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

[C855B]

For you large-scale fans...

I have prepared a nifty little graphic for our club to hand out, illustrating the differences between the scales assuming U.S. prototypes. I want to include a reference to 'G', but what do I use for scale? My research says 'G' is a gauge, not a scale, with G-gauge track encompassing 1:32, 1:29, 1:24 and 1:22.5 scales mostly dependent on the target prototype, typically narrow gauge. The kicker is there are two scales for G-gauge representing 4' 8-1/2" prototype, - 1:32 and 1:29, manufacturer-dependent, with one even changing scales mid-stream.

I would personally call 'G' 1:32 assuming U.S. standard gauge prototypes, but some large-scalers call this "Scale One" or something like that.

The main reason I'm concerned with it at all is this is to be a show handout, and our club is regularly located next to the G gauge guys. While I understand and can convey the dilemma if challenged, I'm not sure the others are going to know how to respond.

[Chris333]

Fn3 ? 

[peteski]

If this was a handout designed for the general public, I would make this as simple as possible.

What is the most popular use of G-gauge track?  Use that scale to describe it.  Then you can also mention as a side-note that the same gauge track is also used by modelers in other scales who are modeling some specific narrow gauge and standard gauge trains.  You could also in that side-note mention those specific scales and what 1:1 gauge track they represent.  If the standard gauge 1:1 track on G-gauge track is called "gauge 1" then you could also mention that in the side-note.

[GaryHinshaw]

Don't forget to mention that N can also be 1:150 or 1:148.   

[C855B]

There's the rub, Pete. Each scale is shown as an F-unit nose at the scale size, with "HO - 1:87.1" and that's it. No notes.

Anyway, I had the issue solved for me - club prez says "G is G", leave what I have shown as "G" and not get any deeper. He made the same remark about "for the general public". I'll post the finished version when I get the OK.

U.S. audience, Gary. 

[GaryHinshaw]

U.S. audience, Gary. 

Sory, no speeka de Englesh. 

Lots of examples on the web.  Here is my favourite so far:



I wonder if these proportions take into account the current exchange rate.   

My question for you: will the F unit be Warbonnet or UP?

[peteski]

There's the rub, Pete. Each scale is shown as an F-unit nose at the scale size, with "HO - 1:87.1" and that's it. No notes.

Sounds reasonable Mike.  In this instance, less info is good.
But does anyone actually make a G-scale F unit in correct scale (using the G-gauge track)?   

[tom mann]

I would not get into the differences in large scale.  That stuff is crazy, everything from 1:32 down to 1:22.5 is running on 45mm track.  I like the photo Gary posted, as it makes it simple to understand.

But does anyone actually make a G-scale F unit in correct scale (using the G-gauge track)?   

If you mean 45mm track, MTH made a 1:32 scale F7. 

[peteski]

I would not get into the differences in large scale.  That stuff is crazy, everything from 1:32 down to 1:22.5 is running on 45mm track.  I like the photo Gary posted, as it makes it simple to understand.

If you mean 45mm track, MTH made a 1:32 scale F7.

I guess so.

[C855B]

This may not be the final version, but it's where I am at the moment, after the G scale discussion. The objective was to have the graphics close to actual size on a 5.5 x 8.5 sheet.

[nkalanaga]

MikeL  "1 Gauge", or "Gauge 1", was one of the old tinplate sizes, of which "O" was the smallest, and originally was "0", Zero, Gauge.  1 ran on (roughly) 45 mm track, so yes, modern G gauge, used for standard gauge models, would be "1 Scale".   The catch is that the old tinplate gauges were originally measured rail center to center, not on the inside face, as the prototype and scale models are measured, so the conversion isn't exact. 

Trivia, which most here probably already know:  Just the opposite of wire gauges, track gets smaller as the number decreases, so after 0 came 00, now OO, then 000, which became British 2mm and European/American N scale.  Oddly, in British usage, our HO (Half O) should have been OO, being half of British O's 7mm/foot, while OO was 4mm/foot.  000 was half of OO, which makes sense.  N was named for the track gauge, "9" starting with the letter "N" in most European languages.  It's also one of the few model gauges to have the correct gauge from the beginning, as 9x160 = 1440, which is one of the common metric standard gauges, the other being 1435.  I have no idea where Marklin got "Z", but one story I heard was that they thought it would be the smallest scale every mass produced, so gave it the last letter.  "S" stands for "Sixty-Fourth", and was designed from the beginning to be easy to measure and model in, even though it was commonly used for toy trains.

[peteski]

I prefer all the different scale models in a row lined up at the track level. That to me gives a better comparison between all the scales/gauge and the huge difference between the smallest and largest ones on the chart.  Being scattered all over the page, that visual effect gets lost.

[Catt]

How about "G is not a scale ,it is a gauge.There are many scales in G representing everything from Narrow gauge to standard gauge."

[peteski]

How about "G is not a scale ,it is a gauge.There are many scales in G representing everything from Narrow gauge to standard gauge."

The same can be said about the N gauge.  It is used by many scales: 1:148, 1:150, 1:160, 1:87.5 (narrow gauge) and probably few more.  It gets too complicated for a simple chart meant for general public.

[C855B]

I prefer all the different scale models in a row lined up at the track level. ...

Valid point, as that was the original idea, but G forces the portrait orientation. So I just made best use of white space. Frankly I'd like to drop TT and maybe even T since those aren't really commercially-supported scales.

Let me work on a couple of other ideas.