#### Re: Early 1900's Wood Freight Cars

Bob Webber <rswebber@...>

"G" gauge is, for 4'8.5" correct for 1/32.
It is correct for 3' at 1:20.3 (or Fn3)
It is correct for meter gauge at 1:22.5 (which is why LGB uses it).
It is correct for 2' in (I think it is) 1:16 (this may be off as I haven't dabbled - others have though, but then they end up relaying the track anyway typically)

All other scales have some sort of compromise. Although, 'O" scale does too.

There ARE some nice 50's cars in various scales, USA makes some, Aristocraft makes some. Accucraft makes VERY nice RTR cars in both 1/32 and 1:20.3. The ones in 1:20.3 are steam era.

At 04:49 PM 4/27/2004, you wrote:
John Degnan &#92;(RailScaler&#92;wrote:

Paul,

I have been through this very same discussion with quite a few
folks in the past about G scale... Therefore, I determined that 1/32
scale (which is actually I scale (as in "eye") (also called Gauge 1)
is the best way to go if you gotta have large trains,...

*********************************************************************
Response;

John,

Thanks for the idea. Sounds like a viable avenue. I had a large-
scale tank car when I was about 5 years old. It was metal. (1950's)
It might have been 1/32 scale. I've always woundered what happened
to it.

But, this has now got me curious to do some calculations. What is
the railhead spacing of commercial G track? I've only dabbled with
Bachmann G, but seemingly other G manufacturers are using the same
gauge yet with different scales?

I am many miles from the nearest hobby shop and do not have any G
track in my possession. (My son took it back.)

The interior rail-gauge computed to 4' 8-1/2" would tell something,
or even computed to 3'-0" for narrow-gauge. (Of course there would
be a definite scale difference between standard & narrow-gauge
computations.)

The reason for my questioning this, has to do with available
locomotives and trucks. Scratch-building freight-cars in ANY scale
is no-problem. But you gotta have an engine and wheels too. Those
are both a little more "effort-consuming".

Thanks, Paul Hillman