|
|
Post by firewood on Nov 19, 2023 3:18:25 GMT
Check out the photo below and make a guess at the scale of the trains on this layout. I’ll give you a clue… the three figures are O scale, 1:48. 😎😎 Dave [Photo: Model Railway Club of Toronto]  |
|
|
|
Post by steveoncattailcreek on Nov 19, 2023 3:37:48 GMT
Check out the photo below and make a guess at the scale of the trains on this layout. I’ll give you a clue… the three figures are O scale, 1:48. 😎😎 Oh, easy-peasy -- that appears to be an O-scale representation of an (elaborate!) O-scale model railroad layout and trains, so IMHO the scale of the trains would be 1:48th of 1:48, or about 1:2,304!
|
|
|
|
Post by firewood on Nov 19, 2023 3:45:08 GMT
Check out the photo below and make a guess at the scale of the trains on this layout. I’ll give you a clue… the three figures are O scale, 1:48. 😎😎 Oh, easy-peasy -- that appears to be an O-scale representation of an (elaborate!) O-scale model railroad layout and trains, so IMHO the scale of the trains would be 1:48th of 1:48, or about 1:2,304! I didn’t think this would take long, haha… no need for a multiple choice survey. 😉 Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by steveoncattailcreek on Nov 19, 2023 3:48:32 GMT
Oh, easy-peasy -- that appears to be an O-scale representation of an (elaborate!) O-scale model railroad layout and trains, so IMHO the scale of the trains would be 1:48th of 1:48, or about 1:2,304! I didn’t think this would take long, haha… no need for a multiple choice survey. 😉 So, do I get a prize? 
|
|
|
|
Post by firewood on Nov 19, 2023 3:55:27 GMT
I didn’t think this would take long, haha… no need for a multiple choice survey. 😉 So, do I get a prize? The never-ending respect and admiration of your peers - congrats! 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by harborbelt70 on Nov 20, 2023 5:58:00 GMT
I'm a little late to this party but I would not have thought that the scale could possibly be that small. At 1/2000 1 inch is the equivalent of 2,000 feet on the ground! The only things I have seen that match the trains in the photo are (1) the train layouts in my Lionel animated hobby store and (2) some white metal and 3D printed engines and cars, which are advertised as 1/144 scale. Here's the view into the hobby shop:
And here it is in operation:
I tried to look for an explanation on the Toronto club's website but did not find any info on scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveoncattailcreek on Nov 20, 2023 6:55:05 GMT
I'm a little late to this party but I would not have thought that the scale could possibly be that small. At 1/2000 1 inch is the equivalent of 2,000 feet on the ground! Mmm, I think you need to check your math -- at 1:2000 scale (to approximate for the sake of simplicity), an inch on the model would be equal to 2,000 *inches* (or 166-2/3 feet) in RL. You'd need a *foot* on the model to be equal to 2,000 feet in RL.
|
|
|
|
Post by harborbelt70 on Nov 20, 2023 7:56:04 GMT
I'm a little late to this party but I would not have thought that the scale could possibly be that small. At 1/2000 1 inch is the equivalent of 2,000 feet on the ground! Mmm, I think you need to check your math -- at 1:2000 scale (to approximate for the sake of simplicity), an inch on the model would be equal to 2,000 *inches* (or 166-2/3 feet) in RL. You'd need a *foot* on the model to be equal to 2,000 feet in RL.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveoncattailcreek on Nov 20, 2023 16:26:16 GMT
Mmm, I think you need to check your math -- at 1:2000 scale (to approximate for the sake of simplicity), an inch on the model would be equal to 2,000 *inches* (or 166-2/3 feet) in RL. You'd need a *foot* on the model to be equal to 2,000 feet in RL. No, any and all scaling requires consistent units, and you jumped from inches to feet without conversion. Simple mistake, but one that has caused a lot of grief over the years . . . As to the accuracy of my response, first, I think your analysis depends a bit too much on your Mark 1 eyeballs, since there's no reliable scaling given, in the pictures or elsewhere, other than the 'hint' that the figures represented are O scale. To come up with my figure, I also eyeballed the photos to guesstimate that the scene was intended to be an O scale model of a roughly O scale model train layout. If you accept that analysis, the answer is straightforward. Sure, you *could* reasonably argue for anything from S through G scale (though O scale is much more ubiquitous than either of those alternatives), and as you point out, the individual items of rolling stock in the depicted model also varied somewhat (which IMHO is prototypical -- there have been endless discussions here and elsewhere about the frequent lack of scale fidelity in many of the commercial offerings, after all!), but I stand by my original guesstimate that the layout modeled is intended to be O scale. If you accept that premise, the math is simple, as I said in my initial response. Your range of alternative scales is IMHO well within the margin of error of my response, given the complete lack of specific measurements. "After review, the ruling on the field stands . . . " 
|
|
|
|
Post by harborbelt70 on Nov 20, 2023 19:44:51 GMT
I think that the only thing of general interest I can contribute to this comes from the photos included below. But before I get to those I'll comment as follows:
1. If you look at the whole scene in the photo the OP posted, you'll see that certain things are pretty much out of whack or are really not any particular scale. The suspension bridge is too narrow for any cars to be placed on it (unlike the single span bridge in the background), the two main figures in the middle of the photo could be true O scale but I only recognize one of them (mother and baby) as an Artistta figure I have used before (it is made in both S and O scale); and the figure to the upper left of them is very obviously smaller.
2. What this suggests to me is that an effort was made to make the rolling stock and track structures proportionate to the main figures whatever scale they actually are. On close examination they aren't but I don't doubt that the basic idea was to make this resemble an O scale layout. But all this is just a representation of what would be the real thing and I very much doubt that any particular scale was used for the trains and track structures.
3. My reference point is the interiors of practically all of the 3Rail O Gauge passenger cars I have worked on, whether Lionel, MTH or GGD. True O scale figures and detailing parts are simply too big for them as the size of such interiors is much closer to S scale than O.
I that context, I sourced a number of products that I intended to use in various passenger car interiors. This white metal steam engine, tender, box car, two tank cars and caboose was one of them:
This was advertised as a 1/144 piece. At nearly 2.75" long in total it plainly isn't exactly that scale but in any case was too big for my intended use. As a whim the car this was intended for - a 21" Lionel scale Business Car with a really big interior - has a tabletop figure 8 table-top layout in it. This is mainly 3D printed and fairly crude as it was made by someone else before the advent of resin printing. Again this was advertised as 1/144th scale but it can't be exactly that. However, it fit where I decided to put it, and the rest of the pieces in the same compartment, including a Lionel ZW-L and a treadmill, I scratch built to be proportionate to the compartment:
A lot of effort of this kind has to be done by dead reckoning rather than trying to work out the exact size of a freight or passenger car or any other feature intended for what is for all practical purposes a diorama. I'm not quarrelling with your calculation, it's just that at this very small size it's not always possible to be so exact.
|
|
|
|
Post by keithb on Nov 20, 2023 22:02:42 GMT
You mathematicians are making my head hurt  |
|
|
|
Post by steveoncattailcreek on Nov 20, 2023 23:19:20 GMT
I'm not quarrelling with your calculation, it's just that at this very small size it's not always possible to be so exact.
Oh, absolutely! That's why I started by asking myself, "What was the modeler *trying* to represent?" Regardless of the *actual* scale of the depicted model train layout (and all the various components depicted), I concluded the goal of the modeler was to try to represent an O scale model train layout, in O scale. If you allow that one assumption, the arithmetic to calculate the "true scale" is trivial (1/48th of 1/48); *without* such an assumption, at best you end up with a wide range of guesstimates, each dependent on the modeler's skill and workmanship and each of our abilities to guess the actual dimensions from the photos. I like the recursive symmetry and certainty of my approach, but YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Post by firewood on Nov 21, 2023 19:05:19 GMT
Oh no, I’ve started sumthin’! 😆😆😜 While we’re on the subject of small-scale figures, in downtown Toronto is an attraction called Little Canada. It’s an amazing place, and you can add yourself to the crowds by being scanned and 3D-printed. Your miniature self will be there permanently. Somewhere in the downtown scene is a friend of mine and his wife! little-canada.calittle-canada.ca/who-we-are/little-canada.ca/littlization/Dave |
|
|
|
Post by steveoncattailcreek on Nov 21, 2023 19:19:40 GMT
Oh no, I’ve started sumthin’! 😆😆😜 While we’re on the subject of small-scale figures, in downtown Toronto is an attraction called Little Canada. It’s an amazing place, and you can add yourself to the crowds by being scanned and 3D-printed. Your miniature self will be there permanently. Somewhere in the downtown scene is a friend of mine and his wife! Very nice! The 3/4" figures look about right for HO scale, but there's no option for us O scale folk, only a 5 inch figure that would scale out at about 1:12 scale. Any info on a custom print (something about 1-1/2" inches) for our O scale layouts, or at least a 3D file we can tweak and print at home? Should be a piece of cake to make either option available . . . or are there similar scanning options out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Nov 21, 2023 19:24:42 GMT
My brain hurts doing the math. Now imagine if on that little layout that the O-scale figures are admiring also includes figures admiring yet another smaller layout.
Existential crisis stuff right there.
|
|
