Ahead of its time?

[pdlethbridge]

"Cute Bear" my foot!

[Jim Banner]

ebtnut, your argument presupposes that 0 gauge/scale originated in the US, which is did not.  Both Maerklin and Bing were producing 0-gauge, 1/43 scale trains in the 1880's.  Being German companies, they worked in metric, the measurement system that replaced a whole mess of earlier German systems in about 1860.  Ives and Lionel in the US didn't produce trains that ran on tracks until the 20th century.  And it wasn't until after 1914 that they produced any significant numbers of 0-gauge/scale trains.  It was my understanding that 0-gauge was standardized at 1-1/4" and 0-scale was standardized as 48:1 by the NMRA, which would put it after 1935.  However, what you say makes more sense - that it was the US manufacturers that switched to 1-1/4" and 1/4"/ft.  The slightly smaller scale would certainly have been in line with the trends of the time - smaller and smaller trains.  By the forties, many had shrunk to 3/4 scale size or 3/16"/ft. on 1-1/4" track, including Lionel 0-27 and Marx 316 scale.  This trend culminated in S-scale, which downsized the track gauge to fit the undersized trains.

I understand what you are saying about modellers preferring to use familiar measurements.  I still like to scratch build H0 models in 1/8" scale because I can fit more town in less space, and it also emphasizes the trains (which to me are the stars of the show.)  Similarly I build in 1/32 scale for my outdoor 1/29 trains and 1/24 scale for 20.3:1 trains.

As you say, dual gauge can become all but impossible.  I would like to build some dual gauge trackage, G-gauge as standard gauge for the 1/29 trains plus 0-gauge as 42" narrow gauge for some trains that I built on 0-scale chassis.  The only problem is, I run the 1/29 standard trains on code 250 and the narrow gauge on code 100.  The problem is not the height of the rails per se - that can be over come by putting the smaller rails on chairs or by running everything on code 250 in the dual gauge sections.  The problem is the large flangeways required for the large scale wheels almost swallow up the small 0-scale wheels.  I don't know which would be better - using small diameter large scale wheels or building sprung frogs for the narrow gauge routes.

[Joe Satnik]

Dear Jim,

Yes, the wheel profile differences between the differing gauges of the same scale is a problem. 

What part of the frog would be sprung, and in which direction? 

I could be wrong about this, but

I thought I heard or read a story (possibly from a Greenberg's guide to pre-war O gauge) that the bad scale/gauge combo of O gauge was due to an American company (Lionel?) erroneously measuring European O track gauge from "rail center to rail center" instead of "inside rail-head to inside rail-head". 

That wider measurement got put into drawings as an "inside the railhead" measurement (~1/8" too large).

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

[Jim Banner]

The frog would be sprung to close the flangeway of the large scale wheels.  This would allow the smaller wheels to run through freely, even though the cars are relatively lighter.  The large scale wheels would have to push their flangeways open, but with the greater weight of the large scale cars, this should not be a problem.  Just recently I came across the concept of sprung frogs for high speed turnouts in the real world.  Apparently, it worked but was high maintenance.

I should point out that the frogs I am talking about are where the narrow gauge intersects the standard gauge and where it departs again.  But I think the same idea could be used in a dual gauge turnout.