ralph


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Ralph, well thanks for all the additional info. I guess, we are talking about two somewhat different things. We both know that the gauge for Gauge '3' standard was defined almost 112 years ago and this was the only definition at the time, unless you can prove that the Society of Model Engineers or more precisely their subcommittee also issued a scale recommendation at the time. What followed. may have been a free interpretation of scale required, in terms of 1:24, by some. In good old days 1/2" to the foot was apparently a good enough approximation of the ratio of 2 1/2" to 4ft 8 1/2inch, for all practical purposes. So if you say, and if you have the evidence (indeed you appear to have some) that most or all early gauge 3 modellers were actually using 1/2 inch scale rather than the somewhat odd looking 1:22.6, I'm perfectly happy to accept this. But this 'practical' scale did not redefine the concept of gauge '3' actual gauge and hence, someone moved on to using the 1:22.6 ratio. Which is a grand choice, of course, as we can all enjoy a multitude of gauges in the 'best of all scales' that is 1:22.5, right;-)? Best, Zubi


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Anything can be called scale, so yes 1:24 and 1:29 are scale, now are they Fine Scale? Not on this track ga. we are stuck with....
Does it matter? To whom? Probably to those who need to feel superior to the rest. Whoop de doo! 
You guys go ahead and feel superior, after all I did it in On3, no silly On30 for me! I hand laid 100's of feet of track and bought a template thingy to make my own switches, that was Fine Scale. 

Indoors add all the details you want and most likely all the details will last, outdoors my experience has been different.... in On3 a 30"r looked more like a real RR curve... that's a 20'd in G and I don't have the space for that! 

Dang I'm back to that fricken compromise again, which I like a lot better than not doing it at all. 1:24 Fun Scale! 

So to all you self important modelers why don't you join the NMRA where they love to tell people what 'correct' is and leave the rest of us to our FUN!









John


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rdamurphy on 28 Jan 2011 10:07 PM 
Well, John Frank does bring up an interesting point: Can 1/29th and 1/24th really be called "scale?" 

Part of the problem is, as I see it, is that nobody wants to make track. Seriously. In ANY scale from Z all the way up to 3 gauge! Maybe it's too expensive? Not sexy enough? I dunno. Why do switches cost over $100 for decent scale ones? How many scales only have ONE manufacturer of track? Z; N (maybe three or four); HO, (Still, only a half dozen brands, and not much variety, try finding a #10 switch in either HO or N...); HOn3, Sn3, On3, only one for all three; S, maybe two; O scale, only one, "G", seriously, Aristocraft, USA (I've never seen any...), AMS (OK, three pieces, two rail sizes?), and Piko. LGB gone, and Bachmann track really isn't suitable for anything. No 1, No 2 gauge? Yeah, right... 

So, what do we have in "G" gauge? Two actual #6 switches, no 4's, 4 1/2's, 5's, and nothing bigger other than "tinplate" switches with curves through the frogs. Ever wonder WHY the prototype never curves a turnout through the frog? And one brand of "flex" track. The rest require rail benders. 

And NOBODY in ANY SCALE makes prototype track. Shinohara probably comes the closest (can you even get that anymore?), but everything else is way too big! How hard is it to make scale size ties with scale size rail and scale size flanges to run on them? OK, OK, may not work in N scale, but why not "G"? There are people who run Proto 87, and I scratchbuilt a timesaver one time with Campbell ties and code 55 rail and never had a problem with Kato locos and Kadee wheelsets on the cars. So, it CAN be done. 

I hope this didn't derail the subject or disrupt anyone's train of thought... 

Robert 



Robert, there are several manufacturers that make scale track in GAUGE ONE. Llagas creek, Sunset Valley and switchrafters come to mind, but there are others also. Aristocraft switches are just junk in my opinion.

http://www.llagastrack.com/

http://www.svrronline.com/

http://www.switchcrafters.com/

We only have on size of track so there are different 'scales' of trains that we run on it. 1:32 is equivalent to standard gauge, 4' 8 1/2". 1:20.3 is equivalent to 3'. 1:22.5 is equivalent to european meter gauge. 1:29 is equivalent to NOTHING. It is something that the manufacturers made up so their trains would appear larger. There are other scales that are modeled for 42" gauge and 2' gauge, but they are not as prevalent in the market place or as popular.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Totalwrecker, it really isn't fair to categorize people that disagree with you as "those who need to feel superior to the rest." Indeed this thread began with referring to the "Dark Ages" of 1:20.3. Personally, I would prefer a scale that doesn't end in a decimal. 1/24th scale is an excellent choice, for many of the reasons listed. More buildings, parts, supplies from dollhouse manufacturers, etc. It seems logical to me, that instead of using "Gauge One" track, that someone could have manufactured matching 1/24 scale track in both narrow and wide gauges. There's no law preventing it... 

Think of how many items are manufactured in the four different "similar" scales, and then imagine ALL of them in 1/24th. Modern 1/29th scale equipment in 1/24th, 1/32nd scale equipment, both steam and diesel - in 1/24th, and narrow gauge, from C-16's through Shays through Mudhens - all in 1/24th. Makes sense to me. 

Now, if you want a dual gauge railroad, you're looking at 1:22.5 (there's that decimal again!). 

Same as the military modeller's quandry: Why are ground vehicles available in 1/35th, but aircraft in 1/32nd? 

It's really only a matter of convenience - for all of us - that five different scales share one track gauge. 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

(Kit)Bash trains, not each other....


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 27 Jan 2011 08:15 PM 
{snip...}[/i] Is 1:24 scale extinct? {snip...}[/i] 
I would say, unless you're the only one on the planet modeling in 1:24 and have decided to quit, then the answer is no.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

John F. Thank you for that information on switches. I wish they gave more information than just pictures, I'd love to see how long a #10 switch is in Gauge 1! Imagine a more common prototype mainline switch, #14 or #15! 

Robert


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Friends, 
As I have stated before, way back when LGB, Bachmann, Hartland and a few others were selling us their version of Colorado narrow gauge locos, no one was screaming, 'But they are not correct scale!'. We just bought them and ran them and loved them. I still do. And I would love a K-27 or K-28 in 1:22 or 1:24 scale to run on my LGB track. The Aster/LGB version was one of the finest locos produced in 1:22 scale and I would love to see the same in plastic and more affordable. I would buy it!


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Well OK Zubi.... 

You asked for proof. 

 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_modelling_scales [/url] 

if you scroll down to Gauge '3' (which is in red) you will find: 

Gauge 3 1:22.6 63.5 One of the original model railroad scales standardized in 1909, a minority interest, although 63.5 mm (2 1⁄2 in) gauge 3 track is commercially available. 
The European standard of 1:22.5 scale trains on 45 mm (1.772 in) track is called IIm scale, as per European narrow gauge naming conventions or G scale, its popular name. 

*BELOW IT* is the following entry... 

Live steam 1:24 63 At 2 1⁄2 in (63.5 mm), this is the smallest of the "ridable" gauges. Only one or two passengers can be pulled. 
This was one of the first popular live steam gauges, developed in England in the early 1900s, though now less popular than the larger gauges it still has a following. 
A model can normally be lifted by one person. 

So, there you have it. The *modern* Gauge '3' loco is built to a scale of 13.5mm to the foot, *early* Gauge '3' locos were built to a scale of 1/2 inch to the foot. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Does it matter? To whom? Probably to those who need to feel superior to the rest. Whoop de doo! 
You guys go ahead and feel superior, after all I did it in On3, no silly On30 for me! 

So to all you self important modelers why don't you join the NMRA where they love to tell people what 'correct' is and leave the rest of us to our FUN! 

There is another thread on this board about *"why is MLS so quiet" *- here's your answer... 

I was here LONG before TW and the small group of others that have shown up in the last 24 months, spewing the hate above... how DARE we enjoy MODEL trains on a MODEL forum... how DARE we concern ourselves with SCALE... shame on us... because TW is now here - so all of MLS is now _his way or the highway... _ 


I can easily count a dozen plus scale modelers that used to be very active here on MLS, myself included, showing our modeing, photos of the latest and greatest, and sharing tips... this group - these _modelers_ are still quite active... we mainly talk back-channel now... and keep ourselves, and our work, *OFF* MLS... 

Is 1:20.3 dead? Nope. Is 1:24 dead? Nope! Both have amazing modelers doing new things weekly. If MLS wasn't harboring some of the more vocal "jerks" on the board, I suspect MLS would return to seeing wonderful examples of these works like the good ol' days. Until then, I suspect it will still be "quiet" - regarding scale, and most everything else. 

...Whoop de doo!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

hehehe. 

For Ted, we DID scream, bloody murder, about the LGB scale discrepancies. 
Dealers screamed loud and long (from reports I have heard), and the answer was, no, we ain't gonna fix it. 

As long as one is modeling a 3'6" line, 1:24 is no problem. 
I have a local friend who does just that, since most of the lines in his native Australia seemed to be, 3'6" gauge. 

That said, Delton high cars, when set next to Bochmann or LGB, have little or no discernible difference in size, UNLESS you read the reporting marks, or open the doors, as the floors are higher. 

Scale modeling is a goal of many. 
Basically what this thread is saying, or seems to say, is screw scale, we want to take out 027 pill and have pure toys. 
Go for it. 

When I was active in Lionel, I did Hi-Rail, semi-scaled, relettered cars, repainted as necessary, cab backs, grab irons, scale speeds, wayfreights interspersed.....so you can do both, but there is no "Renaissance" of 1:24. 
How much new 1:24 has come out of the new owners of the Delton line of late? 
I mean new, not repaints. 

Part of the issue is the "dumbing down" of the purity of scale by the toy freaks. 
Look at some of the plastic 1:20 offerings: 

Units advertised as "Mallets" that are really "Meyers", with no way to body mount a rear coupler. 
A 2' gauge engine blown up to 3' gauge, with pins and screws to take loose so it will traverse an R-1 curve.....and silly things like pistons 1/4" above the axle. 

Fixable? 
Yes, but it should have been "right" to begin with. 

Reading a certain e-mail group's posts, looks like they aren't impressed.....and one would guess sales have not been stellar. 
Read: "Guess". 

With said "dumbing down", and other totally unnecessary add-ons that cater to the clueless, I have ceased, several years ago, ANY purchases. 
I will take something old and modify and upgrade, should I need something else. 

So, keep it up, encourage the manufacturers to make stuff no longer "to-scale" or "adhering to prototype", and see how long this segment of the hobby lasts, when those folks who care about scale quit buying.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

How about this? Can we ALL agree on these? 
1. If you're having good clean fun, then it IS right, even if others say it's wrong. YOU are the only one who HAS to like it. Scale, semiscale or pure toy.

2. If it's the best you can do, and you're proud of it, then it's a GREAT model - even if others may be able to do finer, more detailed, or more accurate work. -- This applies to the manufacturers too! Busting somebody's chops over relatively minor stuff rarely encourages their continued effort. Constructive criticism should actually be constructive, not just criticism.

3. No matter the scale, or not, pictures are always interesting. 

4. A project shared doubles it's value. And something miserly hoarded might as well not exist. 

5. Stupid is as Stupid does..... Rudeness is rarely necessary, nor appreciated. Humor often gets mis-interpreted, and hurting others isn't good for the forum. 


6. MY rights end where yours begin, and vice-versa. Let's respect them. 

7. If the other guy is full of beans and a complete jerk, see 5 and 6 above. Then respond in a way that YOU would like to be addressed.


Really simple, no? 

Honestly? I'd prefer to see MORE stuff in EVERY scale. Not just the ones that interest me..... more parts for bashes, lol!


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Josh. Needed to be said for a LONG time here.









I'm into 1/20.3 and proud of it. But then I have always marched to a different drummer.









I started in LGB in 1985 with the 1/22.5 (or whatever scale it is) Mogul 2018D. Saw the light when I first laid my eyes on 1/20.3 Finescale stuff. Yeah it takes up some real estate AND I HAVE compensated for that. 90 inch RADIUS curves and #6 finescale turnouts from Sunset Valley. No woop-de-doo here. Not bad-mouthin' anyone. This is the scale I like and I can afford it. NO condemnation from me on other scales.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

No Mik, not simple... 

1. If you're having good clean fun, then it IS right, even if others say it's wrong. 
Wrong. If you're having fun, great - and it IS _fun_... fun doesn't mean right - at least when we're talking *SCALE* Math is math - no matter how much fun you are having... 

2. If it's the best you can do, and you're proud of it, then it's a GREAT model - even if others may be able to do finer, more detailed, or more accurate work. 
AGREED 

3. No matter the scale, pictures are always interesting. 
Sure - except when you post "here is my 1:20.3 XYZ" and some "jerk" comes in, and instead of taking away lessons or tips, simply starts to scream about how big 1:20.3 is, and is only for those who need to feel "superior"... then, why should I post photos Mik? So the new guy can scream his "toys" are better than scale models?! (on a MODEL forum?!) 

4. A project shared doubles it's value. And something miserly hoarded might as well not exist. 
Sure - why not. Except I think you will find few poeple willing to share when the "jerks" come on and scream that you only model in "XYZ" scale because you need to feel "superior"... 

5. Stupid is as Stupid does..... Rudeness is rarely necessary, nor appreciated. Humor often gets mis-interpreted, and hurting others isn't good for the forum. 
Yeah - well... when the "jerks" stop screaming that people playing with "toy trains" are better than those that like SCALE MODELS maybe this will die down... I for one have NEVER had a problem with someone's chosen scale (or lack there of), however, I take issue with being told I'm some "superior" "self important" modeler... this is a MODEL train forum... 

6. MY rights end where yours begin, and vice-versa. Let's respect them. 
Pointless to the argument. If you're going to call me names, then I'm going to fight back... (NOT talking about you mik! ;-) When the mods start to tell the newcomers to muzzle the anger they have for people that model *in scale*, well then we can talk about rights and where then begin and end.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow, this thread has everything, including a reference to the only (that I know of) transvestite locomotive designer in the world. 

Thanks for the fun reading guys.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

To follow up... 

Mik - I get where you are coming from - but put yourself in our shoes! Simply, and ONLY, because I choose to scratch build models and modeling components because an item may not be available in my chosen scale at the doll house supply company, I'm some "self important" modeler that feels he is "superior"... THAT is what is, and HAS been said on MLS for over a year now... and no one stands up to it. 

Now I have NEVER said toy trains are wrong... in FACT, I have 1/24, 1/19, 1/29 and 1/20/3 ALL sitting on the shelf in the den... I have NO problem with anyone's choices, but the simple fact that I model most of my efforts in 1:20.3 means I'm some "self important" rivet counter that needs to "join the NMRA" and go away!?! That because I do math AND model, I SHOULDN'T be allowed on here at MLS?! 

Does that seem fair? Or rational? Or right?


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Obviously someone smells blood in the water because there isn't a lot of manufactured 1:20 out there. Yep. We're in trouble. We are about to be out of anything we can buy ready to run, or at least ready to refurbish.... 

It'll be a **** of a celebration soon. Bachmann has quit making 1:20 stuff, and the available rolling stock is running short. Accucraft has entered cryogenic suspended animation. Soon, the only stuff out there in 1:20 will be what we design and build ourselves. You folks who have looked down your noses at us for trying it this way for years can pop the champagne, and start dancing... soon, another whole arm of the hobby may be dead for anyone who can't manage to build it themselves. Isn't that great? Just think of the sniping and flaming you can do when it's finally pronounced dead, and everyone leaves. 

But you guys carry on. Have fun. Anyone not offended by my attemtping to build a railroad to this particular scale is welcome to drop by and run trains... 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Hey Garrett, 

I missed that - where was the 'transvestite locomotive designer' part?!  

I wonder if that means they were into _ dual gauge_?! HA!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I have a 1:22.5 K-27.
Wish I had another, as it exhibits none of the failings of the other two.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By rdamurphy on 28 Jan 2011 10:07 PM 

So, what do we have in "G" gauge? Two actual #6 switches, no 4's, 4 1/2's, 5's, and nothing bigger other than "tinplate" switches with curves through the frogs. Ever wonder WHY the prototype never curves a turnout through the frog? And one brand of "flex" track. The rest require rail benders. 

And NOBODY in ANY SCALE makes prototype track. Shinohara probably comes the closest (can you even get that anymore?), but everything else is way too big! How hard is it to make scale size ties with scale size rail and scale size flanges to run on them? OK, OK, may not work in N scale, but why not "G"? There are people who run Proto 87, and I scratchbuilt a timesaver one time with Campbell ties and code 55 rail and never had a problem with Kato locos and Kadee wheelsets on the cars. So, it CAN be done. 

I hope this didn't derail the subject or disrupt anyone's train of thought... 

Robert 

Have you ever used a dial caliper and a calculator, and compared 215 Llagas on narrow-gaue ties to the actual?
As far as turnouts, 4, 6, 8, 10, double-curved, wyes........and "toy" flanges work just fine on 215, in the frogs, too.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By parkdesigner on 29 Jan 2011 03:33 PM 
No Mik, not simple... 

1. If you're having good clean fun, then it IS right, even if others say it's wrong. 
Wrong. If you're having fun, great - and it IS _fun_... fun doesn't mean right - at least when we're talking *SCALE* Math is math - no matter how much fun you are having... 

Response: Josh, I'm not buying it. Life is a compromise. You know quite well that physics doesn't scale. I can guarantee if you built it completely to "scale" it wouldn't run worth a hoot, or stand up to being breathed upon. It would also be prohibitively expensive. Only YOU can decide how and where such compromises are critical, and only for YOU... not anybody else. 


3. No matter the scale, pictures are always interesting. 
Sure - except when you post "here is my 1:20.3 XYZ" and some "jerk" comes in, and instead of taking away lessons or tips, simply starts to scream about how big 1:20.3 is, and is only for those who need to feel "superior"... then, why should I post photos Mik? So the new guy can scream his "toys" are better than scale models?! (on a MODEL forum?!) 

Response: Sooo, you're saying that since I make weird semi-scale stuff with junk, I shouldn't post it because this is a MODEL forum? I'm confused. AND if somebody else doesn't like the way I did it I should simply take my bat and ball and go home and sulk? My ego isn't quite that fragile. Mind over matter, if you don't mind, the jerks don't matter.




4. A project shared doubles it's value. And something miserly hoarded might as well not exist. 
Sure - why not. Except I think you will find few poeple willing to share when the "jerks" come on and scream that you only model in "XYZ" scale because you need to feel "superior"... 

Response: since you repeated yourself, I'll just say ditto the above answer. The bastards will only win if you let them. Not posting is letting them win.


5. Stupid is as Stupid does..... Rudeness is rarely necessary, nor appreciated. Humor often gets mis-interpreted, and hurting others isn't good for the forum. 
Yeah - well... when the "jerks" stop screaming that people playing with "toy trains" are better than those that like SCALE MODELS maybe this will die down... I for one have NEVER had a problem with someone's chosen scale (or lack there of), however, I take issue with being told I'm some "superior" "self important" modeler... this is a MODEL train forum...

Response: Honestly? I see folks screaming and being self-righteous "jerks" on BOTH sides. Over an honest disagreement over what is more important. Guess what? Everybody else is WRONG! Only MY opinion is the REAL RIGHT one!







... BUT it and a dollar (or four if you're at Starbucks) will get you a cup of coffee! (Get my drift?)


6. MY rights end where yours begin, and vice-versa. Let's respect them. 
Pointless to the argument. If you're going to call me names, then I'm going to fight back... (NOT talking about you mik! ;-) When the mods start to tell the newcomers to muzzle the anger they have for people that model *in scale*, well then we can talk about rights and where then begin and end. 


Response: Not pointless, by responding exactly like the "jerk" you object to makes you a...... what? Yahoos are put on the earth to make you appreciate the more or less normal folks. They want you to be as miserable as they are, and it appears to be working. 

Post what interests you, don't read what doesn't, ignore the 'noise', and treat others like you wish to be treated even if they don't... It's called acting like an adult... I think. At least that's what folks tell me...


----------



## railcandy (Dec 19, 2010)

Always good Mik ...for us that still love Life & Trains !! Hey, Hope you dont mind that I linked to your earlier post ?? You know the one.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

(*Sigh) I hadn't checked in with this thread for a few days and look at what I've missed! Bachmann not making 1:20.3 anymore? Accucraft in cryogenic suspension??!! We will have to learn to scratchbuild if we want anything! Oh the horrors!!! (Heh heh heh...) Okay, time to get serious for a sec... First, _lighten up guys!! _(Geez...) Fn3 is here to stay so those of us modeling it aren't going anywhere. Do we feel superior to everybody else? Umm....(how do I put this without insulting somebody?) Let me put it this way...when it comes to technical ability to devise solutions to problems do I feel like I can hold a candle to TOC or Greg or Kevin? When it comes to modelling, can I even hold a candle to efforts like oh, say...._everyone_ that has completed a masterclass (_especially_ a Mason Bogie!!) let alone David, Peter, Jack, Kevin etc... Does my layout outshine Marty's? 

The point I'm trying to make is that I model in 1:20.3 _but I'm not a rivet counter!!_ I have some technical knowledge (mainly enough to know when I'm in over my head!) which has been gleaned from a decade of being in this hobby _and asking questions!! _Is my layout something extraordinary and special? That depends. It's _my_ layout and _my_ hobby so I guess it is to me! Does that mean I think it's better than somebody's layout running in 1:24 scale? Nope. I like 'em all! I don't feel superior to others! ****, sometimes I don't feel _worthy!!_ I'm just damned happy that I have this hobby and this group of people to enjoy it with! Very few people like a "spirited discussion" here on MLS more than me but this one is ridiculous! (How did this thread degenerate to the point where people were getting their noses out of joint??) Anyway, you guys go on with your thread but I've said my piece. It's_ all_ our hobby so enjoy it (or don't) as you see fit.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 29 Jan 2011 04:11 PM 

Posted By parkdesigner on 29 Jan 2011 03:33 PM 
No Mik, not simple... 

1. If you're having good clean fun, then it IS right, even if others say it's wrong. 
Wrong. If you're having fun, great - and it IS _fun_... fun doesn't mean right - at least when we're talking *SCALE* Math is math - no matter how much fun you are having... 

Response: Josh, I'm not buying it. Life is a compromise. You know quite well that physics doesn't scale. I can guarantee if you built it completely to "scale" it wouldn't run worth a hoot, or stand up to being breathed upon. It would also be prohibitively expensive. Only YOU can decide how and where such compromises are critical, and only for YOU... not anybody else. 

Don't start the physics BS - that's the "go to" for everyone that can't stand people that model in scale. You're better than that. Right, Wrong, whatever - it doesn't change the fact that TOTALWRECKER states that I, and other like minded modelers, who care about scale, should NOT be here at MLS... that we should be run off... you going to defend that line of thinking Mik?!?! Because that's what you're doing... you defending those that say MLS is not for everyone... only those that model under their terms. 


3. No matter the scale, pictures are always interesting. 
Sure - except when you post "here is my 1:20.3 XYZ" and some "jerk" comes in, and instead of taking away lessons or tips, simply starts to scream about how big 1:20.3 is, and is only for those who need to feel "superior"... then, why should I post photos Mik? So the new guy can scream his "toys" are better than scale models?! (on a MODEL forum?!) 

Response: Sooo, you're saying that since I make weird semi-scale stuff with junk, I shouldn't post it because this is a MODEL forum? I'm confused. AND if somebody else doesn't like the way I did it I should simply take my bat and ball and go home and sulk? My ego isn't quite that fragile. Mind over matter, if you don't mind, the jerks don't matter.

WRONG. What I said was... and what is happening is... that the NEW folks have decided that we can have TOYS on a Model forum, but NOT models on a model forum... or at least, really, really accruate models on a model forum. Apparently there is a point of modeling accruacy that, when reached, the modeler is instantly "superior" and should go join the NMRA.

Com'on MIK - I've never said a bad word about your modeling, or anyone elses... WHY SHOULD I STAND FOR SOMEONE TO ATTACK ME?!?!!




4. A project shared doubles it's value. And something miserly hoarded might as well not exist.
Sure - why not. Except I think you will find few poeple willing to share when the "jerks" come on and scream that you only model in "XYZ" scale because you need to feel "superior"... 

Response: since you repeated yourself, I'll just say ditto the above answer. The bastards will only win if you let them. Not posting is letting them win.

BS - Shad and the Mods are letting them win for not coming in and telling the new class of jerks to keep it to themselves. No, rather, folks like ME get yelled at for DEFENDING the fact I've spent 20 years developing my modeling skills... 


5. Stupid is as Stupid does..... Rudeness is rarely necessary, nor appreciated. Humor often gets mis-interpreted, and hurting others isn't good for the forum. 
Yeah - well... when the "jerks" stop screaming that people playing with "toy trains" are better than those that like SCALE MODELS maybe this will die down... I for one have NEVER had a problem with someone's chosen scale (or lack there of), however, I take issue with being told I'm some "superior" "self important" modeler... this is a MODEL train forum...

Response: Honestly? I see folks screaming and being self-righteous "jerks" on BOTH sides. Over an honest disagreement over what is more important. Guess what? Everybody else is WRONG! Only MY opinion is the REAL RIGHT one!







... BUT it and a dollar (or four if you're at Starbucks) will get you a cup of coffee! (Get my drift?)










yeah yeah... pretty close... BUT - I'm not telling anyone else to leave MLS... that's the big difference... I'm here, and play nice with all scales/gauges... some others don't.

6. MY rights end where yours begin, and vice-versa. Let's respect them. 
Pointless to the argument. If you're going to call me names, then I'm going to fight back... (NOT talking about you mik! ;-) When the mods start to tell the newcomers to muzzle the anger they have for people that model *in scale*, well then we can talk about rights and where then begin and end. 


Response: Not pointless, by responding exactly like the "jerk" you object to makes you a...... what? Yahoos are put on the earth to make you appreciate the more or less normal folks. They want you to be as miserable as they are, and it appears to be working. 

Not being a jerk MIK, simply standing up to the BS that has been allowed on MLS over the last two year... I've invested money in this site - I don't like seeing it "quiet" either... but it's gonna stay quiet until someone finally stands up to these folks.


----------



## railcandy (Dec 19, 2010)

Sheesh... sounds like a small revolution.... Everyone get a firecracker ! .... I only rent.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

This is as funny as folks who have never owner or fired a sidearm, and never read (nor understood) the second telling us to get rid of our gats. 
Never modeled, never cared about scale adherence, telling us to give it up. 

Scale/gauge discrepancy is the killer of us all in this. 
You swallow the Polk Doctrine, you'll swallow anything, I guess.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Just to be *real* clear... for everyone... 

I don't care what anyone else models. 
I don't care what anyone else builds, or to what level of execution. 
I don't care what scale (or not) your trains are. 

I have* always* been accepting of all scales/gauges/toys that were not my particular cup of tea here at MLS. 

SOMEONE PLEASE explain to me why I should sit by, while another forum member suggests that MLS members with MY interests join _another_ group. While he suggests that I am self important and have some form of superiority complex. (Talk about attacking a member...) 

I would *NOT* stand by if this attack was made on other MLS members... 1:20.3 modelers or not... why should you stand by while it is made on us? 

This has nothing to do with what I model or don't model. This is about the freedom to model whatever I so choose (And *YOU* too!) without being told to leave MLS.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Because they can. 
And because nobody with any clout cares a rip about chasing experience out the door.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 29 Jan 2011 04:05 PM
Have you ever used a dial caliper and a calculator, and compared 215 Llagas on narrow-gaue ties to the actual?
As far as turnouts, 4, 6, 8, 10, double-curved, wyes........and "toy" flanges work just fine on 215, in the frogs, too.



Actually, before I took a look at the links, I wasn't aware that they existed, meaning, that I learned something! Which is why I thanked John Frank for the links.

The primary problem I see is that some individuals don't know the difference between expressing an opinion and attacking other's opinions and personal attacks.

If I read Curmudgeon's post (I hope you don't mind me using you as an example), I can clearly see that he doesn't like certain products, and he says so. I may retort and say, OTOH, I love my Fn3 scale stuff, and am selling my Connie and Annie because they don't meet my standards. Curmudgeon and I may agree or disagree, but neither of us commented on the other person's opinion - so, no toes stepped on.

I expressed my opinion that track needs improvement, and John Frank jumped in and provided links to prove I was wrong. Again, he did not attack ME, but simply my opinion. I learned something, and Curmudgeon simply reinforced that my opinion was wrong.

Neither gentleman said I was "stupid" or "ignorant" nor anything deragatory whatsoever.

So far so good.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, attacking someone or a group of people for their opinion, rather than attacking the opinion is simply wrong.

Personally, if I had unlimited funds (ROTFLMREO!!!), I would probably buy all kinds of different stuff - just because I liked it. From Z to 1! But I don't, so I limit myself to a specific genre for practicality's sake. 

OTOH, I pulled my AMS cars around with a Connie for 3 years simply because it was the only thing out there to pull them around with.

IMAO.

Robert


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Totalwrecker on 29 Jan 2011 07:33 AM 
Anything can be called scale, so yes 1:24 and 1:29 are scale, now are they Fine Scale? Not on this track ga. we are stuck with....
Does it matter? To whom? I did it in On3, no silly On30 for me! I hand laid 100's of feet of track and bought a template thingy to make my own switches, that was Fine Scale. 

Indoors add all the details you want and most likely all the details will last, outdoors my experience has been different.... in On3 a 30"r looked more like a real RR curve... that's a 20'd in G and I don't have the space for that! 

Dang I'm back to ... compromise again, which I like a lot better than not doing it at all. 1:24 Fun Scale! 

John Since Josh feels picked on, and Dave could probably give a Rat's heinie WHAT I think, I'm going to say this once. BOTH sides can get, and have, WAAAAY out of line. If Totalwrecker had posted something like my edited version above, everything would be cool. It's not HIS board, he has Absolutely NO business telling others they aren't welcome. He also has no business denigrating others just because he doesn't like it.

Yes, "scale nazis" and "rivet counters" have taken much of the fun out of smaller scales, but that has not, and for the most part is not happening in LS, not yet, and borrowing trouble - or in this case, MAKING it, is pretty unacceptable on just about ANY forum. Do I have the power to whack ALL the miscreants on nose with a rolled newspaper? No. The best I can do is not respond, which is what I chose (up until now) to do. I offered a common sense compromise, which I hope folks will take to heart... otherwise. I can't control what others do, only myself, soooo.....


----------



## railcandy (Dec 19, 2010)

I feel what would solve this somewhat heated discussion, is that those who model in a scale that dosen't fit on track of the same scale.., should just know that were all in the same boat..., same website, same world.. and there's only one.. also..., Please let's leave the second admendment discussion for a different kind of website ? Huh ?

For the love of trains..! No fighting here.


Thanks to Korm for the video above.

Hey let me ask you: ...Which is further...?
too Cleveland...?
....or by train..?

Gotta' LUV ya' all...


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By parkdesigner on 29 Jan 2011 03:47 PM 
Hey Garrett, 

I missed that - where was the 'transvestite locomotive designer' part?!  

I wonder if that means they were into _dual gauge_?! HA! 



Very funny. 

Lillian Lawrence, LBSC, and one we all owe a large amount of debt to as he made large scale in the reach of the common man, especially live steam. 

One of the model engineering forums had recently a picture of him operating a 2 1/2 gauge live steam loco with heels, house coat and bloomers.

I would post the pic here, but it is MLS afterall...


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm not sure that photo would be against the rules! I say post away!


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, parkdesigner, the fact that such a photo exists, or the fact that you want to see it! 

J/K LOL! 

Robert


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

LOL! Robert - believe me, I've seen FAR worse... 

(...and really, who amongst us _hasn't_ fantasized about live steam and high heels... mind you maybe in the fantasy, we weren't the ones _wearing_ the heels... but still!)


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

My comment was about the wonderful ease of use of posting links or photos MLS, nothing to do with tact and decorum. I had saved the photo to hard drive, but no file hosting here. 

Here he is at the throttle of Caterpillar, a 4-12-2 four cylinder 2 1/2" gauge loco, designed around 1932. 

http://www.chaski.org/homemachinist/download/file.php?id=7073&mode=view


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

When somebody says a couple of Scales ought to be extinct few cared, when I suggested that he could have his fun even if they still existed. I'm a troublemaker? 

I'm here to have fun and don't like these better toy arguements. I also said it 'only matters to those that feel superior', so if you don't have that attitude then it doesn't apply to you. 

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. 

PD good to see you again too. 

John


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Well folks I apologise to all who thought I was calling them names, I didn't meat to say that. 

I was feeling picked on for my G24 compromise... one I found when entering this Gauge. Space, money and desires led my choices. Small locos and old time equipment. 

I read here how foolish I am because the track is wrong and my scale should be extinct. Sorry but that got my goat. 

1:20.3 is beautiful and I'm happy for you, but it is out of my league. Jealous? No. Envious? A tad... 

I never said anything negative about that scale, but did allude to the fact that outdoors has been hard on details I've added (to my wrong scale). 
On3 seems better to me for that effort, nothing to do with you guys on that point, unless you were in the On30 crowd (hmmm just like 1:24!)... 

Regarding my harsh NMRA comment, that was directed towards opinions, not models or people. Sorry about that. 

I don't see why you can't have your fun and stop belittling those who go a different route. That's all. 

I didn't title this thread, so those who felt picked on coming in shouldn't accuse me of starting this... 

Respectfully, 
John


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

John:

Every hobby has people who know best. If we all agreed with them the hobby would be boring and why would we bother to go to someone else's layout or a train show, because everything would be the same.


If you think this hobby can get strident, you should follow my other hobby for the past 45 or so years. Fly fishing has (had) far more dust ups than we could ever think of in "G".


There are some who say if you aren't using a bamboo fly rod you aren't fly fishing, others would have us limited to only using dry flies. I carry flies that float, sink and ride in the middle of the water column. I have some bamboo rods that I like very much, but I don't use them regularly, graphite is fine most of the time.


If you are going to fish one of the classic trout rivers in England, you can only cast to a fish that you have seen rising and then only with a dry fly.

I was once fishing with a guide in New Zealand and was told we could only use weighted flies that were to be bounced along the bottom. After aeveral hours of unproductive casting practice, I said I was going to rig up a sinking fly like I did on my home waters in Colorado. On the first cast I caught a nice 20' rainbow. What the guide said couldn't be placed in a family oriented site such as MLS.

Then there are the dust ups that took place over Catch and Release. You would think that we were for killing all first borns when people started saying, "limit your kill, don't kill your limit'". Catch and Release is now generally accepted, but it wasn't at first.


Over the years I have learned to take help when it is offered and use it if it fits into what I am doing. If not say thank you and move on.

Chuck


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

How can you talk about renaissance of 1 : 24 scale. - Was there ever something like 1 : 24 track and sleepers offered on the market? 

As far I realized in the 20 years I watched the market, most people use overseized LGB type 45mm brass track with European type narrow gauge ties and run on it whatever they like. - Some use models, some are happy with simple toys. So what? It´s your world and your money you invest.

Have Fun 

Juergen / Fritz


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

*I*s all the fighting over for now? Or should I see if Lulu wants to play trains too?










BOTH sides felt attacked? Hmmm. Maybe BOTH sides need to think how others might feel before they hit 'post'? 


Thank you Totalwrecker/John. It takes a real man to apologize, even when he still isn't sure that he was the one in the wrong. ALL of you are welcome to come play trains at my house, anytime. Even though I don't think a K will fit through my Aristo bridges. Just bring a loop, and we'll run it in the front yard! Give me a couple weeks warning and we'll have beer n grilled brats, too.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

What part of the world are you in? 

I'm thinking if I double-head my 15 pound K's and get a run at them, I can fix those bridges for you... 

Robert


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Fritz 

As far as I know, 3 foot narrow gauge track [ie 1.5 inch gauge] for 1:24 was never commercially produced. As we know, PSC offered 1.5 in gauge wheel sets, freight trucks, and conversions for the K-27. Ryan produced very nice 1:24 plastic D&RGW 3'7" WB trucks in plastic as both Ga 1 and 1.5in gauge. All this was done in the mid 1980s, 25 years ago. But no one took the same "leap of faith" as Avery Norlin [Tomalco] who produced Sn3 track to accompany his Sn3 locomotives and cars. 

As they sometimes say, "should have, could have, didn't".


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Mik- 
Is that puny Gatling Gun all you have to bring to this fight? 
Ma Deuce and a few RPG's will trump all the Gatling Guns you can muster!


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Dave, I never said I came to fight









On that note, I'll leave you with a quote from an old Sergeant Major that I once knew (You and he would probably been great drinking buddies after you got over him being Army), "Machine guns are for people who can't aim"


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Mik, 

In the Army "automatic" is called SPRAY. It worked great for me on patrols in Vietnam. Aiming got absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Machine Guns are for situations where A) you don't have time to aim and B) there are so many bad guys comin' at ya all you have to do is put the properly sized bullets in their way.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

From a tactical standpoint, machine guns are for suppressive fire. 

Gary, one of the HUGE mistakes in Viet Nam was the very fact that the Army doctrine (and Marines) was "spray and pray." Today's Army has removed the ammo dumping full auto switch form M16A2's, and they only fire in semi or three - round bursts - and today's Army is taught to aim. Carefully. It's a very effective method of combat. 

That is when the individual that occupies the Oval Office actually allows them to shoot at something... 

Robert


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

REALLY???? Is that a fact!? Thank you for educating me about the HUGE mistakes we made over there!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Yeah Mik, 
I see where my On 'n On Anonymous meetings should have helped... I was wrong to be all inclusive when I reacted to a couple of posts. I went too far. 

I love the Fine Scale, but for MY out door environment it isn't worth it, Too harsh and I'm lazy and clumsy, dese mits crumble plastic bits. I wanted trains for my great nephews to play with. 

I shouldn't need to justify my 10' rule oddball compromise. My curves 'feel' wide and sweeping and that's what I wanted. The only place my HO Tenshodo S-2 GN Northern ever looked right was on a club layout. My local Hardware store had the A C shifter/coaches starter set and a 10'd tri oval in SS (20x30'). Hello G.... what the heck is 1:29? Internet and various forums til I picked you lucky guys! 

I apologise for over reacting and saying too much. I was wrong, but not as evil as the rumors.... shake? 

John


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Machine guns provide:

1. A base of fire during an attack.
2. Over watch during movement.
3. Suppressive fires.
4. Maintain sustained fires as riflemen reload or move to different postions.
5. Final protective fires on a defensive postion.
6. "Hip pocket" or on-call support at the Platoon Leader's direction.
7. Serious "butt whipping" on those that need it.

Machine gunners are very skillful soldiers. And smart too. They don't carry ammo, everyone else does.



As for the scale debate, where did that 1:29 "red-headed step child" come from anyway?


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Bob 

I think it was "Louis the Milkman". LOL 

Let's not go down THAT road again, I don't want Marty in rehab. It is what it is... 

Marty, Jerry B, SF4343, and a bunch of others have done beautiful scratch building and kitbashing in 1:29. They would have to do a lot more in 1:32 to be where they are now. 

As a retired SGM [USAR] I believe in ==> "One shot, one kill", or as the Armor and Arty guys say, "One shot, twelve kills" 

Regards


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

"Twelve kills?" 
I would venture that you're not familiar with 8 inch artillery... 

LOL! 

"As for the scale debate, where did that 1:29 "red-headed step child" come from anyway?" 

Uh-oh. Time to break out the popcorn! 

Robert


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By rdamurphy on 30 Jan 2011 08:03 PM 

"As for the scale debate, where did that 1:29 "red-headed step child" come from anyway?" 


maybe it was brought by the elves, just for twenty-point-three-ers to have something to look down at along their scaled noses...


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe it's because he was attempting teach marksmanship to smartass HS and junior college kids? Or because he was a combat sharpshooter for a while? lol. Either way, his "expert" badge in the frame over his desk looked something like a fire escape ladder.


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Well I doubt that fly fishing arguments or Gatliing guns will answer the question. 1 : 29 does not help neither. If there never were 1 : 24 models (with correct 1 : 24 gauge) and suitable track available, you cannot revive (renaissance) it. 

If you want 1 : 24 models on 1 : 24 rails, you probably have to scratchbuild it. In Germany there are some folks, which like to run 600 mm protos in 1 : 22,5 scale. So they simply built their own models and nail down 26,7 mm track. Of course, they use battery /RC, as to keep the eclectronics simple. Even a livesteamer has been seen on their track recently. 

Have Fun 

Juergen / Fritz


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

I dunno about it being totally unrelated Fritz, a flatcar with a couple Gatling guns and sand bags might look pretty good behind my 1850's style 4-4-0 project (in 1/24 gauge 1!), and I already have a couple 1/24 guys fishing in my pond.... (and some stray cats, and the neighborhood midget vandals....)


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

Richard Gatling did not invent his revolving gun until 1861. So it would be out of place behind your 1850 project. In every scale and gauge. 


Have Fun

Juergen / Fritz


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm pretty sure a locomotive built in the 1850's would still be operational and in revenue service in 1861... Or even 1870. 

There are locomotives build in the 1920's that are still in revenue service today. 

Robert


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

OK, Mik brings the 1 : 24 train, I´ll bring the 1 : 24 Gatling Gun plus a 1 : 24 trainer

[url="


----------

