1/72 Scale Narrow Gauge Modeling

[hminky]

Found this idea on the net but was written up in Kalmbach's "Model Railroad Planning 2018". The issue featured Doug Tagsold's Colorado & Southern. The premise is using HO gauge equipment to represent 1/72 scale narrow gauge.

http://smallmr.com/wordpress/doug-t...rn-narrowgauge-modelrailroad-modelrail-train/

Liking out-of-the-box thinking this is my take on the idea:

http://www.chainsawjunction.com/172n4/

Thank you if you Visit

Harold

 

[hminky]

Got my copy of "Model Railroad Planning 2018" and Doug Tagsold's Colorado & Southern is a really great layout. Scale1/72 gives inexpensive almost ready-to-run narrow gauge.

The Roundhouse/MDC/Athearn equipment looks really great.

Went into the seventh level of my ungodly abyss of a train room and extracted some Roundhouse cars:

What more can I ask narrow gauge 4-4-0's and C-class 2-8-0's? Cheap, available narrow gauge in a large enough small scale to permit viable layout building.

Thanks Doug for bringing this brilliant idea to light. Can smell layout building.

We have a scale to download:

http://www.chainsawjunction.com/172n4/172scale.pdf

Thanks if you visit the website.

http://www.chainsawjunction.com/172n4/

Harold

 

[NP2626]

Harold, you have really run away with this idea! I'm glad I maybe triggered a reaction from someone with my Post from back in January 2018. from January 17th, 2018 there had been 14 posts in that thread, until Wednesday the 3rd of October when you picked up on it. It only takes one person to get excited about something and the enthusiasm can get viral!

 

[hminky]

Almost had this idea back in 2007 but was going for OO scale/4mm on HO track or 4'-1" gauge but the mechanicals weren't right. Never thought of 1/72, d-oh! It was right there in front of me, those are 1/72 figures.

Was trying to do standard gauge in the 1870's using OO scale on HO track.

That picture made me realize narrow gauge was better option. Nothing measured out right and I couldn't put sound in the locomotives. Tried doing the scheme as Sn3.5 but that didn't measure out either so I went back to On30 for a while.

Tried a revival in Sn3.5 but am not into building rolling stock once you have built two of something the rest is drudgery.

http://www.chainsawjunction.com/sn3_5/

Doug's idea is inexpensive and easy to do. As far as the track on a layout the track just blends into the overall scheme. My On30 layout used Atlas Code 100 track and no one new what the tracks origin was.

To me everything looks like narrow gauge.

Got 40 downloads on the scale. When I did 55n3 the scale download was my gauge of interest.

Harold

 

[hminky]

Doug Tagsold's Colorado & Southern

Great idea

Harold

 

[hminky]

Harold, you have really run away with this idea! I'm glad I maybe triggered a reaction from someone with my Post from back in January 2018. from January 17th, 2018 there had been 14 posts in that thread, until Wednesday the 3rd of October when you picked up on it. It only takes one person to get excited about something and the enthusiasm can get viral!

Thanks for bringing the topic up, but there are always naysayers.

Am always amazed by someone on forums that makes statements about my endeavors and obviously hasn't read all the posts or visited the website.

Seems some people just want to jump their post count.

Oh, well
Harold

 

[hminky]

Our work-in-progress beta Mantua early boxcar conversion, $11 toy train box car to 24 foot 1880's narrow gauge boxcar buildable in an evening.

Finally, affordable and easy 1880's narrow gauge. Wooden cars and iron men!

Harold

 

[NP2626]

Am always amazed by someone on forums that makes statements about my endeavors and obviously hasn't read all the posts or visited the website.

Seems some people just want to jump their post count.

Oh, well
Harold

Harold, It's possible (un-thinkingly) that I have been guilty of picking apart others ideas. I don't specifically remember doing so; but, I am after all, one of a few Curmudgeons here on the ModelRailroadFoum and work hard at maintaining my membership in this elite club! And, I have also been the brunt of other model railroaders, who have poo-pooed my ideas. I also wonder why people take the time to post such myopic view points? I can't say that I am able to shed their "put downs" any easier than you can. However, I also like thinking outside the box, like you and would rather maintain great discussions with folks like you than worry about the Dissenters! The final bearing on this is; I'm having fun as are you and we need to remember to just put the "Know it Alls" blather aside and continue on!

 

[hminky]

There are two guys out there who went ballistic at the idea of 55n3 in 2010.

Now they are suggesting 55n3 as a better idea than 1/72, go figure.

It is not the criticism that bother me. The fact that they don't read the article or all the posts is what bothers me.

At least don't be stupid. Had a long thread explaining how this T-trak aligner worked with a guy.

I just thought he couldn't comprehend that there is a right and left as explained in the article.

He then posts "I haven't read the article". That guy is a darling on his forum so I was put down as the bad guy by the forums minions.

I am having fun, always figured the naysayers will never have fun.

Harold

 

[NP2626]

Their fun is in putting others down!

Where is it, that I might be able to read what these people might have to say? You could PM me.

 

[hminky]

Got old Joe Fugate riled up on the Model Railroad Hobbyist forum.

So this is pseudo-NG modeling if I understand correctly. HO gauge track is a scale 10” too wide for three foot gauge in 1/72 scale, but we’re just going to look the other way, right?

Tough talk from a guy who has a "pseudo free" online magazine.

Can never understand why people who could care less always complain.

Harold

 

[hminky]

Now back to our happy place.

We need moguls for early narrow gauge.

The Roundhouse Mogul has two versions the more common high wheeler and a scarcer low driver version which has a 1/72 43" drivers. They mechanically match early narrow gauge moguls .

The boiler is easily lowered and smaller drivers applied. The cab is the right size.

Harold

 

[hminky]

Cleaning up my train room I ran across this Bachmann HO ten-wheeler.

Looked Tweetsie, having a plan already in my bin I printed out a 1/72 scale drawing.

Yep, with a little bit of work we can be in the blue ridges with room to have real mountains.

Harold

 

[hminky]

Bigger 1/72 cabs are required to remove the HO look. That is a cab I built for making the Roundhouse HOn3 locomotive Sn2. Learning a 3d CAD modeling program and have the cab printed out probably would take less time.

Harold

 

[hminky]

The question is "Why not S Scale?". Then we lose our C-16, our 1880s 4-4-0, our one evening 1870s box and no evening 1880's box. The HO equipment doesn't translate to S Scale. Can live with the gauge to have that equipment.

Been there done that in S Scale narrow gauge. S is really limited in equipment. The available HO equipment to rebuild to S is shaky. The Tyco ten-wheeler hasn't held up well over time. S scale is very expensive. Just using the equipment on HO track as Sn3.5 doesn't change anything.

Just sayin'
Harold

 

[NP2626]

Harold, having my druthers, I would model in Sn3, I have built one PBL Sn3 stock car and it turned out very nice. My problem is I am so firmly entrenched in HO that I just can't justify tearing down what I have, to get into Sn3. I also believe that for myself, the term "Sn3" explains the size and gauge as adequately as I feel is needed.

 

[hminky]

Back to the fun!

The Tichy HO ore car would make a great coal "jimmy". Can be had for $5 a piece on the street.

Always wanted to find a use for these great little cars.

Harold

 

[Iron Horseman]

Just posting to let you know I am reading / watching the thread. Just don't have much input.

 

[hminky]

Just posting to let you know I am reading / watching the thread. Just don't have much input.

Thanks, really don't expect any input.

"Objects aren't "N, HO...S, O, etc. SCALE". An object is what it measures."

Wanting a engine crew for my 4-4-0 I found some Bachmann Branchline OO Scale figures from the UK.

Things are sometimes better than what the box says. The second guy from the right is our new OO scale Bachmann Branchline figure. The guys on his right and left are Preiser 1/72. The guy on the far left is a Langley Victorian OO.

Sometimes you need little wins in life
Harold

 

[autocoach]

Thanks, really don't expect any input.

"Objects aren't "N, HO...S, O, etc. SCALE". An object is what it measures."

Wanting a engine crew for my 4-4-0 I found some Bachmann Branchline OO Scale figures from the UK.

Things are sometimes better than what the box says. The second guy from the right is our new OO scale Bachmann Branchline figure. The guys on his right and left are Preiser 1/72. The guy on the far left is a Langley Victorian OO.

Sometimes you need little wins in life
Harold

Wouldn't those be British OO "scale" or 1/76 4mm to the foot models. If you want more 1/72 start looking at the military modeling sites where this is a common scale.