scale Ideal? scales.

[Nearholmer]

Agree, double-sided rulers do traditionally contain a few inches graduated in tenths, but what were/are they used for, apart from by a few model-makers, who presumably aren't a major market for ruler-makers?

 

Engineering practice in the UK doesn't/didn't use tenths of an inch anywhere does/did it? Maybe on lend-lease gear from WW2, similarly to AF spanners?

 

Architects???

 

What would be useful on rulers would be 1/12" gradations, but they seem not to be standard!

[F-UnitMad]

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Tenths of an inch are a strange American thing, aren’t they?

It's the American way of putting fractions of an inch in decimal (e.g. "0.010 inch") I don't understand.

As in, I've never been taught it, so I don't understand it, not as in "why do they have to be different?" sort of thing.

 

My ideal scale would be 1:1, but I'm not rich enough, don't have the space, & live in the wrong Country  

For the purposes of this Thread, though, I'd model S Scale - if there was some R-T-R support for UK outline, & better R-T-R support for US outline. S is closest of all the scales to a truly accurate scale/gauge combination, without requiring alternative 'finescale' options such as Scale7, Proto48, P4, Proto 87, & whatever the 2mm equivalents are.

[Talltim]

4 hours ago, MJI said:

I think that 4mm to the foot is actually a very easy system to work to.

 

Real railway vehicles were built in inches, I know my SI system

 

3" is 1mm

 

Easy to model

Some real railway vehicles were built in metric

Edited December 18, 2019 by Talltim

[The Johnster]

As was Kidderminster SVR station; Ross on Wye with metric bricks.

[CKPR]

I would add to the suggestion that 1/64 is the ideal scale. There's an interesting comparison between our scales and the model aircraft scales, with the latter being  neat and logical i.e. 1/24, 1/32, 1/48, 1/72, 1/96 and 1/44 - although 1/50, 1/100 and latterly 1/200 have been used for model aircraft over the years, they've never really caught on.

[009 micro modeller]

I quite like the idea of 1:50 - obviously easy to calculate for metric measurements but it’s also extremely close to 6mm/ft, in which 1” is 0.5mm.

[Flying Pig]

22 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

S is closest of all the scales to a truly accurate scale/gauge combination, without requiring alternative 'finescale' options such as Scale7, Proto48, P4, Proto 87, & whatever the 2mm equivalents are.

 

This is rather confused. H0, 1:120 TT and 1:160 N are also accurate scale/gauge combinations. Proto 87 and FS160 (is there a finescale 1:120 standard?) have nothing to do with correcting the gauge and are concerned with finescale wheels and track that would not be appropriate for commercial products.  Rtr models in 1:64 would be subject to the same compromises as all other scales.

 

 

[johnarcher]

On 18/12/2019 at 16:29, F-UnitMad said:

It's the American way of putting fractions of an inch in decimal (e.g. "0.010 inch") I don't understand.

As in, I've never been taught it, so I don't understand it, not as in "why do they have to be different?" sort of thing.

 

My ideal scale would be 1:1, but I'm not rich enough, don't have the space, & live in the wrong Country  

For the purposes of this Thread, though, I'd model S Scale - if there was some R-T-R support for UK outline, & better R-T-R support for US outline. S is closest of all the scales to a truly accurate scale/gauge combination, without requiring alternative 'finescale' options such as Scale7, Proto48, P4, Proto 87, & whatever the 2mm equivalents are.

I agree about S, a nice size, not too big but easier to get motors into small prototypes than 4mm, easier 3 link couplings etc., though I'd like to see a few more etched locomotive (and coach) kits, just to give a start.

Edited December 19, 2019 by johnarcher

[rodshaw]

1:100 would be ideal for me. I'm currently modelling American TT (1:120) and I'm finding it just a little too small for my liking, although it does make measurements easy to convert, e.g. a 50ft boxcar is 5 inches long.

 

1:100 American TT would be really nice, as I find HO (1:87) just that bit too big.

[F-UnitMad]

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This is rather confused. H0, 1:120 TT and 1:160 N are also accurate scale/gauge combinations. Proto 87 and FS160 (is there a finescale 1:120 standard?) have nothing to do with correcting the gauge and are concerned with finescale wheels and track that would not be appropriate for commercial products.  Rtr models in 1:64 would be subject to the same compromises as all other scales.

 

 

I did say 'closest'. I didn't say it was spot-on. Given the standards of maufacturing possible these days, R-T-R S Scale would have the least compromises of the small scales, especially for UK outline.

[tomparryharry]

I work in 1:1, but it's blessed hard!

 

We had a lot of this discussion some days back.  I agree that 4mm-foot is very easy, but 1-50 seems an ideal scenario. I can imagine producers gearing up for the increased scale....  "Right! this new 4-wheel wagon is X pounds, but this new scale is X pounds, plus 250%. There's not much call for it, you see."

 

With my sad head on, there'll be no trade support, unless a producer can:-

A, Corner the market.

B, Set the price.

C, Tie the modellers into 'your' product.

D, Maximise the profit.

 

I think you know where this is going.... Some producers have taken the mantle of being "The only game in town". Happily, some have realised that this is not the case, some have reacted with blind indifference. Some producers are gutted that there is no infringment on making proper 3-link couplings. 

 

Off now to a meeting with 113lb FB rail (or is it 132lb FB rail?)

 

Have a great weekend, folks,

Ian.

[Philou]

16 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Off now to a meeting with 113lb FB rail (or is it 132lb FB rail?)

 

Have a great weekend, folks,

Ian.

 

............... and there's the irony (you know, that grey metally thing ) even in the real world today, despite metrication having been with us since the taking up of SI units when I was still in skool, rail is still talked about in lbs per yard!!

 

If we're talking about a change of scale does that include having the gauge revisted so that it is matched to the scale? No more 00/EM/P4/S4.

 

Oooh, and another thing, how about the new manufacturers in the market-place forgetting having to make things to run on R2 curves. Could we not get away from this and that say that 600mm is the new 'minimum'?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

[johnlambert]

2 hours ago, Philou said:

 

............... and there's the irony (you know, that grey metally thing ) even in the real world today, despite metrication having been with us since the taking up of SI units when I was still in skool, rail is still talked about in lbs per yard!!

 

If we're talking about a change of scale does that include having the gauge revisted so that it is matched to the scale? No more 00/EM/P4/S4.

 

Oooh, and another thing, how about the new manufacturers in the market-place forgetting having to make things to run on R2 curves. Could we not get away from this and that say that 600mm is the new 'minimum'?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

Perhaps if you can get away from the idea of the roundy-roundy, tail-chaser train set.

[Talltim]

I prefer 2:1. You can really get the details in. Gotta have a lot of space tho....

Edited December 20, 2019 by Talltim

[rocor]

23 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This is rather confused. H0, 1:120 TT and 1:160 N are also accurate scale/gauge combinations. Proto 87 and FS160 (is there a finescale 1:120 standard?) have nothing to do with correcting the gauge and are concerned with finescale wheels and track that would not be appropriate for commercial products.  Rtr models in 1:64 would be subject to the same compromises as all other scales.

 

 

Exactly this. The confusing of the question of scale with that of finescale. The standard gauges (gauges 1 to 5) were originally determined by a toy maker (Märklin ). The choice of scale for model railway makers was pretty open whilst making allowances for outside valve gear, over size wheel treads and curves tighter than the prototype. Why was a hybrid metric/imperial  scale chosen for gauges 0 and 1? , could it have been because the original gauges were stated in mm?. but then in the larger of the standard gauges the dimensions were altered to imperial measurement (for instance 17/32" to the foot scale). The Americans had been more rational in this regard choosing scales of 1/48 (1/4"/ft), 1/64 (3/16"/ft), 1/120 (1/10"/ft). But they did rather spoil things by adopting 1/87.0857142... (3.5mm/ft).

[railroadbill]

Re tenths of an inch, my digital micrometer has a setting for decimal inches,  but I've always used millimeters.

 

As an aside, and really for narrow gauge, how about 1:35th scale ?  Lots of military figures, scenic stuff and accessories to use.  This gives a bit more room than 7mm on oo track for very small locos like Lister rail trucks etc.   Gives about 600mm scale gauge when using 16.5 mm track. 

 

Also close to 3' 6" gauge when using 32mm track,   9mm to 1' would be 1:34th scale so near enough.

[rocor]

3 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

Re tenths of an inch, my digital micrometer has a setting for decimal inches,  but I've always used millimeters.

 

As an aside, and really for narrow gauge, how about 1:35th scale ?  Lots of military figures, scenic stuff and accessories to use.  This gives a bit more room than 7mm on oo track for very small locos like Lister rail trucks etc.   Gives about 600mm scale gauge when using 16.5 mm track. 

 

Also close to 3' 6" gauge when using 32mm track,   9mm to 1' would be 1:34th scale so near enough.

 

There are plastic kits for standard gauge locomotives and other rolling stock (German outline) in this scale. There are even photo-etches available to super detail these. Though surprisingly I have not come across any instances of anyone modifying these to motorised models.

[melmerby]

SWMBO was an architectural draughtswoman and they used imperial measurements in scales such as 1:25 & 1:50, never 1:24 or 1:48, so when thet went metric it became a lot easier to calculate!

[melmerby]

How about the one time 19mm 00 gauge?

Closer to true than EM.

[tomparryharry]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

How about the one time 19mm 00 gauge?

Closer to true than EM.

 my sentiments exactly. The forum was talking about 'finescale 00' just the other day. I agree that 19mm is far truer to std gauge, than P4, especially when it would be RTR. However... With rising standards, fidelity & quality, there is nothing to stop RTR producers making 18:83mm as a gauge in its own right. 

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, railroadbill said:

Also close to 3' 6" gauge when using 32mm track,   9mm to 1' would be 1:34th scale so near enough.

 

Apparently has a following in New Zealand (where the main lines are 3’ 6” of course): http://philipsharp.net.nz/Scales/NineMill.html

[railroadbill]

35 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

There are plastic kits for standard gauge locomotives and other rolling stock (German outline) in this scale. There are even photo-etches available to super detail these. Though surprisingly I have not come across any instances of anyone modifying these to motorised models.

Trumpeter do some kits. Probably most get built to be put derailed in a diorama with a T-34 tank coming round the corner....  

I have come across a 1:35 tram kit, very well detailed with a high parts count.  Cant find it on line now, but it would take up a lot of room...

[railroadbill]

7 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Apparently has a following in New Zealand (where the main lines are 3’ 6” of course): http://philipsharp.net.nz/Scales/NineMill.html

Also S scale 1:64th  on 16.5mm track,  in New Zealand  (also Australia) some kits available I think.  Curiously, Japanese models on 16.5 mm track are made to 1:80th scale which makes the track too wide for the scale.

 

1:120 on 9mm track would also work  for 3' 6" gauge  (but never seen a description of a layout in that) but again Japanese models are 1:150 on 9mm track.

[009 micro modeller]

2 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

Also S scale 1:64th  on 16.5mm track,  in New Zealand  (also Australia) some kits available I think.  Curiously, Japanese models on 16.5 mm track are made to 1:80th scale which makes the track too wide for the scale.

 

1:120 on 9mm track would also work  for 3' 6" gauge  (but never seen a description of a layout in that) but again Japanese models are 1:150 on 9mm track.

 

I remember Te Ara, built for ExpoNG back in 2011 (boxfile challenge) and described as TTn42. There’s a picture of it here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/16967289@N02/6293708443

 

Re Japan, I understand that T gauge has the same issue, despite being very small (i.e. a larger scale on the same gauge would be easier) and developed in Japan originally. I think standard gauge Japanese railways (Shinkansen etc) use 1:160 although I’m not sure how this would work on a layout featuring both.

 

 

[railroadbill]

24 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I remember Te Ara, built for ExpoNG back in 2011 (boxfile challenge) and described as TTn42. There’s a picture of it here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/16967289@N02/6293708443

 

Re Japan, I understand that T gauge has the same issue, despite being very small (i.e. a larger scale on the same gauge would be easier) and developed in Japan originally. I think standard gauge Japanese railways (Shinkansen etc) use 1:160 although I’m not sure how this would work on a layout featuring both.

 

 

Thanks for that.   That's a really neat layout! 

As Shinkansen lines just have shinkansen trains running on them (I think!)  to be accurate you'd have to have a layout with  separate tracks for high speed and ordinary trains (although both would be 9mm track...) h'mm. 

 

Coincidentally, I've just come across a post on another thread that has the front covers of RM and CM for February 2020 and there is an article about Queensland trains sold to Thailand modelled in 1:120 scale on 9mm track.  That's described as  TTm  presumably TT metre gauge  (unless Thailand has regauged the coaches to metre gauge, that doesn't sound right.)   TTn42  which must be n gauge representing 42" gauge track sounds much better!

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149111-Hornby-2020-range-reveal-date-6th-jan/page/22/