Talk:Rail transport modelling scales

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Simple enough solution that I'm disappointed I didn't think of it and do it. :) Cburnett 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much info

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Scale Table 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image deleted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Scales/Gauges? 

message: Russia and ex-Soviet countries (including Finland and Mongolia) are not NEM members.
121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (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. B.V. Barkovskov, K. Prochazka, L.N. Ragozin. Model Railways), ; page 221(this book - a "bible"-handbook for Russian modellers, =) unfortunately, the only one) —Зелёный Кошак 10:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia and ex-USSR 

message: 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
#93 scale: 1:93
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
#93b5: 16.5mm
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
#93b5.5: 18.2mm
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
58.138.55.55 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: b5 and b5.5 are proposed. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Where? Which countries? Ref. Зелёный Кошак 11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  Scale ratio 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the human scale guy naked? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wish for new column 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Prototype?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linear Motor scales Nano/Teeny