Help with translating O to G.

video guy -

spake thus:

Yes, there is. But I'm not going to tell you what it is.

Hello, and just go ahead and Google for it. There's a number of model RR websites that have a table of scales/gauges. for example,

I have been lurking on the r.m.r newsgroup for a while and get the distinct impression from the postings that there's greater interest in HO and smaller gauges/scales. There's a few of us that like scale trains that don't require the wearing of an eye loupe and jeweler's screwdrivers to maintain;-) Sincerely (from a enthusiastic fan of 3/16 inch = 1 foot scale trains),

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: snipped-for-privacy@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory

4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337

You don't really know, do you, David.

video guy -

spake thus:

I do, because I was actually paying attention when Miss Curtis was explaining fractions and ratios that day in math class.

There is not one easy ratio. Factors include:

1) What kind of O scale plan you're starting with - Tinplate O-27, O-31, O-wide radius, or 2-rail with NMRA recommended radii? 2) What kind of G-gauge you are going to use - Aristo and USA Trains 1:29 models of standard gauge prototypes, Bachmann 1:24 models of narrow gauge prototypes, LGB 1:22.5 models of European meter gauge prototypes, Accucraft correctly proportioned 1:20.3 models of 3' gauge prototypes, or some other size? 3) What size G-gauge trains are you going to run - LGB 0-4-0T's with 4-wheel European wagons that are happy on the basic 24" radius G-gauge sectional track, Aristo U-25's and RS-3's with a 30" minimum, Aristo 2-8-2's and 2-8-8-2's with a 4' minimum, or something else? 4) What track system do you plan to use - LGB sectional, Aristo sectional, flex track, and/or something else? What size turnouts do you plan to use - LGB or Aristo 24" radius, LGB 4' radius, Aristo 5' radius, or LGB or Aristo #6's? Geezer

Please read the OP, I was asking for a way to translate dimensions. Curve radiuses and so on. That is, a ten foot wide board in O scale would be X foot wide in G. You see?

Yes, we all see. The problem is you don't see.

There is no one G scale.

The following are all "G" Scale.

As "Geezer" pointed out, Aristo and USA Trains do 1:29 models of standard gauge prototypes, Bachmann does 1:24 models of narrow gauge prototypes, LGB does 1:22.5 models of European meter gauge prototypes, Accucraft does correctly proportioned 1:20.3 models of 3' gauge prototypes.

Which real world to model world version of G scale are you going to use?

Only when you decide that can anyone give you a ratio of what you need to multiply the O scale part by o get a G scale part.

snip

Geezer did answer with a polite CORRECT (as to information) answer.

Just because you don't get the answer you think you should get, doesn't mean your not getting good information!!!

Chuck Davis --- MRRing since 1946

I will happily settle for 1:20.

"video guy -

" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Your original question was about converting a *layout* - ie trackwork.

You were told that it depends on both what type of O scale layout you start with, and what kind of G scale layout you want to end up with.

You still have not answered the question about what kind of O-scale plan you are starting with, and you have not answered the question about what kind of G scale tracks you want to use.

But if you want a simpleminded answer, O-scale is 1:48, and G-scale is about 1:20.3. Scale factors are easily found by searching on

Hence, to go from a measurement in O-scale to one in G-scale, you take your measurement and divide it by 48/20.3, ie by 2.36.

So - now you have "the answer" - one which you could have found for yourself by a quick search on google, followed by some simple 4th grade math.

No guarantee that a layout created by simply rescaling all measures this way will *work* very well - since the results will depend on what kind of G-scale tracks, curves and trains you are going to use.

But since that does not seem to be a concern of yours, why should it be a concern of anyone else ?

Grin, Stein

My original question was: > Is there a factor to multiply the dimensions by? Check the post, above.

Which has nothing to do with the dimensions.

It does not matter.

I asked for a simple answer, and instead I got a pageant.

Or by a courteous answer to my question, in this forum.

followed by some simple 4th grade

My point, exactly. Thank you for your help.

"video guy -

" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Your orig--> What is the best method for translating an O scale layout

--> design to G?

--> Is there a factor to multiply the dimensions by?

It is certainly possible that *you* don't have enough CPU and/or memory to deal with two sentences in context, but for anyone else the second question would seem to be at least somewhat related to the first ...

Maybe your culture is different from mine. In mine, if you act like a rude asshole, people will tend to treat you like a rude asshole. It is called "cause and effect".

Good luck with your divisions.

Smile, Stein

Stein R spake thus:

Oh, come on: I see why this guy's getting so annoyed. Typical Usenet snobbery, plain and simple.

The question he asked *was* simple enough, and has a simple answer. Even if, as has been pointed out, there are several versions of G scale, the answer is still simple: determine which of these scales is the one to be used, then use it to calculate the conversion factor. (Which, by the way, is simply the quotient of the two scales; sorry I was a little snarky in my answer up above.)

But you obviously prefer to play the game of escalating smugness. Good luck with that.

Stein, I have been courteous and polite throughout this exchange, even when insulted, even now. What part of diminsions of the layout was so difficult to understand that it threw Geezer into fits, madly comparing

3-rail Maerklin to American Flyer standard gauge? I will readily admit that it is beyond me. But 2.36 is the factor I was looking for, and now that all the dick-waving, and "I'm smarter than you are, nanny-nanny boo-boo" is over, I thank you again.

Geezer was just trying to be helpful, and was not thrown into fits. I was concerned for you in that if you convert your O gauge plan with the overly simplistic ratio you sought, you will come up with a G gauge plan that in all likelihood can not be implemented with any commercially available track, and if built may not reliably operate typical G gauge equipment. But it is now clear that it was my mistake to be concerned for you.

Geezer wrote: . But it is

You may save your deep, heartfelt concern. The group here was asked a question, and instead of just posting an answer to that question you chose to post an answer in search of a question. I didn't need a pompous lecture on Scales 101 and didn't ask for one.

Like David Nebenzahl, who was up in study hall boning up on fractions while I was down in the band room boning up on Miss Curtis, you imagined yourself on some lofty railroad Olympus, crumbs of knowledge dripping from your lips, we grateful mortals down below..

I don't need your sanctimonious concern, if there was ever any there. Please do not try to help me again.

Do not bother to reply to this post.

"video guy -

" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

--> design to G?

--> Is there a factor to multiply the dimensions by?

To me, this is *two* (related) questions, not "a question".

And the question "*is* there a factor to multiply the dimensions by ?" does not necessarily demonstrate a deep and thorough understanding of scales on your behalf.

Me - I am not "imagining myself on some lofty railroad Olympus".

I am just a newbie who can (and am *willing* to) do simple things like going to

and enter extremely simple queries like "G-scale O-scale proportions" (without the quotation marks), read a few web pages and find the answer to simple questions *myself*.

Instead of spending my time (and everybody elses time) whining about how others do evil stuff like actually trying to answer what appears to be the main question : "what is the *best* method for translating an O scale layout design to G ?".

The answer to *that* question might not be "just divide all measures by

2.36" or whatever the ratio between 48 and 20.3 was.

Incidentally - a lookup of G-scale O-scale proportions would also have clued you in on the fact the G-scale can be different thing to different people. Here is a little copy from the first page of google results::

--> The next largest locomotive is O scale (1:48 proportion) and the

--> largest is in G scale (approximately a 1:29 proportion). ...

-->

- 32k - Cached -

--> Similar pages

You are a jerk.

Goodbye.

And I hope that all here remember your graciousness through all of this if you ever again have need to ask a question of the group.

fl@liner

This tagline has been certified to contain no political rants.