# wacky world of "G-Scale" illustrated



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Recently i bought a couple MDC covered hoppers on ebay, to replace a pair of Aristo covered hoppers I'd never entirely liked. They always looked too big to me, bigger than 1:29, closer to 1:24 or even bigger.

First off: this is not a criticism of what anybody runs, anywhere. Everyone should run whatever they like and whatever looks good to them. It's a hobby, these are toys, etc etc. No judgement of anyone else is being implied or offered. [/i]I'm just making some observations about commonly available rolling stock.

Below is an MDC covered hopper, which I tihnk was made in 1:32 next to an aristo covered hopper. 










The aristo car, nominally at 1:29, much wider, longer and taller. Of course, hopper cars were built in many different sixes by many different roads and car makers--they weren't standardized. But the aristo model has much bigger detail. For example, look at the roof detail:










The grab rails on the aristo car are huge, and so are the rivets. Even in 1:29, the rivet heads on the side of the Aristo car would be the size of tennis balls










The aristo car is the better model in many ways--it has brake detail, while the MDC has none, and it has some detailing around the hopper hatches that the MDC car lacks. But I think it must be the same vintage as the Aristo "long steel caboose," which is WAY WAY bigger than 1:29. Here's a comparison of the 1:29 USAT center cupola caboose and the aristo long steel caboose


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I like the MDC cars and use them the most. I think they look best with my Aristo LS Mikado(seems to be 1/32 to me) and with my MTH Hudson. Cars vary SO much on real freight trains. I see it every day here, hoppers vary also in length/height, as do all cars. Best to have a mix of sizes for variety.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

If you measure dimensions on the photos and do some math you will see that the Aristocraft model is about 10% taller, 10% wider and 10% longer than the MDC model, which is exactly the difference between 1:29 and 1:32 scales. I think you and I are the kind of people that perceive "volume" more than just the single dimensions and so the 1:29 scale cars appear huge compared to the 1:32 scale models, because the difference in volume is 30%. I have one 1:29 scale car (REA) and when I put it next to my 1:32 scale engine (Aster), it looks absolutely goofy "to me" (like mixing HO and O scales), but if I move it back to near the rear of the train of other 1:32 (MDC) cars it looks just fine as a typical oversized car I see on real trains. It is all in the eye of the beholder (and the rubber ruler that ALL of the manufacturers use!)


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

I received a USAT B&O Center copula caboose for my birthday last month. I have it sitting in the frt yard with other frt cars. It looks small compared to the AML B&O box car which I thought was 1/29th. I think the Center copula caboose goes great with my MDC coal hoppers. The Aristo Caboose looks huge as the photo above shows.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I think the difference is bigger than 10% in each dimension. But it's hard to tell because they are so obviously of different prototypes. The MDC car is just their hopper car with a cover on it. 










I plan to reletter that MDC car for the Reading, which had some very similar covered hoppers 
Here's an example of the rivet detail and the enormous grab bar, which even at 1:29 would be too big for a person to get their hand around:










here's the reading prototype:










It's funny how I sit there and think of how to make a train of cars "look better" when in real life they are randomly assembled and vary a lot


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I don't think that's a grab iron on top, looks like the hatch hinges. 

Cars come in all sizes, best thing to do is makeall 'human appliances' the same such as same spacing on ladder rungs. Brake wheels, etc... 

I get a red x for prototype pic. 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Aristo caboose is not 1:29, it's the first car they made as I remember, copy of the lionel caboose, and it's 1:24 I believe. 

The Aristo car has some weird, coarse details, I'll agree, that lengthwise rod is WAY out of scale... too bad. 

Their new stuff is way better, like the excellent 2 bay hopper. 

But, bottom line, the covered hopper is in scale itself. 

Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Here is a comparison of an MDC 2 bay hopper, in 1:32, and an Aristo 2 bay hopper, in 1:29. You can see it's a much much less significant difference than the covered hopper, which I think must be a legacy of Aristo's 1:24 days, like the caboose.

The Aristo 2-bay hopper is an excellent model




















That looks like a 10% difference. Pico has reissued the MDC hoppers in 1:32. They're a good model, accurate, but as far as detail, the Aristo 2 bay is better, if you don't care about the scale difference. Either way, the rail is WAY out of scale!


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

I have both the USAT center Cupola caboose and Aristo’s version of a C-40-3. The USAT caboose seems small to me for 1/29 scale.


Aristo’s steel caboose is pretty close dimensionally when scaled to 1/29 less about 1” in length measured from the strike castings of the couplers and about 3/8” taller than a scaled C-40-3. I compared scale drawings of an SP C-40-3 to the Aristo steel caboose for reference.


I have scale dimensions for a center cupola caboose to compare to the USAT, but I re-boxed mine and put it out in the shed as its diminutive size moved it to my for sale zone, that and SP never had them… That said I suspect the USAT center cupola is pretty close to scale dimensions as produced as they were smaller dimensionally across the board as compared to a C-40 caboose.


Michael


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

And thats why its less confusing by calling it G gauge. The track is all the same gauge. Scale is off the charts.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Michael Glavin on 25 Dec 2012 04:02 PM 


 
I have both the USAT center Cupola caboose and Aristo’s version of a C-40-3. The USAT caboose seems small to me for 1/29 scale.


Aristo’s steel caboose is pretty close dimensionally when scaled to 1/29 less about 1” in length measured from the strike castings of the couplers and about 3/8” taller than a scaled C-40-3. I compared scale drawings of an SP C-40-3 to the Aristo steel caboose for reference.


I have scale dimensions for a center cupola caboose to compare to the USAT, but I re-boxed mine and put it out in the shed as its diminutive size moved it to my for sale zone, that and SP never had them… That said I suspect the USAT center cupola is pretty close to scale dimensions as produced as they were smaller dimensionally across the board as compared to a C-40 caboose.


Michael


I dunno, that figure I stuck in the picture of the caboose is supposed to be 1:24. She's too big for the usat caboose doorway, but she's dwarfed by the aristo caboose doorway. http://www.mylargescale.com/1stclass/lownote/cabooses.jpg It's true the usat center cupola caboose is small. I think the prototype was small, as you said. It hard to make definitive scale claims because the prototypes varied so much


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Michael Glavin on 25 Dec 2012 04:02 PM 



I have both the USAT center Cupola caboose and Aristo’s version of a C-40-3. The USAT caboose seems small to me for 1/29 scale.


Aristo’s steel caboose is pretty close dimensionally when scaled to 1/29 less about 1” in length measured from the strike castings of the couplers and about 3/8” taller than a scaled C-40-3. I compared scale drawings of an SP C-40-3 to the Aristo steel caboose for reference.


Nope, the USA Trains caboose is spot-on for 1/29 scale, this is a known fact.
Cant comment on the Aristo caboose, as I dont know what its prototype is..
but cabooses did come in different sizes! 

But I can confirm the USA caboose is correct for 1/29 scale..
I have compared it to prototype drawings.

Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

From my Aristo-Craft "history" page:


1988 - "Periodically, I get e-mails about discussions on other websites and they want my opinion. The most recent one asked about our Long Steel Caboose, which is the first product we ever made. This was some 24 years ago that we designed it and introduced it in 1988. At that time our direction was to be a toy train company and we were making a scale popularized by Lionel (trade mark of the Lionel corporation) in the first part of the century. Our partner at the time under our REA trademark was Bill Lamping and he wanted to make his favorite Lionel caboose. This was the model for our first product, not a scale model of a real caboose." (Lewis Polk, Aristo-Craft forum 03-05-2010, 11:38 AM)

Notice the reference you can check yourselves from President of Aristo-Craft....


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 26 Dec 2012 12:09 PM 
From my Aristo-Craft "history" page:


1988 - "Periodically, I get e-mails about discussions on other websites and they want my opinion. The most recent one asked about our Long Steel Caboose, which is the first product we ever made. This was some 24 years ago that we designed it and introduced it in 1988. At that time our direction was to be a toy train company and we were making a scale popularized by Lionel (trade mark of the Lionel corporation) in the first part of the century. Our partner at the time under our REA trademark was Bill Lamping and he wanted to make his favorite Lionel caboose. This was the model for our first product, not a scale model of a real caboose." (Lewis Polk, Aristo-Craft forum 03-05-2010, 11:38 AM)

Notice the reference you can check yourselves from President of Aristo-Craft....








No argument from me on the origin of the Arsito steel Caboose, it simply scales fairly accurately at 1/29 to a scale SP C-40 steel caboose. 

Michael


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, that's great, since Lewis says: " This was the model for our first product, not a scale model of a real caboose." (that statement was the point) 

There was a lively discussion on this on his forum. 

But great, because there's precious few cabeese available. 

Michael, do you have a link to where I can un-learn what I was told and see a scale dimensioned drawing? 

Greg


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

Greg,

I don’t think the info is available online, I found scaled erection drawings in a couple of books I have.

Southern Pacific Lines, Common Standards dwg. #31185F and lots of info and a couple of these drawings are in Southern Pacific Freight Cars Volume 2: Cabooses (Thompson). Perhaps someone nearby has this info (Ted D.?).

If you’re interested I can provide the basic dimensions derived from said drawing above. As I noted; I scaled the Aristo steel cupola previously. I was intrigued by Master Burch’s renditions of SP’s C-40-3 steel cupolas…

Michael


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting... the Aristo steel caboose always looked fine to me... there was a bit of furor on the Aristo site about the scale of the caboose, which prompted Lewis' comment it was not intended to be a scale caboose. 

I would not be surprised that the caboose scales out pretty well, but sits way too high... I'll ask Ted, he has an extensive library. 

But I'd be interested in the scale length, height from rail head of main roof, and width. 

In Lownote's post, you see a side by side comparison of 2 models sold as 1:29, so something is off somewhere. 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

I just went out and measured the body width of my two cabeese. 

USAT B&O Center Copula and Aristo Craft Caboose as pictured above. 

The USAT caboose body is 3 7/8 inch wide. 

The Aristo caboose is just under 4 1/4 inch body width. 

This measurement did not include the roof or steps in the dimension. 

Now, I've always assumed that while the lengths and heights could vary greatly even on standard gauge cars, the width was always made to the max allowable dimension. 

So, if this is true, one or the other caboose can't be to scale. 

Also, thinking about standard gauge dimensions, has the maximum allowable width of freight cars always been the same or has it changed over the years?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm with ya Randy, there's something rotten in Denmark, and it ain't the cheese!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, I can solve half of the equation:

Prototype drawing:









USA Trains "Northeastern" Caboose:









Protype Length - *31' 6"*
Prototye Height - *13' 6"*
Prototype Width - *9' 3"*

USA Trains Model:

Length -12.5 inches = *30' 6"* in 1/29 scale.
Height - 5 and 5/8" = *13' 7"* in 1/29 scale.
Width - 3 and 7/8" = *9' 4"* in 1/29 scale.

A foot short, and pretty much exact for height and width..
But..the USA Trains caboose is probably based on the original Reading Railroad version,
which might not be exactly the same as the Lehigh Valley version..It is known that the LV tweaked the Reading design somewhat..
So that alone could account for the difference, when comparing to LV drawings instead of Reading drawings..

But there is no doubt, the USA Trains caboose is 1/29 scale..

Scot


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

The measurements I recorded are below: 


*Aristocraft Steel Cupola:* 


L: *13-7/8” @ 1:29 =33’-6”*


H: *6-1/2” =15’-8”*


W: *4-1/8” =10’* 
The drawings from Southern Pacific Common Standards are dated 12-19-1929, first units were not constructed until 1937. 
There were height variations due to the utilization of used Vulcan trucks. 


*SP Steel Cupola Caboose:* 


L: *36’-4” @1:29 =15” *


H: *14’-7” = 6”* 


W: * 9’-2” = 3-7/8”* 


Michael


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So the USAT is pretty spot on in 2 dimensions and close on the other. Not surprising given their track record and it's a new product. 

And the Aristo is "gummy" scale.. A scale foot too tall (as shown in Lownote's side to side)... a scale foot too wide (also seen in the side to side) and way too short.. 

As Lewis said, not a scale model... 

Taking the width of the prototype then you get about 1:26, which, surprise! is pretty much the scale of LGB, who he was copying and competing with... (and getting sued by).. 

That said, the caboose does not look real bad, but it's not scale. 

Greg


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

Or one could suggest the Aristo caboose is 5/16” wider, 1/2” taller and 1-1/8” shorter than a 1/29 scaled steel cupola of SP heritage. The width and height scale respectively to a 1/26.5-1/27 while the length scales to a 1/31.4 model.

And the USAT caboose is 3/64” wider, 3/64” taller and 1/2” shorter than a 1:29 scaled model.

In the scheme of things both models are taller, wider and shorter than prototypes……. 

Michael


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for posting the drawings and dimensions, Scot.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It's best to think in scale feet Michael, but it's clear that the Aristo is further out of scale and significantly shorter than the SP prototype. Since it was modeled from a Lionel caboose, and virtually all Lionel stuff is shortened for sharp curves all the logic holds together. 

Also, the Aristo caboose just looks overscale, as Lownote showed visually, normally in a train, the first thing you notice is the height, of course in a freight train, cars can be all different heights. 

One thing I've noticed over all the years, especially in the "wars" on locomotive height (the famous Dash 9 vs SD70, where employees of train companies were calling people liars for measuring the actual model height), is that when you get around a scale foot off, it becomes noticable... at least to me and if you read the old threads on the "war" I think you might agree. 

Not sure you were "around" on the forums then... it was actually pretty funny in a sad sort of way... 

Greg


----------



## Bob Pero (Jan 13, 2008)

Good stuff Greg. Thanks for posting your comments.


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

This is an interesting topic that keeps appearing in different guises periodically. This latest incarnation centered on the Aristo-Craft Caboose easily illustrates the obsession of many modelers with fidelity to dimensiomal scale. In real terms 1 foot in 1:29 scale is 0.4137931 inches. 3/8 inch in decimal form is 0.375 inches. For someone to claim that a 1 foot difference in scale feet is sufficient to cause distress over mismatch among similar model cars is in my opinion carrying the idea of model fidelity to reality to an extreme (rivet counting, nitpicking). If fidelity to real world is so important, then why do so many Garden Railway Modelers use brass rail on plastic ties, have plastic body rolling stock and engines, curve radius switches, no signalling, run in circles rather than point to point, no operation scheme just to illustrate the litany of things that are "wrong" in most if not all Garden/Large Scale model railroads as well as other scale and gauge model railways.

Everyone should enjoy the hobby for its diversionary character and pleasure. Worrying about fidelity to the real world for "toys" that are essentially a form of escape from the pressures of the real world has the potential for ruining or diluting the pleasure that can be derived from slipping into the fantasy of your own railroad empire no matter its size and complexity and fidelity to real world.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By NYC Buff on 29 Dec 2012 08:02 AM 

Everyone should enjoy the hobby for its diversionary character and pleasure. Worrying about fidelity to the real world for "toys" that are essentially a form of escape from the pressures of the real world has the potential for ruining or diluting the pleasure that can be derived from slipping into the fantasy of your own railroad empire no matter its size and complexity and fidelity to real world.



Everyone should enjoy the hobby however they see fit..

If some people want to debate 1-scale foot, and the size or number of rivits, that is their prerogative..
No one (including you) has the right to tell anyone else they are "doing the hobby wrong" or "they are just toys, so lighten up"..
If you dont care about one scale foot, thats great..more power to you.
If some people do care about one scale foot, and want to talk about it, that's great too..and there is nothing wrong with it.

I am changing all the handrails on my USA Trains northeastern caboose, because I feel they are too thick..
I have removed them all, and I am scratch building new ones out of wire..
am I "ruining or diluting the pleasure" of my hobby by doing so?
No, im actually *increasing* the pleasure of my hobby by doing so! 
If not worrying about scale fidelity works for you, thats great..
but you dont have the right to tell anyone else they are doing it wrong if they do want to focus on scale fidelity..

basically you are telling people they are nitpicking too much..
but interestingly, by telling people they are nitpicking too much, you are also nitpicking too much!  

Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll see if I can find the Aristo thread, because putting an Aristo Dash 9 right next to the USAT SD70 looked wrong to most people, and the discussion of what to do was most entertaining, if you can detach yourself from the people who got really emotional. 

Telling people what they "should" do is unacceptable... you have made your preferences known NYC, but lecturing others how they should enjoy the hobby is unacceptable, and your statement is technically hypocritical as Scot pointed out, you are actually at odds with your own statement. 

By the way, a friend pointed out that the Aristo steps too are out of proportion. Again going back to the "scaling up" of a Lionel caboose, it makes sense that the "peripheral parts" were made heavier to avoid damage. 

On a personal note, it's funny my caboose has always looked "wrong" to me... was looking at it in the garage.. now the foreshortening of the length is really apparent, for a "long" caboose, it's not long enough... back to the USAT extended vision one. 


Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

From the first post, by me



"First off: this is not a criticism of what anybody runs, anywhere. Everyone should run whatever they like and whatever looks good to them. It's a hobby, these are toys, etc etc. No judgement of anyone else is being implied or offered. [/i]I'm just making some observations about commonly available rolling stock."


That was the original point.


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

The original point was well taken. My comments were not meant to direct or command anyone. However, I find it peculiarly inconsistent when someone discusses dimensional scale fidelity and ignores fidelity to other aspects or facets of modeling the real world. Rivet Counting and Nitpicking are not among my accomplishments as yet. No individual was singled out intentionally for rebuke or castigation in my original comments. As a matter of fact, I was very impressed that several of the respondents had taken the time to measure dimensions of the model and translate that to real world instance. I would also note that there was not, in my opinion, a logical inconsistency in my comments. I did not use a false premise to reach a logical conclusion. 

I have two Aristo-Craft cabooses of the type referred to in this thread and use them regularly. They do not seem to reflect a particular "prototype" caboose (especially NYC "Prototype") but are satisfying as is for their appearance and utility. MTH and USA have produced cabooses that are more consistent with "prototype" than Aristo-Craft. That does not make Aristo-Craft wrong in any sense as they have produced a commodity acceptable to a large segment of the interested public. I have run Aristo-Craft, USA Trains and MTH Cabooses on the same layout at the same time without any concern on my part and no comments from the viewing public or other members of the club in which I am a member.

The other gist of my comments was the time and energy spent on arguing over a limited point is, in my opinion, sometimes a futile effort as the various "combatants" will never be swayed from their position. Constructive discourse that is civil is a favorite pursuit of mine. I have little opportunity though to pursue that end.

I would pose a question to all of the participants in this thread. Would it be wise to empower an organization in "Large Scale" to regulate fidelity to "prototype" and deny producers the right or opportunity to purvey their product if it is not faithful to the real world instance? I think that many of you would be as offended as I would be if that circumstance were to become reality.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't forget,prototype length is usually measured at the coupler pulling surface. So,when someone puts up the length of a model,where are you measuring? Every manufacturers couplers are different,so that cannot be an accurate measurement for comparison. For instance since the S.P. C40-3 was brought up. Length over striking casting is 36' 4 1/2". Length over platforms is 34' 7 3/4". The length over platform would be an easier measurement for our models. When you measure width,is it to the sides or over the hand rails? We are in the weeds now. 
The C40-3 kitbashes I did starting with the Aristo long caboose measure out to 35' 9" over the end sills. A foot too long but a compromise due to what I was working with. Sidewall width 10'. Prototype sidewall width is 9' 7 3/8". So,less than a scale 5" too wide. I'll take it.
Here are a couple photos. The caboose trucks are castings that were done by John Mcguire (just passed away) and sent to Ozark. They never made it to market. I had to do a lot of work on them to get them to work. Has USA made the trucks from the center cupola available? Also notice the modified sideframes on the SD45.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

If you look at this picture. you can see that the Aristo caboose is way over scale. That figure scales out to six feet in 1:24. She could not stand in the cab of an aristo steamer--her head would hit the ceiling. What caboose has an eight foot doorway? Also the rivets, as mentioned--I'm not counting them, but I'm noticing that in 1:29 they are as big as the palm of the hand or bigger. And what in the world is going on with the marker lights? 

























At the same same time, the handrails are the same size or possibly thinner than the handrails on the USAT caboose. So the USAT model has its own issues. Take a look at the figure in the cupola, who would be quite at home on a lionel O scale caboose


I'm not arguing anything here, just observing the details. Anyone can make of the details whatever they like. My original observation, hardly unique, is that the world of G has some wacky scale issues. And I dont think that's an argument, it's an observation. No one is proposing a governing body or anythign of the kind. I'm just talking about the hobby

Personally, I find the Aristo caboose to be really grossly out of scale, even the basic box matches an 1-1 prototype, and it's because of those details. It's the same reason I can\'t run the very nice USAT woodsided boxcars--the detail parts are too big. A while ago GR did an article on "downsizing" a USAT wooden boxcar to 1:29. Someday I'll try that. But as always YMMV.

Here again are two accurate models of similar cars, one in 1:29 and one in 1:32. You can see. It's a noticeable but not huge difference


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

And just for fun, here's what the thread started with, an aristo covered hpper supposedly in 1:29 and an MDC covered hopper in 1:32. I just finished relettering the MDC car and did some light weathering




















And the prototype, more or less. You can see I ignored many thing sand just made a rough imitation


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

As long as it fits my 10' rule(may become 20' ! I am content to watch them roll by.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Never did like those stock Aristo hoppers. They sit way too high. There have been several articles on lowering them. I turned a couple into cement hoppers.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

That huge rod and oversize stanchions really detract from the model. 

I understand though that the model is very close to exact proportions except it needs lowering. 

Here's Ted's article on lowering it and adding Kadees:

*http://www.elmassian.com/trains/ted...ee-install*

Lowered in right, stock on left... big difference in appearance... the car actually looks smaller when lowered... optical illusion!











Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I decided to see what I could do with the aristo covered hopper. I lowered it nearly 1/4 by filling the inside of the bolster with wood and epoxy, then cutting the bolster down and then screwing it back together. It worked, but it looks lousy. Fortunately, you mostly can't see it. The lowered car looks much much better overall though.











I also got rid of that ridiculous rail and the huge stanchions--a big improvement. And I swapped out the aristo faux-wood walkway for an old faux metal walkway from a boxcar, for a slightly more modern look












Paul, those cement hoppers look really great! Any description of how you did the hatches?


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

The hatches were purchased from Shamult car shops ( I think). Pretty simple castings but they do the job. I did these probably ten years ago. Really not much to it. The photos really show the changes pretty well. I did remove the rivets so they look like a welded car. The foot stirrups are soldered brass. Replaced the roofwalks with the newer see through castings,which also helps in lowering the profile. Bit of a freelance job,but they do look better.


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

Mike,
Yeap them are big rivets, I measure .041" x 29 = 1.189" or 5/8" rivets head... SP drawings list rivets @ 3/8"; 3/8" rivet heads are about 3/4" diameter. So the scaled rivet heads should be about .03.

The gal and the doorway illustration is great; but the Aristo door opening scales to 83.5" (2.9375" x 29/12 = 85"). 84" is standard door height in my neck of the woods. A 29th scale long legged 6' gal scales to 2-1/2", they got this right, well kinda sorta the SP drawing shows door height at 79" or 2.75" in 1:29 world...

The USAT door is 2.5” tall, together with about an 1/8” threshold step up from the porch makes the door opening from porch floor to top of opening 2-5/8” overall or about 76” in 1:29… That's doable without a hat if your 6' tall!

On another note I made a typo, the SP caboose width is 9’-7.375”, the Aristo scales to 9’-4.5” width.

As far as I know all of Aristo's early rolling stocks overall height was a bit high (Aristo offers new lowered floors or you can effect similar results with various methods), I've lowered 40-50 Aristo cars to correct this eyesore. That said I lowered my cabooses, you can lower Arsito stuff at least 1/4”. 

These NEW thoughts/numbers bring the Aristo caboose scaled to an SP C-40 oversized 3” in width and 6” in height and 34” short in length. Or in 1:29 the Aristo caboose is a tad more than 3/8” wide, almost a 1/4” taller and about 1-1/8” short. All in all, the Aristo Steel Cupola is really close to a 1:29 scaled SP C-40 caboose IMO…….. 

Oh yeah, the steps are supposed to be 27” wide inside and measure 29”, the width of the plastic step casting is way over sized, should measure out for 1/2” steel plate but scales @ .10 to nearly 3”…

I also have an Accucraft 1:32 SP C-30 wood/steel caboose which is the predecessor of the all steel C-40 series. Any who the C-30 is a 1/4” shorter, 3/8” narrower and 3/8” longer than the USAT caboose. Side by side they look good together! 


Michael


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul, that's a great exmple of small changes making a big difference. How did you lower the cars?


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

deleted. Wrong thread.


----------

