What if I laid my track to 1.177" gauge. But then used the NMRA O standard Wheels of .145 width and the flange standards to go with that. Seems it could be done. In other words not going all the way to P48 with the finescale wheels. etc..
Phil - that is almost exactly what I did. See my post on the P-48 thread.
Nortonville Phil posted:What if I laid my track to 1.177" gauge. But then used the NMRA O standard Wheels of .145 width and the flange standards to go with that. Seems it could be done. In other words not going all the way to P48 with the finescale wheels. etc..
I would certainly think that would make derailments MUCH less likely than using the finer wheel profiles. You're the guy paying the way, so go to whatever extent meets your satisfaction.
Simon (opinion)
Simon Winter posted:Nortonville Phil posted:What if I laid my track to 1.177" gauge. But then used the NMRA O standard Wheels of .145 width and the flange standards to go with that. Seems it could be done. In other words not going all the way to P48 with the finescale wheels. etc..
You're the guy paying the way, so go to whatever extent meets your satisfaction.
Simon (opinion)
Very well said. 
Mark in Oregon
The best known "Q-scale" layouts were done by Minton. BUT he did his own version of Q-scale. All the rolling stock, track, etc. he (and his associates) made were handmade. The engines too.
So his MSI creation was not indicative of the Q-Scale as has been discussed. There was no one at the time to argue with him that his track wasn't properly gauged. He just did it without concern for a non-existent NMRA, 1/48, Proto-48 or Q-scale.
His layouts were so unique and creative at the time, no one dared to question Minton's visions of scale.
Later on, the layout was changed to be more consistent with P48. I was asked by the Museum's President and another on the Presidents committee to be involved. I didn't have the time to drive down to the South side on a daily basis. Again, this was before it was then demolished and taken over by HO.
the only way i see the scale people winning in the real world is to start demanding 1:45.2 models which would be an accurate scale for all the existing existing 1¼" gauge track. with the acceptance of 1:29 scale in #1 gauge, it's obvious that there is a crowd that will always go for the larger model (1:45.2 being close to 20% larger than 1:48 scale) and in this case it will be to actually come closer to scale rather than drift away for no reason other than size or perception.
closer to the topic, a photo of M.C. in San Diego, ca 1935...
cheers...gary
Attachments
overlandflyer posted:the only way i see the scale people winning in the real world it to start demanding 1:45.2 models which would be an accurate scale for all the existing existing 1¼" gauge track. with the acceptance of 1:29 scale in #1 gauge, it's obvious that there is a crowd that will always go for the larger model (1:45.2 being close to 20% larger than 1:48 scale) and in this case it will be to actually come closer to scale rather than drift away for no reason other than size or perception.
cheers...gary
Interesting you bring that up, Gary.
I have been, as of late, dabbling in German 0 scale, and just recently learned that my O scale 1:48 ruler is practically useless for those trains. Over there 0 scale is, as you say, 1:45. One of the German forums I'm on described it as:
"...a way to correct the gauge. Standard Gauge is 1435mm, or 4' 8 1/2". 32/1435= 1/45. 32mm=1 1/4"..."
I recently purchased some Merten 0 scale figures: they are all 6' 5" or taller according to my O scale ruler.
Also, please note the designation "0", as opposed to our "O". Number vs. Letter.
Fun stuff.
Mark in Oregon
So his MSI creation was not indicative of the Q-Scale as has been discussed. There was no one at the time to argue with him that his track wasn't properly gauged. He just did it without concern for a non-existent NMRA, 1/48, Proto-48 or Q-scale.
So we have somebody who was actually there. Can you tell us what gauge the museum was using when the decision was made to explore Proto-48? And what year that was?
I have been under the impression for a very long time that Minton used 1 3/16" track gauge and 1/4" scale, and that Bill Lenoir or Bob Smith or some combination converted the entire thing to O Scale/ O gauge in the 1950s. I even saw barrels of worn out O Gauge transmissions said to have come from the museum.
Bear in mind that the title "Proto-48" is a recent title. I am not sure of the date, but 1.177" gauge and scale wheels have been around far longer, and were called something like "finescale" for decades.
Try this link http://midnightrailroader.blog.../p/blog-page_27.html for a good history of Minton and his SF exhibts, I believe it covers a lot of the questions being asked.
Thanks. That squares with my understanding. The comments from the Cronkhite family are interesting - I used to fly with Bruce (Brewster) Cronkhite at lunch. He was an electrical engineer where I worked. Bruce set me up for photos of the remaining "Parker" models, which enabled me to write a short article for O Scale News.
Does anyone know what rail code Minton used on his layouts? Code 172 didn't come out until the end of WWII. Before the war there were several sizes. I actually use 1930's code 198 on my outside 3rd rail layout.
Tom Shirey posted:Wow....fascinating topic. My pal has 2 PRR steamers that are 17/64" to the foot in scale. These locos were hand built by a gentleman from Pitcairn, PA. The models are timeless beauties. They originally ran on outside 3rd rail. Now, they have a middle rail pick-up. Someday....they will be converted to 2 rail. While slightly larger than current 2 rail O Scale models....they look fantastic!
Hi Tom, I note with interest your mentioning you got your trains from a gentleman from Pitcairn. Would that have been George Diziki? I knew him and know the models they are all well done and are big and hefty looking. The PRR J1 comes to mind. The K4's were built in 1944 same year as my birth. Do you happen to know if anyone ever referred to them as being Q scale? By the way with today's technology the conversion to 2 rail is a cinch. I hope you do and join the O Scale Kings.
Simon Winter posted:Nortonville Phil posted:What if I laid my track to 1.177" gauge. But then used the NMRA O standard Wheels of .145 width and the flange standards to go with that. Seems it could be done. In other words not going all the way to P48 with the finescale wheels. etc..
I would certainly think that would make derailments MUCH less likely than using the finer wheel profiles. You're the guy paying the way, so go to whatever extent meets your satisfaction.
Simon (opinion)
I too wondered why they did not just use the existing wheels etc and correct the gauge. One could also use fine scale wheels. Now what is that? Fine scale wheels are narrower in tread width than .145 and the flanges are smaller as well. This was developed by PSC years ago and they stayed with it. Also this is what Sunset 3rdrail has used for years and with very little operating operating issues. P48 on the other hand looks good but it requires almost perfect adjustment because of the norrow tread. It all comes down to this and that is why the larger flanges and wheels were designed bigger to enhance operation so there is definitely a limit to how small equipment can be miniaturized. I have and run o scale wide gauge (1.25" between the rails) and it is good enough for me besides it runs without problems. Sorry for the rant.
I was in the Used Book Store at IRM yesterday and came across a copy of the March, 1941 issue of "The Model Railroader". It has an excellent article on the original Cronkhite Q Gauge layout at the Museum of Science and Industry, with photos credited to the Santa Fe Ry. The article's author is not stated, but the staff at the time consisted of A.C. Kalmbach, Editor, and Frank Taylor, Associate Editor, with Linn Westcott as staff photographer. This article is almost contemporaneous with the construction of the layout.
Attachments
Images (5)
One could also use fine scale wheels. Now what is that? Fine scale wheels are narrower in tread width than .145 and the flanges are smaller as well. This was developed by PSC years ago and they stayed with it. Also this is what Sunset 3rdrail has used for years and with very little operating operating issues.
I did a number of reviews of Sunset locomotives, and measured tread widths. They were generally .158", and I published that. I am not aware of PSC products that used .145 or narrower tread.
I agree that the .158 treads worked fine. I am not so sure about narrower treads - I have not tried .135. I did try the Proto-48 width of .115. They worked for a while, until the temperature changed in the train room.
I also agree that this thread deserves longevity. I have a great many models in 1/4" scale running on 5' gauge track, but do wish they had fixed all this in 1938, when they had the chance.
You can buy steam models that fit the track gauge. The Williams B6sb is one of them. K-Line made a nice Shay, but I think it was to .416" to the foot, rather than 17/64. That would make the track gauge roughly 3'.
I said this before - I prefer 17/64 scale, and most of my scratch models are to that scale. I would vote 17/64 if we ever decided to take a poll. All our track stays the same, and we could "mix & match." Easy solution.
Hello Minton fans ....thank you for posting the articles of Minton's work ..
there is another posting of more Minton please see
https://ogrforum.com/...ite-engine-in-motion
Below Minton with his home layout 1935 ...O gauge 1/4 scale outside 3rd rail .
Minton used Q gauge at the 1939 Treasure Island and 1941 MSI layout and modified his home layout for Q gauge . MSI was re-gauged to O gauge in 1952 . Minton sold his layout locally in the 50's and most the equipment was re-gauged to O gauge .
Here is the earliest mention of Minton that I've found so far ..1926 Stanford ,CT ...when he still had his electrical company and looking for other like minded train folks in CT . 1928 he had a public display in Greenwich and his passion for big layouts was born .
Cheers Carey
Attachments
Images (2)
@overlandflyer Gary not to quibble, but 1/45.2 is not 20% larger than 1/48. It's more like 6% larger, which IMO is just enough difference for a discerning eye to notice. If you're a vehicle guy, there are tons of scale and toy vehicles which for whatever reason are made to 1/43. They look noticeably oversized next to O scale trains and figures. True 1/48 vehicles are rare; whenever possible I go with 1:50 to squeeze a litte more in, and keep the emphasis on the trains. But if you're seeking a wider variety of cars, trucks, construction vehicles, etc., this is another argument to go with 1:45.2 rolling stock on 1.25" track.
Ted S posted:@overlandflyer Gary not to quibble, but 1/45.2 is not 20% larger than 1/48. It's more like 6% larger, which IMO is just enough difference for a discerning eye to notice. ...
i said larger, not longer... the difference in length, width or height will in fact be +6.2%, but for volume you have to consider all three dimensions... an increase of 19.76%
cheers...gary
What a fascinating thread - I was fortunate to enjoy the former MSI layout and the current one (though in HO) is pretty neat too. I grew up in Stamford CT (instead of Stanford, like the university)... here's a scrape of Minton's obit that appeared in the NYT Nov. 13, 1971:
Minton Cronkite, who operated the amateur wireless station IBCG in Greenwich, Conn., from which the first shortwave message to span the Atlantic Ocean was sent on Dec. 11, 1921, died Thursday in La Jolla, Calif. He was 79 years old and lived in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.
Mr. Cronkite made the test with officials of the Radio Club of America. The message was received in Ardrossan, Scotland. Before the test, transoceanic broadcasting had only been by long‐wave broadcasting stations, which needed huge amounts of power in towers hundreds of feet high.
Mr. Cronkite retired some years ago as owner of the Liberty Electric Company in Stamford. He was a noted builder of model railroads and executed models of the Santa Fe Railroad for several exposi tions, including the. New York World's Fair in 1939.
Surviving are his widow, Jona; two sons, Brewster C. and William G.; two daughters, Mrs. Hawley T. Chester Jr. and Mrs. Trumbull Richard; a brother, Gordon F.; a sister, Mrs. Carl B. Ely, and nine grandchildren.
When "Model Railroader" came out with their complete collection of magazines on a CD in 2009, I immediately parted with whatever they asked for it. I had MR complete back to about 1955, but I could no longer read the darn things. The moldy paper would set off an asthma attack every time.
One of the benefits of having that digital edition is I get to read about the early evolution of the hobby. One item that sparked my interest, and was referenced on another forum was a very early "operations" oriented layout from the November 1939 issue. What caught my eye was the way the scale and gauge were referenced in the May 1935 issue:
This layout was REALLY ahead of it's time, and is the first real operations / switching oriented layout design I've seen. Here the original layout article from November 1939:
regards,
Jerry
Attachments
Images (2)
Went to high school with his daughter. You do know that he did zillions of drawings for MRR?
bob2 posted:Went to high school with his daughter. You do know that he did zillions of drawings for MRR?
Did not stumble onto him drawing for MR until I did a search on his name when researching the plan referenced above. But yes, I've looked at many of his drawings over the years if it was an item I was interested in.
Curious what happened to his original 17/64 scale equipment. According to the MR article, he converted to 3/8" scale sometime after building his original layout.
Regards,
Jerry
M. Mitchell Marmel posted:...snip... Also have a 17/64 scale bronze Atlantic City Brilliner, which I plan to put into action using an MTH PCC floor one of these years. ...snip... Mitch
Who made the Brilliner? I have several Philadelphia Suburban streamliners made by Gryzna(sp?), they are 17/64 cast aluminum. A Brilliner would look great with them. Please post a photo.
AlanRail posted:the old Chicago Museum of Science and Industry layout was Q-scale, sadly replaced by an HO layout.
Remember seeing the O-Scale railroad there a couple of times during O-Scale National Conventions, 1984 and 1992 I think. Great layout; miss it.
The HO layout is not badly done. It incorporates more of Chicago than the Q-scale one.
However, as Sheldon has said' "it's O-Scale or no scale." or rather Q.
Hello Minton and Q gauge fans
Here we have two photos of the MSI layout ..one with boy scout was taken 1955 .....the layout was rebuilt / re-gauged in 1952 from Q to O gauge ...and new rolling stock some provided by Central Locomotive Works, Bob Smith ..... ..note switching tower ..that was new in 1952 ..as it leads into the new hump yard.
Does anyone know who built those beautiful shiny passenger cars that circled the layout for decades ? Does anyone have one to post a photo ?
Other photo..taken late 1940 before the layout was finished or officially open ...in Q gauge ... and yes that is a steam engine ..note block of trees ...placed atop the Grand Canyon ..still to be placed on the layout properly ...
Cheers Carey
Attachments
Images (2)
Fascinating thread. Thanks for posting
