 |
Talking T Gauge
The Original Forum Dedicated to the World's Smallest Model Railroad Scale
|
Important Notice:
We regret to inform you that our free phpBB forum hosting service will be discontinued by the end of June 30, 2024.
If you wish to migrate to our paid hosting service, please contact billing@hostonnet.com.
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Skibbe
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: Since the 1:450 vs. 1:480 topic came up... |
 |
|
| David K Smith wrote: | | Skibbe wrote: |
I know this will spark comments about the gauge not really being 3mm... |
Naw, really? Actually, I think prior discussions had more or less settled this. Your point that the average between track and wheel gauge was appropriate. Anyway, considering the width of the wheels, the gauge can vary enormously and the trains will still run. (At the same time, turnouts will be a real challenge given that the distance between inner flange faces is only 2.3 mm. But that's another whole topic for another time...)
Actually, I figured at some point the "gauge vs. scale" topic would emerge, along with the "1:450 vs. 1:480" discussion... |
Now is as good a time as any. There's been some sporatic discussion in the Trainboard Z section, and on the Yahoogroup about actual gauge, and actual scale, etc.
As this will hopefully become a clearing house for American T gauge modelers, maybe a quick re-cap?
The actual track gauge, IIRC, on the Eishindo track is 3.2mm, which in American 4' 8-1/2" gauge environment gives you ~1:450, as advertised by Eishindo. The wheel gauge, which had been pointed out to me on Yahoo "doesn't matter" for scale calculations (some merit) is 2.8mm. So I was figuring the nominal gauge is 3mm, with the clearances set up so that track gauge was wider than 3mm and wheel gauge was less than 3mm, so no binding would ever occur. So, nominal 3mm gauge puts us at 1:480, for American standard gauge.
Now, 1:450 gives the modeler some extra width to play in for mechanisms. 1:480 on the other hand is a really nice architectural/engineering scale in which to work (1"=40', 1mile=11', etc)
Since that discussion, I scaled down some passenger car artwork with plans to photo etched carbodies. Superliners are drawn, and figuring about .006" nickle silver for the material, there is plenty of room to get an etched body around the current Eishindo mechanism at 1:480 scale.
Anyone else have thoughts on where they'd like to see American T head?
There are lots of weird scales out there already, with 1:87.1 for H0 gauge, and N scale that could have been 1:144 but ended up at 1:160... that I'd almost like to see T end up at 1:480. Afterall, the scale rulers are already available for that scale...
_________________
Mike Skibbe |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David K Smith
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 435
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still on the fence about this. Part of me actually doesn't much care; the difference between 1:450 and 1:480 is so miniscule, it's almost not worth worrying about. At least insofar as commercial detail products, I've obtained some 1:450, 1:480 and 1:500 items, and unless I break out the calipers, there's not enough visual difference to cause much trouble.
On the other hand, a part of me does care. I doubt very many of us will be doing any "finescale T" anytime soon, but I am contemplating making some T scale Amercian freight cars (I've started some drawings), and the difference is certainly measurable and would affect the end product.
I'd really like to keep this discussion going, and see where it leads.
_________________
—David
http://www.t-gauge.net/
http://1-450.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skibbe
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This isn't the first time something like this has come up... O gauge is actually at 5' gauge for 1:48 modeling. The Q vs O debate was a big question back in the day (well, it was in the railroad press... I wasn't there to witness it personally). Some modelers didn't care that it was wide gauge, saying that it was such a small difference so as not to matter. Other's did care and changed the gauge to match 1:48. The Proto:48 guys have grown out of that debate.
Ultimately modelers made a choice and ran with it. But, if there is any standardization to occur, now's the time before manufacturer's get lined up to start producing American T.
_________________
Mike Skibbe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanMacK
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For a mechanism, the miniscule difference does make a difference. although TBH, 1:480 does make sense from a planning standpoint. David, you said you've drawn up some US style freight cars, what scale did you use? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David K Smith
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 435
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DanMacK wrote: | | David, you said you've drawn up some US style freight cars, what scale did you use? |
I've been tinkering with a 40-foot boxcar and a two-bay open hopper at 1:450. They're not in a publishable state yet; they're just "primitives" at this point—plain rectangles and polygons to create general outlines and get a feel for the overall masses involved. When they're further along, I'll post them at both scales for comparison.
_________________
—David
http://www.t-gauge.net/
http://1-450.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBA
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Split the difference...call it 1:465.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBA
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you think that 1:440 may become a de facto standard, if manufacturers producing Z scale items can just reduce everything by 50% out of convenience?
I think T's going to be like O scale...a variety of scales.
Then in a decade or two, splinter groups might form for finescale standards in 1:450, 1:480 and 1:440...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David K Smith
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 435
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBA wrote: | Do you think that 1:440 may become a de facto standard, if manufacturers producing Z scale items can just reduce everything by 50% out of convenience?
I think T's going to be like O scale...a variety of scales. |
First, I don't think there's any convenience in making things half the size of something else. There has been no evidence of this in other scales. As for T being a variety of scales, it has a long way to go to catch up with the other major scales, which have the following varieties...
G: 1:32, 1:29, 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:20.32
O: 1:48, 1:45 (aka 0j), 1:43.5 (aka 0, S7)
HO: 1:87.1, 1:80 (aka H0, #13), 1:76.2 (aka 00)
N: 1:148, 1:150, 1:152 (aka 000), 1:160
Z scale has only one on record, 1:220, although some dispute this and claim Japanese Z, or ZJ, is really 1:200 (I've yet to find any documented evidence of this).
As noted earlier, many variations emerge due to differences in model versus prototype track gauge. In order to use the same track in different countries, different scale ratios had to be adopted. For example, in North America, 9mm matches US standard gauge at 1:160. In Britain, it's 1:148; and in Japan, 1:150. Some modelers in different countries live with track gauge errors out of convenience, rather than invent a scale variant.
As for 1:450 versus 1:480, I'm still waffling; at this tiny scale, the difference is so small as to be trivial. I'd place bets a modeler could mix 1:450 and 1:480 items, and no one would notice. Frankly, I don't think there will be enough modelers in this scale to push any manufacturer (if there is ever anyone other than Eishindo) in one direction or another.
In the end, it may just come down to "bragging rights." I'm not sure why a modeler would go to such lengths to ensure 1:480 accuracy, then use the commercial T track, which has rails that measure roughly three feet high and two feet wide... Then you get to handlaid track, which if you're using commercial wheelsets and such, the flangeways would still need to be a couple feet wide. Take it any further, and you're building everything yourself, at which point why bother worrying about what T even means--you're on your own.
_________________
—David
http://www.t-gauge.net/
http://1-450.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toni Babelony
Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 46
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David K Smith wrote: | | Z scale has only one on record, 1:220, although some dispute this and claim Japanese Z, or ZJ, is really 1:200 (I've yet to find any documented evidence of this). |
http://www.nn3.ca/main/main-japanese-zj-gauge-p2.htm
ＲＥＡＬＺＪ™とは線路幅.6.5mm、（縮尺率：約1/220）の実車を極限まで綿密に再現したZゲージサイズのスーパーディテールモデルです。
ＲＥＡＬＺＪ™ uses a 6.5 mm gauge rail (scale +/- 1:220) and has superb detailing like an actual Z gauge scale car. [freely translated]
http://www.realzj.com/great/index.html
The manufacturer of Real ZJ claims that it's scale 1:220... I've not found anything (yet) on the 1:200 scale trains from Japan.
_________________
Tree Gauge? Three Gauge? Tea Gauge? Let´s just T this place up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pray59
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Posts: 88
Location: Fremont, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBA wrote: | | Do you think that 1:440 may become a de facto standard, if manufacturers producing Z scale items can just reduce everything by 50% out of convenience? |
There is merit in the 1:440 size, because when doing a shrink from 1:220 to 1:440, all the 1/32" plywood used simply gets replaced with 1/64" material. All the tabs and slots fit in this situation. Also, snap to grid still works, at 4" per tick instead of the normal 2" per tick.
While this may sound negligible, it means that a simple scale down and test fit of a Z Scale kit can be done in a few hours, where a complete redraw for available materials might take much longer.
As far a reducing Z to T at 1:440, that has already been proven by 3 different kit manufacturers on this forum, as quick to do.
-Robert
_________________
-Robert Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David K Smith
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 435
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pray59 wrote: | | TBA wrote: | | Do you think that 1:440 may become a de facto standard, if manufacturers producing Z scale items can just reduce everything by 50% out of convenience? |
There is merit in the 1:440 size, because when doing a shrink from 1:220 to 1:440, all the 1/32" plywood used simply gets replaced with 1/64" material. All the tabs and slots fit in this situation. Also, snap to grid still works, at 4" per tick instead of the normal 2" per tick.
While this may sound negligible, it means that a simple scale down and test fit of a Z Scale kit can be done in a few hours, where a complete redraw for available materials might take much longer.
As far a reducing Z to T at 1:440, that has already been proven by 3 different kit manufacturers on this forum, as quick to do.
-Robert |
Thank you for this information! I hadn't thought of the lasering process as gaining such an advantage in 50% reduction. I was thinking more about other manufacturing processes, such as tooling molds. I stand corrected!
_________________
—David
http://www.t-gauge.net/
http://1-450.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spyder62
Joined: 27 Oct 2008
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True in a way, but you still need to redo all the trim and windows and a few other things. But not as bad as going from O to HO or HO to N if you do true scale not like some do and just do a 50% reduction. The one for T , I did I went back and looked and it was done in 450 not 440 used 48.9% down, But then in 24 feet the difference is just under 1/64th of a inch (0.145" ) going from 440 to 450. in fact the hardest part was getting the window stiles and rails to work, corbells were the next.
rich
| pray59 wrote: | | TBA wrote: | | Do you think that 1:440 may become a de facto standard, if manufacturers producing Z scale items can just reduce everything by 50% out of convenience? |
There is merit in the 1:440 size, because when doing a shrink from 1:220 to 1:440, all the 1/32" plywood used simply gets replaced with 1/64" material. All the tabs and slots fit in this situation. Also, snap to grid still works, at 4" per tick instead of the normal 2" per tick.
While this may sound negligible, it means that a simple scale down and test fit of a Z Scale kit can be done in a few hours, where a complete redraw for available materials might take much longer.
As far a reducing Z to T at 1:440, that has already been proven by 3 different kit manufacturers on this forum, as quick to do.
-Robert |
_________________
rich
rslaserkits |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
