...
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.

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.

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.

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.

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????

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.

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.