MRR Scale Comparison Chart - How do I illustrate 'G'?

[C855B]

Latest, and the club voted to go with it:

[peteski]

TT is alive and well in Europe. My first layout (as an teenager) was TT (Zeuke Berliner Bahnen was the model manufacturer).

T...well it is out there somewhere as a novelty.  I feel that there really is a size limitation for reliable operationally viable track powered models and I think T went beyond that limit.

[tom mann]

The label for 1:32 should be "No. 1", since G scale is 1:22.5. G gauge is everything on 45 mm track.

[nkalanaga]

Yes, and most 3-foot gauge modelers using "G gauge" use yet another scale, 1:20.3, which I have seen called "F scale".  There's even standard gauge in that, using another of the old tinplate gauges. with at least one company making rolling stock kits.  Those large scale models can get very confusing.

[peteski]

Those large scale models can get very confusing.

Eh, who cares - they are just bunch of expensive toys! 

[C855B]

Eh, who cares - they are just bunch of expensive toys! 

Surely!

The label for 1:32 should be "No. 1", since G scale is 1:22.5. G gauge is everything on 45 mm track.

As in LGB? My first artwork did in fact use "#1", and it was nixed by the club's ruling junta as confusing. "G" as a reference to a scale is somewhat irrelevant in the context of U.S. standard-gauge prototypes, since 1:22.5 would then mandate a different gauge since 45mm @ 1:22.5 = metre gauge. So in terms of what's out there on the show floor for the unwashed masses to look at, 1:32 is a reasonable nominal baseline.

:shoulder-shrug:

[peteski]

As in LGB? My first artwork did in fact use "#1", and it was nixed by the club's ruling junta as confusing. "G" as a reference to a scale is somewhat irrelevant in the context of U.S. standard-gauge prototypes, since 1:22.5 would then mandate a different gauge since 45mm @ 1:22.5 = metre gauge. So in terms of what's out there on the show floor for the unwashed masses to look at, 1:32 is a reasonable nominal baseline.

:shoulder-shrug:

In that context the "G" stands for "Gross" (which means "large" in German). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGB_%28trains%29  They really are large scale!   

[C855B]

Ich spreche ein kleine Deutsch, Pete, though I've forgotten 90% of my vocabulary from disuse. Anyway, "gross" in Lehmann Gross Bahn didn't elude me. But thanks for the link, which corrected my memory. I was recalling it as Lehmann Gross Bahnen, which translates to "large tracks" and not "large train".

A couple guys I know attribute "G" as "Garden", but I think that's a backronym. Given the modern origin of the gauge, it's got to be "G" = "Gross".

I'm a bit amused by the schizophrenia within G gauge. The mix of modeling ratios has to be maddening, especially the 1:29 and 1:32 both representing standard gauge. Tom?

[peteski]

One of the meanings is "train". 
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bahn

[Chris333]

I got "largely course".

Just bored 

[tom mann]

I'm a bit amused by the schizophrenia within G gauge. The mix of modeling ratios has to be maddening, especially the 1:29 and 1:32 both representing standard gauge. Tom?

So on 45mm track, 1:20.5 (36" narrow gauge, Fn3) is correct.  1:22.5 (Meter gauge, G, as in LGB) is correct.  1:32 (Standard gauge, No 1) is correct.  1:29 was designed to be a compromise between 1:22.5 and 1:32 so that you could run equipment that is either 1:22.5 or 1:32.  See this video to visualize the difference:

[C855B]

Oh, I get it... but it's back-assward versus the rest of the MRR hobby. Aside from spot exceptions like HOn2.5, in other scales the track is roughly sized in correspondence to the modeling scale. With G gauge, the modeling scales are forced to fit the track. That's a complicated concept to convey in a broad overview, especially one intended for a general audience that doesn't even know narrow gauge exists. Multiple scales are a novel solution maximizing investment in a foundation component, maybe, but it quickly devolved into nearly a manufacturer-specific situation, where mixing and matching makers' equipment resulted in a bastard 1:29 scale, a sort of unhappy medium biased toward mutual operation, and (again) not modeling.

But maybe that's just gonna be the way it is, and G will come and go like #1 did. My perception is a market where customers with repeat rolling stock purchases over the long term are the exception, the expense being part of that equation. From the beginning G impressed me as a train-runner's scale/gauge designed to appeal to a well-heeled but fickle demographic, and is not really a modeling scale. Plus, you're not running 50-car trains - 10 car trains are massive enough and give an incredible visual impression. IMO companies like Aristo Craft didn't make it because of the repeat-buy problem, and market saturation came fast.

I have a few bits of Aristo in conjunction with our museum display and certainly enjoy them, but lacking a secure location for a garden RR that's going to be about it.