Talk:Rail transport modelling scales

Too much info
I think everything above the list should be split off into a separate article since this article is supposed to be a list, not about a list. Some of it can stay (certainly the bit about scales vs, gauges). Suggestion on where to put it? Back into Rail transport modelling or scale (rail transport modelling)? Cburnett 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article is pretty OK as is, but it could be renamed to just "Rail transport modelling scales" - that would take care of the problem. In fact, I did it already, the old name is now a redirect. What do you think? --Janke | Talk 06:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple enough solution that I'm disappointed I didn't think of it and do it. :) Cburnett 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Scale Table
I wonder if it would be better to split the scale table to several tables based on the issuing standardization body in the order of importance, like dedicated tables for NEM, NMRA, etc. etc.? After all, a scale with an identical designation is not always defined in the same way in different standards and grouping scales by standardization bodies would allow more space to provide such detail information. Z220info 08:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, you can use a subpage, for instance Rail transport modelling scales/temporary, do a proposal there, and we'll all have a look at it... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I added NEM table as the first one. Probably the order of importance is convenient. Obviously the same table structure is not suitable for all the standards covered. Z220info 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. However, since there are some scales and gauges that are not officially standardized, they have grown to be just de facto standards, I don't think we can replace the current table. But, your table would be a good addition, so I think you could work it into the article in some way. --Janke | Talk 20:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Even de-facto type standards can be grouped to some extent. I added a classification proposal in temp subpage, which is obviously far from being perfect, but should serve as a starting point for further classification of scales.Z220info 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks really good! Keep that up, and you can soon move it all to the main article! --Janke | Talk 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger?
There has been a merge tag on Gauge No. 2 for a long time. I don't feel competent to make the merger (it looks like it will fit better here than at the location proposed by the merger) so could someone who is competent eith perform the merge, or if it is not appropriate, remove the tag. Kcordina Talk 09:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

P4 gauge
This section in the list is unproportionally large. Please reduce, and move relevant info to the P4 article. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made the section more concise and moved the P4 Talk Page -- Zabdiel | Talk

Image deleted
The following image was removed from this and other articles because of errors: Image:Train scales vert.jpg‎. However, it would be good to create a new SVG image to replace it. All it needs is a public-domain silhouette shown in various sizes with text to indicate the relative scales.

When a replacement becomes available, the articles where the old one was used were as follows:
 * Category:Model railroad scales‎
 * List of scale model sizes‎
 * Scale model‎
 * Rail transport modelling‎
 * Rail transport modelling scales‎

Unfortunately the original uploader is no longer active. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A nice idea from Hebrew Wikipedia. Should we use it?
Eddau (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but put some clothes on the guy.

Missing Scales/Gauges?
I don't see 0-16.5 (UK) or 0n30 (US) mentioned. Also L scale (LEGO) is listed but not Brio scale (it's in the Hebrew list above). F scale (standard gauge in 1:20.3) is also missing although the ng version (Fn3) is mentioned. There may also be others - what about 000 for example (Lone Star treblolectric system)? - or are these covered by another description? Andywebby (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia and ex-USSR
Russia and ex-Soviet countries (including Finland and Mongolia) are not NEM members. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC) И что? Моделисты используют нормы NEM в своих моделях и макетах. К слову, типоразмер 0 у нас мало используется. В основном он использовалась раньше в клубах детского моделизма(пионеров =). Сейчас ещё остались макеты в высших учебных заведениях(профильных институтах и университетах) и некоторые моделисты делают стендовые модели. У нас исторически так сложилось, что моделисты не опираются на колею 1520, и на макетах она не воспроизводится в масштабе. Например H0(1:87) у нас также 16.5 мм, а не 17.5. — Зелёный Кошак 10:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (GoogleTrans) So what? Russian modelers use NEM rules in their models and layouts. By the way, size 0 we have little use. Basically, it has been used before in the clubs child modelling (the Pioneers =). Now there are still models in higher education (specialized colleges and universities), and some modelers make the bench model. We have historically that modelers do not rely on the track 1520, and the layout is not reproduced to scale it gauge. For example H0 (1:87), we also 16.5 mm, not 17.5.

Scale ratio
T scale: 1:480 ZZ scale: 1:300 Z scale: 1:220 K scale: 1:180 N scale: 1:160 000 scale: 1:152 Japanese 000 scale: 1:150 TT130 scale: 1:130 TT scale: 1:120 TT3 scale: 1:102 H0 scale: 1:87 EM scale (metric 00 scale): 1:80 P4 scale (imperial 00 scale): 1:76 S scale: 1:64 P48 scale: 1;48 0 scale: 1:45 S7 scale: 1:43.5 L scale: 1:38 Ru1 scale (Russian 1 scale): 1:34 1 scale: 1:32 H scale (Russian 2 scale): 1:24 2 scale: 1:22.5 Protptype 1435mm (standard gauge): T: 3mm ZZ: 4.8mm Z: 6.5mm K: 8mm N: 9mm 000: 9.42mm TT: 12mm TT3: 14.2mm H0: 16.5mm EM: 18.2mm P4: 18.83mm S: 22.5mm P48: 29.9mm 0: 32mm S7: 33mm L: 38mm 1: 45mm 2: 64mm Prototype 1520(1524)mm: Zb5: 7mm Kb5: 9mm TT130b5: 12mm TTb5: 13mm TT3b5: 15mm H0b5: 18.2mm EMb5: 19.05mm Sb5: 24mm P48b5: 32mm 0b5: 34mm S7b5: 35mm Ru1b5: 45mm 1b5: 48mm Hb5: 64mm Prototype 1676mm (Indian gauge): Zb5.5: 8mm Nb5.5: 10.5mm TT130b5.5: 13mm TTb5.5: 14.2mm TT3b5.5: 16.5mm H0b5.5: 19.4mm Sb5.5: 26.4mm P48b5.5: 35mm 0b5.5: 38mm S7b5.5: 38.5mm Ru1b5.5: 50mm 1b5.5: 52.8mm
 * 1) 93 scale: 1:93
 * 1) 93b5 : 16.5mm
 * 1) 93b5.5 : 18.2mm

58.138.55.55 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref for this loose-idiotic-info. In Russia there is no "b5" sizes, and is no Ru1. Here: Железнодорожный моделизм all described. Зелёный Кошак  16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * b5 and b5.5 are proposed. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where? Which countries? Ref. Зелёный Кошак  11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "EM scale (metric 00 scale): 1:80" What are you talking about it?! It's 1:76.2 to be strictly correct. There's no such thing as mectric or imperial 00 scale - trust me, I've modelled using both 00 and P4. The scale is 4mm:1ft so is both imperial and metric. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication?
Why does the Model railway scales page exist at the same time?  maxrspct  ping me  17:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling in image
Image en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_scale_4-4-0.JPG has a misspelling. "Life steam" should be "Live steam". -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.71.137 (talk • contribs) 25 aug 2013 18:05‎ (UTC)

Why is the human scale guy naked?
Does having his penis there help anyone out? Maybe some people can only measure things in the size of a cartoon penis? Benamation (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wish for new column
I would like to see another column in this table, showing something about popularity. Maybe an estimate of sales in dollars per year. As a beginning hobbyist, I'd like to avoid some minority scale that would be hard to find cars, track, etc. And I think this would be a significant datum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Prototype?
What are the "prototypes" that are mentioned so much? Why would you model a prototype, and not the actual railway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.136.99 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of model railways, the prototype is the real thing that you are making a model of. So it is the "actual railway". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Linear Motor scales Nano/Teeny
Looks like there are some new(ish) commercial offerings where linear motor drive is used instead of physical wheel-to-track to enable smaller scales. Ranges are listed from 1:655 to 1:1000. There's a couple different companies making them, seems like the scale should be mentioned in the article. Example 1, and Example 2. -Furicorn (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
Request received to merge articles: List of rail transport modelling scale standards into Rail transport modelling scales; dated: July 2024. Proposer's Rationale: We don't need a separate article for scale standards. Either it contains masses of detail that's almost certainly going to be considered irrelevant, or it just duplicates the existing list of scales. We can just note that a specific scale is part of a standard in the regular list. It's not like List of rail transport modelling scale standards is actually a list of scale standards anyway, people have turned it into a list of scales regardless of whether or not they're part of a standard.

Discuss here. Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support merge; it does appear there is a lot of overlap. -- Beland (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)