Correct scale for N gauge

Hi,
Following on from my post regarding the MKI coaches, what is the correct
scale for N gauge 1:148 or 1:160 ???
Cheers
Malcolm
Reply to
Malcolm
Loading thread data ...
I think 1:148 is 2 mm scale N being 2 and a 1/16 or something is any thing fro 150 to 160
Reply to
Trev
Thanks,
I was looking at a Dapol loco and it had 1:148 scale on the box... just wanted to be sure before I parted with my cash :-)
Malcolm
Trev wrote:
Reply to
Malcolm
"Malcolm" wrote
I'd also want to see it work before parting with *my* cash, there have been some very indifferent reports about their stuff.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Please John, can you provide more info.
I thought that Dapol were the "Rolls Royce" in terms of reliability and quality... The model I was looking at was a Dapol 14xx 0-4-2T.. but also like the look of their 45xx 2-6-2T but the review in the 4/05 issue of the N-Gauge journal did comment on quality and running issues ?
Regards
Malcolm
John Turner wrote:
Reply to
Malcolm
"Malcolm" wrote
I know about six people who have bought Dapol locos and all have said they will not buy more due to indifferent running qualities. Whether this is representative or not I cannot say, but as a result of those comments I would just ensure that I saw a loco run before buying.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Correct scale: 1:160 (used by everybody except Brits and Japanese) UK (2mm scale): 1:152 (in which 9mm represents 4'6" gauge). UK (bastard comnmercial scale: 1:148 (who's guilty of this mess????) Japan: can't remember, I think it's 1:120 (which would be 9mm representing 3'6" gauge, the most common gauge in Japan IIRC).
Footnote: In the 50s and 60s, some Japanese brass HO gauge models were imported into Canada and the USA scaled at 1:64, or S Scale. These were 3'6" narrow gauge locos, as 16.5mm gauge is very close to 3'6" in 1:64 scale. I have one of these lokies, a 2-8-0, much modified (I sprung axles 1, 3 and 4, which almost doubled its tractive effort.) It looks OK with HO scale rolling stock so long as you don't put it next to HO scale locos - the cab is too large. It's the first loco I ever bought with my own hard-earned money. It cost me 10 hours pay.
Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir
Now I'm really confused ?
1:160 >in some directions
So Lima were producing to the correct scale, but everyone has commented that it never looked right. Farrish and Dapol build to 1:148 which is incorrect (even in the gauge) according to Wolf's information below ???
I suppose at the end of the day, given the mess that N gauge is in, that Kim's point of "Isn't it what you like that matters? Not what someone else likes" is all that matters.
Cheers
Malcolm
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
Reply to
Malcolm
I said "in some directions". Yes, Lima were probably trying to get the coaches to 1:160, but by then the 1:148 scale had a fair bit of support from the other producers of "British N", including excellent models like the Jubilee from Peco (still nobody has done a better RTR steam loco for British N, and the thing was designed well over 30 years ago, and been out of production for ages).
All British RTR scales suffer this mess: OO with its 4ft3 track gauge (whereas Continental HO is correct on the same track), which necessitates the finescale community using 18.2/18.83mm (as your choice).
- Nigel
Reply to
Nigel Cliffe
(Nearly) Correct scale 1:160 uses 8.97mm track gauge:
formatting link
being considerably finer than commercial N.
I don't think anyone does dead-scale in 1:160 or 1:152.
Which is why 2mm Scale uses 9.42mm as the track gauge, this being correct.
And why 2mm Scale, when there is a perfectly good N standard at 1:160 ? Answer because the 2mm Scale Association got there first, and had its standards up and running before N appeared, had the a layout at shows in the early 1960s which ran without faults for several days at a time (be they stalls or derailments)..... And yes, our advice was offered to the embryonic N makers.
The UK has an honourable tradition of stupid model standards: - we have those who made OO rather than HO for the UK, - those who said that Scalefour couldn't work (and nodoubt the same about ScaleSeven), - those who said it was impossible to run two track mainline in OOO (predecessor to 2mm and N) because the magnets in the locos would cause the locos to stick together, etc...
Common thread seems to be armchair theory rather than experimental practise.
There is still a large market in 3ft gauge models using that standard.
- Nigel
Reply to
Nigel Cliffe
I wouldn't describe any current British RTR N steam locos as "Rolls Royce". If making car comparisons, the current two main makers are nearer to Kia and Proton (I did think Trabant and Yugo, but both those car makers have ceased production !).
I wait to see if Peco's re-entry into the market pushes the standard up to what it should be.
The Dapol 14xx' I've seen run fairly fast and vary in their smoothness. Not seen one which runs well at low speed. (Except the one a friend rebuilt to 2mm standards, but that has a new chassis, 45:1 gearbox, coreless motor, new wheels, new boiler.... All done by someone who started model making a year ago, so beginners can do it, but it does take some dedication.).
If just after visual upgrade, its possible to remove the boiler skirt and drill a hole in the chassis block to allow the daylight back underneath.
- Nigel
Reply to
Nigel Cliffe
"Nigel Cliffe" wrote
Sorry to be pedantic, but 16.5mm (OO-gauge) equates to a scale track gauge of 4'1½" and not 4'3". :-)
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Would the fact that you are in the 2mm Society colour your judgement somewhat as to the quality of commercial N Gauge items.
They are not expected to be to "Finescale" standards.
As for the number of manufacturers it depends on whether you model UK or Other outlines.
Reply to
Brian Seamens
"Brian Seamens" wrote
I didn't comment in my earlier postings about the quality of the body mouldings, just that I'm told they don't run particularly smoothly. Now *that* really colours *my* judgement, and effectively means that I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.
The main criteria I have about any model loco in any scale is that it works well. In N-gauge that becomes even more of an issue.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
[...]
0.03 mm less than 9mm - wow! NB that a sheet of 20lb copy paper is almost exactly 0.1mm thick. There's something a bit more than mere obsessiveness at work here.
Within the usual manufacturing tolerances, yes they do.
Which ones? AFAIK, the first commercially viable N scale was by German firms. UK's Lesney made Trebl-O-Lectric, which IIRC was neither fish nor fowl. Anyhow, the few items (diecast) that I have here are to no recognisable scale.
Yes, I know, I just want to know who started the the 1:148 scale - Graham Farish? Lesney?
That's often the problem. I recall the argy-bargy when NMRA proposed the RP25 wheel profile. It wasn't accepted until a thousand or so wheel sets had been made and tested on several club layouts for weeks and months, and an extended report ran not only in The Bulletin but also in the commercial press. The report proved that the engineering types who proposed the finer standard (after their own testing of several candidate profiles) were correct. Even so, it took several years before major manufacturers such as Mantua/Tyco made RP25 wheels.
NMRA now has a "fine scale" standard (or maybe it's still an RP), still not exact scale, with an even finer wheel profile, and the track (turnout) dimensions to suit.
[...]
Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir
"Brian Seamens" wrote
< vbg > That makes a change! ;-)
Sorry, I wasn't inferring that you were, but maybe I should have edited my posting better to show that.
I was, however, trying to say (maybe badly) whether the body of a loco is of superb quality or otherwise, is pretty much irrelevant in my book if the thing doesn't work smoothly at all speeds. In 2005 there is little justification for turning out any model in any scale that doesn't meet that simple criteria.
OK, those of us with the necessary time and skill can I suppose go to the trouble of building a new mechanism under a decent quality proprietary body, but that surely defeats the whole concept of ready-to-run models.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
No problem mate, often get caught out myself. It is easy to get too brief when posting electronically and put over a wrong impression. Do it all the time myself.
I agree it is best to have good running and good body.
It is the drive mechanism that is the major cost so it should be good quality otherwise we would all only buy bodyshells I guess and put our own (Kato etc) motors into them.
The guy from the 2mm org was basically saying that all UK RTR steam loco stock was crap.
Not an entirely fair point.
Reply to
Brian Seamens
"Brian Seamens" wrote
I didn't read Nigel's point quite that way. I think he was suggesting that we have a lack of 'Rolls Royce' products in the UK model railway N-gauge market, and in many respects I agree with him.
Certainly we've nothing on a par with the best available from Japan (Kato) or the best on sale in the USA, but things are moving forwards thanks to some workmanlike improvements from the Farish stable since Bachmann took over.
I'm not sure, however, that Dapol's current production is adding anything other than quantity to the UK N-gauge market.
John.
Reply to
John Turner

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.