What IS scale & what is NOT

The little MTL Pacific Electric caboose [ and most likely other new runs ]have the brake wheels on a shaft and it turns [so what] but the shaft protrudes & is flattened on the opposite side [much like a toy]. This is not scale! I'm going to shorten the shaft and glue it in.
What is the scale distance between two freight cars coupled together - American & European?
Are our trucks scale? What else is or is not?

We've all go into this hobby for all sorts of reasons, but absolute realism is not one of mine. The points raised and questions asked by Stojiny mean nothing to me. What I look for is approximate realism, much in the way that impressionist art is an approximation to photographic reality, as the artist sees it.

Having said all that I would never say that any model railroader, Stojiny or anyone else, is barking up the wrong tree.

Nor would I say barking up the wrong tree. Realism in Z scale is a very difficult area. The price of a boxcar, for example, would cost around $30 instead of $20 if we had brass boarding sturrups. I want them, you want them, but we really can't expect them from MTL or any other Z manufacturer. Couplers? Way out of scale. Many N scalers purchase our Z couplers for their cars. Only money can solve the problem once again. I don't have it and probably most of us don't either. So we must live with a non realistic distance between cars. I'm sure there are more examples, but it is important to realize that what we want and wish for may never come. Enjoy, the products we do have. Tending toward the side of rivet counting in Z is not time well spent in my opinion. Cheers, Jim CCRR:)

Well, for european distance, take 2 european cars and imagine them with the buffers flush against each other. In Z that would mean there is about 4mm (1m in 1:1) too much between the cars with Maerklin couplers.

In the vein of existing responses, there is realism and there is realism. I don't care a whit about the little printed writings on sides of passenger cars, for example, because they do nothing for the overall impression of a real train in miniature. When your train chugs by, does it give a glimpse of a real train, or is there something inherently toylike about it? This is why, for example, the chunky Marklin couplers don't bother me. At least they couple and uncouple reliably, making operation fun, and I don't notice them on a moving train. I am, instead, much more concerned about the lack of flywheels in marklin locos. I think they would move much more realistically with flywheels. The Snail Speed controller helps here. I also think the slinky action of micro-trains makes a poor impression and won't use them. So for me it is about the impression, not the detail.

andyjbj wrote:

I also think the slinky action of micro-trains makes a poor impression and won't use them. So for me it is about the impression, not the detail.

Andy,
You can get rid of "slinky" by putting a centering spring or coupler spring, (I forget which) between the axle hub and the journel box to create drag and thereby cause a MTL coupled train to roll without all the "slinky" action.

At least that is what I have been told, but have never tried it myself.

Truth in advertising,
Loren

I don't care a whit about the little printed writings on sides of passenger cars, for example, because they do nothing for the overall impression of a real train in miniature. When your train chugs by, does it give a glimpse of a real train, or is there something inherently toylike about it? This is why, for example, the chunky Marklin couplers don't bother me. At least they couple and uncouple reliably, making operation fun, and I don't notice them on a moving train.

I can follow your idea very well, but a car without any markings is noticable. I have been thinking about making some myself (master and castings) but I see no solution for the markings. And yes, I do notice them. You don't have to be able to read them, the impression at a normal distance is enough.

Likewise with the couplings. A rake of passenger cars with those huge gaps don't give the right impression. I'm not asking for real screw couplings, I don't mind the form of the standard couplers either but they should couple "a lot" closer.

But I disagree strongly that the couplers "couple and uncouple reliably, making operation fun". Coupling is OK-ish, uncoupling is a disaster. For me shunting is something that is essential to the operation of a railroad. But those unsightly uncouplers added to it that they never work makes this the downside of Z. Nothing worse than having to run 10 times over an uncoupler and then having to uncouple by hand. Z scale is not for operations. It is excellent for running lifelike sized trains through a landscape that is in proportion to the train.

Like religion and politics or beauty this particular subject is a matter of personal choice and discussing it is never going to lead anywhere
There are many things in Z I do not care for, but naming them is bound to upset somebody, few or many, so i prefer to keep my gob shut on the subject
So I will never criticise anybody's choice, but don't expect me to get enthusiastic about your particular pet either

MTL Slinky;

I run my last car on any train with AZL trucks and couplers, and this seams to take care of the slinky effect. Since the AZL's don't have that spring inside the coupler assembly, they dont do it as bad as the MTL's. But of course this dosn't help with uncoupling since the AZL's are static and don't couple on thier own..

Tony B...
Wasatch Z Club

zmon wrote:

MTL Slinky;

But of course this dosn't help with uncoupling since the AZL's are static and don't couple on thier own..

Tony B...
Wasatch Z Club

Tony, they will from here on out. AZL has released AutoLatch couplers. These new couplers couple on their own. They feature AZL's legendary strength. All new AZL products will be coming with the AutoLatch couplers. The new ACF 3-Bay hoppers are the first release with the new couplers.

Rob

FWIW, I feel that ALL model railroading, any scale, is a form of impressionistic art. The closer you look at it (thanks to macro photography) the less real is will appear unless you become master over the obstacle of fine detailing. The further back you are the lack of tiniest detail doesn't matter. Whether a brake wheel is molded on or is a brass accessory will affect your wallet more than your layout. If you are into macro photography of your dioramas (an admirable hobby in itself) then it is worth the extra bucks to have that detail made for you to modify or to have someone else do it. But I believe that major manufacturers have to tool their product to a limited detail to make said product affordable to the masses. Smaller manufacturers, such as BLMA, can then provide you the means to help bring your loco or rolling stock up to the more intricate details that you want. We want new stuff, we want it to look realistic, but we also want it affordable. In Z scale it is much more difficult to get the kind of detail that you can have on HO, but if you are modeling HO and you don't show the rivets then it will show up, macro or no macro. The naked eye sees more bad tooling in larger scales than in Z, I think. Take the challenge and modify your own stuff. For me, I think I will paint the diaphragms darker on my ARR smoothsides as well as the undercarriage, no big deal to do but better I do it than for all of us to pay for that extra step to be done during manufacturing. For everything we can do ourselves the more we save on production. And maybe that will allow manufactures to keep spitting out more items in more road names if they aren't stuck with rivet counting.

Karin

If Z scale is about counting rivits- forget about scratchbuilding for all those without lazers and computers!

Fred, agreed!

Hello Johan,
Havoc wrote:

Well, for european distance, take 2 european cars and imagine them with the buffers flush against each other. In Z that would mean there is about 4mm (1m in 1:1) too much between the cars with Maerklin couplers.

here we come to another detail about realism in modelrailroding at all. If you couple the european cars so close together that it is more real, then you will get problems in curves. First because the couplers are not moving in its tubes like the real thing (at least in Z, I don't know in bigger scales), and even more so because the radii of the tracks in modelrailroading are generally much much tighter then in real life, and thus making a bigger distance between the buffers necessary. If those 4mm are really needed is a different story, and last but not least we have the chance to build wider radii in the same area as those in a bigger scale in the same area.

Here are those who model in American railroads better of, since they don't have to think about this detail. Here the problems starts first when the corners of the cars meets in a curve...

First because the couplers are not moving in its tubes like the real thing (at least in Z, I don't know in bigger scales)

In larger scales the couplers bring the cars close together on the straight sections and space them further away in the curves. Well, the more recent (last 15 years?) types do so.

last but not least we have the chance to build wider radii in the same area as those in a bigger scale in the same area.

One the the bigger advantages of Z. But even if you go to "large" curves like 500mm radius that is still rather sharp compared to real life (it is only 110m radius which is even tight for an industry connection). But it is an improvement compared to prefab curves. You can also put the tracks closer together with larger when using a radius.

DEAR Z FOLKS,
MY QUESTION WAS JUST THAT-A QUESTION. I WASN'T SUGGESTING THAT WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS AND INSTALL WIRE OR CAST METAL DETAILS OR LOOK TO MANUFACTURERS TO DO SOMETHING MORE THAN WHAT THEY ARE GIVING US NOW. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS WONDERFUL. FOR MOST OF MY LIFE IN MODEL RR THE SIZE WAS DESCRIBED AS GAUGE AND THEN SOMEONE UNKNOWN TO ME DECIDED TO START CALLING IT SCALE WHICH IS FINE AND THAT IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.
IT IS VERY HARD AND NOW NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ATTAIN 'SCALE'. I JUST REALLY ENJOY Z WHATEVERNESS. WHEN I SIT ONLY A FEW FEET FROM MY LAYOUT, I SEE THE TRUCKS AS DARK BLOBS UNDER THE CARS.
SORRY, I DID NOT MEAN T CAUSE AN UPROAR.
BEST TO ALL. STOJINY

Hello Stojiny,
Stojiny wrote:

FOR MOST OF MY LIFE IN MODEL RR THE SIZE WAS DESCRIBED AS GAUGE AND THEN SOMEONE UNKNOWN TO ME DECIDED TO START CALLING IT SCALE WHICH IS FINE AND THAT IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.

as I've learned gauge is the distance between the two rails of a track. So if you say a track is meter gauge then the distanve between those rails of the track is 1 meter or 1000 mm. A standard gauge track has a distance of 1435 mm between the rails.

When talking about scale we mean the result of the calculation to get the gauge in the "real" world and in our modell world. In our case it is 1:220. So if we take the meter gauge we have a gauge of 1000 mm in the real world and in our model world we have a gauge of 1000 / 220 = 4.5 mm. Or for standard track we have a gauge of 1435 / 220 = 6.5 mm.

To add to the confusion-- The Big model trains- LGB - Aristocraft-MTH
etc bounce around 1:29 to 1:32. but use the same track. O gauge has 027, O, and super O and many have regular models and premier editions that vary in demensions.
During the American Civil war we had several distances between rails. Lincoln's funeral car was fitted to ride two.
Now here is something also interesting- There are several thread types for fire fighting nozzels and hoses. Had there been a fire in my ship the closest FD- a small town- could not interchange it's equipment with the city just accross the river. This duality is dangerous and not widely known. Just like communications often can not interact in emergencies. Now has the confusion been multiplexed??
Fred
PS- remember early N -- thier engines and cars varied in size to the actual prototypes.
Z is much more closer all around. though the track height is out of line.. etc.

FRED, IT MAY NOT ALL BE SCALE BUT IT ALL SURE IS FUN. I RAN BOTH STANDARD AND NARROW ON MY NUMBER 1 GAUGE LAYOUT. BY THE WAY, AND IF ANYONE KNOWS THIS, IT IS MOST LIKELY YOU---WHEN DID THEY START CALLING IT SCALE AND WHO DID IT. BEST, STOJINY