1/48 vs. 1/43 vehicles

@Charles Kolbe posted:

I recently purchased a few of Manards Denver Diecast items which are 1/48, true O scale I guess and they are very nice but are actually about 10% or more smaller than the tons of 1/43‘s on my layouts , will this size spread throughout the Diecast world , for now I guess my best move is to put the 1/48 further in the back ground , any thoughts or ideas out there?

Charlie choo

I bought some of the 58 Plymouths and didn't realize so I'll put them like you said in the distance. When I compared them to a Christine I bought some time ago and two old Dinky 58 Plymouth Plaza's,  you can really notice how much smaller they are. My dad had a 57 Plymouth and they were pretty big cars.

For me, I found putting the 1:48 items farther back really doesn't help since the structures are all the same scale, usually 1:48.  What happens as far as I am concerned, it makes the 1:43 items look even more oversized.  I would sell all my 1:43 items in a heartbeat if I could get decent 1:48 stuff. 

I see your point, my layout is long but narrow so I have little depth to play with and my buildings are a mix of many brands even a few P’ville vintage , wish there were more 1/48 over the past many years , my streets are jammed with cars tucks etc to copy rush hour traffic in my crowded suburb cities

, don’t have any real high value vehicles but I have a ton of them!

Wonder did the 1:43 ratio come out of the non USA O gauge world before Asia production came along ?

My solution has been to group them in  separate scenes so the differences in scale is not so obvious as it would be is seen side by side. 

Mike in NC,

I'm not a purist or rivet counter, so the difference doesn't bother me.  My eye won't notice the difference unless similar vehicles in different scales are placed in close proximity to each other.  Keep them far apart from each other and very few people will notice.

I think that 1/43 is an old British relic.  Some early USA O-scale was 17/64" to the foot, which is about 1/45.

The size of the 1/43 compared to the buildings and engines unreasonably bothers me for some reason, so I only use 1/48 scale vehicles.  Does severely limit my options though.

I don't like 1/43 scale vehicles at all unless they are a very small one such as a jeep.  1/43 scale and traditional o gauge just don't work for me.

I’m beginning to come over to that position too, some smaaler type vehicles are ok, others now are really starting to bother me , moving around the many I have for better layout eye candy !

The size differences don't bother me at all except when comparing 1:43 to 1:50, and I suspect actual scales range all over the place despite being advertised as one or another (same with trains and train buildings). The other variable is how cars and trucks grew in size in America over the decades, and so even a 1:48 scale 1930 Model A Ford pickup may appear small against a 1:48 scale 1953 Ford F100...kind of a time era thing.

1:43.5 Is true British O Scale.  If you use forced perspective, 1:48 Will be more realistic in the front, and 1:43 in the back of the layout.  Try it out by taking a photo.  Compare the difference.  Much easier than viewing with the naked eye..

My main layout is very narrow like 3’ and my 43’s are like 10 to one over 48’s so not much I can do with forced perspective , I also have a set up with 6 large MTH operating accessories  with more depth so I can play with placement I’ve just got to get more varied 48’s over time ! I thought the 1/43 did come out of the British O world and foreign vehicle producers .

@Quarter Gauger 48 posted:

If you use forced perspective, 1:48 Will be more realistic in the front, and 1:43 in the back of the layout.

Wouldn't forced perspective have the larger item (1:43) placed forward, and the smaller (1:48) rearward??  In fact deeper perspectives on larger O scale layouts might even have 1:64 autos (and perhaps even smaller) to convey  greater distance from the viewer.

It can work, but everything else around it (buildings, etc) should also shrink accordingly to be consistent in the imagery.  And it doesn't work well if your 1:48 trains re-appear and are dominant in the distant scenes...they will then look gargantuan in comparison.

Sometimes it works...and works well.  Other times, not so much.  Something to play with.

FWIW, and IMHO, of course.

KD

I've been sticking to 1/43rd for most of my cars, 1/50th for construction equipment and 1/64th for semi trucks (because that's what Kline and Lionel have used on their flatbed cars and true scale would force me to have none because they are too big).  The 1/48th box trucks from Menards fit in and are nice.  You can drive yourself crazy trying to make everything perfectly scale.  That's why I consider myself a proud toy train guy who tries to make his to trains look as real as possible given the limitations of what's available, what's reasonably priced and what I like on my layout.  Moving them around to the right scenes and forced perspective are valuable, creative techniques as others have said here.  With that being said, I totally respect the purist scale guys that stick to the exact sizes.

Mike

Mike has hit the nail on the head with respect to my equipment.  My trains are “toys” and things do not have to be perfect scale.  If I want something in my little world it will be there not because it is proper but because I want it there.  This has been my motto for 66 years and I am not changing now.

Gary

My two cents worth is to group your 1/43 and 1/48 vehicles so as not to have a direct comparison.  I like both, but 1/43 semis are so large that I just can't use them.

Art

My layout uses the AWNUTS method -- Always Whimsical Not Usually To Scale and it works for me.

I try to group them by scale on my O-gauge layout. I have mostly 1/43 vehicles. I also have British prototype O scale layout that is to 1/43, some vehicles wind up there. But usually I work after, if I like it it works.

My trains are 1/48, so should my scenery be 1/48.

The big difference between real O scale (143) trains and O gauge (148) trains is the 5MM.  Lionel made the decision tooling would be easier to produce 1/4 scale .25, 1/48 trains than 1/43. Plus it would be original USA... products'...

@dkdkrd posted:

Wouldn't forced perspective have the larger item (1:43) placed forward, and the smaller (1:48) rearward??  In fact deeper perspectives on larger O scale layouts might even have 1:64 autos (and perhaps even smaller) to convey  greater distance from the viewer.

It can work, but everything else around it (buildings, etc) should also shrink accordingly to be consistent in the imagery.  And it doesn't work well if your 1:48 trains re-appear and are dominant in the distant scenes...they will then look gargantuan in comparison.

Sometimes it works...and works well.  Other times, not so much.  Something to play with.

FWIW, and IMHO, of course.

KD

Generally I would say yes, but with cars it works different, the larger 143, will look smaller further away, and the 148 will look larger up closer.   Try it.. see what you think. You can take two cars, place them on the kitchen table, distance them as stated.. step back a few feet.. See results...

@IRON HORSE posted:

I've been sticking to 1/43rd for most of my cars, 1/50th for construction equipment and 1/64th for semi trucks (because that's what Kline and Lionel have used on their flatbed cars and true scale would force me to have none because they are too big).  The 1/48th box trucks from Menards fit in and are nice.

I think it is great that O guage trains can be enjoyed in so many ways by so many different people.  For me, having a mix of so many different sizes WOULD DRIVE ME CRAZY!

As a rule of thumb I place larger scaled vehicles further back in a scene to give them a smaller appearance, and 1:48, 1:50 scale vehicles close in. I too have a number of Menard’s Denver Diecast 1:48 vehicles but have found quite a few of those models scale out much larger than 1:48. They’re great looking models though and one can’t beat their cost so I like to use them. The same is true about a lot of other manufacturers Diecast vehicles I’ve come across so I try to look up their specs when contemplating purchasing. A good example is Jada Toys Ford Bronco, sold as a 1:64 model but its actual dimensions scale out almost exactly 1:48. Here’s a photo of the Bronco next to a Sword 1:50 pickup.

I have a preference of 1:50 vehicles over 1:43 as the former are much noticeably closer in size to 1:48 vehicles. This First Gear 1:50 Mack Anthem blends good with this Bowser 1:48 53’ trailer.

John

I’ve kind of come to the conclusion that as they say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” in this whole 43rd vs 48th size ratio of vehicles. As I’ve said my prime model RR is long and narrow 3 rail and vehicles were always 1:43 until Manard came along with true 1/48 caused me to rethink everything even forced  perspective so I’ve done some street redesign and played with vehicle types and sizes and have even started to bring some 1/30 ish ones off the shelf and even can use some of them I’ve  always liked but with the right location they look fine to me now.
The other layout I have of MTH operating firehouse, car wash , Mel’s drive in, gas station , bus station , McDonald’s all which I think are a bit over sized, elevated RR going around them all and Kline streets for a trolley and a Main Street in front of them now have whatever looks larger even 1/36 to 1/40 and it looks great to the eye !

The scarcity of 1/48th vehicles was one of the reasons I decided against a 3-rail Hi Rail approach some 20+ years ago.

This issue is exacerbated if one also runs "traditional" sized 3-rail trains, where the trains are indeed smaller than actual 1/48th. To my eyes, a 1/43 vehicle or figure alongside a traditional-sized engine/car really makes the vehicle/figure look way oversized. This is compounded further by the preponderance of oversized 1/43rd type figures.

In my recent experiments (within the last year or two) I had some leftover S scale vehicles and figures from my S scale experimentation some 15 or more years ago.

To my surprise, I noticed that S scale figures and vehicles looked very good among traditional-sized 3-rail trains. Here's a few pics to illustrate:

First up, an S scale figure on the left and a typical 3-rail figure on the right standing by a time-honored 6464 boxcar along with a Marx 3/16 lithographed car...

Next are some S scale figures alongside, and on, a traditional-sized Lionel 2065 Baby Hudson...

And here's a 1/64 semi tractor/trailer alongside a 6464 boxcar...

The above dabbling convinced me that if I ever pursue a 3-rail layout using traditional-sized equipment (the only way I'd ever be interested in having a 3-rail layout), then going with 1/64 figures and vehicles would be the way I would go. The kicker is that there are tons of 1/64 vehicle options as well as a lot of 1/64 figures that are available.

You see, my concept of 3-rail (harmonized with my peculiarities)... is that I would prefer the look of traditional-sized trains set among a sincere scenic effort. I think the use of 1/64 figures/vehicles would go a long way in making the overall impact of the layout more plausible. I have pictorial inspirations of such an approach (traditional-sized trains among sincere scenery) that illustrate to me that such an approach could be very visually pleasing, yet still retain the dependability and simplicity of traditional sized 3-rail trains and equipment.

SO, if I ever suffer from dexterity/eye issues within my HO modeling, I have a safety net under me with my 3-rail concept.

Andre

Great points and photos Andre, now I’ve got to look over my figures thst are now looking too big for me and maybe some S gauge ones which do look better with the engines and cars in your shots ..Here’s  another question?: have a jot of Hallmark vehicles that I put into play on layout at Christmas , they seem to be smaller than 1/43 most cases but some look larger to me now, any thoughts there ?

Andre, that's an excellent comparison. Thank you!

You're welcome guys.

As mentioned, my thinking concerning 3-rail and me, is that I would need to stay with traditional trains so my mind tells me they're SUPPOSED to look that way.

You see, as I continued to dabble in 3-rail, and began to aim more toward scale sized 3-rail, I got too bogged down with prototype fidelity, the running characteristics of the engines, the truck mounted couplers, and about that time that third rail really began to bother me, etc, so I abandoned the idea of using 3-rail as my modeling medium and went back to scale 2 rail. (Eventually returning to HO scale.)

SINCE the above, I've seen pictures here at OGR that had traditional trains amid "sincere" scenic settings, and I was blown away with how good traditional trains could look! Below are some examples of pics of which I speak.

First up is a pic shared here at OGR (several years ago) by "wbg Pete"...

And here's a couple by a chap that used to post here at OGR by the name of "Christopher"...

The above pics (and others) caused me to rethink 3-rail and how it could apply to me. In view of the above pictorial examples (and there are few more in my "Resources" folder), my conclusion was/is that IF in the future I need to go to 3-rail in order to help my aging dexterity and eyesight, I could enjoy using traditional-sized trains (with a Postwar emphasis) to create such settings as seen in the above.

IMHO, the above truly displays traditional-sized trains in an entirely new light. Also note, that the only place a vehicle shows in the above pics, it appears to be 1/43 scale... reinforcing that (for me), 1/43 vehicles do not play well with traditional-sized trains.

However, bear in mind that as a model railroader, I can be so anal (gag at a gnat) about some things, yet swallow a camel concerning another. I guess we all have to find what helps us enjoy the hobby and pursue it.

So, for me, I think that IF I ever need to turn to 3-rail, then the above approach would be what I would try to embrace.

Sorry for being so verbose.

Andre

Has anyone tried to enhance or customize the molded plastic vehicles that were made by Plasticville, Lipan, etc.?

Plasticville itself is sized between O and S gauge (about 1/60), and I think it looks great with traditional O and O27 trains.  1:48 vehicles are large by comparison and can dominate a scene.  Hot Wheels, Matchbox, etc., are approximately 1:64; IMO they are TOO small.  The ideal size would be something around 1:50 or 1:55.

Plasticville cars aren't very realistic in stock form.  At a minimum we're talking about a paint job, light weathering, accent the bumpers, grille, headlights and tail lights.  Install more realistic wheels and axles (or at least paint the wheels black!!)  The result would be a right-sized vehicle that doesn't "steal the show" from the trains.  If anyone has actually done this, please post up some pics!

One interesting and helpful tip, that I've learned is how some Corgi 1:50 scale vehicles look good in comparison with alleged O-scale trains. The simple reason is that the prototype vehicles, e.g., Fords, were made by Ford in England, and were made smaller than their USA counterparts. I suppose they were designed and made smaller in size to design and road standards. If anyone is interested, I'll get the names of the Corgi English Fords...I have a bunch of them on my layout...they look like 1930s prototype USA cars but were made in the 1950s.

Yes Paul I’d like to see a list or photo when you can might help me in my quest to replace some 1/43’s!

charlie

@Paul Kallus posted:

One interesting and helpful tip, that I've learned is how some Corgi 1:50 scale vehicles look good in comparison with alleged O-scale trains. The simple reason is that the prototype vehicles, e.g., Fords, were made by Ford in England, and were made smaller than their USA counterparts. I suppose they were designed and made smaller in size to design and road standards. If anyone is interested, I'll get the names of the Corgi English Fords...I have a bunch of them on my layout...they look like 1930s prototype USA cars but were made in the 1950s.

Paul,

Great tip.  I'd like to see your English Fords.  I had no idea how Corgi Chipperfields Circus stuff would work as they were listed as 1:50th scale.  So I decided to try them and they fit right into my non-scale-but-I-like-it collection.  Shown here is my Corgi elephants along with an MTH vehicle, a Menards' 1/48 truck and a 1/43rd milk truck and a Lionel car.   What I especially like about the Corgi elephants is they are high quality diescast metal and beautiful.

Mike

@PRRMP54 posted

My trains are 1/48, so should my scenery be 1/48.

Should it?  Rigid adherence to scale can IMO be as unrealistic as a complete disregard of scale, not to mention being wasteful of space. 

We probably all wish the selection of 1/48 vehicles were greater, but we're stuck with the reality that he vast majority of vehicles are 1/43 scale.   When I built North Main Street on the layout, I made the parking areas perpendicular to the curb rather than parallel to the curb.  This approach seemed to lessen the "over-scale" effect of the 1/43 cars to the size of the buildings.  Many of the small towns, in the early days had a wider main street area where this type of parking was common.

In summer on North Main, Saturday night is "car rally" night...on this warm summer evening, the Benz dealer had the lead showing...

Happen to think that in my above pic I snapped a few years ago of an S scale figure compared to an O scale figure, I didn't allow for the large flanges that 3-rail uses. SO, I made another pose, this time using something to raise the figures up about even with the tire of the wheel. That way, the large flange isn't part of the equation, thus not exaggerating the height of the engine. (Besides, most service areas have/had concrete or dirt/gravel/cinders and the ball of the rail is even with the concrete or dirt/gravel/cinders.)

Yes, that figure on the right was sold by one of the 3-rail mfg'ers as "O scale/gauge". I can't recall the name of the mfg'er, though. However, it's not as oversized/ill-proportioned as the "Homie" series of figures. (Which I would avoid like the plague.)

Again, for me the choice is obvious.

Having said that, I suspect there would likely be issues using S scale figures/vehicles with structures that are true O scale when it comes to the doorways. That tendency will be made worse if the structure has oversized doors, which I feel is the case of the structure in this comparative photo:

(FWIW: The above gigantic so-called "O" gauge/scale figure hits his head on the top of the door jam when placed in front of the door!)

Interestingly, the above structure is nicely "compressed" in every way but the doors, which are, to me, oversized.

Anyway, this 1/43 vs 1/48 vs Options can truly be a rabbit hole.

As stated, given my interest in 3-rail would be focused on traditional-sized trains, S scale figures/vehicles look best to my eyes among the smaller traditional-sized equipment.

Oh, and yes, should I ever go to 3-rail, in view of my visual goals for such a layout, my choices for suitable equipment would exclude Lionel's PW offerings such as their GP7, NW2, Train Master, etc. True O scale models look way oversized compared to the Baby Hudsons, PW-type FA's, 6464-type boxcars (which would be the largest boxcars I would use), along with other similar sized pieces of traditional rolling stock.

HOWEVER... in spite of the rabbit holes to avoid, I think if I exercised discipline with my equipment and structure choices, and used S scale figures and vehicles, I think the end result would be a layout with a visual impact that I would find pleasing.

I was headed in the right direction back in the early 2000's with my compact "KC Lines" layout idea... but I derailed myself by migrating toward Hi-Rail w/scale sized equipment. Silly me.

Case in point: Overlooking the scale boxcar in this pic (and the Railking NW2 is a bit too big)... the rest of it was headed the right way...

Sheesh. The above is a lot of drivel for a conversation about 1/43 vs 1/48 vs Options. What a putz I can be.

Andre

Spent lady few days yanking oversized people off my layouts, found a few better sized ones in my odds and ends box, any suggestions on source for better sized ones ?

For further comparisons of vehicles , just got a 59 El Camino Road Champs that is supposed to be 1/43 but next to a 57 Ranchero Road Champs stamped 1/43 the Chevy is way bigger , were the prototypes really that much different ? I was a young teen then but don’t recall seeing any of them at the time.

see photos

1957 Ranchero wheelbase = 118"

1959 El Camino wheelbase = 119"

Hmmmm.  I'd say one or the other is not of the same scale.

They both should be nearly the same wheelbase at about 2.76" for 1:43 scale.

From the side-by-side photo, I'd say one of the two isn't 1:43.

Go figure.

KD

Would love to see a side by side comparison of the same vehicle in 1/43 and 1/48.

The other Fird and Chevy like models I have are the same size differences as in my earlier photos  , I have a 59 Chevy 2 door thst is over sized too as I look at it like the El Camino , once a die is made for these cars they never seem to end!

Mike and others who may be interested, here's a shot of Corgi's Ford Populars (middle of photo), 1:50 scale, left side has a Morris Minor, and a 1:43 Rextoys 1935 Ford Sedan (right side). You can see the larger size of the red sedan, whereas the 1:50 Corgi's are closer to what would be ideal O-scale (1:48). The Ford "Pops" as they were called were made in Europe in the 1950s, and are based on the Ford Y-type that was made in Europe in the 1930s. I don't care if the Ford Pops weren't used in the states, to me they look perfect alongside my other 1930s vehicles. It's very hard to find pre-WWII cars in our scale, which is odd considering many car enthusiasts, including myself, find the 1930s as the classic era and the fact that so many O-scale steam engines from that decade are made. Fortunately, the English and French toy companies have filled the need, albeit very limited selection of models.