Don't forget to look at the real thing. That should be your first place for finding inspiration.

And don't try to fit too much into one space.

Quote from: Mark Damien on November 17, 2012, 04:21:32 AM
I read years ago, the minimum mainline radius equates to a 10' radius in OO scale.
So to model something accurately, you would need a lot of space.

Tim Warris modelled his HO scale layout on the CNJ Bronx Terminal & it is to scale.
It's absolutely brilliant & I could write reams on every tiny detail, but it's still only a freight yard.

Tim Warris has something extraordinary there. Only a freight yard, yeah, but what a yard! Great website as well http://www.bronx-terminal.com/

Well, I just scrolled back through this thread and no where did I see people complaining about On30 being too narrow or arguing that Bachmann shouldn't make a 3' gauge loco in On30. There was some talk about the compromises involved in making a 3' gauge loco in On30, but it wasn't exactly negative.

There are different aims in model railroading and different compromises involved and a few millimetres in the gauge is one of the least of them given the ease of getting rtr rolling stock and locos. Far worse compromises (to me) are using a ridiculous degree of compression to cram in too much rr in too small a space and using over-tight radius curves to do it. We don't need to use a minimum of 10' radius in HO scale but we can avoid anything excessive by modelling less but modelling it better. From my observation, far too many modellers are getting their inspiration and ideas from other models these days and have forgetten what the real thing looked like.

As for a K27, I suspect it would sell to those who collect locos and don't much care about following the prototype and also to the relative small number actually modelling the RGW and the few other lines that used K27s. If Bachmann do bring it in, I hope they do a version 'as built' with Vauclain compounding and inside valve gear.
But I'd prefer an On30 Baldwin 8/18C 4-4-0 and 2-6-0 version as they were far more common and ran everywhere.

Quote
The key word there is "When" When do you see it?  when you have layouts sitting side by side? at a show once or twice a year or when you hold a picture up and try to scale it?

I guess the point is that A LOT more of the buying public Don't care then do, and those that do care are the type that would rather scratch build their own and brag about it rather then show off the perfectly gauged ready to run store bought locomotive.

I am from the percentage that would rather spend time detailing the scenery and buildings, the railroad is just a way to add life and movement to my scaled down world.

Here's something to think about... most all of your non railraoding friends Don't know there are different gauge tracks, most think all trains can run on all tracks, these are the same people that buy countless sets at Christmas and Locomotives for kids and Big Kids.

NM-Jeff

You sound a little bitter there Jeff.
I don't know any scratchbuilder who brags. All I see is that if you want to model a railroad/railway to the best possible standard then gauge and track standards are part of that. It so happens that the great majority of layouts built to exact gauge and so on also have excellent buildings and scenery. And here in the UK you can easily get to 4 local shows a year and if you're willing to travel up to a 100 miles you can get to a great many more, so the opportunity to see the best work comes around quite often. 
As for non-railroading friends, why should I care what they think? In the UK the market for railways for kids is dominated by OO and N gauge. There is no demand from children or adults buying presents for children in On30 scale.

For me, some of the best model railroads are those that closely prototype practise, Mike Confalone's Allagash being a great example.

How do the Uintah passenger cars compare in length to most other cars. I see from one source the had a 30' combine and other cars at 42'6". Given the constraints of that line I doubt they'd have anything long.

Quote from: ryeguyisme on November 15, 2012, 09:57:08 AM
O scale is 1/4 inch scale, meaning  .25 of an inch is a foot. O 2-rail is 1-1/4 inch between the rails, which equals out to 5 feet, but an 1/8 inch isn't really that noticeable unless you have an eye for precision like me, but most rivet counters in O 2-rail dismiss the gauge thing because the brass and diecast manufacturers aren't going to change a standard that's been in practice for decades.

So get a grip and run your trains, nitpicking over wheel gauge isn't something to stress about in O

You haven't heard of P4 then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P4_gauge. As some will know, British OO gauge is 4mm to the foot (1:76) running on 16.5 mm gauge or HO track, meaning the gauge is too narrow. P4 gets around this by staying with 1:76 scale but using 18.87mm gauge and involves a lot of scratchbuilding. For many people, the difference in gauge is important and for many it isn't. What's undeniable is that when you see the difference it is obvious.
With narrow gauge, perhaps because there have historically been a number of different gauges between 2' and 3', most modellers are quite tolerant. However, that some are willing to go the extra mile to get it right is to be applauded. The only downside to their efforts is that they tend to show up the work of those who don't go the extra mile

There are also groups in n gauge who use ultra fine standards for wheels and tracks http://www.2mm.org.uk/ Again, their work is beautiful and puts ordinary n gauge to shame.

Quote from: Mark Damien on November 09, 2012, 01:42:53 AM

Quote from: ebtbob on November 08, 2012, 08:01:12 AM
Mark,
the difference between the two is a 1/16 of an inch on either side of frame.

G'day Bob,

Are you saying the MMI ON3 K-27 is actually different from the ON30? or the difference would only be 1/16" [x2] if it was scaled down to ON30?  I only have ON30 & have never seen the ON3 version in the flesh.
I'd love to do ON3, but they're just to expensive [limited runs / brass etc]

Cheers.
Mark

I would assume on a K27 the only difference between the On3 and the On2.5 versions is the wheelsets.  As there's no inside valve gear or other physical obstruction between the backs of the wheels then there are no other compromises needed. The same applies for most o/s framed locos where the firebox/ashpan is behind or above the last set of drivers and there's no inside valve gear. I/s framed locos are a completely different proposition as the frames and centreline of the cylinders must be narrowed to compensate for the narrower gauge. But it must be do-able, as proven by Bachmann's 2-6-0.

Quote from: Ken Clark on November 08, 2012, 02:06:33 PM


   For a smaller OF Mikado consider the Balwin 2-8-2s built for Patagonia SN 55429-55453, a few are still in service on the Esquel Line.
     For a IF 4-6-0 Baldwin SN 40871 & 40872 Built for the Este de Minas in Brazil
     And for Super Power Mitsubishi IF 2-10-2 (20 Built) a few rebuilt for service in Argentina, films of them with a 60 car coal drag are impressive!.

   Ken Clark
     GWN

I like them http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=57173 They'd be a big brother to the connie

Quote from: drgw268 on November 08, 2012, 11:11:37 AM
Bachmann could do better ... as they would be able to make more compromises to allow for operation on smaller track radiuses.  Heck, they could scale the entire engine down about 80% to make it match their rolling stock better.  Just call it a mikado, leave off the "K27" designation, and give it a couple different pilot/stack/cab options for people who might want to "un-rio grande" it.

Why take a K27 and shrink it by 80% when you can take a smaller mike and make it accurate?
And we need accurate rolling stock rather than inaccurate locos.
But as this began with the MMI 4-4-0s I 'd point out that while it is relatively straightforward to offer different gauges with an o/s frame design (as many loco builders did) it is rather harder when the wheels sit snugly either side of the firebox. Narrow the gauge on such a loco and you have to narrow the firebox, which then has implications for the boiler.

Quote from: tac on November 05, 2012, 01:29:09 PM
Is there something lost in translation here?  reading this post I went straight to my three-truck Shay - running this afternoon and therefore handy - to see what you meant.

I've just watched it going around my little track in the near darkness, and it might be my old eyes fooling me, but although I  KNOW that the second drive shaft drives ONLY the drive shaft - there are no crown gears - the wheels rotated just like they should with that motorised third truck driving them.

tac
Ottawa Valley GRS

I assume the issue is that the truck does not rotate (ie swivel) independently of the tender body. But regardless, asking a largescale 3 truck shay to negotiate a 4' diameter curve is just silly. Bear in mind that a 4' diameter curve in largescale is tighter than a 6 inch radius curve in HO

Quote from: Mark Damien on November 04, 2012, 05:37:16 AM
Since Bachmann has the CAD for their k-27 & C-19 for large scale, how long will it be before they scale down to ON30?

Right after the old-time Baldwin 4-4-0 and 2-6-0. There is a queue you know!

preserved/restored 2' gauge reefer

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?locomotive=Narrow%20Gauge%20Reefer%20Car
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=400477&nseq=6
http://www.wwfry.org/aboutus/museum.html

and 3' gauge d&rgw http://drgw.free.fr/DRGW/Freight/Reefer/Refrigerant_en.htm

Quote from: WittmanStudios on October 19, 2012, 01:28:47 PM
Thank you ebnut and richg, I'll try it. How can I weather the building after gluing the pieces together?

Try this. Emmanuel Nouaillier has had many articles published in UK modelling magazines. He is something of a genius at building painting and weathering and does a good job of explaining how he does it, often by means which are a lot simpler than you might think! http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article/make-it-real-part-1/4083/ and http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article/making-it-real-part-2/4084

Quote
I'm with you about Bachmann supplying components to make different cars, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen. They tried it before with their kits and their last boxes are still gathering dust at stockists shelves. I enjoyed bashing them, but most modelers now have nor the time nor the inclination to build things. That's why I think that, to keep costs down, Bachmann could produce new cars with a maximum of existing parts (trucks, etc), finished on the outside but with simple inside detail, which is difficult to see anyway - who can see the Spectrum caboose interior? If someone wants inside detail it can build it, or order it separately.

I think that's not wholly true. I agree that large scale modellers seem not to want to do too much modelling and prefer running their favourite trains in the garden rather than following a particular prototype or even creating something that looks like a real railroad. However, in the smaller scales, it's a different case and people do seem willing to spend time over their creations.

Perhaps it makes sense. After all, why go to great effort to kit/scratch build a perfect Carter Bros passenger car if it's going to stand next to a 1 to 1 scale garden pond.

Quote from: R. J. Raleigh on October 07, 2012, 02:51:43 AM
If Bachmann manufactured Carters Brothers coaches in 1:20.3 scale, they wouldn't be competing with AMS.
Carters Brothers coaches would be a more accurate choice for pulling behind the Centennial 4-4-0 and 2-6-0.
No manufacturer currently produces Carters Brothers coaches.

Yup. Agree with that. No point repeating what another manufacturer already produces.