Thanks for your input Gary. It's always nice to hear from a
manufacturer as to the attendant problems. I agree with the notion that
there aren't very many Gauge 3 modelers. I didn't even know that some
folks wanted to do 1:20 Std. gauge.
The bell just went ding in my head as I analyzed your comparisons. To
restate them let me use this analogy. HO uses 1:87 as a scale and both
std. gauge & narrow gauge models are built to 1:87 scale. The track is
also built to 1:87 scale for std. gauge and narrow gauge. A huge
market.
Likewise if you wanted 45 mm track for narrow gauge then 72 mm would be
correct for 1:20 std. gauge. (I rounded off the figures) So who has
1:20 engines and rolling stock even already? :>) Not me.
And Ted Sharpe's solution of making gauge 1/O track solves the problem
if you are willing to build 1:32 narrow gauge trains that run on O gauge
track leaving the gauge one (outside rails) to run 1:32 std. gauge
trains.
Many more folks build 1:32 narrow gauge trains that run on gauge O track
than those who build 1:20 std. gauge trains that run on track yet to be
manufactured.
And all I wanted was a good looking 1:32 caboose. :>)
Clark
Gary Broeder wrote:
> The big problem here is if one were to make a gauge 1/3 tie strip, the gauge 1 would
>be correct for 1:20 NG
> models but gauge 3 is not correct for 1:20 Std. gauge models and you would be
>ignoring all (all?) of the
> modelers who want to do 1:20 Std. gauge. So the other possibility would be to do a
>gauge 1 tie strip with a
> correct 1.783 gauge for the 1:20 Std. gauge. The problem here is that you ignore all
>of the gauge 3 modelers
> (all? I don't really know how many there are)
>
> I have looked into this as well and have been in discussion with reps from both
>groups. The final conclusion
> was that there was not enough interest nor commitment to purchase to make the
>project worthwhile. There is
> only one correct thing to do and that would be to go with the 1:20 dual gauge. We
>did the cad drawings for
> such a project about 2 years ago! GaryB
>
>
