Large=G??

[rmoench]

Is Bachman Big Hauler Scale the same as G, Garden Railroads?

[Joe Zullo]

The Big Hauler trains are 1:22.5 scale which represents narrow gauge in G gauge. Notice I said G gauge and not scale? That's because there are several scales that run on the same track (45mm).

[NarrowMinded]

Yes they are garden railroad size, just remember as Joe said there are a few scales from 1:32 to 1:22.5 that fall under that category, 1:20.3 is being called "F" scale these days.


NM-Jeff

[Kevin Strong]

... 1:20.3 is being called "F" scale these days...

Not really. 1:20.3 still very much falls under the generic "G scale" or "large scale" group of scales. The "F" moniker's been around for quite some time--pretty much since the scale became "popular"--but has yet to gain any widespread support where it would have an impact on nomenclature. Most manufacturers (including the "big two") use "1:20.3," as do the Gazette and Garden Railways magazines. Most hobby shops that stock large scale trains do not segregate the 1:20 stuff from the rest of the products they stock, in many cases calling everything a generic "G scale" or "large scale." I do hear some modelers use the term, but it's almost always around people who know what it means, not the unwashed masses. The only manufacturers I know who are actively using "F scale" in their marketing are the guys doing F standard gauge. (Cumberland Engineering, Missouri Locomotive Co., and one or two others.) 1:20.3 has kind of a "dual identity" in the NMRA. It's grouped in with all the large scale scales for wheel and track standards, but is also broken out as a subset of F standard gauge, with wheel and track standards identical to the "large scale" standards.

As a general practice, the manufacturers who build to a specific scale will state that scale numerically on their product literature. For instance, Bachmann's "Spectrum" stuff is identified as 1:20.3, USA Trains's stuff is identified as 1:29, etc. Some manufacturers don't put any mention of scale on their products, but typically those manufacturers don't build to any one scale, either. But everything falls under the generic "Large scale" or "G scale" (also "Garden scale,") heading. It's about as clear as London fog, but once you get your bearings, it's pretty easy to navigate.

Later,

K

[NarrowMinded]

Seems like a waste to even add another designation Like "F"

Seems like the idea behind calling 1:20.3 "F"  would be to keep "G" from getting even more crowded.

one of the MRR organizations should come up with a standard it would seem simple to me to use the following

G32
G29
G24
G22
G20   <---forget the"F" sense it has not caught on like Kevin wrote.

Just  an idea...

NM-Jeff

[Kevin Strong]

A very similar idea was floated in the late 90s. It used "LS" instead of "G," but the numeric designations were the same. There was a small logo for each scale, with "LS32" or whatever, and a corresponding color banner to go with it. It was clear, concise, and made perfect logical sense.

And to no one's surprise, it never caught on. The manufacturers didn't want to compartmentalize the market. They wanted people mixing scales because it sells more product to a wider audience.

Has that changed in the ensuing 15 or so years? Dunno.

Later,

K

[NarrowMinded]

Yep greed always over rules common sense.

NM-Jeff

[Kevin Strong]

I don't know that I'd characterize it as greed (at least in the traditional, negative connotation sense), but more a matter of whether there's a perceived advantage of doing so vs. sticking with the status quo, and also taking into consideration what your competition is (or isn't) doing in that regard. LGB at the time was still the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and they had zero interest in labeling their products to any specific numerical scale because they don't build their products to a specific scale. If you wanted to sell to the newcomer, you wanted to make sure your products were perceived as being compatible with LGB. 1:20.3 was in its infancy--practically a newborn at the time. Most folks at that time were intermingling the 1:22, 1:24, and 1:29 stuff not so much out of ignorance, but because there was not much else to choose from.

I think that's shifted dramatically in the past 15 years. 1:20.3 has a very strong following for narrow gauge enthusiasts, as does 1:29 for the standard gauge guys. LGB is but a shadow of its former self in terms of market influence, and we're seeing other signs of change. Bachmann, for its part, is very good about stating the scale of their Spectrum line. Accucraft has different "brands" for its 1:20.3, 1:29, and 1:32 product lines. And others (Aristo, USA, Hartland) are now very good about stating the scale in their advertisements.) So there's definitely manufacturer-driven compartmentalization going on today that wasn't there last go-round. Maybe it is time to revive an old idea whose time may have finally come...

Later,

K

[Loco Bill Canelos]

Jeff, Kevin,

To me it is time, I like the definitions Jeff suggested!

[NarrowMinded]

Kevin,

Your right, greed is sort of a strong word.

I would argue that many are put off by the 1:20.3, 1:22.5 Etc. it seems confusing to many that think they need advanced math skills to figure out what to buy for themselves or others.

Bill, maybe we can get things rolling here and on other sites, you know what they say... "if at first you don't succeed..."


Nm-Jeff

[emdtrainman]

I think that's shifted dramatically in the past 15 years. 1:20.3 has a very strong following for narrow gauge enthusiasts, as does 1:29 for the standard gauge guys. LGB is but a shadow of its former self in terms of market influence, and we're seeing other signs of change. Bachmann, for its part, is very good about stating the scale of their Spectrum line. Accucraft has different "brands" for its 1:20.3, 1:29, and 1:32 product lines. And others (Aristo, USA, Hartland) are now very good about stating the scale in their advertisements.) So there's definitely manufacturer-driven compartmentalization going on today that wasn't there last go-round. Maybe it is time to revive an old idea whose time may have finally come...

Later,

K

1:20.3 definately has a strong following for narrow gauge. For "Mainline Opreations" 1:32 scale is more correct for running on Gauge #1 track to simulate standard gauge. However, I am a 1:29 scale person myself so it seems like there is always a battle between 1:29 scale vs 1:32 scale running mainline standard gauge. There is definately alot more choices in 1:29 scale for running standard gauge. Yes both USA Trains and Aristocraft now stamp the scale ratio on their boxes. USA Trains has done this since 2007. Aristocraft has done this in the last couple of years. Some people consider 1:29 scale to be in a league of it's own in G Gauge.

For me stamping the scale ratio on G Gauge trains would be no different than die-cast model manufacturers which stamp scale ratios on their model vehicles. It keeps it more simple than LS or G or G29. I like 1:29 Scale stamped on the box better.

Just my own 2 cents and opinion

[Larry S.]

The manufacturer could put the scale reference on the package along with Large Scale/G. They know what scale they used in making the product.

Larry S.

(one of the MRR organizations should come up with a standard it would seem simple to me to use the following

G32
G29
G24
G22
G20   <---forget the"F" sense it has not caught on like Kevin wrote.)

[BarneyJack]

One benefit with using the "G20" or G29", etc. (over LS, anyway) would be that the designation includes both gauge and scale.  In the unlikely, perhaps, event that a different "Large" gauge track becomes popular, the new designations could still differentiate gauge/scale combinations in an easy to read format.  Just a thought...

[StanAmes]

One of the original reasons for G or LS was to denote that models would work together.  This of course assumes a common coupler height and the ability to navigate the tight R1 curves.

Interestingly however neither the I scale or F scale modelers supported such an approach.  Mainly because both ! and F represent a whole combinations such as I, In2, In2  and Fn3, F and Fn2.   and while the G modelers commonly interchange various scales the I and F crowd tend to maintains both the scale and gauge relationship for their railroads.

On our Fn3 or 1:20.3 3 ft Narrow gauge railroad, even the bridges are built to the 1:20.3 scale so while you can run G equipment of various scales, the only time that happens is when a guest brings that type of equipment.

Just a different perspective.

Stan

[scottychaos]

In my experience, Fn3 scale *has* been generally adopted, and is used quite often..
I see it all the time..

The problem is, there have never been any *official* scale designations..people/groups have tried to create them, but they never seem to work..

but what is interesting, is that we have been without *official* scale designations for long now, that the hobby has pretty much "unofficially" adopted their own "official" designations itself! People have to call them *something*..and a few names have shaken out to be the most common ones used, which in a sense have made them the "unofficial official" scale designations/names for the hobby..IMO, these are the scale names that most people use, and IMO these are the unofficial official scale names..might as well use them! because its the best we have...and apparently the best we are ever going to have:

7/8n2 scale - 1/13.7 scale - 2-foot gauge on 45mm track.
Fn3 scale - 1/20.3 scale - 3 foot gauge on 45 mm track. (F-scale is 1/20.3 standard gauge on 70.64 mm track.)
G scale - 1/22.5 scale - meter gauge on 45mm track.
1/24 scale - generally represents, but is not exactly correct for 3-foot gauge on 45mm track.
1/29 scale - represents, but is not exactly correct for standard gauge on 45mm track.
1/32 scale - Standard gauge on 45mm track.

Those are the names I used on this chart from years ago:
http://www.mylargescale.com/1stclass/garyArmitstead/Large-scale-scales2.gif

yeah, its not ideal, and its not standardized..but its the best we have! it generally works, the names are descriptive enough, and its not really confusing at all once you figure it out.

By having a lack of official names, IMO those are now the official names, just because the hobby has pretty much standardized on those names over time..not *everyone* uses them obviously! and im sure some will still disagree..but I think you will find that the vast majority of Large Scale hobbyists are comfortable with those names..which makes them unofficially official.

And people have already adopted those names when creating new "niche" scales within the hobby.

F-scale modeling, standard gauge, exists:
http://www.ironcreekshops.com/whatisfscale.html

and I created 29n2 scale:
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/Scottychaos/29n2/
I named it 29n2 scale because it was the best name that made sense..
because "1/29 scale" was the best, and only, name for Standard gauge trains in 1/29 scale, I used 29n2 for 2-foot gauge in the same scale..so because I made it up, it is now official!

Which seems to be the only way we are ever going to get official scale designations in this hobby..
since it seems no one has the authority to create official names for us,
we, the hobby as a whole, have to simply adopt the names ourselves.
and the point of this post is, IMO we already have.

Scot