Of Gauge and Scale

Well, as has been said before, "These are toy trains!" Proceed with caution or you will find yourself counting rivets.

 

Al

Personally, I very much doubt that I would be able to tell the difference between a box car at 1:45 vs 1:48.  However, there are those that can.

 

My 1950 2343 and 1978 Santa Fe SD18 bring lots of fun and joy.

Prior to WWII, there were a couple of manufacturers in the U.S.  that produced 1:45 scale kits and trains (2-rail) so that the track gauge of 1.25" would be "correct."  This was known as 17/64" scale and did receive some limited following.  I don't believe that the manufacturers resumed production after the war.  If you go to a few 2-rail shows and pay attention to the tables, you might see a 17/64 freight car or caboose.  They do appear noticeably larger than O-scale since they have about 20% more volume than a 1:48 model.

 

Bob Bartizek

Then again, you could go the other direction and do like American Flyer, Marx and even Lionel to a small extent and go with 1:64 on O gauge track!

I believe that K-Line's scale big boy was 1:64 or close to it as well.

Wow, its that big of a difference. I would not have imagined 20% increase in volume since 1:45 is 0.267 inch to the foot vs. 0.25 inch to the foot, but since on a linear scale 1:45 is 6.8% larger once cubed it would be larger. 

 

A GP9 at 1:48 is roughly 14 inches long while a GP-9 at 1:45 would be just shy of 15 inches long. 

For me, its all and only about if it looks good.  I've never had any problem with the 1.25" gauge being a bit off.  

 

I understood that some European locos were 1/43 (like many model cars), others 1/45.  Regardless, the steamers at least usually tended to be small locos, generally, as compared to American ones, and so at the slightly expanded scale they fit right in my layout.  

 

And frankly I've noted slightly differences in 1/48 scale models here: I have several scale SF Warbonett F3 ABA sets that look virtually identical except they vary about 1/4 in length, or by about 2% - I've never bothered to measure and get into the what and why -- they all look good. 

More like 1:60.

 

Rusty

O already has Proto:48, regular scale O gauge, 3-rail scale, 3-rail "tradtional" and everything inbetween.

By making things to 1:45, you would essentially be creating a new scale, fracturing O even more.  It's easier for those modelers who want "true" O gauge track to change trucks and wheels (except for locomotives) than to go out and build/buy something in 1:45.

 

One only has to look at what runs on 1 Gauge track (a.k.a. G Gauge) to see the difference.  There's standard gauge using 1:32, 1:29, narrow gauge using 1:20, 1:22.5.  While there are some folks that run all this various scale in one train, it looks, well...  no comment.

 

Rusty

The law of diminishing returns is at work in 3-rail trains. Somewhat wider gauge track than true scale, and also wider rails = fatter and higher rail heads, and then the middle rail itself, which, even if all of the above are brought to true scale, will always ground the layout in toy traindom.

 

To me the difference is painfully obvious with 1:45 automobiles in photographs of "realisitic" 1:48 layouts. The tops of cars parked in the street at the curb in reality just aren't halfway up a retail storefront.

 

Pete

 

Nice forced perspective. You are a skillful modeler and an even more skilled photographer, but... the lamp post is the tell.   Or maybe it's an S scale accessory.

 

Pete

As much of a rivet counter as I can be sometimes, the 1/16" (.0625") difference between 1.25" and 1.1875" just doesn't bother me.  If it was a whopping 1/2" then I'd be concerned.  If you walked into a room with 2 layouts, 1 using 1.25" track and 1 using 1.1875" track, I doubt you could see the difference 10 feet away.

 

But if you took a GG1 and labeled it for Seaboard Air Line then I could instantly tell something ain't right.

 

Some things are just more noticeable.

Thanks, Pete.

 

The lamp posts are Plasticville and scale out at 12 feet high.  The car is about 9 scale feet away from it. The crossbucks are a scale 17 feet to the top of the mast.

 

There are similar old styled gas lamps in Glen Ridge NJ that are not very tall. I'm assuming that was because at one time they may have been lit manually.

This. So your scale engine is 1/32" wider on each side of its centerline. Sorry--I'm just not going to notice that.

There's nothing wrong with counting rivets.

Having a center conductor in your track is no excuse for sloppy modeling (I have other
excuses for that!). They are not toys. They are expensive - unless they're not.

However, having that center conductor ("rail") in your track does put an absolute cap
on your track's realism (regardless of "3-Rail Scale" concepts), so you don't have
to sweat the details on track work; presentable is fine.

My Chapelon 2-3-1 (Pacific) is built to 1:43.5, I do believe. It sits on a shelf beneath an
old 1:48 KTM brass NYC J3a 4-6-4 (Hudson). You can definitely tell the difference. The Hudson looks smaller than it should. I did the math after I got the Pacific and I think that
the difference "problem" was something like an inch in length, which is noticeable.

But that is just it. If one so chooses they can operate a string of LGB European two axle wagons behind a giant C44-9W.  Actually, I think that would be awesome.

 

When I first read the article on proto 48 the first thing that came to my mind was why not just make the trains a little larger thereby bringing in the gauge into more prototypical "correctness".  However, that is probably easier said than done. 

 

1:45 is not really a new scale as Lionel used it before the scale Hudson, and it is pretty much standard for Europe (good job by MTH for properly researching that market).  

It was also known as "Q" scale.

Our trains were created to be toys. So many times this seems to be forgotten. This topic keeps coming back to life, time after time after time.

God Bless,

Pappy

TCA TTOS

Q- gauge is 1 3/16" track gauge.  17/64 is our standard O Scale track with properlysized models.  I build about 3/4 of my models in 17/64.  They pull 1/4" scale cars, and in general fit in well.  The scale/ gauge problem has bothered me since 1957, and I am happy with my solutions.

 

Again - Q gauge has nothing to do with 17/64.

 

This is 17/64:

 

LOL!!!

 

Last night I was thinking about this so I measured the center-center distance of my track (Gargraves/Ross).  Guess what...it's not 1.25", it's 1.375 (1-3/8") from rail to rail!

 

Now we're talking of 3/16" difference between what we have and what should be.

LOL! Track gauge is measured inside rail to inside rail, not center to center. If you remeasure your track that way, you'll find that it is, indeed, 1.25" between the rails.

 

Dennis

This keeps coming back to life because we each have our own way of pursuing the hobby. Some, like you, love the toy train aspect. Others, like me, pursue the hobby as a model railroader. Simply because one has 3 rails and oversize couplers shouldn't preclude one from enjoying the trains as a miniature transportation system moving freight and people from one destination to another.

 

That approach is nothing new. Frank Ellison espoused that view over 60 years ago in none other than "TOY TRAINS" magazine.

 

The point here is that it's a pass time. From carpet runners to Proto 48 and everything in between, we all have our own way of having fun. And that , Happy Pappy -  that is what it's all about. 

 

Dennis

DennisB,

 

Thanks for that!  I really didn't know after all these years, always thought real track was measured center-center.  Now I don't feel so bad, I was thinking I got a bunch of bad track

WBC.....I understand what your saying