Whatever happened to Q scale ?

A gauge of 1-3/16" for O scale equipment, is, as you say, "very close" to the correct gauge for 1/4" = 1'0" (1.187" vs. 1.177"), but it is still not as close as if one were to use 17/64 scale equipment on traditional O-gauge track (1-1/4").  I agree that Q gauge had nothing directly to do with 17/64 scale models. However, Q gauge and 17/64 were two different approaches to the same problem: The fact that 1-1/4" track gauge is too wide for 1:48 models. In the case of Q gauge, the track gauge was reduced somewhat in order to be closer to correct 1:48 proportion, whereas in 17/64, the models were increased in size in order to make the existing O-gauge track an accurate representation of the full-scale railroad.

The irony of Q gauge, it seems to me, is that its proponents got hung up on simple fractions (1-3/16"), whereas it would have been just as easy to make gages for laying track and checking wheels that were "correct" (in terms of 1/1000s of an inch) as to make gages based on the "simplicity" of 1-3/16".  If you use a gage to lay track, then it doesn't matter whether the gage itself reflects an easy fraction, like 1-3/16" -- its a "go/no go" proposition that doesn't involve actual measurements in the "field" (so to speak).

This is all a surmise, but:

In my opinion, the use of an X/64 based measurement has nothing to do with model trains but everything to do with machining history.  For many years much of the blueprints and measuring scales ( not modeling scale but rulers) where declinated in 64s.  Also 64th inch measurements is about a the limit of most peoples ability to see the declinations on a scale with out an optical aid.  While I used to be able to easily read a rule declinated in 100s, somewhere in the last 5 years I misplaced that set of eyes and now need good light to read 64s.

Supporting this ides is my anecdotal experience.   A few years back I restored a 1956 South Bend 9 inch tool room lathe to operations and acquired a fair sized collection of now antique analog scales and indicators and reference materials.  While there is a fair representation of scales and indicators in the 100ths, 64ths seemed to be the most common level of precision.  With the exception of what was formerly considered high precision work, tolerances of a 64th where very common in the blueprints and references I have.  With the exception of things like bearings, rings and such in automotive applications a 64th was good enough.  Even in automotive applications, honing or "running in" was good enough to achieve slide fits or moving parts which where press fit.  Also keep in mind that in almost all cases for automotive applications oil passages had to be maintain which 64th precision kind of guaranteed.  This tinking does not apply to cases, heads, valves and such which have almost always had tolerances in the 100s and used feeler gauges and such to measure, eliminating the eyes from the equation.

I believe that this history created a bias to express measurement like 17/64th rather than decimal measurements.  Things like available tooling (lathes, mills, presses), scales, and the social aspects of a easily used common manufacturing language, and a tendency to think in 64ths precision create by that availability just made 17/64th make feel like a natural answer.

I really hope this thread sparks some comment form the guys with professional machining and engineering experience and a few more years under their belt.  I would like to find out how close to reality my musings are on this subject.

Rob

I believe the phrase "Q" gauge was started my Minton Cronkite an early O Guage mfgr who built several large display layouts for the Santa Fe RR culminating in the Chicago museum layout, since most models were scratch built at that time or fabricated from a limited number of basic kits and machinists were a common trade your premise is probably correct. Supplied with blueprints form the RR Minton built the models to 1/4" scale and laid the track as close as the 1/64 measurement would allow to the real RRs 4'8.5 gauge. Bob 2 noted this in an earlier post, too few pictures and documented articles are available from that era. JMO

Responding to B Smith, preceding page:

No.  I think my friend Sam is mistaken.  You and I both know that Wiki is just a compilation of opinions.  17/64 scale uses O gauge track, not Q gauge.  I have been in O scale since 1955, and 17/64 since 1984.  I believe this to be fact.

17/64 was not favored because it was more difficult to use - it required arithmetic.  Now, with handheld computers it is trivial. It is, however, as close as one could ever want to the proper scale for O gauge.  I will re-do the math in a minute.

Hello Q gauge admirers

Alan thank you for the link to the nice article about Minton .  There is more information about Minton and his railroads + Q gauge in Keith Wills book   "American O Scale 1927-1965" ... (available online). 

From the distance photos of Minton's layouts..did he start with outside 3rd rail and then go to 2 rail operation ?

Does anyone have a Minton engine , car etc they can post a photo or two ?   where are those beautiful Santa Fe  Warbonnets I chased around the MSI layout as a kid?

Below is a photo of Minton's Santa Fe display of 1939  in Treasure Island ( SF).

Lee B Green was a big ( or one of the big) voice for 17/64th's  with his Miniature Locomotive Co.  ( Mi-Loco) with his Tru-Scale Models  out of Cleveland .   "Make it perfect or don't make it " Lee B Green .

Lee B Green also built in 3/8" scale ... 1 gauge ..has anyone ever seen his 3/8" Hudson or K5 ?

Photo below ( 17/64th's)  Congress /  Min-I Scale.. Hudson ( basically the same as Mi-Loco ) ..towers over the ( 1/4") Scalecraft   Hudson.   There was a fair bit of confusion in the 30's as to which scale was scale .   Scalecraft's K5 is 17/64th's  were as there other engines seem 1/4".   Lionel's Hiawatha is close to `17/64ths ...towering over the little 700E . 

I think it was the NMRA who killed  17/64th ....and outside 3rd rail .. in 1937 ?  When they turned a  blind eye to the fact  the 1/4"scale  is not proper for the O gauge but every body and his brother ( save a few rivet counters)  is already there, so lets roll....use a micrometer on everything except the width of the track and wheel gauge .  

I'll have a display at the March meet ( 3-18/19-2017)

  http://www.marchmeet.net/

of some 17/64th's  and early  1/4"  with outside 3rd rail ... come and see for yourself  the difference in size , mass , and demanding presence  between the two. 

Sorry no Q scale .....  in the collection,  but I'd love to add a piece or two .

Below  Congress/ Min-I-Scale  1937  Hudson  with outside 3rd rail ..yes it says Mi-Loco on the tender ..( another story) ..in motion  and still

Cheers Carey

Rumor has it there is an old magazine covering more history about Minton and Q gauge ..does anyone have more info ?

Thank you

Lots of articles on Minton Cronkhite and his work.  I even wrote one with photos.

Here is the math:

4'8 1/2" is 4.708333333... feet.  That makes it tough with a micrometer right off the bat.  I agree - a thousandth of an inch is more than good enough.

If you use 1/4" scale, your track gauge will be 1.177083333..." or, for Proto-48, 1.177 is certainly close enough.

17/64" scale needs a track gquge of 1.250651042.  That is close enough to 1 1/4" for me.

1:45 is not quite the same - to have proper track for 1:45, the gauge is 1.25555... or five thou too big.  A 1:45 model would be ever so slightly larger than 17/64.

And finally, Q gauge track (1 3/16") is correct for .25221..." scale. Q gauge was very close.  In contrast, 17/64" scale is .265625.  

I chose 1 1/8" gauge in 1955 because I did not know Q gauge existed.  I also chose it because our wheel tread is way too wide, and that gauge brought my side frames to the proper width.

I can safely assume that this is more than you really wanted to know.

Interesting Minton may have been the only builder who scaled his wheel sets and rails to 1 3/16, I do not believe I have seen any ads from that era offering that dimension. Obviously Minton got a fair amount of publicity from his exhibit model RRs in the magazines and papers of that era. just saying!

This is a fascinating discussion. The Museum of Science and Industry (MSI) layout was one of the major influences that drove me toward a life-long interest in railroads, real and modeled. I first got to see it in the 1950's, and quite often, as we went there several times a year. It was always the first place I visited in the museum. I remember seeing F-units in the ATSF freight scheme (blue and yellow), and wondering why Lionel didn't make them ( or, in any event, didn't make freight F-units until the 1990's). I had the 2353 warbonnets, and was familiar with both schemes, living on the southwest side of Chicago.

I came across this VHS video, which appears to date from the 1980's or 1990's, judging by the locomotives they're running, among other things. It certainly gives you a sense of the size of the old layout. 

To the gentleman who wants me to guarantee there was Q scale. I can guarantee that Q scale existed as I put the photos of the NYC Niagara on this forum yesterday. If you want to come to Cleveland, I can show you the model if you want to see it in the flesh. This is a scratch built model that runs on O gauge (1.25") track. Want to make any bets?

Minton Cronkhite did his layouts for museums and expositions in his version of Q-scale. Most of the Museum of Science and Industry's Cronkhite models were sold on eBay. I have a few of the structure models that I  won. His Q-scale engines and cars went for much larger prices.

At the time, there was no scale O-gauge to speak of. Lionel was considered just toys;  and not a company producing real scale models for precision builders.  So scale was handbuilt; Minton chose Q-scale.

I'm not really a betting man, but I would point out that the existence of a Niagara model apparently built to the scale of 17/64 does not logically, of itself, prove the existence of the term "Q scale."  

I would be willing to bet, but we would have to specify which authority we would be bound by.

It makes no sense to call 17/64 scale Q-scale, since 17/64 is not the proper scale for Q gauge.

Would you consider the Cronkhite kids authorities?

AlanRail posted:

Minton Cronkhite did his layouts for museums and expositions in his version of Q-scale. Most of the Museum of Science and Industry's Cronkhite models were sold on eBay. I have a few of the structure models that I  won. His Q-scale engines and cars went for much larger prices.

At the time, there was no scale O-gauge to speak of. Lionel was considered just toys;  and not a company producing real scale models for precision builders.  So scale was handbuilt; Minton chose Q-scale.

 

Good Choice. The only thing that botheres me about o scale today is the wide gauge. If you do P48 the corrected gauge then you have all kinds of operating problems unless your track is kept near perfect all the time and that is nearly impossible.

All I know is that the god ol boys used to talk about Q scale. Now if you don't want to believe that it is your privelege. I don't want to spend anymore time on this subject. Thanks for you input anyway.

AlanRail posted:

Minton Cronkhite did his layouts for museums and expositions in his version of Q-scale. Most of the Museum of Science and Industry's Cronkhite models were sold on eBay. I have a few of the structure models that I  won. His Q-scale engines and cars went for much larger prices.

At the time, there was no scale O-gauge to speak of. Lionel was considered just toys;  and not a company producing real scale models for precision builders.  So scale was handbuilt; Minton chose Q-scale.

 

I am sorry I missed the layout in the Chicago museum of Science. Now that it is HO scale I won't bother going.

Thanks Sam -- I appreciate your input as well, and I don't want to belabor the topic.  I'm going to hunt around and see whether I can find any printed references to Q scale in magazines or books from the good old days. Now, Q gauge I have no problem believing in.

Can I hold the money for the bets you can send it to me through Paypal.  Aussies have got good reputations for being honest blokes    of course I would want a commission.... say...15%.  Roo.

I actually see nothing wrong with using the term "Q Scale."

we call 1/4" scale using 1 1/4" track gauge "O Scale."  It is perfectly congruent

to call 1/4" scale using 1 3/16" track gauge "Q Scale."

So looks like all bets are off.

No worries mate, I'll go back to running my O scale, O gauge, Q guage, whatever gauge, trains and keep having fun.

Don't get to serious about these things sometimes it's better to agree to disagree, as we say in Aust your not bidding for sheep stations, it's about model trains. 

Roo. 

No, No, No, No  -- this suggestion just muddies the waters further. I agree that there is nothing wrong with adopting the term "Q scale" for a particular scale, but the question remains: What does it mean in practice?  

1/4" scale is 1/4" scale (1:48), regardless of the track gauge employed. For example, 1:48 Rio Grande narrow-gauge equipment operating on scale 36" inch gauge track is not identified as something other than O scale. It is On3 (O scale 3' gauge).  It makes no sense at all to call 1:48 equipment operating on 1-3/16" track "Q scale," because in fact there has not been a change of scale: It is still 1/4" scale equipment, and so it is still O scale. Would you suggest, analogously, that Proto-48 (1:48 equipment operating on correct scale track) should be designated as an entirely different scale, perhaps "P scale?"  I don't think so, because that would make no sense logically: It's still O scale, and the only difference is that it does not employ traditional O-gauge track.

One really must always carefully distinguish scale from gauge in the this whole descriptive enterprise.

1:48 trains operating on 1-3/16" track should be identified as "O scale, Q gauge" (pace : Minton Cronkhithe), just as we now talk about "O scale, O gauge," or "O Scale, 3' narrow gauge," or "O scale 30" narrow gauge," or "Proto 48 = O scale, 56.5" gauge."  Using the term "Q gauge" acknowledges that a compromise has been made, and that a track gauge of 1-3/16" is still  not exact (within reasonable limits) for 1:48.

The term "Proto:48" adequately describes the condition of operating 1:48 equipment on correctly scaled 1:48 trackage. But it is not a new scale: it is still 1:48, or O scale.

If "Q scale" means anything at all, or has ever in fact generally been used in the hobby, then it certainly does not mean 1:48, for which we already have a clear definition - "O Scale."

The most compelling suggestion so far put forward is that "Q scale" should be interpreted as essentially synonymous with 17/64 scale.

My original question was whether or not the term "Q scale" had actually achieved currency within the hobby in years past (regardless of individual anecdotal testimony).  I have not yet heard convincing evidence or testimony on this issue.

Really, bob2, you need to think your comments through more carefully. If one were to be descriptively precise, then one would say that O scale equipment operating on 1-1/4" track is incongruent because the track gauge is not accurate for 1:48, and that O scale equipment operating on 1-3/16' track is also incongruent (albeit less so) because 1-3/16" is also not quite accurate for 1:48. That's why Proto:48 does not use a track gauge of 1-3/16" (1.187") -- it is not as accurate as the 1.177" of Proto:48. Calling O-scale equipment operating on 1-3/16"track "Q scale" is disingenuous, because the overall scale of the equipment has not changed. If we assume that the scale of the equipment (cars and locomotives) is the driving factor here, which is why the stuff is called "O scale" to begin with, then the only question left is what actual track gauge is most accurate for O scale? 

The guys are right - I did get you all worked up.  Before this thread I had never heard of "Q Scale".  I was just trying to inject some logic.

Proto -48 is not O Scale, it is 1/4" scale.  O refers to the track gauge.

It makes no sense to have "Q Scale" run on O Gauge track.

Let's leave it the way it was before Sam bought that Dorazio with rivets: 17/64 scale runs on O gauge track, and is the correct scale for O gauge.  It has nothing, mathematically or logically, to do with Q Gauge.

Opinion.

The Rail Model Club of Atlanta has some pre-war 17/64 locomotives in service, one is a Mi-Loco NYC J converted to a Pacific, there's also a PRR K -5 and a Scalecraft(?) SP 4-6-2. All three are still excellent runners. I believe the PS lightweight passenger car kits manufactured by Chester Industrial Arts in the late forties and early fifties are 17/64's as well. Likewise the sheet steel passenger car bodies manufactured  by Pomona Valley.  

Any update on my question concerning Lionel 17/64ths rolling stock?

Sam Shumaker posted:

AlanRail posted:

Minton Cronkhite did his layouts for museums and expositions in his version of Q-scale. Most of the Museum of Science and Industry's Cronkhite models were sold on eBay. I have a few of the structure models that I  won. His Q-scale engines and cars went for much larger prices.

At the time, there was no scale O-gauge to speak of. Lionel was considered just toys;  and not a company producing real scale models for precision builders.  So scale was handbuilt; Minton chose Q-scale.

 

Good Choice. The only thing that botheres me about o scale today is the wide gauge. If you do P48 the corrected gauge then you have all kinds of operating problems unless your track is kept near perfect all the time and that is nearly impossible.

I seem to recall Model Railroader would on occasion feature a line drawing of (usually a steam engine) and label it "Q Scale".

As far as operating P:48 goes, I know Jim Harper has a beautiful layout that seems to run really well. There's a "Youtube" video you can watch.  And let's not forget Bob Hegge and Bill Clouser;  both ran "fine scale" (as it was called then) on the premise that O has 8 times the mass, so "tracking is bound to be good." There was a cover story, again in Model Railroader in 1969(?) where Hegge interviewed Clouser about that very thing. Back then, Model Railroader was about building and operating, not hobby promotion, which seems to be the focus these days...

As "bob2" would say; "Opinion".

Mark in Oregon

bob2 posted:

The guys are right - I did get you all worked up.  Before this thread I had never heard of "Q Scale".  I was just trying to inject some logic.

Proto -48 is not O Scale, it is 1/4" scale.  O refers to the track gauge.

It makes no sense to have "Q Scale" run on O Gauge track.

Let's leave it the way it was before Sam bought that Dorazio with rivets: 17/64 scale runs on O gauge track, and is the correct scale for O gauge.  It has nothing, mathematically or logically, to do with Q Gauge.

Opinion.

Bob,    You have totally lost it! Both your bolded statements are hogwash.

Proto 48 is indeed "O" scale. They take O scale engines and narrow the GAUGE from 1.25" to 1.177 ".  The bodies of the equipment are still 1/4" scale. Did you not write for O SCALE News 48/ft? The only difference between O Scale and Proto48 is the track gauge.

Q scale is 17/64 to the foot, 1/64" larger than O scale, built to be correct scale size equipment for O gauge track.

Never heard a figure for the mysterious Q Gauge!

Simon

The "original" layout by Milton Cronkhite was the Q scale that you are refering to.   The layout that was replaced in the late 1980s, (by the HO layout), was what we consider O scale.   That O scale layout was upgraded (if you wish to call it that) in the early 80s, with cars built by the late Barney Stumple, and CLW engines.   Very little changes to the scenery were made at that time.    The Cronkhite layout originally had the third outer power rail, but was converted to two rail power sometime back in the 50s or 60s.......

Mods will need to alter the grab bag sub-forum for Q gauge: HONGZQ

Simon Winter posted:

bob2 posted:

The guys are right - I did get you all worked up.  Before this thread I had never heard of "Q Scale".  I was just trying to inject some logic.

Proto -48 is not O Scale, it is 1/4" scale.  O refers to the track gauge.

It makes no sense to have "Q Scale" run on O Gauge track.

Let's leave it the way it was before Sam bought that Dorazio with rivets: 17/64 scale runs on O gauge track, and is the correct scale for O gauge.  It has nothing, mathematically or logically, to do with Q Gauge.

Opinion.

Bob,    You have totally lost it! Both your bolded statements are hogwash.

First off, that seems a bit harsh, don't you think?

 The only difference between O Scale and Proto48 is the track gauge.

Simon

Not entirely true. Trucks are replaced, cylinders on steamers narrowed, wheels are MUCH finer profile. Look at the level of detail on almost any given P:48 car. Usually the couplers are replaced as well, and full underbody detail is included. Take a peek at the P:48 Forum page, or the Protocraft website. They are typically built to contest-winning levels. Handle with care!

Mark in Oregon

 

 

...Here is a photo of a Proto:48 car, taken from the P:48 website. I hope it was OK to do this.

No, it is NOT the real thing...

Mark in Oregon

So this Model Railroad according to the experts would be a nothing gauge it's not proto 48 it's not Q gauge and some would not even call it O gauge (I call it O Scale) so I guess it will have to be called a FUN GAUGE for four old guys to operate and Strummer I might not be able to Strum a guitar but I can scratch built, it's alive and well over here not everybody buys and buys and are wealthy that post here there are some top class modellers on this forum you have it wrong again mate. Roo.

Roo posted:

... and Strummer I might not be able to Strum a guitar but I can scratch built, it's alive and well over here not everybody buys and buys and are wealthy that post here there are some top class modellers on this forum you have it wrong again mate. Roo.

 

First off, nice layout.

Hmm...not quite sure where you made the leap from my Proto:48 comments and photograph to all that about having "it wrong again mate". I was not advocating anything one way or another; I was merely sharing some info that anyone is welcome (and has the same access) to.

I am by no means, "wealthy": almost all of what I purchase is less expensive (cheap!) because it needs work; I enjoy repairing and sometimes scratch building also. Like this:

So I guess I don't see the conflict here, mate.

Mark in Oregon

PS: BTW, it's "scratch build"... "built" would be in the past tense.

The thing you don't mention is the way you agree with the blokes on MTJ about upsetting people here and agree with them about calling this Forum "NK" which I find insulting to the members this is a good forum it's well run and I accept writing like this will maybe get me suspended and finish me as a writer at OST, but I can live with it. That other forum was the cause of one of my friends leaving it by being insulted by one of the members that is still current on it and also posts here. I don't forget things like that, which is why I don't post on that forum anymore. The members let my mate down nobody backed him. Look up some history before you talk about conflicts I don't like hypocrites. Anybody who doesn't understand what I am talking about can call me offline and I will put them right there is my address below.  Roo.

neville-1234@bigpond.com

Wow.

So, Roo - if your track is not O gauge, what is it?

Let's compare credentials.  I have been in O Scale since 1955.  I came within 1/16" of being a Q-gauger in 1957. I was informed of that by guys who had been in the business for decades.

I started building in 17/64" scale in 1984.  I may count them, but from memory I think it is six cab forwards, two Atlantics, three ten- wheelers, three 4-10-2s, six 0-6-0s including one for three rail track, and a Consolidation.  I also own 17/64 scale locomotives built from kits, including many Diesels, and a small number of 17/64 cars.  I would be delighted to find that, say, Simon has this sort of background and has been paying attention to all this for over half the history of O Scale.

I stand by my statement: 17/64 has nothing to do with Q.  Q is a track gauge, period.

Roo

You must have me confused with some other fellow: I have never used the term "NK" in addressing this site; you can look up my posts and see for yourself. I am not even sure what that's supposed to stand for.

It's a shame your mate had such a bad experience with the MTJ Forum. I have no knowledge of that, and had nothing to do with it. 

I can only say in my defense (not that I need to defend myself!) that I try to post positive comments; if they are interpreted in some other way, I think the responsibility may lie with the reader, not me.

I think we all sometimes forget that these are supposed to be places to relax, have fun and share in our common love of all things railroading.

Done.

Mark in Oregon

Once in a while on the internet somebody goes on attack.  Then others join in, kind of like a "pile-on."  It happens to me.  Best thing is to just avoid that thread.

My most recent experience was with folks calling me very unflattering names.  I simply stopped opening that attack thread.  Easy.

I am not attacking anybody.  I am trying to prevent a new, inaccurate definition from taking hold.  The minute somebody submits more than anecdotal evidence of 17/64 being "Q Scale" I will apologize.

I have tried to be friends with Roo.  I have no idea what has gone wrong with that.

Strummer posted:

Simon Winter posted:

bob2 posted:

Proto -48 is not O Scale, it is 1/4" scale.  O refers to the track gauge.

It makes no sense to have "Q Scale" run on O Gauge track.

Opinion.

Bob,    You have totally lost it! Both your bolded statements are hogwash.

First off, that seems a bit harsh, don't you think?

The only difference between O Scale and Proto48 is the track gauge.

Simon

Not entirely true. Trucks are replaced, cylinders on steamers narrowed, wheels are MUCH finer profile. Look at the level of detail on almost any given P:48 car. Usually the couplers are replaced as well, and full underbody detail is included. Take a peek at the P:48 Forum page, or the Protocraft website. They are typically built to contest-winning levels. Handle with care!

Mark in Oregon

 No I don't think it's harsh, it's correct. If O scale is NOT 1/4" scale as is p48, then tell me what scale it is. Obviously when the gauge is changed things need to be modified. That's a GIVEN!

You can take an O scale car and put P48 trucks on it and run it. You can also take an O scale car and detail it like the P48ers do making everything identical except the gauge. None of the things you mention is exclusively privy to P48.

If I should print something that is incorrect, feel free to correct it and give me a good razzing. By NO means do I know everything.

P48 looks great but I don't have the time or patience.

Simon the grumpy

PS: Layout is looking good Roo!

Gosh, Simon.  O Scale, P-48, Q Gauge, and indeed On3 are all 1/4" scale.  Surely nobody disagrees with that?

life is way too short for all of this. 

imho.

bob2 posted:

Lots of articles on Minton Cronkhite and his work.  I even wrote one with photos.

Here is the math:

4'8 1/2" is 4.708333333... feet.  That makes it tough with a micrometer right off the bat.  I agree - a thousandth of an inch is more than good enough.

If you use 1/4" scale, your track gauge will be 1.177083333..." or, for Proto-48, 1.177 is certainly close enough.

17/64" scale needs a track gquge of 1.250651042.  That is close enough to 1 1/4" for me.

1:45 is not quite the same - to have proper track for 1:45, the gauge is 1.25555... or five thou too big.  A 1:45 model would be ever so slightly larger than 17/64.

And finally, Q gauge track (1 3/16") is correct for .25221..." scale. Q gauge was very close.  In contrast, 17/64" scale is .265625.  

I chose 1 1/8" gauge in 1955 because I did not know Q gauge existed.  I also chose it because our wheel tread is way too wide, and that gauge brought my side frames to the proper width.

I can safely assume that this is more than you really wanted to know.

 

I believe Lobaughs entrance into the model railroad O gauge market with a fairly extensive product line using the 1/4" scale with 1 1/4" gauge was the end of the line for 17/64s model mfgs. JMO