Anybody want to follow me down this rabbit hole. Like Bachmann did with their large scale adjusting the scale to meet the track, if you divide 16.5 by 3 it equals 5.5 mm or a scale ratio 1:55.4. I am correctly modeling 3 foot narrow gauge on HO track.
(http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/image/4-4-0.jpg)
Bachmann "On30" equipment with a Scale 55 man, becomes scale 1:55.4
The small On30 4-4-0 which is silly in O scale becomes a perfect Scale 55 1890's 4-4-0 instead of an O scale amusment park locomotive.
Visit:
http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/ (http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/)
Scale 55 - "We DON'T need no stinkin" letter!!!!"
Thank you if you visit
Harold
Good to see a new site from you. Your sites are always informative.
An interesting thought. Rather than using track which is 13% too small for the gauge you want, use trains that are 15% too big. That is probably not as bad as it sounds, seeing 0-scale has a long history of mismatch between scale and gauge (0-gauge track works out to 5' gauge in American 1:48 scale.)
Does the 1:55 automatically mean it is a scratch building scale? Or are there 1:55 figures, buildings etc. available? I suppose S-scale buildings etc. would be as much too small as 0-scale ones would be too big, but at least they would make the trains look a little bigger (less like Amusement Park locomotives??)
Like I said, interesting thought.
Jim
Quote from: NarrowMinded on November 02, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
Nice observation,
but I am torn between wanting to slap you and hug you, I don't know whether to think you are lazy (No Scratch Building) or resourceful, either way do not give any clues to your location, My wife is already fed up with my scale of the month fickleness and would likely send you a strongly worded letter. ;D
NM
P.S. Nice website
You know you want to jump into the abyss!!!!! To have a new scale you need:
A locomotive that runs - the Bachmann On30 small 4-4-0
Cars - the Bachmann On30 cars work, slightly too wide, but can be narrowed quickly
Figures - plastic 28mm and 1/50 preiser can be reworked
Vehicles - 28mm has more than 1/48
Buildings - I would say converted O scale, but I am not that rich.
If you are lazy you have to be resourceful.
Scale 55 - "We DON'T need no stinkin" letter!!!!"
Harold
Quote from: Jim Banner on November 02, 2009, 12:27:56 PM
Rather than using track which is 13% too small for the gauge you want, use trains that are 15% too big.
Jim
The scale is correcting the gauge to scale. It is the same as 1:20.3 in large scale. The models are adjusted to the track gauge. The 1:55.4 models on HO track gauge are correct 3 foot narrow gauge
Scale 55 - "We DON'T need no stinkin" letter!!!!"
Harold
Reminds of the time in ancient history when a few dedicated modelers began building in 17/64" scale so that the models would be properly proportioned to O gauge track. Today, there does seem to be a modest movement in P48, where the track gauge and wheel standards are prototypically correct for 1/4" scale.
Car narrowing tutorials will be coming shortly. Probably take longer to do the Gondola tutorial than actually narrow the car.
Scale 55 - "We DON'T need no stinkin' letter!!!"
Harold
Looking at the boxcar it would only be two boards narrower. I am wondering if that would be worth the bother. On the layout it isn't noticeable while the flats and gons do look better narrower.
Looking through my narrow gauge books there were box cars on the Pacific Coast Railway that were only one board narrower so the housecars are fine.
"Scale 55 - We Don't need no stinkin' letter"
Harold
Harold,
I understand about multiple scale on 45 mm track in "Goofy Gauge." What I was referring to was H0 track being 13% too small for 3' gauge in 1:48 scale. I see you have solved the problem of the cars being oversize in 1:55 scale by narrowing them.
I enjoyed the new website and will checking it out as it develops. Having modelled 42" gauge in 1:32 scale, I don't find 1:55 scale modelling at all strange.
Jim
Ever have one of those D-oh!!! moments. Looking through my photos from the old On30 site I found this one. I took this picture while whining, yes I whined, about the On30 4-4-0 was too small for O scale narrow gauge. Why didn't I see the light then? Now that looks like three foot narrow gauge. That was my handlaid On30 track that looked so very "sucky" looks perfect if you project those locos as three foot in Scale 55.
Oh so very dumb!!!!!!!!!!
(http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/image/locos_on_handlaid_track.jpg)
Harold
Ted Hawkins had a couple of 55n3 layouts:
(http://lillines.ted-hawkins.com/blog/blogpics/55-4.jpg)
Visit:
http://lillines.ted-hawkins.com/possibles.html (http://lillines.ted-hawkins.com/possibles.html)
Harold
but, Why???
Quote from: glennk28 on November 04, 2009, 09:43:15 PM
but, Why???
I don't understand the question?
Maybe because it is fun, sorry about your tight little thought box.
Harold
This reminds me of an article that ran in MR years ago. It featured a 1/5th scale layout.
Great idea - lots of work!
Harry Gill October 1962 Model Railroader
Harold
On3's original beginnings were OO mechanisms, and was displayed in a 1946 Jack Alexander Model Railroader article.
Harold
The answer to Glenn's question is, "Why not?" Re: On3, we're still using those same OO standards today. Note that this was U.S. OO, where the track gauge and the models matched, not the UK OO, where the models are 4mm scale but run on HO gauge (3.5mm scale) track.
If there hadn't been "real" OO or narrowed S scale mechanisms, how long would it been before there was any On3. Jack Alexander's modeling was truly revolutionary in 1946
Besides "There is no SCALE", the object is what it measures"
Harold
The real question is : Does anyone care? This scale/guage argument has/can go on for ever. We narrow guage fans at last have a great, affordable supplier in Bachmann who supply most of what we need in a manner well suited to the prototype. There were 30 inch guage railroads, some very successful and almost all the narrow guage lines depended on second hand equipment which quite likely had to be modified to suit the new line - even to the extent, often, of re-guaging. So variations in dimensions is quite prototypical. It is fine to keep things alive by suggesting new scales to use with existing model guages but lets not get too serious about changing Bachmann ON30 as it exists today.
What scale/gauge argument?
I really don't care whether anyone models On30-Sn3-On3, etc.. I am just suggesting a way to model 3 foot narrow gauge on HO track.
I am lucky now that there are models that can be adapted, they weren't available 10-20-30 years ago.
There were NO 30 inch gauge COMMON CARRIER railroads in America.
If you aren't bothered by the spatial disparity in On30 and the lack of "golden age" locomotives, please move along, there is nothing to see here. You can paint everything pink and letter it for the Giggle and Heehaw for all I care. I never suggested that this idea is for everyone.
Harold
Yes, but there were many miles of 30 inch guage and other narrow gauge railroads outside of North America. A fine point that just about all the North American manufactures noted and made good use of. There is another thread going on World War I and II equipment and where it ended up (some of which is still running). Many of us old time modellers like to enjoy narrow guage railroading without being tied down to what some road might have done lo those many years ago. Model Railroading is FUN. Let us keep it that way.
If it is fun, why are you on my thread arguing, please move along, there is nothing to see here.
I DON'T care what you are doing, this thread is about something else.
Harold
No argument, just trying to nudge you to answer Glen,K28 question : WHY.
Why adjust the scale to the guage, when there is a well establish and much easier correction of adjusting the guage to the scale? People have been widening Bachmann's ON30 stock to ON3 for almost as long as it has been on the market. Most is well suited to doing this, rather than the inside frame 4-4-0 being the only locomotive well suited to going the other way. If this is something other than an advertisement for your new web site please explain.
I want small 3 foot narrow gauge 4-4-0's typical of the "narrow gauge era". There are only 4-4-0's in Sn3 readily available and $500 bucks is out of my league. There are HO mechanisms available to make small 55n3 foot narrow gauge prototypes. The small On30 4-4-0's fit this bill, suprisingly. The 5.5mm/ft is actually a great size.
Why would I care whether you visit my website? I don't make any money off a website. Any articles in it have no commercial value. It is only there if you think the idea is neat and need info. Just looking for a fellow traveler or two who agrees.
I had over 500,000 individual visitors at the old On30 site, so I really don't need a website to fuel my ego.
As someone said also, why not.
Harold
Quote from: hminky on November 05, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
What scale/gauge argument?
I
There were NO 30 inch gauge COMMON CARRIER railroads in America.
Harold
Strange Bachmann would build a OF 2-8-0 used in common carrier service in North America Ferrocarril de Mexicano operated on the Zacatlan branchline.
Ken
GWN
Quote from: NarrowMinded on November 05, 2009, 10:24:27 PM
Yikes, looks like a sissy slap fight in here, i'll just back slowly out of the room.
YOU better back away quickly, this sissy has a big slap!!!!!
He STARTED it, He STARTED it!!! ::)
Harold
Quote from: Ken on November 05, 2009, 10:37:36 PM
Quote from: hminky on November 05, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
What scale/gauge argument?
I
There were NO 30 inch gauge COMMON CARRIER railroads in America.
Harold
Strange Bachmann would build a OF 2-8-0 used in common carrier service in North America Ferrocarril de Mexicano operated on the Zacatlan branchline.
Ken
GWN
I said AMERICA, meaning the US of A!!! USof A!!!! US of A!!!!
Harold
Harold,
I am following your discussion of scale 55 with great interest, and I agree with much of what you are saying. But I just can't let your usurpation of the name "America" pass. Even if you include Mexico with Central America, the US of A is still less than half of North America. About 79,000 square kilometres less. That would be the total area of seven or eight of your states less than the other half. So how does the smaller part of the continent lay claim to the name of the whole?
As you know, the USA is only one of many federations around the world. But most of the others have names for their countries like "Austria" or "Brazil" or "Canada," all the way down to "Venezuela." The only other country that comes to mind as having no proper name is the other USA, the Union of South Africa. Again, a description rather than a real name. But I have never heard them call their country "Africa."
Harold, I hope you realize I am just pushing your buttons. We Canadians have no desire to call ourselves "the United Provinces of America" and take back the name "America," (as in British North America.) We already have a proper name for our country and are quite happy with it. But on the other hand, please do not be offended when Canadians and the citizens of some 20 more countries call themselves "Americans." I mean, if you ask a fellow you have just met if he is an American and he replies "Yes, I am an American. I come for Suriname," it would be nicer to start a discussion on bauxite futures than to start an argument on whether or not he is an American.
Time to get back to scale 55 (with no stinking letters.) Don't let the turkeys get you down - remember - Thanksgiving is coming.
Jim
Thanks Jim, I will remember that in the future about the term America. Old habits die hard. When I went to school the world was much bigger. Fortunately it has grown smaller.
There is always "trolling" on the internet. I have got it on all the forums in this topic. It is easy to be negative if the person is always anonymous.
Harold
PS: Figured out why I was using "America" and not US. Have Hilton's American Narrow Gauge Railroads sitting on the coffe table. Old minds work that way.
Dear All,
I'm gonna hijack this thread back to topic. Sorry.
I have thought of a name for this scale. Since it is 1:55 or 5.5 mm/ft, how about FF, or Dublef, e.g. FFn3
Kind of a cross between Dublo (OO) and F = Fifteen mm/foot.
It would be interesting to compare the (various HO gauge) rail codes (heights) to prototypical 3 foot gauge rail heights.
Is there a rail weight (lb/yard) to height conversion formula or table to reference?
Peeking over the edge of the Abyss....with a mirror on the end of a 10 foot long pole..
Joe Satnik
NarrowMinded
Re Columbian Rlys, majority were either 3FT or 1 Meter.(3ft 3&3/8in)
Two books covering Columbian Railways from my library
For a general overview
Narrow Gauge in Columbia
Christopher Walker
Trackside Pub
ISBN 1.900095.24.6
Locomotive Coverage (400+ steam, 150+ Diesel)
La Segunda Mula de Hierro (The Second Iron Mule)
Gustavo Arias de Greiff
Pen Clips Publicidad & Diseno Ltda. (www.penclips.net)
Ken Clark
GWN
Quote from: Joe Satnik on November 07, 2009, 09:11:33 AM
Dear All,
I'm gonna hijack this thread back to topic. Sorry.
I have thought of a name for this scale. Since it is 1:55 or 5.5 mm/ft, how about FF, or Dublef, e.g. FFn3
Kind of a cross between Dublo (OO) and F = Fifteen mm/foot.
It would be interesting to compare the (various HO gauge) rail codes (heights) to prototypical 3 foot gauge rail heights.
Is there a rail weight (lb/yard) to height conversion formula or table to reference?
Peeking over the edge of the Abyss....with a mirror on the end of a 10 foot long pole..
Joe Satnik
Read my signature :
"We DON'T need NO stinkin' LETTER"
I don't even want to go to that letter designation crap. That idea was a total waste and gives no indication of the size. My Scale 55 comes from the approximate 1/55. Wouldn't it be easier with "Scale48" or just "48 scale" instead of the jumble of incoherent letters that indicate nothing.
The .083 is about 60 lbs in Scale 55.
Rail sizes the best is:
http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm (http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm)
Harold
PS: the proto boys have already gone there : P:87. P:48. etc
Quote from: Ken on November 07, 2009, 09:41:17 AM
NarrowMinded
Re Columbian Rlys, majority were either 3FT or 1 Meter.(3ft 3&3/8in)
Two books covering Columbian Railways from my library
For a general overview
Narrow Gauge in Columbia
Christopher Walker
Trackside Pub
ISBN 1.900095.24.6
Locomotive Coverage (400+ steam, 150+ Diesel)
La Segunda Mula de Hierro (The Second Iron Mule)
Gustavo Arias de Greiff
Pen Clips Publicidad & Diseno Ltda. (www.penclips.net)
Ken Clark
GWN
What does that have to do with this thread?
Harold
Harold
"NarrowMinded" asked a question on this thread, I just provided an answer.
Ken Clark
GWN
Did you know ...... Gauge is the distance between the two rails on a railway. In Britain the standard is 4ft 8 1/2 inch because when wagon railways were pulled the gauge had to be the right width for a horse to walk between the rails that the wagon was on .
For the U.S. , it was not until the mid 1880's that a standard gauge of 4ft 8 1/2 inch was adopted .This width was used because of federal orders .
I have counted to ten a lot.
If you notice someone has posted to your thread and find it is complete bullc*ap, it gets old.
Harold
Harold,
I like your idea! ;D
nice way to make correct 3-foot gauge!
well done..
I also invented a new scale..a few years ago..
so far it hasnt caught on! and im still the only one modeling in the scale..
but thats fine! ;)
because im happy with it..
I also debated on names for the scale..I settled on 29n2, because the scale is 1/29 scale, and its narrow gauge, and its 2 foot gauge..
just going with historic precedent, If I were you, I probably would have gone with 55n3 for the name..because the "n" is always used for narrow gauge, and the 3 is for 3-foot..technically just "Scale 55" would suggest standard gauge in 1/55 scale..but its your scale, you dont have to agree! ;)
here is all my musing and building in 29n2 scale:
http://gold.mylargescale.com/scottychaos/29n2/
Next spring im going to finally begin my outdoor garden railroad, and im planning to lay down some 29n2 scale 2-foot gauge track alongside the standard gauge track..
Scot
My "Why" refers to having to basically re-invent the wheel. You will be having to scratch build almost everything. There is enough difference in size that very few parts from any other scale can be adapted and look right.
One reason for the One0 push was to model common 1:48 equipment on commercially available track. There has become a line of a few On30 track components, however we are finally seeing some usable and well-proportioned track components properly done for On3.
Even though I am "gainfully unemployed" (retired ) I still have other things that need doing--that encroach on my available time. I therefore prefer to spend my RR time building what I can't get, rather than re-build the basics.
I have seen a few "free-scale" layouts--and the modeling was interesting--but I'd rather spend my time supplementing the available equipment.
My 3 cents' worth.
gj
Quote from: scottychaos on November 07, 2009, 08:52:01 PM
technically just "Scale 55" would suggest standard gauge in 1/55 scale..but its your scale, you dont have to agree! ;)
Scot
That's right it is Scale55 or 55 Scale, like P:87, P:48 designate a numerical size using prototype standards. 55n3 is a subset and if you used proto standards it would be P:55.
And it isn't my scale I am just felt it needed a name. The have used this size in England since 1963.
Harold
PS: The large Bachmann On30 locos could be converted to Scale55 standard gauge with new running gear at 1.015 gauge. On3 equipment is the right size for rolling stock.
The Bachmann On30 box car closely matches the Jersey Central boxcar in the 1879 Car Builder's dictionary.