Who models in other large scales and what is it?

paintjockey Apr 4, 2010

  1. paintjockey

    paintjockey E-Mail Bounces

    15
    0
    8
    LGB scales all of their stuff to run together and fit together. While they make (made) a bullet proof drive their equipment is more on the lines of toy trains than model trains. Either way it is good stuff, just not my cup of tea.

    Is it GMRA that originally set large scale standards? I kinow the name is close. They had a good thing going and the NMRA is kinda fudging it up. It's true that much of large scale equipment isn't to scale but could you imagine if all the dealers actually followed the scale to the letter? Code 332 track would be gone. 1/29th, 1/24th and much of the poorly scaled LGB equipment would be obsolete. The manufacturers would never recover and how many large scalers would actually start over when all of their LGB equipment they collected for over 30 years was incompatable? Each time the NMRA tries to do something with Large Scxale they open a can of worms they don't wanna eat, and large scalers discuss it in depth. Heck this was a simple thread about what others model in and our main topic of discussion has been scale. The NMRA is now proposing a coupler standard and it has whipped up a firestorm of activity. fun fun fun :)
    Terry
     
  2. krs

    krs TrainBoard Member

    129
    0
    10
    Don't know when they actually published their standards, but that society has been around since 1947 so they could well have been the first after gauge 1 was originally defined by Marklin in the 1890's.
    Trouble is that the G1MRA never promoted any of this outside of the UK.
    Even today, not many people in North America or Continental Europe have ever heard of them.
    The lack of a track/wheel standard, or better the lack of a single standard makes it real difficult for new manufacturers who want to get into Large Scale.
    I was working a bit with a German company who introduced a new track system and also a variety of metal axles, with and without power pick-up.
    Trying to decide what dimensions to use for back-toback wheel spacing, track design etc. was a real challenge.
     
  3. EMD trainman

    EMD trainman TrainBoard Member

    1,735
    3
    26
    It's too late in the game to standardize anything in G scale. Each manufacturer has thier own metal wheels, thier own trucks, thier own couplers etc. I say let the manufacturers continue to use what they have been. If you want to standardize it your self there are plenty of companies that offer correct wheels, couplers, track etc. Even if the NMRA did standard everything, the manufacturers are going to make what they want anyway, especially if it's popular and it sells. All I can say is good luck standardizing anything in G commercially made.
     
  4. krs

    krs TrainBoard Member

    129
    0
    10
    You're right Trainman, but what do you do if you want to get into the business of manufacturing metal axles for instance.
    Ideally you want them to work with every G-scale car and every track system out there so even if there were individual standards for all of them, it would be hard to find the middle ground where a design will always work in all situations and it would be expensive to manufacture because of the tight tolerances required.
    If one looks at the existing back-to-back wheel spacing specs for instance comparing NMRA, G1MRA, Spur II etc. they only overlap a little bit - and that doesn't address what LGB, USAT, Aristo and the others are doing which is not specified.
    Aristo has a track gauge one can get some dimensions from - trouble is that some of their own equipment doesn't meet the gauge dimensions, I don't think USAT has anything - neither a spec nor a gauge.
    And back-to-back wheel spacing is only one dimension on one item.
     
  5. DragonFyreGT

    DragonFyreGT TrainBoard Member

    991
    60
    22
    Even if we suddenly standardize everything in G-Scale it won't help sell the scale. The reason why is everything costs money. Standardizing won't save or lower prices because a company will continue to charge what they want.
     
  6. krs

    krs TrainBoard Member

    129
    0
    10
    True - but it could eliminate some frustration which makes the hobby less enjoyable than it could be.
    For instance - when we run trains and relax over a beer - no great switching just running trains - I can't get a train with knuckle couplers to go around a very large oval twice without some car uncoupling.
    There have also been a number of reports and articles about compatibility of knuckle couplers and many of the couples used by major manufacturers don't couple well together.
    The latest report was issued by an NMRA working group that is trying to come up with some Large Scale coupler standard.
    Trouble is - assuming they do come up with some standard - will the companies that don't meet the standard retool their couplers?
    I rather doubt it unless it affects their sales.
     
  7. DragonFyreGT

    DragonFyreGT TrainBoard Member

    991
    60
    22
    Large scale coupler standard? We have that, Kadees. Once again the NMRA is sticking their nose in places where it doesn't belong. They ignored us, chose to not incorporate us, and when us G-Scalers go off, form our own Standards group, and just plain have fun. That's the key thing here. Fun. In smaller scales they need standards because those people think that you can only run a model railroad like a real railroad. There has to be standards for that to work.

    That was never G-Scale's founding principle. It was about running out in the garden and having fun. Companies come up with different ideas and sizes in G-Scale to fit a demand for each one. Every size Scale in G-Scale has it's own niche and it's not worth changing. People who model in HO all their lives, for example, come into G-Scale and suddenly try to change things. It's not right. This isn't about "Standards" or Hardcore operation, it's about turning on the transformer and having some fun. Trying to impliment "Standards" takes that fun away imho.
     
  8. krs

    krs TrainBoard Member

    129
    0
    10
    I thought my comment about NMRA standards for Large Scale couplers might bring a reaction.

    This is the original message that was posted on a G-Scale board in February:

    Currently customers in the smaller scales (Z to O) can buy rolling stock
    from any manufacturer and be confident that they will couple easily,
    reliably, and securely to other units in the same scale. The large
    scale (#1 to Fn3) community is not so fortunate. Each large scale
    manufacturer equips its products with its own coupler design, many of
    which are not compatible with each other or Kadees.

    The NMRA hopes to correct this situation by creating a Recommended
    Practice (RP) that specifies mating contours and other parameters needed
    to make large scale couplers compatible. The goal is to provide
    manufacturers with the information needed to ensure that future large
    scale coupler designs are compatible.

    The NMRA working committee on coupler compatibility has submitted a
    draft of the RP for comment as part of an NMRA Technical Report on large
    scale coupler compatibility. The report is posted on the RP page of the
    NMRA web site and can be directly accessed at:

    <http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/LS%20Coupler%20Technical%20Report.\
    pdf>

    The report and RP are currently posted "for comment" by the model
    railroad community. Based on comments it will be revised and presented
    to the MMRA directors for approval in July 2010. Please make comments
    in this forum or directly to Steve Seidensticker <sseiden@cox.net>,
    moderator of the NMRA working group, or Didrik Voss
    <davoss@pvmtengr.com>, head of NMRA Standards department.
     
  9. peteshoulders

    peteshoulders TrainBoard Member

    15
    0
    8
    I would ignore totally anything NMRA,

    I already ignore anything G1MRA in the uk as they are of the same opinion of G

    I buy what I want, run what I want, and actually dont give a fig what anyone else thinks,

    I have even tried to encourage some input here but got my ankles kicked out,so its not only outside its also from within!!!

    As not many people seem to want to stick their necks out and be counted then there will never be an opinion to consider so these descisions about names and scale values and merits will be dismissed and as long as a very small minority hold the reigns and are unable or unwilling to move on it will continue

    in the seventies P4, Scalefour, and EM challenged the then standard in the UK of OO it then fragmented the whole model railway establishment in the UK, it then spread to O gauge(uk) It now seems to have moved to G#1 Perhaps it is the norm ,but surely a stand and a statement needs to be made?

    I am (or was ) happy to stick my neck out and say this is actually what can be done, and is achievable, but if its all about the original box with the original receipt and the numbers made then that has absolutely nothing to do with modelling and is all about retirement investment and speculation then we all set ourselves up as not being regarded as modellers, or enjoying what we have,and after all its about pleasure and fun surely, otherwise its completely worthless,

    Apologies for wandering away from the mainline
     
  10. DragonFyreGT

    DragonFyreGT TrainBoard Member

    991
    60
    22
    Actually the only couplers I've never had mate correctly are USA Trains. LGB/Bachmann/Aristo/Kadee they've all worked fine for me. I can't speak about lionel has I don't own their large scale equipment and you couldn't pay me to.
     
  11. EMD trainman

    EMD trainman TrainBoard Member

    1,735
    3
    26
    When I was running alot of mixed manufacturer made trains back in the day, I just converted everything to USA Trains couplers, for Aristocraft freight cars, this was a simple swap out and the USA Trains couplers fit in the truck like it was made for it.

    Also people want to choose to run bod mounted or truck mounted couplers. Yes body mounted is more realistic, but with people like me who can run anything bigger than a 8ft maximum diameter curve use truck mounted couplers. I even seen people install kadee couplers on the truck verses the body. This is why I can't buy the new USA Trains 60ft box cars, because they use body mounted couplers.

    Bottom line is I agree with all who say, lets just "Run for Fun". Another words, just run your trains the way you want, relax and have a beer in the garden. I'm sure the manufacturers feel the same way, no one but us consumers will be able to tell the manufacturers what to make since we are the ones who spend the money.

    I have used nothing but USA Trains knuckle couplers and had no problems with trains un-coupling in the curves. I am not a hook and loop user for sure and never cared for them because to me that type coupler is not realsitic for USA type freight trains. But everyone has thier own type coupler they may like to use. It is much harder for a hook and loop coupler to become uncoupled and there is more room for that type of coupler to swing, so it does have it's advantages.

    I know Kadee just came out with a more realsitic coupler near the end of 2009 because I remember reporting about it.
     
  12. krs

    krs TrainBoard Member

    129
    0
    10
    I think if you switch to one manufacturer's coupler on all your rolling stock and your track is reasonably level from side to side you won't have any problems.
    But many people I know simply buy a car and couple it to the rest of the train using the couplers provided.

    I run European trains so mine are all hook and loop. Those don't look any more realistic on European trains either. One can buy more realistic prototypical couplers for European roling stock but then any automatic uncoupling feature goes out the window.
     
  13. DragonFyreGT

    DragonFyreGT TrainBoard Member

    991
    60
    22
    I can't see automatic uncoupling dominating the majority of G-Scale operations though. I'd like some real loop & hook couplers, prototypical ones, for my european E-Lok and equipment. Even with my uneven track, my mismatched couplers don't have a problem at all. although my next phase involves upgrades to Kadee's new Type E G-Scale couplers.
     
  14. paintjockey

    paintjockey E-Mail Bounces

    15
    0
    8
    It would have been nice to see the standards used when large scale came out. Like HO wouldn't it have been nice to open a box put it on the track and run it with no worries? I kow some equipment can do this but some cannot. A standard coupler would be nice... BUT then u get into the factions of large scale. Would the standard coupler for 1:29 be the same coupler for 1:20? The NMRA needs to conceed the point that they aren't gonna make headway and just agree to disagree with large scalers.
    As has been stated, run what you want and what you like. if you wanna rivet count, if you wanna pull superliners with a shay, handlay track, convert couplers whatever, it's your backyard :)
    Happy railroading.
    Terry
     
  15. DragonFyreGT

    DragonFyreGT TrainBoard Member

    991
    60
    22
    Actually the NMRA needs to butt out of our scale. They didn't care then, and that's why we have G-Scale groups like the GRA.
     
  16. Bryan Smith

    Bryan Smith New Member

    5
    0
    7
    If the any manufacturer's model train company can't make any locomotive you like? Try Scratchbuilt yourself.

    I made the 1:29 scale Union Pacific GTEL4500 Gas-Turbine locomotive Scratchbuilt the body shell with styrene plastic , Aristo-Craft FA-1 cab nose, 4 motor block Aristo-Craft, Fuel tender also Styrene plastic, 3-axle from Aristo Craft. Turbine is 35" long the tender is 19" long.
    [​IMG]

    Still working on 1:29 scale "Big Blow" GTEL8500 gas-turbine locomotive.

    Cab-unit
    [​IMG]

    Turbine-Unit
    [​IMG]



    I Scratchbuilt the Scrap Wood lumber 2x6 of woody body shell is a 1:29 Virginian EL-2b electric locomotive. Two-unit IS A One single locomotive. 64" long and 8 Aristo-craft motor block.
    [​IMG]
     
  17. DragonFyreGT

    DragonFyreGT TrainBoard Member

    991
    60
    22
    You made those?! I finally get to meet the creator of those awesome units? I was just watching them on youtube last night. That Turbine is brilliant.
     
  18. EMD trainman

    EMD trainman TrainBoard Member

    1,735
    3
    26
    Bryan Smith, welcome to Train Board and what a nice intro to see such talent as those locomotives you built. I can only imagine what kinda pulling power you have with these. I see a couple of scratchbuilt Union Pacific DD-40X locomotives, but I do likes these better.
     
  19. Bryan Smith

    Bryan Smith New Member

    5
    0
    7
    Dragon, Yes i did made myself. the Big blow i working is alot work i mean add alot "Detail". My profile on youtube is BryanMDP.

    EMD, The GTEL4500 Gas-turbine model I use HO scale UP GTEL4500 drawing plan from model Roadrailer Diesel locomotive Vol 2. I did firgure out into 1:29 scale. the prototype GTEL4500 weight 250 ton. That is 22lbs on 1:29 scale on the Drawing.
    Right now is weight 16 lbs i will add 7lbs later. The 16lbs little turbine can pulling 60 cars without a helper. when i add 7 lbs it can handle 100 cars

    The Virginian weight 37lbs it can handle 120 cars!
     

Share This Page