# Lets discuss 1:29th scale rolling stock.



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I personally believe if they had started this hobby in the US of A it would have been done with 1:29th .
3 times HO scale , (most popular)
very easy to convert.
rail difference










that is the difference you would see.
lower is 4' 8.5" in 1:29th scale.
I think if we want to be true to scale we modern mainliners should adjust our track and wheel spacing.

It would not be that hard to do.
plus the rolling stock coming out today is so very well detailed, you can absh a custom car or loco, the projects are enless in 1:29th..

I'm just messing with ya..


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Knowing nothing really about 1:29 locos and roiling stock, since we are roughly 1:22.5, but would it be possible to simply change the trucks on existing equipment and that's all you'd have to do? Granted locos (steam especially) would be a heck of a lot harder then swapping trucks, but it seems the real issue is getting track. Or thinking about changing track on long established layouts. Yikes now that is a scary thought.


Hypothetically, if someone made the track would manufacturers follow with the trucks, motor blocks, etc... in true 1:29 scale? The ease of converting scale drawings from HO is definitely a benefit.


Interesting topic. And not sure if you really are messing


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Marty, 

you are correct. 
but would it be worth the trouble? 
where would you personally see/note the difference? just on the workbench, or on your outdoors layout as well? 

who would follow such a movement? 
would it not just worsen the compatibiliy situation? 

well, it would keep you busy for a long time. how many foot of track would you have to re-space? (not even thinking about crafting your own turnouts...)


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I will admit that when I first learned about the "wrong-ness" of 1/29 scale, it did bother me..for awhile.. 
but then I quickly realized, as martys illustration shows, that the difference in gauge is really quite unnoticeable.. 
it simply doesnt bother me anymore.. 

and 1/29 is really winning out over 1/32 when it comes to standard gauge trains, with the notable exception of live steam. 
I wish MTH would make the switch to 1/29..I would buy a lot more of their locomotives if they did.. 
right now I own zero MTH locomotives, simply because they are too small to match the rest of my collection..but I really like the quality and detail of their diesels.. 
IMO they have the best looking large scale F-unit out there...they really got the nose profile right, (unlike the USA F3, LGB F7 and the Aristo E8).. 
the MTH F3 is really quite fabulous..its just a shame its so small.. 

Scot


----------



## Rod Fearnley (Jan 2, 2008)

You know what? I have never had a visitor come to my RR with a scale ruler.







I think Marty's reference is a "tongue in cheek" stir the pot








Rod


----------



## Fritz (Jan 11, 2008)

The difference in track gauge or overseized height is not really noticable on larger outside layouts. But short ties or narrow sleeper distance always looks strange in my eyes. US standard gauge prototype trains on LGB Swiss Metre gauge track always looks very funny in my eyes. It looks even worse with Piko or LGB 1 / 27th scale toys on 45mm track. 

Have Fun

Juergen / Fritz


----------



## Treeman (Jan 6, 2008)

Marty, spring is getting close you have other things to do.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The difference in track gauge or overseized height is not really noticable 
For evidence that you can live with 'narrow' gauge, check out the scope of the "OO" scale/gauge market in the UK. They use 4mm:ft but only 16.5mm gauge (=HO track.) The gauge should be 18.83mm - and some purists convert to Scalefour or P4 (18.83) or EM (18mm). But the majority of modellers in the UK don't think it matters and there's a LOT of them! 

The UK OO discrepancy is worse than the 1:29th narrow gauge issue.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I've got an MTH boxcar sitting next to an aristo boxcar. Brought them in for the Yellow Box Hugger Jim (I wish he'd put those silly MTH boxes down for a minute) who wanted to see the MTH rolling stock. I thought it would make sense to bring a 40' boxcar to sit next to the 40' boxcar. A lot of non-train folk stopping in my office comment on the larger 1/29 car vs the 1/32 car. Now, it could be the paint schemes, which is possible, but I doubt it. Both schemes are sweet. One is the Pittsburgh Steelers. The other is the New Haven's McGinnis Orange scheme. But the difference is striking. I'm thinking I can call the 1/32 car a '36 foot' boxcar, just for the fun of it. Except it is also narrow, so you have to ignore that.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I scratchbuilt 3 Diffco side dump cars in 1:29th scale. I saw a MTH one and bought it just to see how it was put together. lots of differences, 
but then I think the only time its a problem is when "we KNOW" the difference. 
In my beginnings I was a Bachman fan, just as I was a TYCO HO scale fan till I found Athearn. night and day in build.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Marty, pic?


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

The whole "wrong gauge" thing has been known to bother me from time to time. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that I'm a rivet counter.

But something occurred to me one day...

We MUST make compromises in our models somewhere, unless we are going to use exact scale wheels. Most model wheels are too wide to some degree. That in turn pushes truck sideframes out, causing them to interfere with steps and other details. It means that steam locomotive cylinders have to either be mounted too far apart, or have the rods outboard of center in the cylinder. In short, wide wheels on a correct track gauge can throw everything below the running boards out of proportion.

I think you can see where I'm going now...

1:29, since it is slightly narrow gauge, should in theory make up for wider than prototype treads on the wheels. That would allow for everything outside the wheels to be exactly to scale. In theory. I haven't actually measured anything.

So now I'm a little happier with 1:29. Plus it's a lot more convenient, as has been mentioned a couple times before.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark 
its thread is someplace in roilling stock.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Considering that 1:29 has become the defacto standard for modeling US-prototype standard gauge equipment in large scale, and there is a lot of beautifully-detailed stuff coming out these days, I am a little surprised that there hasn't been a "Proto:29" movement, along the lines of Proto:48 for the serious modelers in O scale. (Hey, we can complain all we want about scale & gauge combinations in large scale, but even those of you who insist on getting it wrong use the right number of rails at least!) I'm sure Marty was trying to illustrate that the track gauge really isn't that far off, but just look how much nicer it looks spaced out to ~49.5 mm! The broader gauge is not only more accurate (for 1:29), it also helps to make the oversized rail look proportionally better as well. 

Of course, the downside of Proto:29 (apart from hand-laying all that track and having to re-gauge all that equipment) would be losing out on the community aspect of garden railroading, being able to invite people running everything from 1:32 to 7/8n2 over to run on your layout and likewise you running your equipment on theirs. At least until the concept starts to catch on anyway! 

Does that mean I volunteer to get Proto:29 rolling? Um... no, I'm a 1:32 and 1:20.3 guy!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

"Proto 29" probably wont take off like "Proto 48" has simply because of the outdoor element to 1/29 scale.. 
The Proto-48 guys can hand-lay beautiful scale track..indoors..and not worry about the elements destroying their track.. 
yes, I know a few people do hand-lay track for outdoors..but overall it doesnt hold up as well as pre-fab track.. 
so for that reason alone I dont see a Proto-29 movement forming.. 

Scot


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark
heres one photo.










the Cat is 1:1 scale
that is the ONLY time I waver from 1:29.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Marty, you cut it's legs off to fit in the car? I'm calling the ASPCA !!! 

That poor cat! The next thing is that you will bob it's tail to fit in tunnels. 

Oh the horror, oh the humanity!


----------



## dieseldude (Apr 21, 2009)

So thats what happened to the Chessie cat!!!


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Wonder which Chinese resteraunt got the legs?


----------



## railcandy (Dec 19, 2010)

Yup @ *Marty *I'm looking for a litter of 2 week old kittens., Cause those full grown Tabbys wont half near fit in my 1:29 gondolas. They hang all over the place, and make a gut-wreching sound when they get their paws pinched going thru the switch iron !


----------



## yutzk (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah yes the diffco side dump. I have one of those too..( thanks Marty)


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Marty,

Please tell me that you aren't hauling kitty litter in those cars!! Not to mention feline produced "timber" models. Nice pictures, by the way.

I was running in Chambersburg last saturday morning (2 legged style) and as I approached the "High Line", I noted there was some MOW equipment parked on a siding. About 4-5 of what looked like 40' gondola cars that had a very similar appearance to the aristo drop end gon. I counted the ribs of the cars and it was pretty close (15 on the 1:1, 14 on the 1:29). 

To be honest, I'm the kind of guy that buys what he likes and runs it all together. I justify the differences in height, width, etc by saying that the real things don't line up 100% either.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

I dunno, as a certain Vulcan was fond of saying, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." I tend towards prototypical modelling, but I'm not a rivet counter by any stretch of the imagination. I remember an HO modeller telling me he had built the most accurate HO scale diesel model ever produced and had every detail part present on the locomotive, and my response was to ask him where he got the HO scale diesel fuel to run the HO scale EMD 710... 

Robert


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

When I first started I bought anything on sale to drag behind my NW-2. Not till a neighbor pointed out that my tank cars were too big for the rest of the train.

Now all I worry about does it fit with what is all ready on the track. 

On my way to Tucson last tuesday I stopped at Picacho Peak to do some rail faning.

Then I realized that the big guys don't pay attention to scale either.

I was amazed at the height of the different cars. But the Width is the same on all rolling stock.

Some were even taller than the engine which I never really noticed before. 

I thought that was a no no .

JJ


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

JJ true, but if you want to run an era ,with a little mixed in. 
But most "standard Gauge" in the USA has basic wheel sizes and coupler heigth, rail spacing. 
Even MOW little stuff has cabs big enough to fit a worker.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By John J on 18 Feb 2011 02:03 PM 
When I first started I bought anything on sale to drag behind my NW-2. Not till a neighbor pointed out that my tank cars were too big for the rest of the train.

Now all I worry about does it fit with what is all ready on the track. 

On my way to Tucson last tuesday I stopped at Picacho Peak to do some rail faning.

Then I realized that the big guys don't pay attention to scale either.

I was amazed at the height of the different cars. But the Width is the same on all rolling stock.

Some were even taller than the engine which I never really noticed before. 

I thought that was a no no .

JJ

J.J. "Who Cares" what other people think or see, on your railroad, and or mine or anybody's !! "AMEMBER"! It's yer railroad run it as ya sees fit!! So what if some are bigger or smaller than others run what you like when you like and where you like. You only have yerself to please!! 


Whoa wait a minute back er up buttwheat, unless yer runnin HO, and or N or Z with em, den dat mightin be a problemo!! What you tink????? Hah LOL


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, I explained it to somebody this way:

"We model standard gauge in 1/29 so those who wish to feel superior to everybody else can say, 'Well, *I* use the *correct *scale of 1/32.'"


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll own up to being one of those people who's bothered by scale differences. Almost all our stuff is in 1:29, more or less. All the non 1:29 rolling stock has been retired,. except for an LGB train I run for kids. The 1:32 stuff looked right to me, but too small next to 1:29. The 1:22/1:24 stuff looks too big. Just doesn't look right to me.


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

Trackside Ramblings, I shared elsewhere; " . . .*Did you know that . . . . . *G R International of Bloomsburg, PA released their latest 1:32 scale model of a UP Big Boy, "_The all metal engine is offered in both a live steam version and a electric version_ " ! And a 1:32 scale model of the MilwaukeeRoad's hiawatha 4-4-2 being produced by samhounga co. ltd. ...brass construction ss wheels and imported by (also) GRInternational. If you did not know that, I do think that is the norm' because till a couple months ago, I thought that companies such as USATrains, and now MTH were the groundbreaking manufacturers of bigger steam units ! BUT then I spotted these product offerings in the "larges scale product news" section of the *1987 *May and Aug.*1987* issues of RailroadModelCraftsman, I also spotted a company had announced a 1:32 GG-1, also in the 80's {but i've temp. misplaced that specific issue} Kind of wonder why AC and USAT did not supplement the GR hobby with the correct 1:32 scale = track gauge vs AC (first) going to the larger 1:29, along with USAT ! Although how many 1:32 shortlines clear their trackage with scale snowplows and does not the bigger MTH 1:32 'catalog' look toy-like like even recent lionel ...."


IMHO, 

doug c


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug, 
the reasons for 1/29 have been quite well established.. 
We have heard Lewis give two reasons why Aristo chose 1/29 scale back in the day: 

1. Making them 1/29 better matched, in overall size, the already existing LGB rolling stock, which was basically all that was available at the time, 
and was what all the already existing Large Scale hobbiests owned and were running.. 
So because the 1/29 scale rolling stocke matched the LGB equipment in size, (if not prototypes) 
the already existing customer base would be more likely to be "comfortable" with 1/29..which means 1/29 would sell better.. 
while 1/32 would have been too small to match..and probably would have hurt sales.. 

2. Lewis likes to quote the "wow factor"..saying one of the reasons for 1/29 scale was the larger size alone, compared to "correct" 1/32 scale.. 
this may or may not be true..but IMO the size choice was more likely to have been simply a smart business decision..you needed to match what people were alreadyrunning 
if you wanted to increase the odds of good sales..1/32 in RTR plastic could have been a disaster then..perhaps it would have never caught on, since it was so "different" from what people already had..

So to understand the "reason" for 1/29, a major factor in its creation was simply the state of the hobby at the time.. 
There has always been a 1/32 scale contigenent..but Brass locomotives are not in the realm of the average hobbiest.. 
so even though a brass Big Boy might have existed in 1987, for most people, it actually *didnt* exist, in the sense of something they would ever buy and run on a garden railroad. 
Much like a brass Big Boy still does not exist for me today..I will never own one, so it might as well not exist as far as im concerned.. 

I know Ferrari's also exist..but they dont for me, when it comes to something I will consider buying!  
so thats also a factor IMO why any brass 1/32 scale was irrelevent to the creation of plastic RTR (Ready-to-Run) in 1/29 scale.. 
brass is often and usually a totally seperate hobby.. 

Scot


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Let's just face it: 1/29th runs on the wrong track width. So does On"30", and O "scale" (5' width). That's just the way it is. Heck, ever think about HO scale? 3.5mm to the foot?!? Does that actually make any sense? 

My take? 1/32nd would be better because other related hobbies, including slot cars, use 1/32nd. 

Me? 1:20.3. Why 1:20.3? Why not 1:20? And shouldn't it really be 1:20.32? Wouldn't that make more sense? OK, but then the track would be slightly off, wouldn't it? But, OK, it is anyway, because the rail is oversize and the ties undersize, unless you use AMS 1:20.3 SCALE track, or something related. 

Holy cow, people, they're TOYS! 

ROTFL! 

Thanks! Robert


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rdamurphy on 28 Feb 2011 12:15 PM 
Holy cow, people, they're TOYS! 

ROTFL! 

Thanks! Robert 

So what if they are toys?
why does that make any difference?
I have always found the "just accept it and stop debating, because they are just toys" arguement to be pretty pointless..
Why do some people restore a classic car as 100% accurately as humany possible? why do they bother? its "just a car"..who cares?
Whats wrong with putting a new 4-cylinder Toyota engine in a restored 1969 Mach-1 Mustang?
well..most people would consider it VERY wrong..

So what if some of us like things more accurate?
why should we accept the "they are just TOYS!" arguement?
This happens in all scales..In O-scale, some people like this:



Neither is right or wrong..
both are equally valid..
Do the Proto-48 guys get grief from the tinplate modelers for going to extremes? because afterall, they are "just toys"?
maybe..
should they?
absolutely not..

the "they are just toys" mindset is fine, if thats what you want to go with..
but that doesnt mean people who want more scale accuracy are "wrong" either..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I think it should also be pointed out, that every comment in this thread (including mine) is the Ten thousand three hundred and fifty seventh time that particular thing has been said on MLS!  

Scot


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

"Whats wrong with putting a new 4-cylinder Toyota engine in a restored 1969 Mach-1 Mustang? 
well..most people would consider it VERY wrong.." 

Perhaps... But it would probably go faster! LOL! 

OK, OK, seriously, I was making the same point you are, in a different way. To each his/her own. I took a long hard look at 1:29th, didn't like the discrepency in scale, thought about 1/32nd, but availability too limited. OTOH, I've always been sort of a narrow gauge fanatic (narrow minded?) and when I discovered AMS, I was hooked! But, what to pull them around with? Well, other than brass, no narrow gauge locos except Bachmann. The Connie always looked funny to me, but I never had time or inclination to "Coloradoize it." Basically, I was waiting on the K's, then they came out, and lo and behold: Laid off three times in two years! No possibility of buying one. Took me several years before I could afford one, they weren't exactly a priority. 

I can see how someone may want their track to match, interestingly enough, I've often thought track was the most poorly modelled aspect of any railroad. Good looking track really enhances a scene in my opinion. 

So, hey, if my trains make me happy, and yours make you happy, and someone else's Mustang with a Toyota engine makes them happy, hey, let's call it a day, it's all good! 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

"Whats wrong with putting a new 4-cylinder Toyota engine in a restored 1969 Mach-1 Mustang? 
well..most people would consider it VERY wrong.." 

Perhaps... But it would probably go faster! LOL! 


Definetly wouldn't have to FIX it EVERY day!!


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Robert, 

You're going to drive yourself crazy trying to change this "scale" stuff. Don't try to re-invent the wheel. I build large scale riding trains and rolling stock. Out here in So.Cal., we run on 7 1/2 inch gauge track. Then somebody got a little upset about the gauge being wrong for 1 1/2 inch to the foot. 1.6 inch per foot became the "New" finescale. Bigger engines now-larger rolling stock! It's NOT just our large scale garden trains, these arguments are in the really big stuff too. After spending 20K bucks building my 1.5" ten-wheeler and then building cars to pull, I think I can look the other way and leave my micrometer at home AND just "enjoy the ride". Walt Disney's 1 1/2 inch Lily Belle live steamer, rode on 7 1/16 inch gauge tracks at his home in Holmby Hills, Ca.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

markoles: "Definetly wouldn't have to FIX it EVERY day!!" 

I think you meant to say: Definitely wouldn't have to Fix Or Repair Daily! 

Gary, I getcha, bro! I had a guy one time at a hobby shop tell me that he had built the most accurate HO scale model diesel ever built. I had to ask where he got the HO Scale Fuel for the HO Scale diesel engine under the hood! 

Of course, if you really want to start a flame war on a Narrow Gauge forum: 

So: Exactly what color was Russia Iron Black and how many D&RGW steamers had green boilers? 

Robert


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

RObert, you got my intent, I was going for a play on words with the FORD comment!! But, with a 4 cylinder Toyota engine fit in to an American car, you might have to fix it every other day.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

The heck with all those numerical gauges. I prefer the WOW gauge:











The WOW gauge for me translates into the largest (practical - as suits my personal eye appeal and my budget and my layout) loco/train that can handle my layouts.

That might be a USAT Big Boy gauge or a MTH Big Boy gauge or a LGB Mogul gauge or an Aristo-Craft E-8 gauge or a Bachmann Porter gauge.

My "gauge" is "Magic" in that it automatically adjusts itself to whatever loco or train I happen to be running at the time.

"REAL" gauges are like "Don't Buy Me" signs. 

If I want a larger gauge all I have to do is to move closer to the loco and if the loco is too big I can move back and the gauge becomes smaller.









Gauges? Bah! Humbug!









The only gauges I use are the no-go gauges. 

The hole I made in the wall of our house is one no-go gauge. If the loco cannot get through it I don't buy it (no 1:20.3 for me)
My pocketbook is another no-go gauge. No Aster Big Boy for me.
My layouts are another no-go gauge. If something does not run well on my layouts it goes away (I guess that's a go-away gauge).
The WOW factor is another no-go gauge. If it is too tiny to fill my hand I don't buy it.

Jerry


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, just to stir things up a little more (not really but I _am _curious as to the answer), does anybody really think they can "see" the difference in track gauge of 1:29 compared to what it's supposed to be? I've seen the picture and it's about the width of a rail wider is all! Now, those of you that immediately said "Yes!!", do you see the Code 332 track as being completely oversize? If you said "Yes!!", what if there was code 332 track gauged correctly compared to code 250 gauged at 45mm? Aha!!! (It's not quite so easy now is it?)
Going "rivet counter" nuts about gauge discrepancies seems somewhat counterproductive unless you go the whole gamut and include track size as well. Since largescale as a collective whole is based on running trains on 45mm gauged track, arguing about whether something is "right or wrong" seems pointless! On the other hand, a_ discussion_ about what we are doing and why can be informative and fun! (As an example: I run 1:20.3 (Fn3) but I also run 1:22.5 and I run them on the same code 332 track! Am I wrong or right? (Pointless question.) Do I have fun ( poignant question!) Do I enjoy other scales being modeled (yes) and do I care whether diesels are scaled 1:29 or 1:32 (I honestly would NEVER be able to tell the difference!) Am I impressed by the modelling skills exhibited here and at shows that I attend (abso-bloody-_lutely!!_) Am I through with this sermon (thankfully, yes.) Amen.


----------



## yardtrain (Feb 18, 2008)

I prefer 1/32 -- The 1st 1/32 scale engine I got was the MTH Hudson when it was 1st introduced. I always liked the Hudson, I recall when LGB came out with one it was $$$$$$$$ I thought they were crazy. Then MTH got in to the garden railroad hobby a American Steam engine with Smoke, Remote and SOUND for around $600-700 I was excited. A local dealer finally had one in stock on display and running. I was hooked. I sold my LGB engines and never Looked back. I have 3 Engines now all MTH, all bought from a local Dealer, at almost Internet prices. I will stick with MTH and 1/32 scale it fits the track. 

I am in a train club and most everyone in our club have AristoCraft, LGB and Bachmann. I thing they look to large and toy like due to the lack of detail in most steam engines.


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

"I thing they look to large and toy like due to the lack of detail in most steam engines."

LOL I've always thought the reverse, towards the 'smaller' scales !









Great to have variety in personal opinions, and ultimately with everything it seems the marketplace will be the determining factor !

doug c


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

toy like and lack detail???? 
I guess you have not seen the USAT big boy, Hudson or AMLs 0-6-0.brass. 
amazing detail 
and the pasenger cars makes MTH pass cars look toy like.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By NTCGRR on 01 Mar 2011 01:25 PM 
toy like and lack detail???? 
I guess you have not seen the USAT big boy, Hudson or AMLs 0-6-0.brass. 
amazing detail 
and the pasenger cars makes MTH pass cars look toy like. 
Agreed, USA Detail is outstanding along with AML......


----------



## Madstang (Jan 4, 2008)

Down at Laurentzen Gardens when I helped them out there they ran a MTH Challenger that sounded like a model T, the only time I thought the MTH sound sounded great was when it was running slowly.

The ONLY thing I like about the MTH 1:32 is that you can get more of a variety of accessory items like cars, people, Army stuff, planes reasonable...
With the 1:20, 1:22, and 1:29 there isn't as much offerings. 
Try finding a 1:24 decent looking plane OR Helicopter....more of a selection in 1:32.

As for how they look I would have to side with the rest as MTH looks more toy like, and not really appealing to me. But there is one guy in the club that has MTH exclusively. That is what makes this hobby interesting for everyone!

I do have a set of "CHROME" tank cars MTH came out with...now those I like a lot!

Bubba


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By yardtrain on 01 Mar 2011 08:39 AM 

when LGB came out with one it was $$$$$$$$ I thought they were crazy. 



To keep things in perspective the LGB Hudson was actually made by Aster which is why it was so expensive. While expensive it was not (in my opinion) very highly detailed.

Also to keep things in perspective, so far MTH only offers their Railking line in large scale. If they ever get around to producing their Premier line in large scale that will be another story.

The truth is that both my USAT and MTH Big Boys are shelf Queens (powered for only a few feet on the shelf) as is the LGB/Aster White Pass Mikado. When it comes to RUNNING trains I much prefer to run stuff that was a lot less expensive and that I can more readily accept the possibility of damaging.

It would be a very dull world if we all thought alike. I most enjoy visiting layouts that are running stuff I don't own (or Bubba's USAT Hudson







).

Jerry


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

While my intermodal trains are primarily 1/29 pulled by approx power, I honestly don't care if the articulated spine cars come from USA, Aristo or MTH so long as SOMEONE makes [email protected] url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Providers/HtmlEditorProviders/CEHtmlEditorProvider/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I guess Jerry will just have to run my Bigboy next time he comes. Not everyone gets to run that.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By NTCGRR on 01 Mar 2011 03:32 PM 
I guess Jerry will just have to run my Bigboy next time he comes. Not everyone gets to run that. HEY BUBBA!!!


You read this too didn't you?

Quick, copy it down so it doesn't disappear.






























Jerry


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Just to throw my two cents worth in. I have to agree with Steve a little bit. How many people are using 'scale' rail? I think model railroading in any gauge/scale has two different types of people; one those who have trains and aren't completely comsumed by what is prototypical (including rail size, train length, gauge etc) and those who want to recreate a railroad in a model. See the difference? Model of railroads, and model railroading. (For an interesting commentary see Tony Koesters trains of thoughts in the Feb issue of MR). I for one try to follow the prototype and am attempting to build a scale model of a railroad. Because of that I'm not selective compressing any of my structures, trying to use the correct size rail (my prototype used 100-115 lbs rail which translates to code .215) but at the same time I'm not modeling in the correct gauge (1/29) so I'm not completely accurate. But I feel that a small compromise in the rail gauge would allow more people to enjoy my layout. That way I can model what I want, but also invite others to run on my railroad regardless of the scale that they model. But at some point in time would I consider regauging the layout to the proper gauge? Yes, but not at the moment. To start something else, how many people are building/using scale sized turnouts in any scale? HO, N, O, G? I'm going to attempt to build a #9 turnout (which was used on branch line I'm modeling) but it measures over 2' from just the points to the tip of the frog. My current #6 switches total could fit in the area between the frog and the points on that #9 switch. By the way any one know of a source for code 180 rail? Or something similar in size? 
Food for thought 
Craig


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I was looking at an MTH catolog last night at the dash 8s, their couplers? truck or body mount? really to scale?? 
I know, I'm in trouble now. 
off to work. 

Craig
good point on the rail, for me it was cost and durablitity against the "real outdoors"


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

I couldn't agree more, the 'real outdoors' does factor something else that no other scale/gauge ever has to consider. But at the same time does that provide us with an excuse not to try? For the past 5 years now I've had code .250 rail layed with cedar ties outdoors in the faumous seattle rainy weather with not much damage (I did have a good sized tree branch fall and bend a small 2" section of rail, but that was quickly replaced), other then the sun fading my initial dye of black leather shoe on the cedar ties. While I've been doing this I keep hearing comments from people saying that it's impractical to handlay rail outdoors for what ever reason. But isn't that an excuse not to try?I did it, and now I'm ready to try and haidlay some .215 or even smaller rail with some scale turnouts? Will it work? I don't know, but I'm going to find out. 
Not to distract from the thread topic, but I've kind of have been loosely following the P:87 movement for a while now. At the beginning it was said that scale track standards wouldn't work in HO, but now it's been proved. So why can't we imagine a time were 1:29 is layed to scale standards or even the correct gauge? It's not immpossible, but just not the current trend. I personally think that in future this might happen just as it took the P:87 movement a while to catch on. I think that scale sized rail is one area that most scales are lacking in (not just G gauge). 
At somepoint in time we all compromise on standards from the prototype even if your modeling as prototypical as you can get. (Have you even seen a 5 degree curve in any scale?) It's all what you can live with. Personally I thought I could live with code 332 rail until I began to look at .250, and now I'm thinking about something even lighter (that closer represents the prototype). 
The only reason I can give myself for not wanting to gauge my layout in the correct gauge is because I'm at a point in time that I don't have a lot of rolling stock, or locomotives to completely host an operating session without having guests bring thier own locomotives. If in the future I had enough locomotives and cars (much like what we see in HO & N) to completely host an operating session I think I would seriously consider regauging. But I'm more interesting in having prototypical operations on my railroad, rather then having guest over just to run trains (not that it's a bad thing).

Do you consider yourself to be modeling railroading, or do you have a model railroad? (To quote Tony Koester in March '11 MR)
Craig


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 02 Mar 2011 11:15 PM 
Do you consider yourself to be modeling railroading, or do you have a model railroad? 

Craig


1. do you modeling railroading?
2. do you have a model railroad?

There is a 3rd category (which is sort of where I fit in).

3. do you just play with toy trains?

I would love to be modeling an actual railroad BUT first I would have to have the money to pay someone else to build it for me.

Failing that I would love to have a model railroad but again I would have to have the money to pay someone else to build it for me.

Even if someone miraculously built such a layout for me I would not have the enthusiasm, energy (or physical dexterity to get down on the ground) to maintain such a layout so you can add that I would need additional funds to pay someone to maintain the layout for me.

Since I do not have the money to pay someone to build what I would like to have and I have no enthusiasm or energy or sufficient funds to do it myself I settle for the third option.

I just lay a foundation (of plywood, wood or composite decking), throw a green outdoor carpet over it and revert to my childhood days where I just enjoy playing with toy trains.

The lower one sets his/her standards (expectations), the easier it is to meet them and to begin running trains. I have very low standards.

Standards are what I apply to someone I am paying to do something. Expectations are the much lower standards I set for myself when I am the one having to come up with the money, energy, enthusiasm, and work.

Having said that I have a great appreciation and respect for those who have built their layouts with much higher standards than those I settle for with my own layouts. That's perhaps why Marty's is so popular - we can all go and have a good time benefiting from the tremendous efforts others have made and are willing to share with us.

2011 = Bubba's USAT Hudson and Marty's USAT Big Boy. An event that promises once again to exceed the previous year's fun.

Perhaps the best thing about this hobby is not the fancy layouts we get to visit as much as the great people we get to visit.

Jerry


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Does anyone know how they came up with the scales we now have?

Why is the track 45MM 

Why 1:29?

Why 1:24th

And why the odd number in 1:20.5?

JJ


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Posted By John J on 06 Mar 2011 06:53 AM 
Does anyone know how they came up with the scales we now have?

Why is the track 45MM 

Why 1:29?

Why 1:24th

And why the odd number in 1:20.5?

JJ 


1. LGB drew a number out of a hat..ok ok was a popular yoorapeein gauge.... I think....

2. Wowie factor.... er I think to make a closer size to LGB's. Market ability to be used with LGB, get a toe-hold and grow.

3. a logical extension from 1:48 (American O scale)

4. 1:20.3 is the scale when 45mm = 3 feet. 1:22.x , 45mm = a meter. A meter is aprox 39"



John


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Glad you asked, totalwrecker! 

http://www.ndrr.com/rmr_faq/Introduction/Early-History.htm 

Well, no point in copying the whole article, it's a good read anyway... 

Robert


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

rdamurphy. 
I didn't ask, I tongue in cheek gave JJ an answer.... 

John


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By rdamurphy on 06 Mar 2011 08:01 AM 
Glad you asked, totalwrecker! 

http://www.ndrr.com/rmr_faq/Introduction/Early-History.htm 

Well, no point in copying the whole article, it's a good read anyway... 

Robert 



Hi Robert,

That is a great article. Thanks for posting the link to it.

Jerry


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 15 Feb 2011 09:29 AM 
The difference in track gauge or overseized height is not really noticable 
For evidence that you can live with 'narrow' gauge, check out the scope of the "OO" scale/gauge market in the UK. They use 4mm:ft but only 16.5mm gauge (=HO track.) The gauge should be 18.83mm - and some purists convert to Scalefour or P4 (18.83) or EM (18mm). But the majority of modellers in the UK don't think it matters and there's a LOT of them! 

The UK OO discrepancy is worse than the 1:29th narrow gauge issue. 

In fairness the electric motors of the day would not fit into the bodies of UK HO models because UK Railways had developed with a much smaller loading gauge than either European or US railroads. 4mm scale was used for the bodies to ensure that there was enough room. Obviously there was a significant investment by commercial manufacturers and that has really kept the 4mm/16.5 combo running. 1:29 evolved for quite different reasons. Basically Lewis Polk has stated in public that 1:32 models looked too small beside LGB 1:22.5 equipment and in essence the choice of 1:29 was made on marketing grounds. I guess teh calculation was that SG modellers would be put off buying LS models that looked a LITTLE smaller than LGB .


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

I was at a friend's house browsing through a book on narrow gauge British industrial locomotives over the weekend, and was quite surprised at all the oddball gauges they had. Each page in the book featured a photo of a locomotive organized by gauge in ascending order from 18" gauge up to 4' 4.5" gauge. I'm not really sure what the point of that last one was, seems like it would offer all the drawbacks of narrow gauge (unable to interchange, non-standard equipment) with none of the benefits (cheaper to build vs. standard gauge). Anyway, just before the 4' 4.5" gauge engine were two locomotives built to 4' 3" gauge. *That's right, there really was a 4' 3" gauge, an honest-to-goodness prototype for 1:29!* 


Well, technically it should be 4' 3 3/8", but who's nitpicking?


----------

