What's the Pitch for 1:32? - and what about 'Finescale' ?

[David Halfpenny]

For good or ill, I'm writing a basic intro to 1:32 Scale and to 'Finescale Standards' (meaning G1MRA Fine through ScaleOne32 to Dead Scale).

(I see these as related-but-different, for example I have 1/32 Bassett-Lowke to Tinplate standards.)
​

The aim is to help all sorts of people choose for themselves the scale and standards that suit them best.

(To take an extreme example, a wealthy terminally-ill friend asked what kind of instant G1 layout could cheer his housebound last days.)
​

What would y'all be keen to see included, please?

I'm thinking in terms of:
- what visual and practical benefits do they offer?
- are they just for small indoor shunting layouts and dioramas?
- is 1:32 all about Ultimate Detail, or is it suitable for simpler, more Impressionist, models too?
- what 'special measures' are critical for success?
- what about live steam?
- any actual snags?

- if you model in either or both, what motivates you personally ?
- what sorts of people / personality would most enjoy these disciplines?

- and which sorts are best advised to give them a wide berth?
​

- what websites would you point enquirers to?

Thanks, David

 

[Neil]

One of the issues which cropped up in another thread was that of trade support. As an outsider I thought that there was very little and that was one of the reasons why people would choose to make models in 1/32 scale but from the replies it seemed that there was an appetite for a bit more of a leg up than exists at the moment.

 

[David Halfpenny]

Just to unpack that a little more, Neil - specifically for British vehicles, since the Rest of the World does things differently:
- there's a lot of trade support for 2-rail locomotives, but very little else.
- of the small amount of ready-to-run rolling stock, much doesn't satisfy Scale Modellers.
- many 1/32 rolling stock kits have etches shrunk down from 10mm, and come with 10mm castings and wheels,
- some 1/32 suppliers have a 'near enough from 10 feet away' mindset which has served them well in 10mm but doesn't please everyone.

Consquences:
- the vast bulk of 1/32 customers (present company expressly excepted) are buying Oriental r-t-r locomotives and lack the skills, tools, information, research and motivation to scratchbuild.
- that customer profile also means they are isolated from us, from each other, and even from G1MRA (who rarely see a 2-rail anything).
- as we've seen here, building a 1/32 kit can take as much in the way of skill, tools, information, research and motivation as scratchbuilding! Even though it may not take quite as long, and even that's arguable.
- those who care about accuracy bad-mouth products whose manufacturers expected praise, reducing the chances of future products.

Result:
- A nested set of vicious circles, in which the Best is the enemy of the Ho-Hum, and vice versa.
- people trying 1/32 with high hopes, then sneaking off to Gauge 0, Gauge 3, narrow gauge or 10mm - or other hobbies.
- 1/32 stays stuck in a niche limbo instead of sweeping all before it.

Since we are the people who care, I'd like us to find ways of digging 1/32 out of its hole and putting it back on its plinth.

David

 

[David Halfpenny]

There are two issues for "Standard Standard" as I see it.

1. Appearance - the wheels detract from the upperworks, the flangeways look crude and "toylike".

2. Function - the standard fails an essential relationship in that tyre width does not exceed twice the flangeway, resulting in the wheels dropping into the crossing. (Wheel width 6mm, flangeway 3mm)

I've pulled the rest of Simon's message outside the Quotes to make them readily legible, David:

Tolerances are fine, but aren't really useful in this instance, what is needed is a figure to aim for. In fact refinement to their tolerances strikes me as nonsensical as a tolerance is a variation around a mean figure, which is clearly not what is being talked about or being put forward here. As I understand this awkward wording was a way of potentially improving things by Richard Donovan (then technical secretary of G1MRA) without "upsetting the dinosaurs". Richard is one of the people who have tried and "retired hurt" I think.

So, what's needed is some guidance, nay leadership from G1MRA.

I don't use standard standard and some of this stuff wants to be empirically tested against what's running but here's a starting point:

Make the across checks figure 40mm max instead of 39.5mm max

Reduce gauge through crossing to 44mm

Flangeways are now 2mm, give or take.

Define your standard wheel at G1F profile 41mm btb (exactly what Slaters will sell you right now and will have sold you for the last 10 or so years if you buy a G1F wheel), ie wheel width 5mm, flange width 1mm, flange depth 1.5mm.

Note, whatever anyone tells you, this is a perfectly practical wheel for running conditions in any G1 setting.

Wheel width now exceeds twice the flangeway (5mm versus 2mm)

All wheels still checked through crossing, as wheel check gauge (btb plus flange width) is 42mm whilst track check gauge is across checks figure plus flangeway, 40mm plus 2mm. This might need a bit of thought as at the limit wheels might just kiss the crossing nose, although compared to the hammering of stuff through the current dimensions I'd wager this would be a minor and live-able with imperfection.

Best solution is probably to narrow gauge through crossing to 43.5mm gauge(!)

Something to bear in mind while agonising over this last, Peco track is 44.5mm gauge as it is, so not too visually distressing a proposal.

The above would look better and perform better and would give you a genuinely backwards compatible new "Standard standard".

As I said, my initial thoughts, I'm pretty certain that if you examined the actual wheels on trade products they'd be found to be erring on the "scale side" of the standard standard as it is.

end of quote

 

[Dikitriki]

Hello David,

I have been considering track standards and put the question to Martin Wynne. Again (as with 31.5) it takes the wheels as the starting point - a given - and asks the question what is the optimum track standard to fit the wheels.

He came up with:

Track Gauge: 44.0mm MIN.
Check Gauge: 41.7mm MIN. This is the most critical dimension.
Crossing Flangeway: 2.3mm MAX.
Blunt Nose: 0.6mm MAX.
Check Span: 39.5mm MAX.

I shall build a G1 point to this standard and test 10-15 RTR locos through it from different manufacturers and report back.

Richard

 

[David Halfpenny]

Here's where I'm at after a browse through various threads.
Naturally I'd be pleased to hear more from you guys too.

Synopsis of 'The Pitch':

Like the newer railway modelling scales, Gauge One has multiple Scales, Gauges and wheel-rail Standards.

You can get information elsewhere about:
- Tinplate
- G-Gauge
- the many narrow gauges

You can get information here about:
- improving the function and appearance of trains on Standard track *
- improving the function and appearance of track for Standard trains *
- alternative wheel/rail Standards that improve appearance still further

Useful websites

Health Warnings

David

* to include Simon's Issues (immediately above)

 

[Simon]

Hello David,

I have been considering track standards and put the question to Martin Wynne. Again (as with 31.5) it takes the wheels as the starting point - a given - and asks the question what is the optimum track standard to fit the wheels.

He came up with:

Track Gauge: 44.0mm MIN.
Check Gauge: 41.7mm MIN. This is the most critical dimension.
Crossing Flangeway: 2.3mm MAX.
Blunt Nose: 0.6mm MAX.
Check Span: 39.5mm MAX.

I shall build a G1 point to this standard and test 10-15 RTR locos through it from different manufacturers and report back.

Richard

I think Martin is missing a trick by not pushing the across checks figure (your "check span") out as far as possible, I know my suggested 40mm is in theory problematic with Wheel back to back set at 40mm, hence my comments about it being a starting point.

But these discussions are helpful in the context of improving standard standard and are exactly what G1MRA should be engaged in. G1MRA and its members have vast experience they could apply to the issues under discussion, whereas I am actually working in ScaleOne32 and you and Martin are "looking in from the outside" as it were.

It would be interesting, in the context of this discussion and what David is trying to do, to hear of some practical experiences and thoughts from practitioners of the "standard standard".

Simon

 

[Dikitriki]

Right,

I have, since my first post, measured accurately some more G1 wheels, particularly some higher end models from the likes of Kiss and KM1, and the results were somewhat surprising:

My Marklin live steam BR44 has BTB 39.8mm and BEF 41.2mm.
A Kiss BR 38 (2008 model) has BTB 39.9mm and BEF of 41.2mm
A KM1 BR23 (2014 model) has BTB 40.0mm and BEF of 41.8mm
An Aster MN has BTB 39.9mm and BEF of 41.8mm

from this we get the following:

TRACK:

Track Gauge: 44.45mm MIN.
Check Gauge: 42.0mm MIN.
Crossing Flangeway: 2.45mm MAX.
Blunt Nose: 0.6mm MAX.
Check Span: 39.6mm MAX.

I shall build some pointwork to these dimesnions and undertake some testing. I'm hopeful that I will get some CNC machined gauges next week so I can move forward.

Richard

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

BEF

British Expeditionary Force?

 

[martin_wynne]

Check Span: 39.6mm MAX.

Hi Richard,

On further thought, I think you should allow the Check Span to go to 39.65mm MAX. Otherwise you have tied yourself to working to 0.05mm tolerance (2 thou), which is asking a bit much in the larger scales.

That leaves only 0.15mm (6 thou) flange clearance on your Marklin loco (back-to-back 39.8mm), but that should be just about enough unless you are planning some sharply curved turnouts.

For those wondering, the 44.45mm track gauge is 1.3/4" in old money. It's good to be preserving the traditional gauge.

regards,

Martin.

 

[Dikitriki]

Thanks Martin,

The main line, and therefore higher speed turnouts will be at around 20 ft radius. The sidings, and therefore low speed turnouts will be somewhat tighter at around 12 ft radius. As far as my turnout construction is concerned, I am confident I can build very accurately to the gauges, so I'm hopeful that I will get the same marked improvement in running as I did with the 31.5mm trackwork.

Yours,

Richard

 

[Dikitriki]

British Expeditionary Force?

Back to Effective Flange.

 

[David Halfpenny]

Richard, I'll put these sets of figures through my Spreadsheet next week (i.e. after today's 1/32 shunting demo at the Doncaster Show). David

 

[Simon]

But why are you not (also) narrowing the gauge through the crossing? It'd look better and run more smoothly.

Is not as if Martin hasn't got "form" in this area

Anyway, I still think you're all absolutely barking - but each to their own…

 

[martin_wynne]

But why are you not (also) narrowing the gauge through the crossing? It'd look better and run more smoothly.

Is not as if Martin hasn't got "form" in this area

Hi Simon,

Do you mean me? I'm not clear what you are getting at there. I have never narrowed the gauge through a crossing -- or atleast, not intentionally.

I know there is one influential user of 00-SF on RMweb who does this, but it is not at my suggestion, and I think he is confusing a lot of potential users of that standard by doing so.

It might work ok for a single turnout, but it will cause lots of problems with more complex formations. If it is desired to use a different gauge for plain track in ordr to make use of available flexi-track, it is much better to make the transition within the end of the plain track section, and not within the pointwork.

regards,

Martin.

 

[Simon]

Oh sorry, I thought you narrowed the gauge through pointwork to take up "slack" in your OO - SF standard. Perhaps I'm confusing your approach with some 7mm wheeze - sorry!

It'd help the running through pointwork for Richard though, wouldn't it?

Simon

 

[martin_wynne]

in your OO - SF standard.

Hi Simon,

00-SF is not mine. Roy Miller invented it in the early 70s. David Smith discovered it again about 15 years ago. I just get the blame for it.

Martin.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Mmmmm, deja vu. Seems like the 70 years war.

I came across these snippets about G1 recommendations from the March and May 1943 issues respectively of 'Railways' The Pictorial Railway Journal which I believe became 'Railway World' magazine.

 

[David Halfpenny]

Dave, for some reason, I've only just spotted the BRMSB post, for which grateful thanks.

I had to chuckle over the re-widening of flangeways.​

Regarding damage in Glasgow, BR used to leave buffet cars unlocked because replacing the booze was cheaper than repairing break-ins. I have a feeling that some stock was deliberately stabled overnight in the suburbs, but can't swear to that.

(Glasgow of course styled itself the Second City of the Empire. This was hotly contested by Brummies and Mancunians, while Liverpudlians still maintain that London is.)

 

[David Halfpenny]

For good or ill, I'm writing a basic intro to 1:32 Scale and to 'Finescale Standards' (meaning G1MRA Fine through ScaleOne32 to Dead Scale). The aim is to help all sorts of people choose for themselves the scale and standards that suit them best. What would y'all be keen to see included, please?

Thank you all. I've completed the piece and it will be published shortly.

The technical stuff is all useful too, and I'll squirrel that away for another situation.

David