login   |    register
Site Talk
Site announcements, comments, or feedback about the site.
"Military Scale" for Railroad Models?
G-man69
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: October 17, 2017
KitMaker: 588 posts
Armorama: 577 posts
Posted: Monday, November 11, 2019 - 09:26 PM UTC
Hi all,

I am wanting to create a diorama which will incorporate a small element of railway track and a level crossing set in the British countryside of the 1940s...you can find the early stages under the post entitled 'Which comes first...'.

I addressed my question regarding the dimensions level crossing gates to 'RailRoadModelling' and was pointed in the direction of a site called RMweb by a helpful person using the nom de plume 'Southpier'.

The lead given to me by 'Southpier' proved very useful, the guys over at RMweb were very helpful regarding the crossing details. However, they did raise some points about the track type that I was intending to use, which has tempered somewhat my original thoughts.

I had intended to use the Miniart European Gauge railway track but found out that the track chairs, and indeed the rail itself, were completely wrong for a British line. However, someone suggested Gauge 1, it's 10mm/ft or 1:32 scale, so pretty close to your 1:35. As my intention was just to have the track and no rolling stock, it's likely that this is the route I'll take.

I have attached below the link to my posts in RMweb for you to peruse at your leisure.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/147787-ww2-era-railway-crossings/

I also contacted Miniart, asking if they might have plans for a British style track and below is their response:

Hello,
Thank you for contacting us.

Thank you for interest in our product!
We are always glad to receive interesting wishes and suggestions.
It helps us to choose future projects and better understand the needs of Modelers.

For us is important to stay in contact with Modelers.
Have a nice day!

Best regards,
Ben Mirson.
Customer Service MiniArt
www.miniart-models.com
art@miniart-models.com


MiniArt Models Ltd.
144 B Kharkivske Highway 02091 Kiev Ukraine
Tel.: +38-044-337-18-15

So no real joy there, .

I hope you find the information contained in the above useful.

Cheers, ,

G
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 - 05:15 AM UTC
My hope is one day soon to possibly have a US built locomotive to mix in with all this German built model plastic coming out of China. Somthing like the Lend-Lease S-160 2-8-0 built by all the major US locomotive manufactures for wartime (and post war) export throughout the world.



Or possibly even a nice little US built 0-6-0 Porter.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 - 05:25 AM UTC
And then there is the USATC rolling stock sent overseas to augment supply operations in war torn Europe.





165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 - 07:50 AM UTC
Sorry those two previous "I want" posts were off topic.
nikon1
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 619 posts
Armorama: 602 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 - 08:57 AM UTC
Michael, one thing I can tell you is the freight cars ride on 33 in wheels with friction bearing while the passenger cars ride on 36 in ch wheels with roller bearings. The easiest way to differentiate is to look at the caps on the trucks where axels attach t ok the trucks.
Cheers
Charlie
Removed by original poster on 11/13/19 - 06:24:00 (GMT).
southpier
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: December 11, 2009
KitMaker: 536 posts
Armorama: 312 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 12:05 AM UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWla__n-_sA
SpeedyJ
Visit this Community
Bangkok, Thailand / ไทย
Joined: September 17, 2013
KitMaker: 1,429 posts
Armorama: 1,045 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 01:53 AM UTC
Yeah that's a cool link. 1:1 scratch building of railroads.

Robert Jan
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 02:46 AM UTC
In a couple of places in the film they were even using pre-fab sectional track in the same way modern railroads sometimes do to get a line quickly back up and running after an accident.
vettejack
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,128 posts
Armorama: 1,105 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 03:38 AM UTC
A couple of decades ago, there was no such thing as 1/35 train stuff. Today, we have enough to keep us busy for quite some time. Chill...and give the manufacturers time to catch up and release more 1/35 rail kits that will appear in due time. Once the trend significantly catches on, the rest will take care of itself. That's MHO and 2 cents.
Chillidragon
Joined: September 20, 2012
KitMaker: 102 posts
Armorama: 68 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 08:02 AM UTC
I'm content with 1/76 for both, myself. If I were interested in a gauge to suit 1/35, though, I woud advocate a finescale approach - i.e. all parameters as close to actual scale as possible, analogous to P4 or S7.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 08:40 AM UTC
Hard to find book but a great WWI railroading reference:

.
JamesL27
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 02, 2013
KitMaker: 185 posts
Armorama: 182 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 08:47 AM UTC
I don't think standardization is necessary for 1/35, all our stuff is static. Worst case is a track and loco/railcar from two separate manufacturers doesn't fit. Which can be fixed by some scratching, or prevented by some researching beforehand.

Mike, there could be a way to encourage manufacturers to make the models you want. A couple years ago I bought a Polish language book on Russian armored trains of WWII, included where 1/35 plans of the PL-37 railcar. Trumpeter released a model of that railcar in the same scale, which was odd as they have no other soviet armored trains in their catalog, plus there's no kit of a locomotive to even pull it. My thinking is that the $30 spent on the book was cheaper then doing/outsourcing the research, so they took the plans and ran with it. So if you make detailed 1/35 scale plans of kits you're into... just maybe some company would pick it up. Very indirect, with no guarantee of success, but it's something.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 11:50 AM UTC
James - I can only say that I hope your opinion as expressed here is in the minority.


Charles - Your remark about identifying the different types of journal bearings does not seem to relate to anything being talked about anywhere in this thread.
southpier
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: December 11, 2009
KitMaker: 536 posts
Armorama: 312 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 01:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

...
Charles - Your remark about identifying the different types of journal bearings does not seem to relate to anything being talked about anywhere in this thread.



I think it's a perfect example of prototypical authenticity.
SpeedyJ
Visit this Community
Bangkok, Thailand / ไทย
Joined: September 17, 2013
KitMaker: 1,429 posts
Armorama: 1,045 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 03:03 PM UTC
Begin of Quote
I'm content with 1/76 for both, myself. If I were interested in a gauge to suit 1/35, though, I woud advocate a finescale approach - i.e. all parameters as close to actual scale as possible, analogous to P4 or S7.
End of Quote

What I want to add to this, is that a timescale approach would come in handy as well.
Let us start with an 'interest group' here on Kitmaker or Armorama. Maybe it should get started on the Railroad Modeling Forum, which seems very logical to me.
More to figure out and I might just give it a go over the next weeks. I'll let you all know what my intentions are in this thread.
More to come...

Kind regards,

Robert Jan
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,420 posts
Armorama: 13,530 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 04:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I don't think standardization is necessary for 1/35, all our stuff is static. Worst case is a track and loco/railcar from two separate manufacturers doesn't fit. Which can be fixed by some scratching, or prevented by some researching beforehand.



James - I can only say that I hope your opinion as expressed here is in the minority.



I agree with James here and believe he is in the majority. Most 1/35 builders don't want an operational train and will make the slight differences between manufacturers work. I see no need for another model train scale when we have 1/35 pieces available already in 1/35.
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 09:50 AM UTC
Gino I am sorry you feel that way. I hope you know I completely respect your opinions. However I disagree with this one.

Growing up in the early days of the NMRA standards just coming into play I will hold to the opinion that having some standards in a scale/gauge is much preferable to having no standards at all.

In my mind the aspect of static vs. operating doesn't even enter into the question.

My hope is strictly for modeling accuracy and uniformity between the popular hobby manufactures and nothing more. Are we going to be happy in the future with a diorama where we have a loco gauged for G spaced track appearing to work with rolling stock that is intended for "scale" trackage on the same dio, or on the same track? Will we be happy in just trying to place a couple of bushes strategically along the track to hid the mixed gauge difference? And if we happen to be into doing competitions will the judges be happy with that?

Personally I am dealing with the exact problem described above at this very moment. It is proving to be a bit of a bear dealing with having to regauge the locomotive. (It would be more acceptable if I needed to gauge it wider but unfortunately scale track in 1/35th is narrower than G gauge.)

This particular hobby manufacturer chose to build his kit to 1/35th scale but to G track gauge width. (Perhaps not the wisest choice and I have communicated as much to him.) I would really rather be spending my time modeling rather than doing what should be the unnecessary work of regauging the engine and tender.

Why not just use G gauge track? Well I hope we can all agree G type track is in no way "scale" in 1/35th. Not in gauge, not in rail or sleeper height and not in rail cross section.

And that is why (IMHO) having some standards might be a good thing.

nikon1
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 619 posts
Armorama: 602 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 01:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Gino I am sorry you feel that way. I hope you know I completely respect your opinions. However I disagree with this one.

Growing up in the early days of the NMRA standards just coming into play I will hold to the opinion that having some standards in a scale/gauge is much preferable to having no standards at all.

In my mind the aspect of static vs. operating doesn't even enter into the question.

My hope is strictly for modeling accuracy and uniformity between the popular hobby manufactures and nothing more. Are we going to be happy in the future with a diorama where we have a loco gauged for G spaced track appearing to work with rolling stock that is intended for "scale" trackage on the same dio, or on the same track? Will we be happy in just trying to place a couple of bushes strategically along the track to hid the mixed gauge difference? And if we happen to be into doing competitions will the judges be happy with that?

Personally I am dealing with the exact problem described above at this very moment. It is proving to be a bit of a bear dealing with having to regauge the locomotive. (It would be more acceptable if I needed to gauge it wider but unfortunately scale track in 1/35th is narrower than G gauge.)

This particular hobby manufacturer chose to build his kit to 1/35th scale but to G track gauge width. (Perhaps not the wisest choice and I have communicated as much to him.) I would really rather be spending my time modeling rather than doing what should be the unnecessary work of regauging the engine and tender.

Why not just use G gauge track? Well I hope we can all agree G type track is in no way "scale" in 1/35th. Not in gauge, not in rail or sleeper height and not in rail cross section.

And that is why (IMHO) having some standards might be a good thing.




Michael, I agree with the standardization and not just with the train portion but with other aspects of our hobby. FYI, I calculated the gauge for 1/35 track and it comes out to approximately 1.71 inches or 41mm. This is based upon the standard quake of 4'8 1/2".
Cheers
Charlie
165thspc
#0
Visit this Community
Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,152 posts
Armorama: 8,394 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 02:06 PM UTC
Thank you Charlie - excellent observation!

I wish I had thought to make those computations.

My read on Trumpeter track as seen here works out to 41.5mm inside edge of rail head to inside edge of rail head.



WRONG - I read the Sabre track as having a gauge of 43mm. (That's more than a bit off if you ask me.) WRONG - Please read ahead to the next page

Additionally; the Sabre rail appears to be of a much lighter weight (smaller) code rail. As a relative example if we say the Trumpeter rail represents Code 100 rail then the Sabre would calculate out to be around Code 80 or even Code 75 rail. Also the Trumpeter sleepers are about 25% wider (measured parallel to the rail) than the Sabre.

Personally, while both style tracks would look correct and acceptable standing on their own, when displayed side by side the best you could say is that one looks like mainline trackage while the other would be said to be proper for branchline service. However even on branchline track would not the sleepers be the same size? In the US the branchline sleepers might be spaced further apart for lighter loading but they would be of the same basic dimensions????
KoSprueOne
Visit this Community
Myanmar
Joined: March 05, 2004
KitMaker: 3,934 posts
Armorama: 1,460 posts
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 - 03:21 PM UTC

Quoted Text

CALLSIGN: JPTRR

KoSprueOne, et. al,

We are talking about nice static models of railroad subjects in the scale 1/35 receiving a model railroad nomenclature letter code for 1/35 of "M", or any other letter that has not been used yet. No intent to animate 1/35 railroad subject.

Military modeling is predominately 1/35. The gist of the question that inspired my inquiry to NMRA was 'if 1/87 is HO scale, and 1/48 (1/43.5 and/or 1/45 in much of Europe) are O scale (etc.), is there a designation for 1/35?'

It is irrelevant what track gauge a modeler models in 1/35 because any gauge will be scaled to 1/35. It is irrelevant if a modeler is modeling standard gauge, broad gauge, narrow gauge, industrial gauge, etc. The 4'8.5" standard gauge/60" broad gauge/meter gauge track and rolling stock will still be scaled to 1/35.




Ok, then yeah designate a 1/35 railroad scale. I see no bad can come out of it




nikon1
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 619 posts
Armorama: 602 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 - 04:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Thank you Charlie - excellent observation!

I wish I had thought to make those computations.

My read on Trumpeter track as seen here works out to 41.5mm inside edge of rail head to inside edge of rail head.



F.Y.I. - I read the Sabre track as having a gauge of 43mm. (That's more than a bit off if you ask me.)

Additionally; the Sabre rail appears to be of a much lighter weight (smaller) code rail. As a relative example if we say the Trumpeter rail represents Code 100 rail then the Sabre would calculate out to be around Code 80 or even Code 75 rail. Also the Trumpeter sleepers are about 25% wider (measured parallel to the rail) than the Sabre.

Personally, while both style tracks would look correct and acceptable standing on their own, when displayed side by side the best you could say is that one looks like mainline trackage while the other would be said to be proper for branchline service. However even on branchline track would not the sleepers be the same size? In the US the branchline sleepers might be spaced further apart for lighter loading but they would be of the same basic dimensions????



Michael, me thinks the Sabre track is representative of Soviet track which is 5 foot gauge
Cheers
Charlie
Removed by original poster on 11/17/19 - 16:40:18 (GMT).
nikon1
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: April 11, 2005
KitMaker: 619 posts
Armorama: 602 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 - 05:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

No, Charlie, I don't think so. I am measuring the display track that was included with my copy of the brand new Sabre SSyms 6-axle German plattformwagen. However I do see your point in that 5 foot gauge should work out to 43.54mm in I/35th scale.

Perhaps Sabre is trying to come up with a "Universal" tank that will work for both standard gauge AND wide gauge???

These questions make me feel that, all the more we need some standards applied here.



Michael, that's a good point. If Sabre is in fact attempting to create a standard for the track, hopefully others will follow suit. This would have a better benefit
Cheers
Charlie
alanJackson
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 16, 2019
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 - 06:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi Group,
Creating a standard gauge will be hard since Soviet and German track widths were different and
We 1/35 modelers are slowly but steadily enjoying more and more railway models being produced.

Sometime before last July there was at least one thread concerning, or asking about, whether there is a model railroad scale designation for the predominant military scale of 1/35, i.e., "HO scale" for 1/87, "OO scale" for 1/76 (often co-opting 1/87), "O scale" for 1/48, "S scale" for 1/64, etc. (More information about those scale - and others - can be found here: Model Train Scale and Gauge )

I wrote to the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) asking if there was one, or if they were planning one. NMRA is involved in bringing standardization to model railroading throughout the world. Acceptance of NMRA conformance is a significant selling point for model railroad manufacturers.

Tonight I heard from Carl Smeigh, their Manager of Manager of Standards & Conformance. His reply follows;
Quoted Text

You are correct that there is no military 1/35 scale. As you pointed out the NMRA has in the past lumped scales 1:20 to 1:35 as “large scale” but there is little data. In the active years of developing standards for model railroading, these large scales were all but unheard of. Those years,1935 to the 1960’s, many people spent a lot of time developing standards with the state purpose that the standards were to ensure a model in a given scale would run on anyone’s layout, known as interoperability. Wheels, trucks, track gage, track size, coupler height were all evaluated. Manufacturers were deeply involved in the development and acceptance of these standards. That leads us up to the modern era.

In your email you asked if the NMRA would be willing to create an M scale for 1/35 scale? The answer to that question is yes, but it comes with some significant work. Those working in that scale would need to develop a study group and present proposed standards. Using the existing standards in the popular scales, you can see what is needed. I have to mention that it’s not a case of just picking some numbers and going with them, in the past technical papers were written that provide justification for the numbers. The second part is conversation with the manufacturers of trains in that scale and getting their buy in. The standard is worthless if the they mandate changes that the manufacturers will not use.

Having said all of the above, if you find there is the energy in a group that models in this scale, to take it on, the NMRA is more than willing to listen and consider adding the 1/35 scale to the standards. Please make sure those note rested understand the level of involvement though and again manufacturers involvement would be needed as it affects them the most.



So, have we any interest in creating a 1/35 "military scale" for the model railroading world/creating a model railroad scale for 1/35 (however you want to look at it)? Does it matter? Might it make any difference in encouraging more 1/35 railroadia?

Just wondering.