Unconventional scales and/or gauges.

[PatB]

Just now, Northroader said:

Good luck with your project, but be careful,  i tried a narrow gauge line recently, but found that cheap track plus cheap chassis can equal cheap running, with a cheap controller thrown in as well.

I'm trusting those who reckon the Chinese manufactured Smokey Joe chassis is a decent slow runner, and the track I've got lying around is all Hornby or Peco set track in decent nick, plus a couple of Streamline points bought years ago and never used. As for a controller, I've a minor hobby of breadboarding and adapting Roger Amos designs, some of which seem to work very well, so I'm not too worried on that score. We shall see.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have encountered two people utilising OO and HO mechanisms and track, to represent 3'6" 'Cape gauge' with a scale of 5mm/ft or thereabouts. (The first a Kenyan in the early 70s, in either Victors or KX Models, the other at home in Zimbabwe twenty years ago.)

[Phil Traxson]

17 hours ago, Furness Wagon said:

7mm on 00 is 0-16.5 which is no known narrow gauge ever used in the real world.

Marc

I beg to differ on the comment. The closest to 0-16.5 is actually the the Glyn Valley tramway, which was 2ft 4.5 ins closely followed by the Snailbeach District Railway at 2ft 4 ins both within a couple of tenths of a mm of 16.5mm at 7mm/1ft scale, both of which were definitely in the real world.  Just read more of the thread and found I'd been beaten to this.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Phil Traxson

[peterl]

Does 7mm/ft using 9mm track count as unconventional? Represents a 15inch miniature railway in !:43 scale.

Peter

 

[Allegheny1600]

How about H0j (I think that's what it's called?)

Japanese 1/80th scale, mostly on 16.5mm track but sometimes using rtr 12mm gauge track and rarely, scratch or kit-built chassis, track etc but using the correct 13mm gauge track to represent 3'6" gauge.

[rocor]

1 hour ago, Allegheny1600 said:

How about H0j (I think that's what it's called?)

Japanese 1/80th scale, mostly on 16.5mm track but sometimes using rtr 12mm gauge track and rarely, scratch or kit-built chassis, track etc but using the correct 13mm gauge track to represent 3'6" gauge.

 

That got me thinking, what combinations of standard scales/gauges would be suitable for modelling 3'6" railways.

 

1:160        6.67 (Z = 6.5)

1:148        7.21

1:120        8.89 (N = 9)

1:102        10.5

1:87          12.26 (TT =12)

1:80          13.34

1:76          14.04 

1:64          16.67 (OO/HO =16.5)

1:48          22.23 (S = 22.43)

1:45          23.71

1:43.5       24.52

1:32          33.34 (O = 32)

1:30.5       34.97 

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

3 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

That got me thinking, what combinations of standard scales/gauges would be suitable for modelling 3'6" railways.

 

1:160        6.67 (Z = 6.5)

1:148        7.21

1:120        8.89 (N = 9)

1:102        10.5

1:87          12.26 (TT =12)

1:80          13.34

1:76          14.04 

1:64          16.67 (OO/HO =16.5)

1:48          22.23 (S = 22.43)

1:45          23.71

1:43.5       24.52

1:32          33.34 (O = 32)

1:30.5       34.97 

 

 

 

Of those, 1:120 on 9mm and 1:64 seem quite popular (‘popular’ being a relative term in this case). In New Zealand I think there is also 9mm scale on 32mm gauge. Surprisingly, using what’s more commonly called H0m to represent Cape gauge (which it represents more accurately than metre gauge) doesn’t seem that popular.

[DavidB-AU]

5 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Surprisingly, using what’s more commonly called H0m to represent Cape gauge (which it represents more accurately than metre gauge) doesn’t seem that popular.

 

HOn3½ (12mm gauge) has overtaken S scale in Australia due to the availability of RTR models in the last decade.

 

There is another unusual one to throw into the mix, in South Australia the more popular for 3'6" gauge was HOn3. This is largely historical as there was a large range of gauge track, bogies and mechs available from the US from the 1960s, plus with dual gauge the visual difference between 10.5mm representing 3'6" gauge and 16.5mm representing 5'3" broad gauge was a lot more stark.

 

And in Tasmania it's most common to use OO to represent narrow gauge. 16.5mm in 4mm scale is closer to 3'6" than standard gauge, plus there is a wider range of off the shelf models suitable for modification or donor mechs (particularly for EE prototypes).

 

Cheers

David

[009 micro modeller]

8 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

HOn3½ (12mm gauge) has overtaken S scale in Australia due to the availability of RTR models in the last decade.

 

There is another unusual one to throw into the mix, in South Australia the more popular for 3'6" gauge was HOn3. This is largely historical as there was a large range of gauge track, bogies and mechs available from the US from the 1960s, plus with dual gauge the visual difference between 10.5mm representing 3'6" gauge and 16.5mm representing 5'3" broad gauge was a lot more stark.

 

And in Tasmania it's most common to use OO to represent narrow gauge. 16.5mm in 4mm scale is closer to 3'6" than standard gauge, plus there is a wider range of off the shelf models suitable for modification or donor mechs (particularly for EE prototypes).

 

Cheers

David

 

It’s interesting to learn that H0n3 1/2 is becoming more popular. I knew about the South Australian and Tasmanian variants - while 16.5mm is closer to standard gauge, there’s only half an inch in it. On the other hand, there are a few H0 scale models of New Zealand prototypes that seem to be incorrectly gauged at 16.5mm.

 

For broad gauge, there are a few Australian 5’ 3” gauge layouts on EM gauge track, although I don’t know if any Australian (non-Tasmanian) stuff has been modelled in 4mm scale.

 

An unusual use of H0n3 in RTR is for the Ferro-Train rack railway system. I can’t particularly see why they chose this rather than H0e or H0m, since a lot of prototype rack railways are either 80cm or metre gauge, but it does mean that the gauge is exactly right to represent the 80cm gauge Snowdon Mountain Railway in 4mm scale. I haven’t heard of any 0010.5 layouts based on this idea, although I think there was somebody building 10.5mm gauge Furzebrook Tramway wagons and track for a possible layout (the exact gauge for this prototype in 4mm would be 10.83mm). Meanwhile, pre-dating 006.5 and H0f a few 009 modellers worked in 005, using 009 equipment regauged to 5mm gauge.

 

In 009 itself, there are a few people using either 8mm gauge (for 2ft) or 7.83mm (1’ 11 1/2” - I think this may be a P4 standard) to represent 2ft gauge more accurately than 9mm does. However, the 009 Society Heritage Collection includes a few items of early 009 rolling stock built to 4.5mm scale, using 9mm gauge. This seems an awkward scale to work to and is larger than the military 1:72 scale, and I don’t know if the layouts on which this stock ran followed through with the increased scale. There was a Dave Brewer challenge layout at ExpoNG a few years ago built by Stuart Brewer to 4mm scale and using 14mm gauge to represent 3’ 6” - see link: 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by 009 micro modeller

[PatB]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find narrow-gauge representations that are wide to gauge (compared to the prototype) less acceptable than those which are narrow to gauge? Eg. 0-16.5 (or 2' 4.25") representing 2' gauge has always felt a bit funny to me, but I'm quite happy with 1:35 on 16.5 mm track (1' 10.75") doing so. I guess it's a psychological quirk, resulting from a feeling that it's narrow gauge, so it should be narrow .

[DavidB-AU]

4 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

For broad gauge, there are a few Australian 5’ 3” gauge layouts on EM gauge track,

 

The ones I've seen use 18.3mm gauge which when scaled up is only 6mm under gauge.

 

Cheers

David

[009 micro modeller]

11 minutes ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

The ones I've seen use 18.3mm gauge which when scaled up is only 6mm under gauge.

 

Cheers

David

 

In the UK there are at least two exhibition layouts using 18.2mm gauge, presumably to EM standards. I’m not sure what level of compatibility there would be between this and the 18.3mm gauge standard.

[rue_d_etropal]

I do wonder sometimes if we are trying to put the cart before the horse by modelling to a limited number of scales, when we could just change the scale for different models, assuming they are being usedon different layouts.

It makes sense for traditional manufacturers to limit the number of scales they offer, and only target the most popular.

Now with 3D printing it is possible to produce models to virtually any scale, and it is something I have been looking at . I got into 3D printing because I wanted to build a WW1 themed layout in 1/35th scale using 16.5mm gauge as that was very close to correct scale gauge. I was then asked to resize for O scale, and then you start to appreciate differences in gauges and the compromises that have to be done. Most WW1 wagons were narrow, not much wider than the track gauge so increasing the scale gauge means increasing width of wagon chassis, and sometimes that means increasing width of wagon body. This not only makes it not to scale but can alter appearence. The same applies to OO9. Oddlyusing a gauge less than scale width for narrow gauge can look OK, just look at Pempoul by Gordon and Maggie Gravett.

AsI said, I have ben researching using different scales, and for Irish 5ft 3in, came up with a scale of 3.14mm/ft, which is still pretty close to 1/100 scale socan use all the non railway accessories from wargame suppliers, often known as 15mm size. 9mm gauge is still close enough for 3ft gauge as it is less than half mm under gauge.

 

Another scale to consider for Irish 5ft 3in gauge is 1/50 as 32mm gauge is very close, certainly as close as standard gauge in 1/43 scale.

With 1/35th scale, 2ft gauge obviously can use 16.5mm track etc, and 45mm gauge is pretty close to scale 5ft3in gauge, and only about 1.5mm out for representing 5ft gauge(Russia and Finland) and there are plastic kits available for Russian gauge wagons(another project I am considering).

1/48th scale is an established scale for narrow gauge, and 5ft gauge comes out at 31.75mm, which is so close to 32mm again, and it is becoming a popular scale in military model kits. 16.5mm gauge then is ok for 2ft 6in narrow gauge, and probably could use a lot of the r2r and kit models available.

With a bit of care 16.5mm could be used to model 5ft gauge. The scale works out at 1/92 , which is still near enough to 1/100, and there are also quite a lot of under scale HO building kits out there(eg early Juouef,Faller).

 

Now another common gauge workd wide is 5ft 6in (and its very close Iberian gauge), and that is spot on 3mm/ft for 16.5mm gauge. 9mm can then be used for metre gauge. 6.5mm gauge could then be used for 2ft 6in gauge.

The main prolem in the past has been fitting large motors in small models , but that is getting easier these days with smaller motors available. With care r2r chassis can be used.Tender locos and bogie elelectric and diesels/railcars are easier than tank locos.

 

So there is a lot of choice, why do we limit ourselves to a small number of scales?

 

[Jeff Smith]

It's horses for courses with narrow gauge.  Although a dedicated P4 modeller for 30+ years I found myself attracted to O-16.5 (Glyn Valley = correct gauge) but also over here in the US to On30.  Both use the somewhat sloppy OO/HO wheel and track standards.  Bachmann US popularised On30 a few years ago by a range of US outline somewhat to scale RTR locos and rolling stock.  On30 is 1/48 (US O scale) and runs on 16.5mm track which represents a scale 2'6" , however that gauge was never used in the US.  Bachmann's locos were a mix of 2' and 3' gauge prototypes......

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, rue_d_etropal said:

So there is a lot of choice, why do we limit ourselves to a small number of scales

Because those if us who rely on RTR to any degree can only buy what's for sale. Scales which are not widely supported basically mean scratch building everything (3D printing helps with that, but it's not quite the same as RTR/RTP). Which reduces the number of people who would consider something different.

 

This is also fundamentally rather a conservative hobby. Some people like to think outside the box, but my impression is that most participants are quite happy sticking to the well beaten path (and there's nothing wrong with that).

[rue_d_etropal]

Quote

This is also fundamentally rather a conservative hobby. Some people like to think outside the box, but my impression is that most participants are quite happy sticking to the well beaten path (and there's nothing wrong with that).

Sadly that is one of the things with the hobby. As far as I can tell it is the only modelling hobby that still uses enamel paints, when many others have switched to acyllic paints. Thee is more to being creatve than making things. Thinking up new ideas, some outside the box is being creative , and is good for mental health.

I think the impression that most prefer to stick to the known path, is what some want people to think. From a traditional model company point of view that is how they want to market the hobby, as it suits them, but think about this. Which would look better on your CV(resumé) ,saying you just build kits or use r2r, or designing most of what you build, looking at solving design problems?

 

Possibly a bit cruel in last statement, but I have nothing against those who choose to only model using r2r models, but I sometimes get the impression that they don't like people like me rocking the boat!

I suggest people look at the wargamng market. I chose to start modelling 5.5mm/ft simply because I discovered the huge range of kits and accessories available for 28mm wargaming(which is now getting more scale 1/56, close enough to 1/55 (5.5mm/ft)). I had looked at using S scale for my metre gauge models, but the r2r chassis would not fit, and the range of S scale accessories was no where near that of the 28mm wargamers.

Edited September 22, 2020 by rue_d_etropal

[DavidLong]

On 21/09/2020 at 12:26, Phil Traxson said:

I beg to differ on the comment. The closest to 0-16.5 is actually the the Glyn Valley tramway, which was 2ft 4.5 ins closely followed by the Snailbeach District Railway at 2ft 4 ins both within a couple of tenths of a mm of 16.5mm at 7mm/1ft scale, both of which were definitely in the real world.  Just read more of the thread and found I'd been beaten to this.

 

The GVT could be modelled in 4mm scale using 2FS components. At 1:76.2 using 9.42mm gauge equates to 28.26 inches. Not too far out I would suggest and also pretty close to the Snailbeach. And, yes, as a longtime 2mm Association member I have considered it . . .

 

David

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, DavidLong said:

 

The GVT could be modelled in 4mm scale using 2FS components. At 1:76.2 using 9.42mm gauge equates to 28.26 inches. Not too far out I would suggest and also pretty close to the Snailbeach. And, yes, as a longtime 2mm Association member I have considered it . . .

 

David

 

Wasn’t the gauge of the GVT actually chosen as half standard gauge, and then increased by a quarter of an inch when locos were introduced?

[Zomboid]

6 hours ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Which would look better on your CV(resumé) ,saying you just build kits or use r2r, or designing most of what you build, looking at solving design problems?

I think the thing is that this is a hobby for pleasure, not career development. I enjoy problem solving, which I think is why layout design is my favourite part of the hobby. My second favourite part is operation, for which I am perfectly happy to use unmodified RTR to solve shunting type problems. The bit in the middle where one builds a layout with scenics etc I don't get anything much from...

[DavidB-AU]

11 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

In the UK there are at least two exhibition layouts using 18.2mm gauge, presumably to EM standards. I’m not sure what level of compatibility there would be between this and the 18.3mm gauge standard.

 

None at all.

 

Cheers

David

[DavidB-AU]

9 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

On30 is 1/48 (US O scale) and runs on 16.5mm track which represents a scale 2'6" , however that gauge was never used in the US. 

 

It certainly was. One in Michigan was even built by Ephraim Shay. 

 

Cheers

David

[rue_d_etropal]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I think the thing is that this is a hobby for pleasure, not career development. I enjoy problem solving, which I think is why layout design is my favourite part of the hobby. My second favourite part is operation, for which I am perfectly happy to use unmodified RTR to solve shunting type problems. The bit in the middle where one builds a layout with scenics etc I don't get anything much from...

There are many ways to enjoy the hobby. At one time many would keep it quiet that they 'played with trains'. Now it is seen more, and with the two challenge programs, is possibly better known about, but still misunderstood by many.

I have been to many job interviews over the years, and it is not unusual for outside interests to be something asked about, and the way you talk about your hobby, just might leed you to your dream job, or any job .

It is always easier to follow the crowd, but I find it more fun to be different. I enjoy building layouts more than operating them, possibly why I have so many small layouts in many different scales and gauges. There ere somethings I don't like doing, or don't have the skills to do them, one being track building, and other being metal model building. In fact I am not that keen on kits,but will use them, often changing them or only using parts.

 

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

It certainly was. One in Michigan was even built by Ephraim Shay. 

 

Cheers

David

Well, seldom used.

[5050]

John Ahern used a very flexible scale/gauge ratio on his 'Madder Valley' layout.  Festiniog England saddle tanks and Darjeeling Himalaya locos for example running on 'standard gauge' OO track with the dimensions 'amended' to suit.

[rocor]

What are the fundamental constraints placed upon someone choosing to model contrary of any established scales/gauges. If producing static models, not a lot, CAD and 3D printing have seen to that (though model making in card can give you the same versatility).

 

For working models, the most fundamental one that comes to mind is track profile. Unless wishing to adopt a method from early railway modelling by using rectangular steel or brass bars as rails, this restriction is based upon which rail sections are currently commercially available.

 

Then there are wheels and axles. This is where machine tools will normally be required (and if producing the whole wheel out of metal, preferably CNC equipped).

 

There is always the possibility of adopting standards from established scale/gauges to help. I rather liked the size (1:120 scale) of the original TT, but looking at the steamroller like wheel profiles of European manufactured rolling stock, would not base models on these chassis. 

 

On seeing that the 2mm scale association produces track components and locomotive wheel rims, I did consider joining so as to buy the components, and adopting this as a standard in building a 1:120 scale layout, (though if the association had found out, I would probably have been black balled).