1:100 scale

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Code 75 is way over scale for 1:100, Code 60 would be much closer.

 

Real rail dimensions for the heaviest track in regular UK use (UIC60) is 172 mm tall. 

Older BS113 rail is 158.75mm tall. 

 

Code 75 is roughly 20% too tall to represent BS113 rail and will look like narrow gauge track

 

Andi

Thanks for that.

I am used to the Australian railways, and as such Code 75 is roughly equivalent to 110lb/y rail, which is quite common here.

I was not aware of that.

In which case, I will probably go for Code 55, for a couple of reasons.

1- It is readily available from scratchbuilt track manufacturers

2- It is compatible with N scale track, which, incidentally, is .14mm out from 3' gauge. 

 

I notion of being able to buy R-T-R models that are correct to gauge for their size is a heady prospect and one that might make those who already model in other sizes decide to work in 3mm. I've always regarded it as the perfect size and 1:100 as a perfect scale. More so nowadays as modern homes often only have an 10' x 8' spare room as the potential railway space. It's also one of the scales that architects use when commissioning models.

 

However, a couple of things come to mind: the models have to be as detailed as modern N gauge as a minimum quality and preferably much closer, if the not the same, as modern 00. If not then I can see a counter argument against the purchase of 3mm R-T-R along the lines of 'I can get as detailed models in N that save me more space than 3mm', or equally 'but 3mm isn't as detailed as 4mm and I want detail for my money.'

 

I do think the suggestion to look at some of the smaller engines is very valid rather than focusing on the express engines, if you have to have a flag ship model at launch then the Britannia seems to be a good choice. Might a 3MT tank be worth consideration?

 

Equally why not choose engines that are viable for folks wishing to dabble in a new scale so they can hope to build an historically plausible layout. I'm not a GWR fan but just as an example of this thinking a 44xx and a 64xx make a branch line possible. Or add a 4F to the Jinty and Black Five of your list and you have a trio of LMS/BR MR engines. If you want to focus on the most popular then I think you have to start with BR standard classes and green diesels.

I agree with this. One of the things I had been thinking of doing for a starter set was a BR Jinty and an 08, along with 2 coaches and 4-5 wagons. This way, people can use them for preservation era as well as the 19xx-1967 era as well.

 

That written I'm so keen for this to see fruition that I'd buy any small in R-T-R 3mm 1:100 scale engine to start me off. I agree that the track should of lower profile that Code 75. To me the USP of this range is true scale to gauge and I'd not throw that important consideration out by then employing less than realistic track standards. This is a chance to get it all right in a R-T-R format. Great detail, reliable mechanisms, space saving and visual and historical plausibility.

 

If there is anything I can do to help you send me a PM. I would dearly love to see this come to fruition.

Thanks for your kind words. 

As I stated before, I was not aware that Code 75 was overscale, and as such I am going to go for Code 55.

I will be sure to let you know if there is anything you could do to help!

 

It seems to me that all this talk of 1/100 scale for a new commerical scale is utterly pointless.

Are you trying to re-invent the wheel?

What's wrong with 1/120 scale as used in continental Europe?

If you want to attempt to introduce a new scale into the UK market, then you need to contemplate why? as well as how?

I believe that someone recently said that 1/120 is too close to 1/160, well 1/100 is far closer to 1/87 which has a far larger following, worldwide.

If you go for commercial 1/100 scale, you have to produce everything yourself, track, mechanisms, wheels etc.

Go for 1/120 and these items already exist, commercially.

One loco already on your list is to be produced I believe, the class 66 - this would make a great start for an up to date layout. With this in mind, I would suggest that any attempt in such a 'new' scale focus on 1/120 scale, expand on what is already available or coming - all this would provide the 'seeds' for any new scale to succeed and grow. In which case, you need to look at items complimentary to the 66 - like an 08 or 37.

Five or ten years down the line when the scale has maybe become better established - that's the time to start wishlisting about steam locos.

If you really want to develop a new scale, you must think world-wide - we are now a global society and what's more British locos are operating in parts of Europe, therefore any new British models need to be compatible with other models already available in Europe.

Any new scale which might be introduced that only aimed for sales in the British market would be doomed to failure. I'm not talking about scratch-builders and kit makers, I'm talking on a commercial basis - such as if one were to attempt to plead your case with a major manufacturer, or even a smaller concern really. Such folks would need to be assured that their cash, time & effort would be amply rewarded and that means profit, lots of it.

You have a couple of good points. My reasoning behind having steam locos is that children are much more attracted to steam locos, hence my earlier post about how TTE makes steam locos more popular.

 

If you only consider modern image, as you are doing, it makes even less sense to me to use 1:120 since the current UK outline N gauge models are very nice, there's a wide range available and they are very popular.

 

Wouldn't 1:120 be dead in the water for a UK outline range? It's too close to our N gauge so why bother with it at all – what's the gain over N? I can't see one – takes up slightly more space, isn't much larger in terms of building locomotives and an awful lot of 3mm UK outline kits exist that are compatible with 1:100 scale but that are utterly useless for 1:120 so the buyer is totally reliant on a new range. In short anybody who currently models in 3mm British Outline is instantly excluded and they are a significant part of the target market. 

 

I think making a British outline range that fits with current British outline 3mm modelling makes more sense rather than, as you write 'reinventing the wheel' by changing the widely accepted scale of British outline 3mm modelling. However, I would forgo the more popular 12mm track and take the opportunity to bring to market the only true scale to gauge British outline R-T-R range available. That's a major part of the attraction and how I think a potentially correct scale/gauge combination could bring those who currently model in N and OO to change to 3mm for their next project. Again if you only make modern image models you are excluding a part of your potential market. However, if you were so minded that 1:120 was the way to go then trying to secure crowd-funding a single contemporary locomotive production run would soon tell you if such an enterprise would be worthwhile.

 

That 1:100 is close to HO as you write, is of course unarguable, but British outline 1:87 scale modelling is a rare thing and it itself is even closer to the most popular 4mm standard. 

A couple of things - I have chosen 24 locomotives on my list, and out of those IIRC only 8 of those are diesel/modern image locos.

As I have said earlier, I have already decided that 1:100 is the way to go, simply given anyone who is currently growing up is going to understand it, whereas having things like 4mm/ft is confusing for a couple of reasons, such as mixing mm and feet.

 

Andi,

I've seen continental 1:120 models and quite liked them but not as much as I've liked the UK 3mm models I've seen. I think we both have valid points – who would choose be a manufacturer in such a market!

 

I suspect that had Hornby gone ahead we may well have seen UK 3mm to the foot sized models on 12mm track which I think would be the poorest outcome. 

 

A safe start could to be to see if the crowd funding support was there to produce a R-T-R locomotive.

That is very true.

 

One of the things I want to do with this new scale is do it all right, and prototypically correct. I have already gone out and measured sleeper spacing, and I have the measurements of wooden sleepers which I am using for the track.

 

Thanks again to everyone interested in the project, and I will post up some photos of the track I am building when it is complete, next to N and OO/HO scale track.

 

Please feel free to let me know if you have any ideas.

 

Peter

[sp1]

You mention mixing millimetres and feet - however until very recently (and possibly still) things were built to feet and inches. As a result of this timber and other building materials were standard sizes. As a result of this you would find something was say 8 foot long (or a multiple of this etc) - it would not have been constructed as multiples of 2.4m (or whatever the equivalent is) - this makes it VERY easy to scale things to 2mm, 3mm, 4mm or 7mm to the foot etc.

Now, how easy is it to scale one yard to 1:100 or 1:120?

If you use 3mm to the foot its 9mm.....

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

You mention mixing millimetres and feet - however until very recently (and possibly still) things were built to feet and inches. As a result of this timber and other building materials were standard sizes. As a result of this you would find something was say 8 foot long (or a multiple of this etc) - it would not have been constructed as multiples of 2.4m (or whatever the equivalent is) - this makes it VERY easy to scale things to 2mm, 3mm, 4mm or 7mm to the foot etc.

Now, how easy is it to scale one yard to 1:100 or 1:120?

If you use 3mm to the foot its 9mm.....

It's easy to scale 1 yard to 1:100. Not to 1:120

 

For 1:100 it's 9.14mm

[sp1]

It's easy to scale 1 yard to 1:100. Not to 1:120

 

For 1:100 it's 9.14mm

I don't see how you arrived at 9.14mm, so it's not easy (and I was at school during the imperial/ metric/ currency changeover).

It would be easy for me to work in multiples of 3 when scaling something, but multiples of 9.14....?

[jcm@gwr]

Sorry Peter,

I might be about to pour even more water on your flames (project).

 

You say that you've been out measuring sleepers, but I notice that

you are the other side of the world from the prototype you want to

get absolutely right. How sure are you that the sleepers are going

to be the same size or spacing, after all, different companies had

different spacing to each other, not to mention the different eras,

or needs of any particular track in various locations!

 

The more accurate you try to be (to appease the purists/armchair

modellers), the narrower the market will become, because, unless

you start to offer options like chair types, no. of bolt holes, etc. you

will put off someone from buying!

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Sorry Peter,

I might be about to pour even more water on your flames (project).

 

You say that you've been out measuring sleepers, but I notice that

you are the other side of the world from the prototype you want to

get absolutely right. How sure are you that the sleepers are going

to be the same size or spacing, after all, different companies had

different spacing to each other, not to mention the different eras,

or needs of any particular track in various locations!

 

The more accurate you try to be (to appease the purists/armchair

modellers), the narrower the market will become, because, unless

you start to offer options like chair types, no. of bolt holes, etc. you

will put off someone from buying!

Hi

 

Sorry, I probably should've made my self clearer.

I have been measuring spacing for my own personal 1:100 modelling, of the Victorian Railways prototype.

 

From what I have found, sleeper sizes for Standard Gauge are as follows

2400x250x125

 

As for sleeper spacing, if anyone could help me with that, please let me know.

[Talltim]

I don't see how you arrived at 9.14mm, so it's not easy (and I was at school during the imperial/ metric/ currency changeover).

It would be easy for me to work in multiples of 3 when scaling something, but multiples of 9.14....?

It's easy to arrive at 9.14mm. 1 yard is 914.4mm. Divide by 100 and round to two decimal places

[SwissRailPassion]

There are no companies supplying RTR 3mm stock in the UK (or anywhere else).

There are several companies supplying 1:120 locos, rolling stock, track, scenic accessories. Yes, they are continental but with so many ex UK locos on the continent there is a ready market abroad as well for 1:120 UK locos.

 

To go off on a "new" scale - which isn't, it's a historic scale, with a society that number at max about 500 members, quite a few of whom work in 1:120 anyway - would be foolish. Why re-invent the wheel (ok, the track) when there is a very good range of readily available 12mm track for 1:120 as well as numerous mechanisms for those that want to build their own locos.

 

How many here have actually seen/handled/operated 1:120 models? 

 

Andi

 

I agree. The major push to create a large enough market would be with new starter sets. It would be an opportunity to harmonise standards and possibly reduce costs if the size was 1:120 as with Arnold Roco and Trix.

I have handled 1:120 and they are an excellent size which enables the modeller to make more of the space.

 

I appreciate the 3mm argument but the crucial thing is the track and 12mm track is available. Also we have to think of the future and the future is 26 metre carriages in the UK and already the newest carriages and locos are often a foot long in OO. IEP carriages will be 14 inches long in OO. Already modern freights need large curves. Express steam such as 4472 etc would come in at 7 to 7.4 inches which is considerably bigger than N. Longer train lengths would be possible in the same space. Smaller locos and earlier carriages would look even more charming. Station platforms could be a more appropriate length.

When we model we use selective compression and forced perspective. TT would help us to get more into a scene or create more space to help with perspective.

Houses are not getting bigger and I feel the TT scale would be very attractive and have many benefits.

[sp1]

It's easy to arrive at 9.14mm. 1 yard is 914.4mm. Divide by 100 and round to two decimal places

Ok

So that would mean working to 3 + (0.14/3)mm to the foot?

Doesn't sound easy...

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Ok

So that would mean working to 3 + (0.14/3)mm to the foot?

Doesn't sound easy...

The main point of this is to have a logical scale in the modern Metric era.

 

No, working to (according to my calculations) 3.04mm/ft is not easy.

HOWEVER Working to 10mm/m is incredibly easy.

[sp1]

The main point of this is to have a logical scale in the modern Metric era.

 

No, working to (according to my calculations) 3.04mm/ft is not easy.

HOWEVER Working to 10mm/m is incredibly easy.

Yes, I see that. Scale a building from a photograph- a brick is 4 1/2 inches x 9 inches (as an example) - how do you work that out in your scale?

[sp1]

Or another example : 6foot way or 10 foot ...

Everything was built in feet and inches, not fractions of a metre, that's my point

 

Even H0 works on this principle (being 'half 0') - 3.5mm to the foot - I suspect no one works to 1:87....

[raymw]

If you are drawing in a cad program, you draw full size, and apply a scale factor. It doesn't matter if it is metric/imperial, 1:120, 1:100 you just enter the number once. For everything else, a calculator can be used. Bricks are not 9 inches by 4.5 inches, they never were. new bricks are now metric, anyway.

 

The errors in scaling from a photograph, combined with scaling to the model will most likely be greater than any error in the conversion calculations whether in mm to foot or straight metric.

 

Anyway, it will all end in a compromise when it gets to wheel profiles, clearances for crossheads, etc., but no harm in trying, if it keeps you happy...  But, others will not accept your compromises.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[Taigatrommel]

I don't think crowd funding would work for TT - any individual item probably won't have enough takers, and crowd funding a range would require such finance that it would be unlikely to succeed.  I think it requires a bold step, simply producing models to create the market.  Although three currently active threads on RMWeb suggest a latent interest, such is the disagreement over scale (1:100 vs 1:120) and eras that any such venture would simply be a catalyst for arguments.  Additionally, how many individual posters have there actually been in the threads?  Certainly far fewer than it would take to commercially support even a "safe bet" model such as an 08, especially if only half could agree on one scale or another.

 

I have cautious optimism that the right approach could gain sufficient support and funding to enable RTR TT scale in the UK, but for my own reasons I'm keeping my ideas in limited circulation for now.

[Grovenor]

 

It's easy to scale 1 yard to 1:100. Not to 1:120

Very easy to scale a yard at 1:120, that's one of the benefits of imperial measures!

1 yard = 36 inches, 36/120 = 0.3.

Also 1ft = 12", at 1:120 is 0.1"  Rulers with inches divided into tenths used to be common, I expect they still are in the USA where use of decimal inches is common.

Think of the scale as 10ft to the inch.

Regards

[Taigatrommel]

With all this talk of imperial measurements, I have to ask, what units do you think a Chinese factory would be working with?

[Richard Lee]

With all this talk of imperial measurements, I have to ask, what units do you think a Chinese factory would be working with?

Here is an article on Chinese units of measurement:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_units_of_measurement

[Anglian]

Those working in 4mm seem to get along just fine with their 1/76 scale calculations. A few moments with a calculator is not a make or break either way. However, the OP has stated that their projected range will be 1:100. Perhaps there's another thread to be started that canvases opinion on crowd funding popular modern image rolling stock or locomotives in 1:120. 

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I have spent an hour or so working on a very basic section of sleeper-base, for Set-Track. 

Spacing is 4mm, and sleeper sizes are 24x2.5x1.5mm

 

I am currently working with dogspikes and sleeper plates, as I have not yet worked with 3D designs and chairs.

 

That will come later on.

[Jeff Smith]

Very easy to scale a yard at 1:120, that's one of the benefits of imperial measures!

1 yard = 36 inches, 36/120 = 0.3.

Also 1ft = 12", at 1:120 is 0.1"  Rulers with inches divided into tenths used to be common, I expect they still are in the USA where use of decimal inches is common.

Think of the scale as 10ft to the inch.

Regards

Actually most rulers in the US are in quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc. Sometimes they even also have metric!

[simonfish45]

My brother is an architectual model maker using 1:25, 1:50 & 1:100. I have a 12" rule with 16th, 32nd, and 64ths along the top; 10th, 20th, 50ths along the bottom with mm on the back. Out of interest I am a member of the 3mm society and I am currently working on 3SMR 57xx pannier on a triangle chassey that I have refurbished and is as old as me!

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Hi.

 

I have now scratchbuilt a section of 1:100 scale Standard Gauge track, to a gauge of 14.3mm

It was done with matchsticks and Peco Code 75 rail.

I have put it next to some HO/OO scale Code 75 track in these first images.

 

In the below image, I added a section of OO/HO Code 75 in to the end of the SG track, to represent Dual (4'8.5 and 5'3") track, and plain 5'3. Again it is placed next to a piece of Code 75 HO/OO track for comparison.

[Allegheny1600]

Now that's nice work there, fella! (I don't know your name, sorry).

I really don't want to rain on your parade but if you wish to model 3mm scale in 14.2mm gauge, you would need to work to 'Proto' clearances i.e. Scale width wheels, frames, cylinders, etc, etc - which would force you to only be able to negotiate large radius curves of say, 5 feet radius.

It would be more accomodating to work in 13.5mm gauge, then you could use the equal of the NMRA standards for that scale, this should ease things for you.

Cheers,

John E.

 

PS when I was your age, I was very passionate about and worked in 18.83mm gauge, 4mm scale!

[Allegheny1600]

Those working in 4mm seem to get along just fine with their 1/76 scale calculations. A few moments with a calculator is not a make or break either way. However, the OP has stated that their projected range will be 1:100. Perhaps there's another thread to be started that canvases opinion on crowd funding popular modern image rolling stock or locomotives in 1:120. 

New thread on 1/120th scale started here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107545-1120th-scale/?p=2179253

Cheers,

John.

[johnarcher]

Now that's nice work there, fella! (I don't know your name, sorry).

I really don't want to rain on your parade but if you wish to model 3mm scale in 14.2mm gauge, you would need to work to 'Proto' clearances i.e. Scale width wheels, frames, cylinders, etc, etc - which would force you to only be able to negotiate large radius curves of say, 5 feet radius.

It would be more accomodating to work in 13.5mm gauge, then you could use the equal of the NMRA standards for that scale, this should ease things for you.

Cheers,

John E.

 

PS when I was your age, I was very passionate about and worked in 18.83mm gauge, 4mm scale!

I was going to mention that. I fear (but am open to correction) that if you used coarseish wheels on 14.2mm gauge it would create problems with clearances (cylinders etc), but if you used finer wheels, like 3mm Soc finescale (not quite as fine as 'proto', more like EM), the tight radii some have suggested would not be possible.

13.5mm gauge might well be a good compromise.