Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline AtlanticMan  
#1 Posted : 03 May 2020 15:12:41(UTC)
AtlanticMan

United States   
Joined: 07/02/2017(UTC)
Posts: 17
Location: New Jersey
My Märklin Krokodil runs fine on my layout with M-track under the M-track catenary. My layout though is somewhat incongruous with North American (Walthers, Plasticville, City Classics, Small Town, DPM) structures, and in the European section I have used Faller, Kibri, and Vollmer buildings. I have noticed that there is a wide variation in the scaling of HO buildings, especially when next to each other or with HO scale trucks and autos. That is, Walthers and Vollmer appear under scale while Faller buildings appear too big. I do not see this as a major issue, but has anybody else noticed this?
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by AtlanticMan
Offline JohnjeanB  
#2 Posted : 03 May 2020 15:54:34(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 897
Location: Paris, France
Hi
You may have 2 extremes in the modeling scale: A 3015 crocodile loco is more or less 1/76 while many older Faller buildings were with 1/100 scale
Typical express Märklin cars were 24 cm when then should have been 30 cm.
So yes, in traditional European modeling in the 1950 - 1990 period there were huge "impasses" made on scale (look further at Faller AMS vehicles and EHEIM/BRAWA trolleys).
But it was so much fun that only "connoisseurs" / experienced and purist modelers were shocked.
Cheers
Jean
My lay-out videos
latest vid
humping yard
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by JohnjeanB
Offline RayF  
#3 Posted : 04 May 2020 14:58:38(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,691
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Most compromises on scale are for a reason. Coaches that are full scale length sometimes look unrealistic on the typical sharp curves used on small model railways.

As for buildings, true to scale large buildings like churches, factories etc would take up a large amount of real estate on any model railway, so they are often made to a smaller scale so that they can be used by the average modeller.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by RayF
Offline H0  
#4 Posted : 04 May 2020 16:15:11(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 13,718
Location: DE-NW
In the last century several buildings were marked as suitable for H0 gauge and N gauge. They were too small for the former and too large for the latter, but opened a bigger market for the manufacturer.

Having full-scale buildings close to the viewer and shrunken buildings farther away can add to the perception of perspective.
Having models of different scales side by side, especially close to the viewer, can look quite odd.

I think that 270 mm coaches look as unrealistic on tight curves as 303 mm coaches (but that's a matter of taste and we can only agree to disagree). The latter will additionally have problems with tunnel portals, signals and catenary masts and bridges.

The marking "H0" on boxes does not mean much as the contents can be somewhere between 1:80 and 1:110 or even smaller, especially for older moulds.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline ocram63_uk  
#5 Posted : 04 May 2020 16:15:21(UTC)
ocram63_uk

United Kingdom   
Joined: 07/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 336
Location: England, Suffolk
the question though is 'who wanted rivet count perfection' ?
was it the consumer or was it the industry ?
Myself, I really don't care.
I have, only, 4 roco exact lenght coaches, and they look weird on my layout.
I have, only, 4 Marklin 'compressed' coaches, at least I think so, and they look fine.
I have a mix of old Marklin freight cars and recent Fleischmann / Marklin, they all look nice.

Perfection perfection and then what ? The hobby dies.

Am I off topic ?
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by ocram63_uk
Offline H0  
#6 Posted : 04 May 2020 16:37:02(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 13,718
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: ocram63_uk Go to Quoted Post
was it the consumer or was it the industry ?
The industry decides what they manufacture.
Even Märklin offered uncompressed coaches (303 mm, 292 mm, and several other lengths).

Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline river6109  
#7 Posted : 05 May 2020 01:42:24(UTC)
river6109

Australia   
Joined: 22/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 13,038
Location: On 1965 Märklin Boulevard just around from Roco Square
One building comes to mind, its a high rise hotel/apartment block (Faller) and the other, a car park, the carpark (Vollmer) is as tall as the hotel, but not anymore we've taken both out of the layout.

John
https://www.youtube.com/river6109
https://www.youtube.com/6109river
5 years in Destruction mode
50 years in Repairing mode
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by river6109
Offline kiwiAlan  
#8 Posted : 05 May 2020 05:53:12(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 5,088
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: river6109 Go to Quoted Post
One building comes to mind, its a high rise hotel/apartment block (Faller) and the other, a car park, the carpark (Vollmer) is as tall as the hotel, but not anymore we've taken both out of the layout.

John


I am minded of the model of Dresden cathedral that Pola was going to manufacture to help raise funds for the restoration. I believe the prototype of the model was shown at Nurnberg Toy Fair (1996 or 1997?) but it never went into production as Pola went broke. Faller in due course bought up Pola.

I remember working out that the model was about a meter cube when assembled. I don't know how many parts the kits had.

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kiwiAlan
Offline rugauger  
#9 Posted : 17 May 2020 10:03:02(UTC)
rugauger

United Kingdom   
Joined: 19/12/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,192
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
It's a tricky one. There are variances even within the range of a single manufacturer sometimes. I read somewhere that sometimes they make their station buildings larger than, say houses, based on the assumption that typical layouts will feature the station near the front and other buildings further back.

Generally (not always) I find that older kits from Faller and Vollmer tend to be nearer 1:100. Even some of their current range can be that size if it reuses old designs. I have a background row of buildings that has some quite old Faller ones alongside a new house from the Auhagen HO/TT range, and it's a good match.

By extreme contrast, I recently bought the "Stadthäuser Schmidtstraße 21/23" kit from Auhagen. The 4-storey house, whilst no doubt correct to 1:87, looked so out of place, even at the front of the layout, that it ended up in the spare parts box. Even the 3-storey house was too tall; I eventually reduced the wall heights by cutting some off at the top and bottom, and it now looks OK.

So it all requires a bit of experimentation. When buying buildings, I make sure I know the dimensions of the finished article and then compare those to the buildings that I intend to place next to it. Not just the overall height, but also taking into account the number of storeys, sizes of doors and windows, etc. As mentioned elsewhere, you can also use these differences to your advantage and create a false sense of depth if buildings at or closer to 1:87 are near the front of the layout whilst those closer to 1:100 are further back.

Here's a picture of my (as yet unfinished) town.


The 3-storey houses at the front are more or less the same height as the ones around the town square, yet they are a different scale to the 4/5 storey ones.

Scale will always be a compromise, especially on home layouts. Not many of us can accommodate 12-14 coach passenger trains and the like, and the platform lengths shrink accordingly. The same goes for curve radii, turnout angles; the list goes on. For me it's coming up with something that looks consistent and "plausible" overall whilst remembering the limitations that we all have to work with.
Richard
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by rugauger
Offline AtlanticMan  
#10 Posted : 19 May 2020 23:19:48(UTC)
AtlanticMan

United States   
Joined: 07/02/2017(UTC)
Posts: 17
Location: New Jersey
Thank you to everyone for your replies. This has been an interesting and useful discussion. It just struck me how noticeable the differences can be especially when eg a 1:100 building is next to a 1:76 building even though they both are nominally "HO". In model railroads there has to be a degree of compression in layouts, rolling stock, and scenery.
Offline mrmarklin  
#11 Posted : 20 May 2020 00:07:35(UTC)
mrmarklin

United States   
Joined: 27/10/2004(UTC)
Posts: 816
Location: Burney, CA
Originally Posted by: AtlanticMan Go to Quoted Post
Thank you to everyone for your replies. This has been an interesting and useful discussion. It just struck me how noticeable the differences can be especially when eg a 1:100 building is next to a 1:76 building even though they both are nominally "HO". In model railroads there has to be a degree of compression in layouts, rolling stock, and scenery.


"Realistically" ha ha, scale buildings have always been a problem for model railroads, because the real prototype is just too large for 99.99% of us, even on a very large layout. The old Model Railroader axiom has been "build tall and small" to achieve something realistic in a relatively small footprint. I doubt there is any consistent scaling even from the same manufacturer of these models. I think the designers make a decision on what "looks" correct. for each item.Cool
From the People's Republik of Kalifornia
Offline DaleSchultz  
#12 Posted : 20 May 2020 01:46:52(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,361
I also try to use smaller trees towards the back of the layout.

The distance between my track distance markers are at 1:100s.

I have used smaller people and trees inn my big valley to blend into the depth of the valley also.
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline Gregor  
#13 Posted : 20 May 2020 15:45:55(UTC)
Gregor

Netherlands   
Joined: 17/04/2003(UTC)
Posts: 937
Location: Netherlands
I experienced the difference in scaling between Faller and Vollmer as well...

UserPostedImage

Vollmer being on the petite side and the Faller car system vehicles tend to be a bit bulky.

Gregor

thanks 4 users liked this useful post by Gregor
Offline Martti Mäntylä  
#14 Posted : 23 May 2020 18:14:54(UTC)
Martti Mäntylä

Finland   
Joined: 15/11/2018(UTC)
Posts: 143
Location: Uusimaa, Helsinki
One of my nicer trains is the American goods train consisting of 4571, 4572, 4573, 2 x 4575 and 4570 cars pulled by the 3060 / 4060 combo. I have it running on my tracks as I type this message.

Next to my other goods trains made of 60's cars these cars nevertheless look largish. Are they made in 1:87 scale?
- Martti M.
Era III analog & digital (Rocrail, CAN Digital Bahn, Gleisbox/MS2, K83/K84), C & M tracks, some Spur 1
Offline Dimi194  
#15 Posted : 24 May 2020 06:59:17(UTC)
Dimi194

Australia   
Joined: 21/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 349
Location: South Coast, NSW
Originally Posted by: Gregor Go to Quoted Post
I experienced the difference in scaling between Faller and Vollmer as well...

UserPostedImage

Vollmer being on the petite side and the Faller car system vehicles tend to be a bit bulky.

Gregor



LOL LOL LOL
Author of the gritty sci-fi novel 'Stories of Earth: WWIII' (featuring an awesome train chase)
Avid YouTuber (XtremeTrainz and TrainzXtreme) and train person!
Offline Alsterstreek  
#16 Posted : 25 May 2020 00:39:32(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 4,768
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: Martti Mäntylä Go to Quoted Post
One of my nicer trains is the American goods train consisting of 4571, 4572, 4573, 2 x 4575 and 4570 cars pulled by the 3060 / 4060 combo. I have it running on my tracks as I type this message.

Next to my other goods trains made of 60's cars these cars nevertheless look largish. Are they made in 1:87 scale?
During the 1960s there used to be a large array of US freight car dimensions regarding height and length. 457x series box cars are replicating a correct scale length for 50 ft (I reckon that wheel diameters are slightly too large though). However, most prototype US box cars produced before that period and still widely (if not predominantly) in use then only measured 40 ft in length. For me it is an irony that these longer 50 ft cars were at scale length (against the trend of condensing models), and that they were modelled at all, instead of replicating space saving 40 ft box cars (which only happened in the zinc pest-haunted plastic body era). Anyway, the 457x series box cars are at 1/87 length. By the way, the 3060/4060 F7 locos are also quite close to reality. The trucks are a little bit too large, but besides they are quite well done for 1960s molds, and close to the prototype dimensions.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2020, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.670 seconds.