Standard/ Wide gauge prototype model scale

Looks like there other post posted on this subject. One of the post is " Standard Gauge scale for vehicles". In reading this post it looks like folks will use 1/32 thru 1/24 scale cars and it is a matter of choice per individual )or what looks good). As the prewar standard gauge is not a rivet counting gauge. I have some old "TRICO" figures that are 4 about 3 inch tall, hopefully they will be good. Also stated was "G" scale figures and the problem with these are that they look to new. I did try looking for the 1/26 vehicles but there are only a couple. I m sure that the Lionel prewar building doors are smaller than the scales listed. So with all of this scale I will thing as a kid just playing with what I have and who knows maybe "GODZILLA" may play a part

I still don't think there is true scale in standard gauge. As proof, look at the difference between 500 series freight cars, 200 series freight cars and American Flyer cars. They are all significantly different sizes. If you were trying to understand scale, I think it would depend on a specific model and manufacturer. Even then, scale would be very subjective. I would treat building a layout with standard gauge more like creating artwork.  Use your imagination and other artistic tools, such as selective compression and forced perspective. I think this is part of the fun and what I really enjoy about tinplate.  I even mix O gauge and standard gauge, but I usually run them on different levels of a layout or space them in a scene to create an appearance of distance. There are some very interesting layouts that have been built by mixing scales.

Alternatively, you could ask the question of which manufacturer/model is most prototypically to scale based on the track gauge. I'm not sure I have the answer, but I would say it is not Lionel or McCoy. Maybe it is later years Ives, but I don't have any proof.

George

1/32 has always been my best guess as to what "looks right".  But it's only an uneducated guess.

I'm following "Penny" so read this thread in reverse, last to OP. Once I saw who posted it and details, I needed to erase what I had written since it was all said already, lol.

He knows the ins and outs better than most. What he needs an answer from the owner of new equipment, a ruler, and a few minutes of time.

George S posted:

I still don't think there is true scale in standard gauge. As proof, look at the difference between 500 series freight cars, 200 series freight cars and American Flyer cars. They are all significantly different sizes. ...

yeah, i kind of acknowledge that in prewar terms, little to nothing was prototypical, so scale cannot be determined.  what i was asking about are models of the actual equipment that existed made for standard/ wide gauge.  to name some, NYC Hudson versions, SP GS series & various Hiawatha versions that i've seen pictures of and i'm sure there are others.  just a few measurements on these could be compared to prototype dimensions to verify a scale.  driver, engine and overall wheelbase, etc are pieces of locomotive data that are frequently available.

thanks...gary

An interesting question; since I do not have any of the actual standard gauge trains I did a compare in length with my Gauge 1 Commodore Vanderbilt made by ASTER in Japan. My Gauge 1 CV is to a scale of 1:32 and is 91 cm long. According to the CCT review of the Lionel SG CV this is almost 88 cm long. So lengthwise scale and gauge of the SG CV do not match; the length scale is 1:33. The CCT review mentions anyway: "Lionel's Commodore Vanderbilt is an accurate representation of the original.".

I found a picture on the forum here and show that hereafter in a comparison with a picture from about the same position of my 1 gauge CV:

It would be interesting to know height and width of the SG CV. More pictures of CV's can be found here but note this is a very large pdf attachment.

Regards

Fred

Adriatic posted:

I'm following "Penny" so read this thread in reverse, last to OP

  Care to explain what that means? 

Sorry, Overland I feel I need to hijack for a second. I know your not fond of that.

Don't freak out....  You can follow a members posts if what they do is of interest to you.  (Not to mention I haven't been more than 20 miles from home in many years)

First off you drew my interest with the Ohio Turnpike. It's the road from Detroit where I was born, to where I spent some of my youth. Vermilion, Elyria, and south into the Cuyahoga Valley, the Falls area, and Twinsburg.

   Then I saw Disneyland and your paintings so I began following  you so I didrn't miss anything because you were posting it in various posts. I'm a former graphic artist, I liked what I saw, and you know about my Disney story.

  I thought YOU knew a out it*, the explaining was more for others and a grin.

Click on your name. You can check your profile to see who is following you. You can check a profile to see who somebody else follows too. You can check their activities, etc etc.

* I think you should have gotten a notification about any followers too.

   If this upsets you somehow I can and will un-follow. I'd be disappointed, but oh well, better that way. I somewhat avoid a few people that I know don't care for me as is. I'm at least respectful in that manner when I'm not liked. I feel I can truly be of help to them, I still post, but I just steer clear otherwise.

I have have high functioning Asperger's Syndrome, I'm used to it.

I also doubt I'm the only one following you. Your work is interesting. If you don't wish to do it publicly, start an alias email and ask privately. I keep one listed in my profile.

Finally, since your "listening" if addressed or referred to, do you prefer your real name used or are you OK with "Penny" (and maybe a few Sheldon jokes on occasion? )

There is some semblance of scaling in prewar cars ....Lionel freight cars... are based on fixed bogie goods vans of European design....While Flyer and Ives seem to have picked US prototypes.  However they mixed scales at a whim.

sncf231e posted:

An interesting question; since I do not have any of the actual standard gauge trains I did a compare in length with my Gauge 1 Commodore Vanderbilt made by ASTER in Japan. My Gauge 1 CV is to a scale of 1:32 and is 91 cm long. According to the CCT review of the Lionel SG CV this is almost 88 cm long. ...

thanks for the input.  i would be slightly hesitant to judge the scale of a locomotive by overall length since sometimes the drawbar has to be extended in even the most precisely scaled models unless it can be posed for measurement with an accurate separation.  1:32 scale on #1 gauge (45mm) track is one of the closest scale to gauge matches being less than 0.5% in error.

looks like Lionel took a shell meant for #1 gauge and simply slapped on a wider gauge motor.  have to admit, i have less of a problem with widening a wheelbase (eg: 3/16" scale on O gauge track) vs shrinking it as the 1:29 garden scale does.

cheers...gary

David (hojack) had replied to this thread with what I thought was a great reply. Now I see it has been deleted. Not sure if David did that himself. I found his reply in my email. 

To your point Gary, David discussed the Cascade, which he said was modeled to 1:32 scale. The maker intentionally reduced the scale to make it operational, since it would have been enormous at 1:26 scale. So, there are definitely some modern era standard gauge trains that are much more to scale, but the scale they model to is not standard. Also, the scale is not always proportionate to the track width, which means the trains may be to scale from a side profile view, but not to scale from a front or rear view. 

My point was more that there is not a consistent scale used in standard gauge even in the modern era. However, it would be possible to find modern era engines, cars and figures that match the same scale (pick one 1:32, 1:26, 1:24). The problem in building a scale layout is then finding buildings and accessories that are to scale. These would likely need to be scratch-built. 

George

I think we need to remember two things here.  First...  When the original Standard Gauge stuff was being built... Lionel, Flyer, & Ives were competing for sales in the "Toy Train" market place.  As such, they took liberties using selective compression of the real world locomotives, to make them fit on Standard gauge track.  What counted was making them "Look Right" to prospective customers walking in to their local hobby store, hardware store, general store, Etc.   Secondly... Since a good number of today's Standard Gauge products are based on previously existing items ( Hence people using terms like reproduction, tribute, or re-release )  I'm not certain there's much incentive for today's Standard Gauge train makers to make "True Scale" items available.  Oh yes, they may be making improvements in the area of creating a more "Scale Like Appearance" for the trains they offer.  But a real effort to establish a scale presence in today's Standard Gauge would have to be driven by the market. And sadly, I doubt there's enough of a market for that stuff to warrant such an investment.  So for now, the manufacturers will probably leave things the way they are.  Which in the case of Standard Gauge Scale, just happens to be a grey area.

George S posted:

David (hojack) had replied to this thread with what I thought was a great reply. Now I see it has been deleted. Not sure if David did that himself. I found his reply in my email. 

 

George

George,

I also noticed the reply by David (Hojack) which has disappeared and I thought it was a great reply; I should have copied it before it disappeared (I am trying to write a "book" on scale and gauge and this also was very good input).

Regards

Fred

Fred, I can email it to you if you send me a note.  My email is in my profile.  

For your book, try searching the forum for Modern Era Standard Gauge.  There are some amazing trains posted here on the forum that I never knew existed!

George

Adriatic posted:

Sorry, Overland I feel I need to hijack for a second. I know your not fond of that.

 

Oh...."following!    Now I get it!    Sorry, I'm not accustomed to this format yet!    I had Dial-up internet until last May and hence this forum was beyond my capabilities until recently.  I've never "facebooked" either come to think of it!    Anyhoo, sorry for the disruption!  

Hello Standard gauge world ...scale ? ..wrong gauge ...  turn back the pages to 1928 ...when Standard gauge was king  and the tiny voice from those rivet counting scale folks  was but a whisper  ....but growing in strength ...  ten years later standard would no longer be a standard  and the scale world had moved up the "scale" .

Here we have 1928 Modelmaker magazine for all those riveting counting , slide rule carrying model builders who shunned the thought of tubular rail let alone 3 of them !!!!

Cheers Carey

The attached is from issue number 7 of the newsletter of the Standard Gauge Association dated Fall 1959. It details the "proposed" standard based on the earlier formulations and practices of W. K. Walthers. The SGA folded without ever publishing another newsletter so we will never know if these standards were adopted.

windsplitter posted:

... the "proposed" standard based on the earlier formulations and practices of W. K. Walthers....

Maximum Radius of Curvature?

overlandflyer posted:

windsplitter posted:

... the "proposed" standard based on the earlier formulations and practices of W. K. Walthers....

Maximum Radius of Curvature?

I took that to mean largest diameter curved track segment, but I did find it odd. I think Gargraves makes an O120 curve section.

I agree that it was strange that they put down an average and maximum.