1.5" scale vs 2.5" scale - which do you like and why?

[Jawn]

(Re: 2.5" scale)

Generally the equipment is more ergonomically-friendly to the operator

What I really like about 2.5" is also like Dan, the size of the cab. I think they are much easier to run than the 1.5"/1.6" because you can get your hands in there easier.

I chose a 2-1/2" scale locomotive because it is far more simple to build than a 1-1/2" model of comparable size and weight. I can build an 0-4-0 instead of a 4-6-2, for example - less wheels, simple suspension etc.

There's some of the appeal of it - larger cab/controls, wider cars for more comfortable rider-cars, and potentially simpler engines. Plus, if I ever feel ambitious enough to attempt a scratchbuild (not from casting kit/plans), I'd seriously consider a ET&WNC narrow gauge ten-wheeler.

I do like the narrow gage, but things like trucks, couplers, detail parts, etc... are more expensive and there is less stuff available. That being said, more stuff seems to become available fairly frequently, so things are catching up. One of the Main things to me, my trailer will handle, on the floor level, a medium size locomotive and tender, and about 7 freight cars in 1 1/2" scale. I could probably only get about 1 locomotive, the tender, and about 4 cars in 2 1/2" scale. Also, I can re-rail a 1 1/2" scale car by myself really easily.

This sums up my narrow-gauge concerns pretty well... expensive parts, when parts are available.

My main advice would be to pick a scale and then stick with it.

That's kind of the point to this thread. I would like to pick a single scale, but will I get frustrated with the limitations of one particular scale? I like the apparent availability of 1.5" scale equipment, but the larger equipment appeals to me too... if I take up 2.5" scale, maybe someday I'll build a narrow gauge ET&WNC 12 (4-6-0) or similar.

I have 1", 1.5" and 2.5" scales. I prefer the smaller because it is far easier to move around and I can fit more equipment into my truck. The smaller sized feel more like modeling to me, but some guys love the feeling of working on a flu-size loco so they go bigger. As I get older, I like being able to move my stuff around easier with the smaller stuff. AS I get older, I appreciate the more comfortable ride of the larger.

As you can see, there is no one perfect scale, just what tradeoffs you prefer over the others to make the size that's right for you.

I'm trying to resist the urge to go multi-scale. But I do like there's more stuff available for 1.5" scale. More "entry level" type kits.

[aopagary]

... Ideally, I would like to do Narrow Gauge in 1.5 scale running on 4.75 gauge track. The right size for a 4-6-0 or 2-8-0 engine, and somehow the 4.75 track LOOKS more like Narrow Gauge. ...

and when you do the math, the over-gauge error of 1:8 scale standard gauge equipment on 7.5" gauge track would be nearly equal to that of 1:8 scale narrow gauge models running on 4.75" gauge... 6.2% and 5.6% respectively. to me the perception of seeing the same scale used for both narrow gauge and standard gauge would certainly be more visually attractive than different scales running on the same gauge.

[jcbrock]

I'm trying to resist the urge to go multi-scale. But I do like there's more stuff available for 1.5" scale. More "entry level" type kits.

Don't even fight it, just tell yourself some day down the road, if you get to the point you want to do a project in another scale you will. For now, choose one. The important thing is to jump in and get started, and a 1.5" scale starter project of some kind is a great way to do it. You'll learn a lot, your ideas of what you like and don't like will firm up, and the resale value of 1.5" scale entry-level equipment is good if the equipment is well-done and you decide you don't want to keep it.

[steamin10]

My vote is 2.5. Easy to ride, and easy to convert larger do-dads to the real feel scale. Yep, pretty much need a trailer for more equipment, But thats me. Thanks.

[AusDan]

2.5" on 7.25 gauge is very popular in Australia, especially for high traffic public hauling..
But it comes with some fairly decent axle loadings, which is'nt too much of a bother as predominantly everyone runs steel rail over here.
It seems to me that aluminum is very popular in the US, how would the heavy 2.5" go with that?

[FLSTEAM]

It seems to me that aluminum is very popular in the US, how would the heavy 2.5" go with that?

The Shay in working order is 250lbs. per axle or 125lbs. per wheel. Not close to being a problem.

John B.

[steamin10]

IIRC 400lbs per axle is the described limit for 1 inch nominal aluminum rail here. Is that true?

[RCW]

Jawn:

Here's the easy to decide between 1.5" scale and 2.5" scale.

Find a hard bench. Place a yardstick on the bench. Sit on it. Measure the width of you butt. Then measure a 1.5" scale tender and a 2.5" tender.

Most of us have broad-gauge butts, which fit much better on 2.5" tenders.

Bob

P.S. The ET&WNC Ten-Wheeler sounds like a great choice! There's plenty of information on it, and if necessary you can go to the Tweetsie park and measure. [The folks are really cooperative there.] Eastern narrow gauge deserves more attention. There were far more of them that folks imagine.

I am NOT convinced that narrow-gauge is significantly more expensive, nor that it is harder to move. Both are "hernia gauges." Don't even think about man-handling either of them.

By the way, I've enjoyed your posts in the past, as well.

RCW

[Jawn]

Jawn:

Here's the easy to decide between 1.5" scale and 2.5" scale.

Find a hard bench. Place a yardstick on the bench. Sit on it. Measure the width of you butt. Then measure a 1.5" scale tender and a 2.5" tender.

Most of us have broad-gauge butts, which fit much better on 2.5" tenders.

Bob

Yeah, I resemble that remark.

P.S. The ET&WNC Ten-Wheeler sounds like a great choice! There's plenty of information on it, and if necessary you can go to the Tweetsie park and measure. [The folks are really cooperative there.] Eastern narrow gauge deserves more attention. There were far more of them that folks imagine.

I've ridden the deckplate of #12... somewhere I have a few photos. If I go that route, I'll have to see about making another trip up there. That's definitely not an "anytime soon" kind of project... start small, I think. Something like that may be a serious ordeal, given that there's no casting kit / drawing set to work from.

Anyone have pics of the Ridgway Roundhouse 0-4-0T? Might be a simpler first locomotive? I also like the narrow gauge shay at http://ngshay.com/ . There's a local builder on the forum here, haven't seen one in person though. But the pics on the website look good.

I am NOT convinced that narrow-gauge is significantly more expensive, nor that it is harder to move. Both are "hernia gauges." Don't even think about man-handling either of them.

Yeah, given the weights listed for various steamers... not light!

By the way, I've enjoyed your posts in the past, as well.

RCW

Thanks!

[Marty_Knox]

I have a 3/4" scale locomotive, 1" scale riding cars, one running 1 1/2" scale locomotive and three under construction, one running 2 1/2" locomotive and one I'm rebuilding. I just had three lowside gondolas built, they are roughly 2" scale so I can use them with both 1 1/2" and 2 1/2" scale locomotives. I just sold the 3 3/4" scale locomotive project I had. I find 2 1/2" scale easier to work in.

[Cary Stewart]

The rule for axle loading at LALSM is, if I recall, 425lbs per axle. This was determined decades ago when we were running on extruded Aluminum rail on Wood ties. The ties were at first cut to scale size later we just used 2x4s cut to length and set vertically. The limit came from calculations done by Gary Kubciek in the early/mid 1960s. It is still our limit as far as I know. However, we now run on steel rail with ZAMAC tie plates on re cycled plastic 2x4 ties set vertically. We have had some very big heavy engines run in the last few years and don't seem to have a problem with them. The limit could probably be recalculated. Oh, if memory serves. the wheel size used was a 7" car truck size. The larger the wheel diameter the higher the axle load can be. One interesting thing about the Aluminum rail that came out of the calculations was the standing wave effect. The early rail was what ever was available at the time. The Disney Loop was created from Walt's rail from his home when he tore his RR out. Later we purchased consistent quality rail from Railroad Supply. It was 6061, T3 ( I think). It did work harden to some extent. One problem we had was a couple of visiting engineers brought engines with wheels that had square flanges and no taper on the tread. After a short while someone noticed that the inside rails were getting shaved. We had to ask the owners to remove their locos from the track. They were asked to return after they had re machined the wheels or replaced them with wheels to LALS or IBLS standards. If those fellows were to run on our steel rail now I suspect that the flanges would get machined as he ran. Maybe at least on cast iron.
Cary

[Cary Stewart]

I have seen 1.5" scale geared locos with two sets of trucks. One for 7 1/2-7 1/4" and the other for 4 3/4" gages. Something of a chore to change them out but it works.
Cary