What is British G Scale

[ebay mike]

I know what you mean...
But N gauge is 9mm track gauge, but not 9mm to 1 foot!

It was 000 (treble0) when I had my first (push along) set in the 60's. Lone Star later marketed it as Treble-0- lectric, but I can't remember when it acquired the 'N' gauge description seen on my later stuff.

 

[LGB-Sid]

If I had read more before I had started, I would have gone with16mm scale, as there is more British looking stuff available, but I started with LGB's G scale, so now when I want to have British I make everything to suit G scale.

 

[Rhinochugger]

It was 000 (treble0) when I had my first (push along) set in the 60's. Lone Star later marketed it as Treble-0- lectric, but I can't remember when it acquired the 'N' gauge description seen on my later stuff.

It started in the middle 60s when there were three mainstream German manufacturers, one or two (not sure when Rivarossi pitched in) Italian and the Europeans (nothing to do with EU or EEC so no politics) decided that as so many languages had the first letter 'n' in the word for nine - as in nine millimetres - that's what they'd standardise on ........ and the rest, as they say ............................

 

[ntpntpntp]

I do wish we'd not adopted this curious British railway modellers' hybrid scale ratio thing: 2mm=1', 7mm=1' etc. A ridiculous confusion of metric and imperial measurement systems! 1:152, 1:43 etc. is so much more logical .

Funnily enough, SWMBO teaches english and maths to adults who need a bit of a "top up", and she came and found me the other day because a student who's into model railways just happened to mention they couldn't work out how to calculate measurements needed to make models to match their existing trains in 7mm=1' (or whatever it was) . The hybrid unit mix just seems very odd to people outside the hobby. Of course she's perfectly capable of working out the true ratio but hadn't heard of scales being expressed in this way, so wanted to be sure she'd understood her student's questions correctly. I wrote out a chart of the common ratios we use, to give her some ammunition.

 

[Rhinochugger]

I do wish we'd not adopted this curious British railway modellers' hybrid scale ratio thing: 2mm=1', 7mm=1' etc. A ridiculous confusion of metric and imperial measurement systems! 1:152, 1:43 etc. is so much more logical .

Funnily enough, SWMBO teaches english and maths to adults who need a bit of a "top up", and she came and found me the other day because a student who's into model railways just happened to mention they couldn't work out how to calculate measurements needed to make models to match their existing trains in 7mm=1' (or whatever it was) . The hybrid unit mix just seems very odd to people outside the hobby. Of course she's perfectly capable of working out the true ratio but hadn't heard of scales being expressed in this way, so wanted to be sure she'd understood her student's questions correctly. I wrote out a chart of the common ratios we use, to give her some ammunition.

Yep, I can understand the ratio thing, but ratios don't always work for me, However, someone younger than I could well struggle with X mm : 1 ft, because they're not going to be able to deal with fractions of a foot which, if they're going back to original plans, are going to be stated in inches - and the concept of 12 inches making 1 foot is going to seem bizzarre.

 

[ge_rik]

Interesting...... My Peckforton Light Railway is a hypothetical three foot gauge railway which might have run in the Cheshire countryside. Most of my stock is either modified off the shelf stock (a bit like David's though not as accomplished), or scratch-bashed (ie scratch built bodies on commercial chassis). My stock is often inspired by the real thing rather than being exact scale models. I generally build 3' gauge models to 15mm / ft but sometimes they are constructed to 16mm scale to better match the donor chassis dimensions.

Part of the joy for me is figuring out what to make next and then how to construct it. So far I've drawn ideas from the IoM, the Southwold, the Ironstone Railways, the Davington Light Railway, the Schull & Skibbereen, the Clogher Valley and the Welshpool & Llanfair plus a fair few freelance might have beens.

Whether or not this is British G Scale, F Scale or SM45 is open to debate. It's probably a bit of each but to be honest, giving it a label is less important to me than creating something that I enjoy and sort of looks ok.

Rik

 

[dunnyrail]

Interesting...... My Peckforton Light Railway is a hypothetical three foot gauge railway which might have run in the Cheshire countryside. Most of my stock is either modified off the shelf stock (a bit like David's though not as accomplished), or scratch-bashed (ie scratch built bodies on commercial chassis). My stock is often inspired by the real thing rather than being exact scale models. I generally build 3' gauge models to 15mm / ft but sometimes they are constructed to 16mm scale to better match the donor chassis dimensions.

Part of the joy for me is figuring out what to make next and then how to construct it. So far I've drawn ideas from the IoM, the Southwold, the Ironstone Railways, the Davington Light Railway, the Schull & Skibbereen, the Clogher Valley and the Welshpool & Llanfair plus a fair few freelance might have beens.

Whether or not this is British G Scale, F Scale or SM45 is open to debate. It's probably a bit of each but to be honest, giving it a label is less important to me than creating something that I enjoy and sort of looks ok.

Rik

There is a saying that often is used in my world, ‘if it looks right it is right’.

 

[Flying15]

I do wish we'd not adopted this curious British railway modellers' hybrid scale ratio thing: 2mm=1', 7mm=1' etc. A ridiculous confusion of metric and imperial measurement systems! 1:152, 1:43 etc. is so much more logical .

Funnily enough, SWMBO teaches english and maths to adults who need a bit of a "top up", and she came and found me the other day because a student who's into model railways just happened to mention they couldn't work out how to calculate measurements needed to make models to match their existing trains in 7mm=1' (or whatever it was) . The hybrid unit mix just seems very odd to people outside the hobby. Of course she's perfectly capable of working out the true ratio but hadn't heard of scales being expressed in this way, so wanted to be sure she'd understood her student's questions correctly. I wrote out a chart of the common ratios we use, to give her some ammunition.

I don’t really understand the problem with using mm to the foot etc
I take plans in feet and inches and in say 4mm it’s 3” to the mm
In larger scales it seems to work for me having just built a couple of Romney Hythe inspired locos
15” gauge using gauge1/g scale track at 45mm width comes out at 3mm to the inch or 36mm to the foot
Ratio wise this is tricky . At three decimal places this is 1: 8.472
I used to work in a drawing office and we had scale rules for the ratios we used
In imperial measurement a convenient one for building plans was 1/48 or 1/4 inch to the foot
When we went metric we moved to 1/50 largely for general plans and 1/20 for detailing
Of course the scale rule meant conversion of measurement to full size was straight forward but imprecise unless dimensioned
Isn’t the issue that because we use 45mm gauge track for models of full sized locos of different gauges you end up sometimes with some very odd scales ratio wise if you want to be accurate gauge wise in your modelling

 

[The Tinker]

Isn't LGB = Lehman Garten Bahn? (forgive my ignorance).

LGB= Liquor Guns and Bacon

 

[idlemarvel]

We have had to make compromises on scale versus gauge ever since Hornby OO was invented! It has never bothered me.

 

[playmofire]

Two things to remember when it comes to working to scale.

1. If it's done exactly to scale, every dimension to scale, every angle of a curve to scale, the finished product will be to scale but it won't look right, as manufacturers have found out to their cost in the past

2. Even if you did 1 above, the thickness of the material for the body, glazing etc. would not be to scale.

 

[philg]

As others have pointed out above, the garden railway scene in the UK is dominated by 16mm scale/32mm gauge which well suits small British 2' gauge rolling stock in small British gardens. There is an absence of suitable (non-tramway) prototypes on 3', metre or 3'6" gauge in the British Isles. The glaring exception is of course the Irish 3' gauge lines which seem to have a very limited following in this size, surprising considering the abundance of very attractive prototypes and the extensive trade support for IoM railways. However, the British built many railways outside these shores, and a great number of these were narrow-gauge. This includes enormous metre-gauge networks in India, East Africa, Argentina and Brazil, and Cape gauge systems in Southern Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Even in Europe, there were substantial British owned narrow gauge operations - the Rio Tinto railway had a roster of 150 steam locos including two Garratts.
So there is a huge number of British prototypes suitable for G "scale" from the drawing offices of Beyer Peacock, North British, Vulcan Foundry and the rest, plus an amazing variety of rolling stock. As a bonus, 45mm gauge is spot on for 3'6" prototypes at 1:24 scale, so it's very easy to translate imperial measurements from drawing to model.

 

[dunnyrail]

Two things to remember when it comes to working to scale.

1. If it's done exactly to scale, every dimension to scale, every angle of a curve to scale, the finished product will be to scale but it won't look right, as manufacturers have found out to their cost in the past

2. Even if you did 1 above, the thickness of the material for the body, glazing etc. would not be to scale.

The other issue with dead scale working is the track, a real issue as anyone who has read much of the dabblings of P4 and S4 guys will know. Back to back minimal, flange depth minimal, flanges near non existant. To get things running they generally have to resort to compensation not just to locomotives but also wagons and coaches. Oh and let us not forget near scale radius points and curves as well. Compromise is one of the many advanteges of the our called G scale, we see it posted all the time. Long may that continue.

 

[stockers]

We have had to make compromises on scale versus gauge ever since Hornby OO was invented! It has never bothered me.

Yep, OO is a gauge not a scale. Ha Ha, that opens another can of worms.

 

[JimmyB]

Yep, OO is a gauge not a scale. Ha Ha, that opens another can of worms.

Yes but do worms have scales

 

[dunnyrail]

Yes but do worms have scales

Big ones and little ones?

 

[Rhinochugger]

LGB= Liquor Guns and Bacon

No - Lehmann Gross Bahn

Lehmann Big Train which, when it was first marketed was referred to as K Scale

 

[Rhinochugger]

Yep, OO is a gauge not a scale. Ha Ha, that opens another can of worms.

Yes, of late it has come to mean that - but when you and I were young and spritely, it was a scale that was frequently referred to as 00/H0. But now you'e got EM, 18.83, P4, S4 etc etc

Which actually makes G Scale look quite straightforward

 

[dunnyrail]

Yes, of late it has come to mean that - but when you and I were young and spritely, it was a scale that was frequently referred to as 00/H0. But now you'e got EM, 18.83, P4, S4 etc etc

Which actually makes G Scale look quite straightforward

Indeed I messed around with EM back in the 60’s. Sometime later there was an EEM though not sure what the Gauge was. EM was 18mm track gauge so just under a mm out.

 

[ebay mike]

Indeed I messed around with EM back in the 60’s. Sometime later there was an EEM though not sure what the Gauge was. EM was 18mm track gauge so just under a mm out.

From memory I think it was eighteen point eight mill Jon.