K-27 Question

[zubi]

NMRA attempted to standardize the scales, and assigned identifying letters to them, following the practice in the smaller scales.  Some scales had used letters related to the scale size or track gauge, as with "N" using Nine-mm track gauge.  "Fifteen MM" starts with "F"--so it was selected. 

gj

PPS GJ, let me point out that Nine-mm is track gauge not scale and Fifteen-mm is scale not gauge. So this is just a goobly gook. If you want to derive names of scales from English numerical gauge descriptions as in Nine-mm track for N-scale, you would need to denote 15mm scale (1:20.3) as S-scale simply because it corresponds with S-eventypointsixtyfour track gauge (standard gauge) Logical isn't it? So now we know - the new Bachmann K-27 is Sn3 in NMRA LS WG denomination. Enjoy your K whatever you call it, Zubi

[gbbari]

Hi Steam Freak,

You might safely conclude there is not much to be gained by even worrying about what letter to use to define the size of the model trains when discussing large or "garden" scale- better to simply use the scale factor (1:22.5, 1:20.3). THAT way everyone knows more precisely what you are talking about and it at least avoids the arguments from those with pet peeves about the letter-based nomenclatures.

Bachmann's new K-27 will be like Spectrum geared steam engines (38T Shay, Climax, Heisler) which are all 1:20.3 (I have all three of them) along with the newer 3-truck Shay.  So call 'em whatever you want (G or Fn3) but make sure you buy or make 1:20.3 accessories, figures, and buildings to go with them if you want to stay "in  scale".  

Al

[Steam Freak]

Hi Steam Freak,

You might safely conclude there is not much to be gained by even worrying about what letter to use to define the size of the model trains when discussing large or "garden" scale- better to simply use the scale factor (1:22.5, 1:20.3). THAT way everyone knows more precisely what you are talking about and it at least avoids the arguments from those with pet peeves about the letter-based nomenclatures.

Bachmann's new K-27 will be like Spectrum geared steam engines (38T Shay, Climax, Heisler) which are all 1:20.3 (I have all three of them) along with the newer 3-truck Shay.  So call 'em whatever you want (G or Fn3) but make sure you buy or make 1:20.3 accessories, figures, and buildings to go with them if you want to stay "in  scale". 

Al

I liked your answer the best. I could understand it lol. You answered exactly what I wanted to know. Now I know that its the same size as the geared locomotives, and won't have any trouble running the K-27 on my track; if I decide to get one. Everybody else's answer just got me confused. Thank you Al 

[gbbari]

[SNIP]....Now I know that its the same size as the geared locomotives, and won't have any trouble running the K-27 on my track; if I decide to get one. Everybody else's answer just got me confused. Thank you Al 

Steam Freak - Please understand that although it is the same scale and runs on the same gauge track as the geared steam locos, the K-27 is larger (especially longer) than those locos and will require wider radius track than the geared steam locos.  The K-27 will also probably require more level track (measured across the rails) than the others since the geared units have independent 2-axle trucks.  So keep this in mind when you are planning your trackwork. I have read that 8 ft diameter curves are minimum for this unit, and that gradient transitions must be very gradual.

Al

[Steve Stockham]

Hey Zubi,
  I think I found a chink in your argument (at least so far as where using LGB is concerned!) You mentioned the Stainz locomotive and correctly showed that, indeed, it is not metre gauge! I would add to your observation that the SR&RL Forney (which was the first one modelled) is actually 2ft. gauge! The point is that LGB doesn't model to scale, never has and actually is proud to affirm that they make toys and not scale models! Using LGB to make a point about scales would seem to be somewhat difficult at best!
  Bachmann, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to measure out the prototypes and to faithfully recreate them in 1:20.3! Calling them "G Scale" is a disservice to everyone that has worked so hard for faithful scale representation (right back at ya! )

[zubi]

Hey Zubi,
..
  Bachmann, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to measure out the prototypes and to faithfully recreate them in 1:20.3! Calling them "G Scale" is a disservice to everyone that has worked so hard for faithful scale representation (right back at ya! )

Oh my goodness Steve!! So our dear friend Steam Freak did a disservice to Bachmann by asking whether the new K-toy is in G scale and suitable to be played with other G stuff around. What a disgrace. Well, I did not know that in addition to scale political correctness it is also a moral duty what 1:20.3 oriented folks feel... For me yet another reason to dissociate from it. But hey, I have a lot of scrap metal 15mm scale all running on live steam - can I call it G-steam ? Surely this will not offend our dear Bachmann? (who I admire for all the new G-scale, sorry G-size toys, which I will play with my G-steam) Best wishes, Zubi

PS

I would add to your observation that the SR&RL Forney (which was the first one modelled) is actually 2ft. gauge!

In true 16mm philosophy, this is a good model. There are no rules in 16mm scale (except for two rules which do exist , I am sure you know them)

The point is that LGB doesn't model to scale, never has and actually is proud to affirm that they make toys and not scale models! Using LGB to make a point about scales would seem to be somewhat difficult at best!

I may surprise you, but I agree with you here Still, difficult but not impossible, as shown.

[Steve Stockham]

Oh no, quite the contrary! Steam freak's question goes right to the heart of the matter! In fact, you and I are in more agreement than might be initially construed from my postings! As you've already observed, the scale wars will flare up whenever and wherever there's a question that comes up.
  The K-27 is a monster compared to the Annie! While the Annie (10th Anniversary Big Hauler 10-Wheeler in 1:22.5 scale for anybody new) works with the passenger cars in 1:22.5, it looks slightly large in front of 1:24 cars from Delton or HLW but not ridiculously so. If you put a 1:20.3 K-27 in front of a train of 1:24 it looks completely out of proportion! While we have been mixing scales using the "10 foot rule" it just seems ridiculous to call everything "G!"

[glennk28]

At the time, I don't recall the 16mm guys getting involved.  I think I had seen some items on it but not having computer connections could not really search for the further out combinations.  I has chair of the NMRA committee.  I think that several members, myself included, resigned from the group when it seemed that all our work ws being ignored.  gj

[zubi]

Glenn, thanks for the note. At the time, I think it was late 1994 or early '95 the WG proposal was being discussed on the Big Trains mailing list. Stan Ames was the WG chairman and apparently you were the NMRA chair. I do not quite remember what was the precise timing of events but  from what I remember the proposal was all but complete before it went to NMRA. I do not think that any strictly 16mm oriented people were involved but everyone was aware of the existence of 16mm. However, 16mm is not a 'proto' scale and only a guideline much like G-size (I explicitly do not use word 'scale' here) In 16mm there are no rules other than the famous 'there shall be no rules' rule. 15mm designation has been used in the UK for the prototypically scaled 3ft equipment long before Fn3 or 1:20.3 were popularised and entered the vocabulary of the masses. This kind of denomination makes a lot of sense when dealing with imperial measurement of the prototypical gauge but when metric measurement is used for the model gauge. However, it fails when the prototypes are metric and in that case, MOROP/NEM designations are more adequate. Best, Zubi

[glennk28]

Zubi--I was a long-time member of the NMRA's Engineering Dept--I'm not quite sure what it is called now as I have not heard much from the chair in recent months.  Anyhow, after all the work we did, basically "reverse-engineering all the product lines we could get our hands on, in order to present as a proposed standard the de facto what was already out there.  When I went aboput two years without seeing anything, not even acknowledgement of our efforts, I submitted my resignation.  Stan Ames dragged me back on board--but I don't recall anything being presented for standards.  Along the way Dave Goodson brought the G1MRRA standards to my attention, and I recommended that they be adopted as we did not need to reinvent the wheel. 

Glenn Joesten

[Curmudgeon]

And, those standards (G1MRA) were sort of incorporated, voted on, and approved 3 years ago.
Now we have to go through this all over again.
The initial proposal (out of the WG, open for "comments"), listed back-to-back as 1.595" (vs G1MRA and old nmra of 1.575"), with .095" flange width.
Add them together.
They are WIDER than the gauge.
The "fixed" it by dropping the back-to-back to 1.580".
Why make it .005" wider than what IS the standard?
It is back to the old "we are the nmra. we make the standards, nobody else" routine.
Or so it appears.
60 years of G1MRA, in use, and they want to change it.

[glennk28]

I can't really comment as I have been away from the stansards development part of the committee, but that certainly does not look right. 

As I see it, the only thing that needs to be standardized--for the original purpose of standards (interchangeability) is the track and wheel relationshios.  Anything else should be RP's per the people modeling in that scale (not gauge)  Desirable would be some uniform means of labeling the scale proportion of any particular model, to facilitate selection by those who wish to stay with a particular size.  gj

[zubi]

Desirable would be some uniform means of labeling the scale proportion of any particular model, to facilitate selection by those who wish to stay with a particular size.  gj

Glenn, I entirely agree and thank you for mentioning this. Scale and Size are two entirely different concepts. This is particularly true for narrow gauge but many people do not realise this: http://www.buntbahn.de/modellbau/files/1k_and_k_37_769.jpg
Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

[tac]

...Now I know that its the same size as the geared locomotives, and won't have any trouble running the K-27 on my track...

'snot the same size, it IS the same SCALE.

The K-27 is around three feet long, dwarfs the Climax and two-truck Shay and needs pretty generous curves not to look ridiculous.

tac
www.ovgrs.org

[glennk28]

From previous experience with my On3 K's the potential problem clearance point is not where you might think--the cylinders--or the pilot beam--but the rear corner of the cab roof overhang.  I remember one of mine cutting s groove in the wallboard in Ken Burns' garage--gj