It's a matter of scale...... Discuss

[Oscar at Play]

Being new to railway modelling and of advancing years and looking at N Gauge in particular, I am astonished by the variety of different ratios and descriptions within a single scale. Being in the UK our ratio is 1:148, I know the historic reason for this, but as it seems to put us at odds with the USA, China and Japan, not to mention other countries, I am interested to know how other people plan their layouts. Is there a general consensus of "does a small percentage really matter?" or does one try just to stick to just one scale? People and trees vary in size after all. What about mixed rakes? I have some GWR rolling stock by various manufacturers, and there is a very appreciable difference in size, particularly height, then of course there are the engines themselves where the same loco presented by two manufacturers can look very different sizes. Is there, somewhere a comprehensive list of manufacturers and their associated ratios? Some just state "N Gauge", some even go so far as saying suitable OO & N (in the case of trees).... sorry but a 12cm generic tree just looks wrong! I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts.

[The Q]

Unless you are modelling japanese High speed lines at 4ft 8.5 inches (only around 4km of) then there can be no comparison with japan as 22,000Km of their lines are 3ft gauge. Which is I suspect why T gauge is 3mm track gauge. or 1mm to the foot.

Practically every other country in the world has a much larger loading gauge. So scales again are 1:148  or say 1:160 are not that relevant.

Personally in N gauge I model at 2mm to the foot, or 1:152. simply because thats much easier to work out, and just accept any running gear differences..

[njee20]

Not sure I really understand the question.

Unless you've got some very odd stuff all UK outline stock from the last 20+ years will be 1:148. That's not to say there aren't errors which can equate to size discrepancies, but that's not really about the scale per se, it's not like Dapol are releasing some items in 1:160, someone's just made a mistake.

Also don't understand what you mean about "12cm generic tree just looks wrong", things like trees don't really scale that well anyway. A mature oak tree is often 130'+ wide, but I've never seen an N gauge layout with trees nearly 12" wide, ironically it would look too big. So trees are compromised anyway, and as such you're not going to have 1:148, 1:150 and 1:160 trees, so scale isn't a key factor.

[railsquid]

Unless you are modelling japanese High speed lines at 4ft 8.5 inches (only around 4km of)

Did you mean 4,000km? Actually the current figure is ca. 2,750km.

then there can be no comparison with japan as 22,000Km of their lines are 3ft gauge.

3'6" gauge ("Cape gauge" actually), but what's 6 inches between friends?

Practically every other country in the world has a much larger loading gauge. So scales again are 1:148  or say 1:160 are not that relevant.

I don't  get what you're trying to say there, but Japanese mainline (not Shinkansen) loading gauge is actually more generous than the British one.

From a British modelling point of view, Japanese 1:150 is possibly relevant because there are a large number of structures etc. available which can be adapted for non-Japanese layouts.

[railsquid]

I have some GWR rolling stock by various manufacturers, and there is a very appreciable difference in size, particularly height, then of course there are the engines themselves where the same loco presented by two manufacturers can look very different sizes.

Do you have any examples?

If you happen to be talking about Lima, then yes Lima is well-known for being very off in its dimensions, but then it's not exactly a current manufacturer.

[Phoenix]

Hi,

I don't really know much about locos and rolling stock, but with scenic items, the old adage of "If it looks right it probably is right" seems to work. Like the Q, I model at roughly 2mm to the foot, as it is easy to work out, but I always have a figure handy to check things looks ok.

You mentioned trees ... That is all relative.  A 10 or 12cm tree would absolutely look out of place on my micro-layout, but would look fantastic on a larger layout, whereas my little 3.5cm trees would look ridiculous on a room sized layout. A good rule of thumb is to crumple up balls of paper and place them down to represent trees. If the size and placement looks ok....get out the wire and foliage.

With bought buildings to keep consistent it is best to stick with the same manufacturer when putting buildings in groups. A Lydle End building next to a Metcalf kit would look out of place, as scale differences (and finishes) would look wrong.

With buildings door height is a good indication of scale, and should ideally be kept the same.

All best wishes
Kevin

[port perran]

When you talk about rolling  stock, it's important to bear in mind that on the real railway, particularly in the steam age, there was great variation in size (height and to some extent width) between various types of carriages and wagons.
Hence N Scale wagons (be it Peco, Dapol or GF etc) will vary. Box vans are an excellent example by varying quite considerably in height.
As for buildings and structures, models do vary but you can normally disguise this by careful positioning.
As for trees, I just go with what looks right in any given situation.
Hope that helps a bit.
Martin

[Newportnobby]

Years ago I made the mistake of buying some Lima UK outline coaches, not aware they were 1/160 and then realised how stoopid they looked in amongst my Farish stuff (still got way too many but the chassis may come in useful as there are not so obvious). Minitrix are OK though, scale wise. As for scenic items, smaller things can be placed at the rear of a layout to create a perspective of distance. My backscene is just 9" high and I really don't want anything protruding above that height so trees are just whatever size looks right under 9". I agree Lyddle End and other stuff won't necessarily match in scale. A look at any DVD of freight trains in the steam/early diesel era will show a vast array of rooflines etc

[railsquid]

Years ago I made the mistake of buying some Lima UK outline coaches, not aware they were 1/160 and then realised how stoopid they looked in amongst my Farish stuff

Reference photo :


lima-farish-mk1-contrast by Rail Squid, on Flickr

Here's one which had me puzzling:


Dapol 45xx slope tank (5541) by Rail Squid, on Flickr

Dapol loco, Dapol coaches, scale mismatch?

Not really.

[railsquid]

Oh, and let's not even mention the Tomix Thomas N gauge range, which would probably make even Lima designers cringe


tomix-thomas-vs-n-scale_02 by Rail Squid, on Flickr

[Oscar at Play]

Wow what a lot of fascinating answers! It seems that "avoid Lima" is a common thread through discussions that I've had with people. There is definitely a disparity within rolling stock and the "if it looks right it probably is" is a great viewpoint, but often by then cash has been parted with. What I am trying to do is avoid making expensive mistakes in the first place, not always easy when buying second hand. I love the crumpled paper idea to get an idea of scales for trees, and a simple conversion of 2mm to the foot is a very useful tip too. It is interesting to hear the thoughts about box wagons varying in height, that is precisely why I mentioned some GWR livery that I have. A huge thank you to all those who have replied. :-)

[PLD]

Here's one which had me puzzling:


Dapol 45xx slope tank (5541) by Rail Squid, on Flickr

Dapol loco, Dapol coaches, scale mismatch?

Not really.

Yep - Swindon built many of their locos over-scale, such that they didn't fit other peoples railways...
Dapol have accurately copied their error

[Chris Morris]

Oh, and let's not even mention the Tomix Thomas N gauge range, which would probably make even Lima designers cringe


tomix-thomas-vs-n-scale_02 by Rail Squid, on Flickr

It could be that the clearances on the Island of Sodor are much greater than on mainland UK. Has anybody visited the Island to check?