Jump to content

Differences between different manufactories


gscaleswe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, as Im in the pursuit of some streamliners for My MTH gg1 I have come across USA Trains and also Arisocraft (well known for the g scale community, but completely new to me)

Does anyone know of differences between them, beside scale(1:29 1:32) ? More details, other materials and so on. There is a significant prise difference between them and MTH.

//Henrik

Edit, spelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The USA streamliners are BIG & beautiful but too big for pulling behind say a MTH GG1. 1:29 scale is 10% bigger than 1:32 but it starts there. 10% longer wider & taller comes out to 30% bigger than 1:32 in volume. Why 1:29 scale?? It's a scale that the now defunct Aristo-Craft started. I think Raymond has some pictures posted on his website showing 1:29 scale USA passenger car behind a Accucraft 1:32 GS4 steam locomotive. Now there you go as I believe Accucraft is getting ready to make some 1:32 scale passenger cars in PRR livery??!! A lot of $$$ at MSRP of $300.00 each but I'm sure if you shop around can find them a bit cheaper?

 

http://www.accucraft.com/modelc/AC34-311.htm#page=page-6

 

Now the Aristo-Craft heavyweight passenger cars measure out to dang near 1:32 scale. And they're pretty nice as I've had numerous sets over the years. Some of the details are a bit crude such as the steps will lean one way and the doors lean the opposite but the PRR cars are in stock I believe. The older cars sold in the bluish grey boxes I'd stay away from as they had funky wheels and no holes to access the roof screws. The yellow box sets were a lot better. The now in stock sets should be the best yet with Led lighting :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

have U looked at the new MTH catalog? They are a great value. I don't see many used Pennsy ones around for sale. Guys grabbed them up back then. Maybe get some new Amtrak ones if it were me. Wait, I did order them but the store went under! Urrrggg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Henrik,

 

See this page for photos of the USA Trains 1:29 cars behind a 1:32 Accucraft GS4.  http://www.rayman4449.com/gardenrr_misc.htm   I took those photos behind a borrowed car to try and help me decide what I thought, in the end I felt they looked too large with the Accucraft engine.  With a GG1 I really do think they would look a bit too big and out of scale. 

 

The USA cars are all metal and look outstanding. The MTH cars are all plastic which is reflected in the lower price point. (Current street price of all new production MTH passenger cars is $150.00)  I guess it will depend on your budget but if you're only looking for streamliners then I would go with either the MTH or Accucraft cars.  If you are willing to consider the Aristo Heavyweights (assuming you can get them) they are a great car.  The Heavyweight is an all plastic car but is very nicely detailed (looks right), very solid and quite heavy, I love mine.  (My Challenger + Heavyweight set is one of my favorite sets.)  The nice thing to me about the Heavyweight is because of the scale it was made to it goes good with 1:32 or 1:29 scale engines. 

 

I own two sets of the MTH streamliner passenger cars (one set smooth side the other ribbed side) and am very pleased with them and what you get for the money.  I posted some high quality photos of the ATSF version of the MTH car at this link.  http://www.gscaletrainforum.com/index.php?/topic/287-mth-passenger-car-photos/   The photos give a good idea of how well detailed they are and are fairly light weight so easier to pull up grades.   Each car has one carbon brush power pickup assembly which does add to the rolling resistance.

 

MTH does not have PRR in this current catalog so may have to wait till the next catalog due out later this year.

 

To give an idea difference in scale:

 

USA car with 1:32 tender:

post-16-0-16581600-1405269901.jpg

 

MTH car with 1:32 engine and tender:

post-16-0-45321700-1405269957_thumb.jpg

 

post-16-0-95103000-1405269990_thumb.jpg

 

Do note that the American Freedom cars are smoothside not ribbed like the Santa Fe version in the prior link.  So MTH has two versions of the streamliner passenger car available.

 

Hope that helps some.

 

Raymond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Haha outside of an 0-8-0 steamer and ES44 diesel I'm not sure what else could be planned :)  (Can't be sure of these two items but based on everything I'm hearing that if steam is produced we will likely see that and if new diesel sounds like the ES44.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Now the Aristo-Craft heavyweight passenger cars measure out to dang near 1:32 scale.

 

 

No they dont..it has been well established that the Aristocraft heavyweights are firmly 1/29 scale in all dimensions.

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The scale of the Aristo Heavyweight was another one of those that was the subject of a protracted discussion from long ago.  Some were convinced it was 1:29th and pointed to particular details that supported it, others saying it was something in between 1:29 and 1:32 and pointing to supporting details.  In the end there were individuals on both sides not convinced of the others position.  I followed the discussion but didn't find it that important.  Whether or not the car scales to 1:29, 1:30 or whatever is irrelevant to me as if it looks good behind the engines I have that's all I care about.

 

For what is technically a 1:29 car, it makes for a good looking train with a 1:32 Challenger:

 

post-16-0-03500900-1405300307_thumb.jpg

 

I'm glad to know that at least some production will be available in the future because it was one of Aristo's better items.

 

Raymond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Thanks Joe I think so too.  I tell ya, that Challenger and heavyweight set was my first real complete G scale train and despite getting a lot of other engines and cars it's still my favorite. 

 

I've run the heck out of it:  (I guess that works out to about 400 actual miles its run pulling that set.)

 

post-16-0-66900600-1405303987_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The scale of the Aristo Heavyweight was another one of those that was the subject of a protracted discussion from long ago.  Some were convinced it was 1:29th and pointed to particular details that supported it, others saying it was something in between 1:29 and 1:32 and pointing to supporting details.  In the end there were individuals on both sides not convinced of the others position.  I followed the discussion but didn't find it that important.  Whether or not the car scales to 1:29, 1:30 or whatever is irrelevant to me as if it looks good behind the engines I have that's all I care about.

 

For what is technically a 1:29 car, it makes for a good looking train with a 1:32 Challenger:

 

attachicon.gifChallenger_07162005_1024_0477.JPG

 

I'm glad to know that at least some production will be available in the future because it was one of Aristo's better items.

 

Raymond

They do look good together!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Aristo streamliners are listed as 1/29, but I believe they are not correct to scale either.  If I'm not mistaken, I think they are shorter in length (not sure about other dimensions).  I don't own any (yet), but I wonder if they too, might look okay behind a 1/32 engine?  The newest version of the cars have been lowered a bit and LEDs with interior details added.  Scott Polk has Santa Fe's in stock and others appear on ebay all the time.  Just a thought.

 

 

-Kevin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not sure how the Aristo streamliners would look behind a 1:32 scale engine.  I know our local public display had at least one of the older cars but I never took the time to take any photos of it with engines.  From what I recall I think they might still appear a bit high.  If someone here has one maybe they can either photo or measure how high it is.  What engines you looking to run with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ray- I was just throwing out another possibility for Henrik.  Your photo of the Aristo heavyweights behind the 1/32 MTH Challenger made me think that maybe the Aristo streamliners were also under scaled  enough to work with a 1/32 engine.  Perhaps an MTH NY Central Hudson with some Aristo streamliners.  Not that I'm a NY Central fan or anything..... wink, wink, nudge, nudge..... 

 

 

-Kevin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • 1 year later...

Don't forget folks that US roads west of the Mississipi and Chicago had a clearance a good three feet higher than eastern roads. Now, I put a friends Aristo Craft heavyweights behind my MTH GG1 when I bought it and there was a good centemeeter (roughly one scale foot) on every side and two over the top. What may work behind a UP centipede tender may not behind an engine from an eastern road. I then had another friend who lent me his NYC J&M cars for a few weeks and that definitly did look a darn site better. So 1/32 scale is where you want to go behind MTH. I think the origin of 1/29th scale was due to two things: One the Polks wanted it to combine well with the then very popular LGB stuff which was narrow gauge running on gauge one track (1/20, 1/22 or 1/24th depending on the gauge of the prototype narrow gauge loco (2'6", 3' or Meter gauge). Plus to please the collector market it turns out to be the scale ratio for the old US tinplate  classic standard gauge. But it is all wrong. And as I observed elsewhere what is really weird is to see in the same consist typical Colorado 3 foot gauge cars mixed in a consist with standard gauge cars. I mean only thirty or so years ago we where talking of scale size rail, fine scale wheel profiles, and Q gauge in the modelers scales , what a downslide! Weird... Or is it  a sign of the rise and fall of an empire? I used to teach history of art so don't mind me, old fart.

 Enjoy yor trains though that's what its all about. But we can all try to improve things a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nice thing you can do for scale appearance is to use code 250 track, really make the trains look to scale, where the larger code 332 makes the trains look toy like, in my humble opinion.  I made that decision 25 years ago when I was comparing track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I absolutly agree Jerry. When I started my layout around 1978 there wasn't any question of modeling US prototype then in my mind (and even if it had I didn't have the money to do both). So as I was modeling French railways I tried to look for a scale rail to model the 50 KG per meter rail used here that computes up to around a hundred to a hundred and twenty pounds rail in US practice. I measured some on the real railway found that it was a little under  5 cm. high converted to gauge 1. It just so hapens that a large metal supply shop in Paris was producing since years a nice rail just that size in brass or nickel silver for coarse scale O gauge. I made my own track using that rail. later I bought a batch of French ready made gauge one track( made by a firm that doesn't exist any more called Cofermi), that used the same profile so I standardised on that rail. I made all my pointwork with that rail, also and double tracked my line. Then about five years later it appeared that this very nice French prototype track wasn't standing up to the UVs. So I bought some Tenmille track and replaced the outer main with that. It uses a slightly larger rail profile (Code 215) which ment that I had to make addaptors at every switch.

 

Around 2009 I bought my GG1 and started to get interested in earnest with the PRR. It used the biggest rail in america the famous 150 lbs rail. it turns out that this very heavy rail (I remmeber seeing it when I was studying in New York city in the early '70s) is somewhere between code 215 and code 250. Anything over that size is out of scale or as most G scale track, way out of scale. Now mind you, using small scale size rails has some inconveniences: It needs very good support, in my case I used concrete, because my track is ground level and we live in a very humid climate, but wood will do in drier climate. I find that the slight difference between code 200 my original rail and the code 215 tenmille rail is enough to make a huge difference in track rigidity and that the Tenmille doesnt follow every deformation in my roadbed structure (which is over 30 years old now...) Making for smoother track. So this is a point to consider; but code 332 and larger really just spoils the visual aspect of many garden lines for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Hi Jan: It is very good track indeed and if I was living  in the south I might try it outdoors, over here I would stick to my 10mm X 8mm ties as after about thirty years the rot goes through that in places. Also the price is enormous. What height rail do they use? They don't say on their site. In Germany there is a huge gauge one market for indoors and electric propulsion although there are a few stalwarts like my good friend Ulli Holtmann who do live steam. I wouldn't be surprised if it is due to the fact that on the whole German houses are wider than French. Many of our houses here are 5 meters wide and that's not enough for a nice curve in gauge one. But I am very happy that you gave us this adress for this track. I don't think I saw their stand at Sinsheim, the ones I saw (probably Hegob) used samba type wood for the ties.This is fine scale German prototype track OK for Belgium and Switzerland also. Ours used wood screws instead of bolts, a slight diference. However I might buy their tie plates as this would make my track more realistic, and perhaps their rail joiners too, much more correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hello, the track height is 4.6 mm.
S 49, 49kg / m
http://www.gleisbau-welt.de/site/material/schienen_schienenprofile.htm

An example of high-end track construction.
Unfortunately, not all available.

For outside I think is this better, stainless steel

http://www.proform-spur1.com/

or

http://www.spur1.at/

I have my tracks built many years ago, without Internet.
Beech wood and small screws for the profiles
No ribbed base plates, nothing, but it drives everything until today.
And not expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
  • Create New...