Is the K-27 going to be a new product for G scale? Or is it a kit bash someone made? I was a little confused on the Photo Gallery.
The K is a brand new item, and very long awaited. But it is not G scale, this is 1:20.3 which is Fn3
Fn3 is bigger than G scale isn't it? I didn't know Bachmann made anything in Fn3.
This subject has been drawn out many times on this board in the past, but here is the simple answer. The term "G" scale actually describes the 1:22.5 meter guage cars. Most of Bachmanns rolling stock, the Annies, all starter sets are all "G" scale. However the new 1:20.3 cars and locomotives are all Fn3. They are F scale, narrow guage running 3ft track.
Alot of folks use the term G scale to describe anything from 1:32 to 1:20, but the folks that are more serious about the hobby tend to differ.
To your question, yes the 1:20 "F" scale stock is larger.
Paul, I tend to disagree. Term G is pretty flexible and describes practically anything that runs on 45mm gauge and is not gauge 1 (1:32), so the range of scales which fall under G is anything from about 1:29 to 1:13. This is also the range of scales used by LGB and please remember that the first ever G locomotive is in about 1:20 scale and it is a 30inch prototype. Precise denomination for 1:22.5 is 1:22.5, and if you want to specify that this is a meter gauge prototype you can use NEM denomination IIm. To make a long story short the new K-27 by Bachmann is as G as everything else to me but it is not 1:22.5 - unfortunately :(, Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Zubi,
Like I said earlier, this will start controversy (like it did the last time around). Everyone has their own opinion, myself, you, and everyone else on this board. If you want to call everything "G" scale, fine, but I didn't come up with the scale terms. If YOU look in this months issue of Garden Railways mag., you will see an advertisement for folks modeling F & Fn3, and it shows the scale as 1:20 & 1:20.3.
So call yours what you will, to someone who is learning the hobby like Steam Freak, knowledge is a good tool, and the ability to learn the difference in scales and sizes IS a good tool.
When I first got into large scale trains, I got corrected quite quickly that everything running on guage 1 track was NOT "G" scale.
And like yourself, this is my opinion.
Zubi,
One of the things that defines a "scale" (at least for me) is whether the scale in question defines the gauge or does the gauge define the scale! Marklin started the three large gauges and LGB resurected I Gauge as 1:22.5 for metre gauge which I believe was actually scaled correctly! It was only when American 3ft. narrow gauge prototypes showed up that the 1:22.5 started to go whonky!
The situation only got worse when Charlie and Lewis each made the fateful decision to model their products in 1:29 representing standard gauge even though 1:32 is I Scale! Whether you call G Scale "Goofy Scale" or "Garden Scale" the fact is that these scales all can be run together on the same 45mm track therefore "G Scale" is most definitely an all-encompasing term defined by the gauge of track!
"F Scale" is slightly different however in that, while it's origins can be traced directly to 45mm track, it is not defined by it! 1:20.32 has both standard gauge models running on 70.64mm gauge track as well as Fn3 3ft. narrowgauge models running on 45mm gauge track. In this case the scale defines the gauge! This is why I find myself in rare agreement with the NMRA on this issue!
Steve, thanks for the note, but let me remind you that LGB's first was a Stainz. Stainz is a sweet 0-4-0 engine several of which were built by Krauss - for the 760mm gauge. Never for a meter gauge! To confuse the enemy, Richter brothers scaled their Stainz using 1:22 length ratio and about 1:20 ratio for height and width. Since then the enemy remains confused and LGB produced all sorts of equipment from scale 1:13 (some feldbahn rolling stock) to about 1:27 (standard gauge rolling stock) to make things even more complicated;-)... Now, it is not the case that LGB did not do some locomotives precisely to 1:22.5 scale. One of the first such products was the LGB Mogul which very nicely fits with 1:22.5. The Mogul is not alone since also the D&RGW #50 and a few Limited Edition locomotives are spot-on 1:22.5. There are also several Swiss and a couple of German 1 meter prototypes which were also done in 1:22.5 but unfortunately not that many. The main manufacturer of 1:22.5 equipment is Magnus, producing both standard gauge and meter gauge prototypes in this scale and who I admire for their detail, but not for the operational qualities and not for quality to price ratio - these are mantle and showpieces not garden locomotives and rolling stock. Luckily, recently we are getting a new flow of correctly scaled 1:22.5 locomotives and rolling stock from such companies as Kiss and Brawa and let me also mention Regner, Reppingen and Dingler although their volume is small and prices high.
One ought to remember that in addition to LGB wiggling scales in all directions, some US manufacturers started producing 1:24 scale consistently to create more mess and prove LGB wrong - which turned out to be quite a difficult task as they got almost eliminated from the market (granted this happened to LGB too in the end). In addition some small live steam manufacturers produced 15mm and 16mm locomotives (which respectively translate to 1:20 and 1:19 scale ratios) to run on 45mm gauge in addition to 32mm (sometimes both gauges are possible). All these can be referred to G when the locomotive runs on the 45mm track, but in practice there are so few of them that nobody is much bothered, usually 15mm or 16mm scale is referred to if required.
Fn3 is a neologism proposed to NMRA by a WG headed by Stan Ames back in 1994 and which I entirely reject from the first draft. This neologism has been chosen by a couple of manufacturers as a marketing tool against LGB's G-scale and since then has been quite successfully established among enthusiasts of 36" gauge. Many newcomers to large scale adopted the new nomenclature but for me all things on 45mm track are G if they are not gauge 1 standard gauge (which can be 1:32 or 1:30 as Aster proves) See it as a political statement if you like ;D. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
If the theory that "if it runs on 45mm track, it's G guage", then does the same translate to all scales? On30 runs on HO track, so with the G scale theory, that makes On30=HO, and HOn3=N guage. You are not considering the locomotive or rolling stock at all. If I widen my trucks on my 1:20 center cab, and hand lay standard guage track, the body is still the same size, but now I'm running on wider track, so now I'm F scale not G. Well the engine is F scale even if I take the trucks off.
I don't fault anyone who wants to call it G scale, me personnally just refer to my RR'ing as large scale. If I am asked if it's "G", I explain some is, some is Fn3.
Quote from: Paul W. on November 07, 2007, 10:26:40 PM
Zubi,
Like I said earlier, this will start controversy (like it did the last time around). Everyone has their own opinion, myself, you, and everyone else on this board. If you want to call everything "G" scale, fine, but I didn't come up with the scale terms. If YOU look in this months issue of Garden Railways mag., you will see an advertisement for folks modeling F & Fn3, and it shows the scale as 1:20 & 1:20.3.
So call yours what you will, to someone who is learning the hobby like Steam Freak, knowledge is a good tool, and the ability to learn the difference in scales and sizes IS a good tool.
When I first got into large scale trains, I got corrected quite quickly that everything running on guage 1 track was NOT "G" scale.
And like yourself, this is my opinion.
Paul, thanks for the note! Sure, this is likely to start controversy - and let me ask again, are these scale wars not fun ;D?? Well, actually not. So I will shut up once more. But I think that even newcomers (and I have no idea if Steam Freak is one or not) could acquire a somewhat broader historical understanding of (narrow) gauge and scale flavours than just be told, "no you are wrong, this is not G, but F". Although, perhaps all he wants to know if the new K thing is approximately four times larger than his HO stuff. I guess you are right and there are plenty of F adverts now in GR, sadly I will not be looking in the new issue. I have just given up subscription after almost 15 years, somehow, perhaps also due to this "correctness" tendency, a lot of joy, creativity and art which went into Large Scale or G ;) at the time I joined it, somehow left us. But never mind, I found it in abundance in Live Steam and in collecting every possible 1:22.5 G-scale I can find. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
The Two Truck Bachmann Heisler on this website says that its scale is 1:20.3
So does that make the Bachmann Heisler G or Fn3?
G2me ;D, or 15mm to be precise, Zubi
Back in the early 90's when the NMRA Engineering committee's Laarge Scale Working Group was trying to nail down just what it was, a lot of us wanted SOME sort of definition for each of the many scales that were showing up, all calling themselves "G", running on #1 gauge track.
Keeping in mind that when LGB started using the term, they were modeling prototypes measured in metric units, running on meter-gauge track. The proportion was correct for the track gauge.
Where the confusion started coming in was with some of the American manufacturers. Some tried to simplify measurements to construct models by using 1/2" to the foot. This is 1:24. It even worsened the gauge/scale error. Others, applying a bit of logic, divided the track gauge (45mm) by the 3-foot gauge they wanted to model, and came up with 15mm = one foot. 1:20.3 Makes sense. Some manufacturers began to produce this proportion.
NMRA attempted to standardize the scales, and assigned identifying letters to them, following the practice in the smaller scales. Some scales had used letters related to the scale size or track gauge, as with "N" using Nine-mm track gauge. "Fifteen MM" starts with "F"--so it was selected. "G" was there--just a bit smaller, and still a bit smaller was that Half-inch scale--which becale suggested as "H". Nice progression, it seemed-- H, G, F.
As a size comparison, I like to use the typical narrow gauge 30-foot boxcar. This car measures 15" long in 1:24; 16" in 1:22.5, and just short of 18" in 1:20.3. That makes quite a difference, and when models of the different scales are mixed, it can be quite noticeable. Therefore, the desire for some simple identifier so that the consumer can purchase equipment visually compatible with the rest of what he may have. I can recall buying (mail order) some cars labelled as "G", that were almost tiny compared with the rest of what I had--turned out to actually be #1 scale (standard gauge on our 45mm track)
So--whatever we want to call them, there is a need for a relatively simple identifier for the scales that are being produced, as a guide for the buyer who wants to keep his modleling all in the same scale, whichever it may be.
gj
Quote from: Steam Freak on November 09, 2007, 07:03:10 PM
The Two Truck Bachmann Heisler on this website says that its scale is 1:20.3
So does that make the Bachmann Heisler G or Fn3?
Steam Freak, now let me ask you a question or two. LGB makes a sweet 0-4-0 Porter, what denomination would you use for it? Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Quote from: glennk28 on November 09, 2007, 08:32:06 PM
Back in the early 90's when the NMRA Engineering committee's Laarge Scale Working Group was trying to nail down just what it was, a lot of us wanted SOME sort of definition for each of the many scales that were showing up, all calling themselves "G", running on #1 gauge track.
GJ, thanks for the notes,
G was and is related to track gauge and overall size more than the scale as it is an umbrella over a range of scales. Even back then some manufacturers were labeling their products with numerical scale such as 1:24 in the case of Delton or 1:29 in the case of Aristocraft. Granted, LGB did not use scale to label their individual products - indeed they often depart from one scale. Also, strangely enough Bachmann did not indicate scale - goodness only knows why - although their products were mostly nicely fitting 1;22.5.
Quote
Keeping in mind that when LGB started using the term, they were modeling prototypes measured in metric units, running on meter-gauge track. The proportion was correct for the track gauge.
They were not. I have already explained this a few posts above. Stainz is a 760mm prototype. Majority of LGB products are NOT meter gauge and they were a majority at the time the LS WG discussed the scale nomenclature proposal.
Quote
Where the confusion started coming in was with some of the American manufacturers. Some tried to simplify measurements to construct models by using 1/2" to the foot. This is 1:24. It even worsened the gauge/scale error.
I agree, the logic behind this was most likely commercial, but it did not work because the products were smaller than LGB (and of inferior quality but that is another story) In any case this was a very bad move as LGB suggested nominal 1:22.5 and had these manufacturers respected the choice we would not have a mess, or would have a smaller mess perhaps.
Quote
Others, applying a bit of logic, divided the track gauge (45mm) by the 3-foot gauge they wanted to model, and came up with 15mm = one foot. 1:20.3 Makes sense. Some manufacturers began to produce this proportion.
LGB was one of the first. Their 0-4-0 Porter is 1:20 or pretty close.
Quote
NMRA attempted to standardize the scales, and assigned identifying letters to them, following the practice in the smaller scales. Some scales had used letters related to the scale size or track gauge, as with "N" using Nine-mm track gauge. "Fifteen MM" starts with "F"--so it was selected. "G" was there--just a bit smaller, and still a bit smaller was that Half-inch scale--which becale suggested as "H". Nice progression, it seemed-- H, G, F.
Never mind. So what should I use for 16mm scale by this logic? "S"???
This did not make sense back then and it still does not....
But I like E scale - makes short for Eeyore - that is for 30inch
gauge of course, a nice example is the Fort Wilderness loco
produced as a limited run by Accucraft two years ago ;D;D;D
Strangely enough, there was a comprehensive set of European MOROP scale denominators in existence but LS WG decided not to take notice http://www.geocities.com/nem010/index.html (although this is a pretty good list,
please note that this list is neither complete nor entirely accurate, but gives a good example of non-NMRA scales, In particular 1:20 entry of MOROP, the subject of this war ::) is lacking denomination - so I still do not know what I should call my Argyle NA 2-6-2 live steamer which I am just painting - I cannot call it Fn3 because it is 0.32 off... ::) ::) ::)).
Quote
I can recall buying (mail order) some cars labelled as "G", that were almost tiny compared with the rest of what I had--turned out to actually be #1 scale (standard gauge on our 45mm track)
Yes, you need to do some research before you buy...
Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
PS sorry I said that I am going to shut up, but these scale wars are so entertaining... ;)
Quote from: glennk28 on November 09, 2007, 08:32:06 PM
NMRA attempted to standardize the scales, and assigned identifying letters to them, following the practice in the smaller scales. Some scales had used letters related to the scale size or track gauge, as with "N" using Nine-mm track gauge. "Fifteen MM" starts with "F"--so it was selected.
gj
PPS GJ, let me point out that Nine-mm is track gauge not scale and Fifteen-mm is scale not gauge. So this is just a goobly gook. If you want to derive names of scales from English numerical gauge descriptions as in Nine-mm track for N-scale, you would need to denote 15mm scale (1:20.3) as S-scale simply because it corresponds with S-eventypointsixtyfour track gauge (standard gauge) Logical isn't it? So now we know - the new Bachmann K-27 is Sn3 ;D in NMRA LS WG denomination. Enjoy your K whatever you call it, Zubi
Hi Steam Freak,
You might safely conclude there is not much to be gained by even worrying about what letter to use to define the size of the model trains when discussing large or "garden" scale- better to simply use the scale factor (1:22.5, 1:20.3). THAT way everyone knows more precisely what you are talking about and it at least avoids the arguments from those with pet peeves about the letter-based nomenclatures.
Bachmann's new K-27 will be like Spectrum geared steam engines (38T Shay, Climax, Heisler) which are all 1:20.3 (I have all three of them) along with the newer 3-truck Shay. So call 'em whatever you want (G or Fn3) but make sure you buy or make 1:20.3 accessories, figures, and buildings to go with them if you want to stay "in scale".
Al
Quote from: gbbari on November 09, 2007, 11:06:39 PM
Hi Steam Freak,
You might safely conclude there is not much to be gained by even worrying about what letter to use to define the size of the model trains when discussing large or "garden" scale- better to simply use the scale factor (1:22.5, 1:20.3). THAT way everyone knows more precisely what you are talking about and it at least avoids the arguments from those with pet peeves about the letter-based nomenclatures.
Bachmann's new K-27 will be like Spectrum geared steam engines (38T Shay, Climax, Heisler) which are all 1:20.3 (I have all three of them) along with the newer 3-truck Shay. So call 'em whatever you want (G or Fn3) but make sure you buy or make 1:20.3 accessories, figures, and buildings to go with them if you want to stay "in scale".
Al
I liked your answer the best. I could understand it lol. You answered exactly what I wanted to know. Now I know that its the same size as the geared locomotives, and won't have any trouble running the K-27 on my track; if I decide to get one. Everybody else's answer just got me confused. Thank you Al :)
Quote from: Steam Freak on November 09, 2007, 11:45:58 PM
[SNIP]....Now I know that its the same size as the geared locomotives, and won't have any trouble running the K-27 on my track; if I decide to get one. Everybody else's answer just got me confused. Thank you Al :)
Steam Freak - Please understand that although it is the same scale and runs on the same gauge track as the geared steam locos, the K-27 is larger (especially longer) than those locos and will require wider radius track than the geared steam locos. The K-27 will also probably require more level track (measured across the rails) than the others since the geared units have independent 2-axle trucks. So keep this in mind when you are planning your trackwork. I have read that 8 ft diameter curves are minimum for this unit, and that gradient transitions must be very gradual.
Al
Hey Zubi,
I think I found a chink in your argument (at least so far as where using LGB is concerned!) You mentioned the Stainz locomotive and correctly showed that, indeed, it is not metre gauge! I would add to your observation that the SR&RL Forney (which was the first one modelled) is actually 2ft. gauge! The point is that LGB doesn't model to scale, never has and actually is proud to affirm that they make toys and not scale models! Using LGB to make a point about scales would seem to be somewhat difficult at best!
Bachmann, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to measure out the prototypes and to faithfully recreate them in 1:20.3! Calling them "G Scale" is a disservice to everyone that has worked so hard for faithful scale representation (right back at ya! ;))
Quote from: Steve Stockham on November 10, 2007, 06:51:23 PM
Hey Zubi,
..
Bachmann, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to measure out the prototypes and to faithfully recreate them in 1:20.3! Calling them "G Scale" is a disservice to everyone that has worked so hard for faithful scale representation (right back at ya! ;))
Oh my goodness Steve!! So our dear friend Steam Freak did a disservice to Bachmann by asking whether the new K-toy is in G scale and suitable to be played with other G stuff around. What a disgrace. Well, I did not know that in addition to scale political correctness it is also a moral duty what 1:20.3 oriented folks feel... For me yet another reason to dissociate from it. But hey, I have a lot of scrap metal 15mm scale all running on live steam - can I call it G-steam ;)? Surely this will not offend our dear Bachmann? (who I admire for all the new G-scale, sorry G-size toys, which I will play with my G-steam) Best wishes, Zubi
PS
Quote
I would add to your observation that the SR&RL Forney (which was the first one modelled) is actually 2ft. gauge!
In true 16mm philosophy, this is a good model. There are no rules in 16mm scale (except for two rules which do exist ;D, I am sure you know them)
Quote
The point is that LGB doesn't model to scale, never has and actually is proud to affirm that they make toys and not scale models! Using LGB to make a point about scales would seem to be somewhat difficult at best!
I may surprise you, but I agree with you here ;D Still, difficult but not impossible, as shown.
Oh no, quite the contrary! Steam freak's question goes right to the heart of the matter! In fact, you and I are in more agreement than might be initially construed from my postings! As you've already observed, the scale wars will flare up whenever and wherever there's a question that comes up.
The K-27 is a monster compared to the Annie! While the Annie (10th Anniversary Big Hauler 10-Wheeler in 1:22.5 scale for anybody new) works with the passenger cars in 1:22.5, it looks slightly large in front of 1:24 cars from Delton or HLW but not ridiculously so. If you put a 1:20.3 K-27 in front of a train of 1:24 it looks completely out of proportion! While we have been mixing scales using the "10 foot rule" it just seems ridiculous to call everything "G!"
At the time, I don't recall the 16mm guys getting involved. I think I had seen some items on it but not having computer connections could not really search for the further out combinations. I has chair of the NMRA committee. I think that several members, myself included, resigned from the group when it seemed that all our work ws being ignored. gj
Glenn, thanks for the note. At the time, I think it was late 1994 or early '95 the WG proposal was being discussed on the Big Trains mailing list. Stan Ames was the WG chairman and apparently you were the NMRA chair. I do not quite remember what was the precise timing of events but from what I remember the proposal was all but complete before it went to NMRA. I do not think that any strictly 16mm oriented people were involved but everyone was aware of the existence of 16mm. However, 16mm is not a 'proto' scale and only a guideline much like G-size (I explicitly do not use word 'scale' here) In 16mm there are no rules other than the famous 'there shall be no rules' rule. 15mm designation has been used in the UK for the prototypically scaled 3ft equipment long before Fn3 or 1:20.3 were popularised and entered the vocabulary of the masses. This kind of denomination makes a lot of sense when dealing with imperial measurement of the prototypical gauge but when metric measurement is used for the model gauge. However, it fails when the prototypes are metric and in that case, MOROP/NEM designations are more adequate. Best, Zubi
Zubi--I was a long-time member of the NMRA's Engineering Dept--I'm not quite sure what it is called now as I have not heard much from the chair in recent months. Anyhow, after all the work we did, basically "reverse-engineering all the product lines we could get our hands on, in order to present as a proposed standard the de facto what was already out there. When I went aboput two years without seeing anything, not even acknowledgement of our efforts, I submitted my resignation. Stan Ames dragged me back on board--but I don't recall anything being presented for standards. Along the way Dave Goodson brought the G1MRRA standards to my attention, and I recommended that they be adopted as we did not need to reinvent the wheel.
Glenn Joesten
And, those standards (G1MRA) were sort of incorporated, voted on, and approved 3 years ago.
Now we have to go through this all over again.
The initial proposal (out of the WG, open for "comments"), listed back-to-back as 1.595" (vs G1MRA and old nmra of 1.575"), with .095" flange width.
Add them together.
They are WIDER than the gauge.
The "fixed" it by dropping the back-to-back to 1.580".
Why make it .005" wider than what IS the standard?
It is back to the old "we are the nmra. we make the standards, nobody else" routine.
Or so it appears.
60 years of G1MRA, in use, and they want to change it.
I can't really comment as I have been away from the stansards development part of the committee, but that certainly does not look right.
As I see it, the only thing that needs to be standardized--for the original purpose of standards (interchangeability) is the track and wheel relationshios. Anything else should be RP's per the people modeling in that scale (not gauge) Desirable would be some uniform means of labeling the scale proportion of any particular model, to facilitate selection by those who wish to stay with a particular size. gj
Quote from: glennk28 on November 16, 2007, 12:40:47 AM
Desirable would be some uniform means of labeling the scale proportion of any particular model, to facilitate selection by those who wish to stay with a particular size. gj
Glenn, I entirely agree and thank you for mentioning this. Scale and Size are two entirely different concepts. This is particularly true for narrow gauge but many people do not realise this: http://www.buntbahn.de/modellbau/files/1k_and_k_37_769.jpg
Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Quote from: Steam Freak on November 09, 2007, 11:45:58 PM...Now I know that its the same size as the geared locomotives, and won't have any trouble running the K-27 on my track...
'snot the same size, it IS the same SCALE.
The K-27 is around three feet long, dwarfs the Climax and two-truck Shay and needs pretty generous curves not to look ridiculous.
tac
www.ovgrs.org
From previous experience with my On3 K's the potential problem clearance point is not where you might think--the cylinders--or the pilot beam--but the rear corner of the cab roof overhang. I remember one of mine cutting s groove in the wallboard in Ken Burns' garage--gj
And, piXX-poor track, a dip on a curve will cause the cab roof overhang to hit the tender.
If the curve is not smooth, it can create some disturbance if it catches the front next to the retaining boards.
Quote from: Curmudgeon on November 16, 2007, 12:26:07 AM60 years of G1MRA, in use, and they want to change it.
Dave - not often we disagree, but the G1 standards were ratified by Henry Greenley in 1908.
Here in UK we have been running his version of G1 track standards since that time.
Not personally, o'course... ;)
tac
G1MRA #3651
www.ovgrs.org
Okay, 60 years or a century, the idea is still the same! ;)
4 years ago when we fought this with Stanley, the only information on dates we could find was from right after WWII.
Like, 46 or 47.
But, since we specifically are talking G1MRA here, please visit this website for G1MRA, and observe on the home page the "Diamond Jubilee" for G1MRA in 2007.....
http://www.gaugeone.org/
Diamond Jubilee Year
2007 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of G1MRA.
I do suppose if we were talking something else, like Vauxhall or Morris Garage, or even Sutter's Union, yeah, but I specifically mentioned G1MRA, 60 years this year.