Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I recently bought some Lyddle End buildings for the first time. I have now placed them on my layout. I think they look great, except for the fact that they look 'too small' compared with my existing Metcalfe buildings.

Are Metcalfe buildings to a slightly larger scale than Lyddle End or am I imagining things? If I'm right, which of the two is the more accurate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I am not sure about Lyddle End but I bought some Metcalfe cottages a while back intending to use them as half relief behind a row of Kestrel buildings but had to scrap the idea for the same reason. They were noticeably bigger than the Kestrel houses. As to which is correct re scale I would not like to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
Most brickwork is about 4 courses per foot in height, including the mortar between the bricks. So if you count the number of courses over, say 10ft height of a building (or measure the height of 40 courses), this will give you a check on the scale. I'm an 00 man myself, so I've only handled Skaledale and 4mm Metcalfe buildings, so I cannot comment on the apparent difference.

Regards,
John Webb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts

Metcalfe wins the sit-back-and-look-at-it test

At John Webb's suggestion - for which I am truly grateful - I counted the courses on a number of Lyddle End and Metcalfe buildings, but I got totally lost with my maths. (I failed it dismally at O-level.) Then my wife hung out of our second-floor flat window with a tape measure. She says 4 courses = 24 cm high = 9.448818897637794 inches, which is nowhere near a foot. But we live in Holland, perhaps we have smaller bricks here.

Then I decided to park a couple of trains in a makeshift Lyddle End station and just sit back and look at the scene.

I conclude that Lyddle End just looks too small. Metcalfe seems so much better, particularly alongside my P. & D. Marsh NER footbridge. I also think Lyddle End stuff is shoddily made. When you first take them out of the box they look rather quaint, and you go ''Aww, ain't it gorgeous!'', but when you put them on your layout you see that windows and doors are seldom perpendicular.

What to do with all those Lyddle End buildings I recently spent a small fortune on? E-bay I suppose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
Yes, I think there may be differences between British bricks and Dutch ones for such a large difference.

I've a couple of Skaldale buildings - they seem quite straight and upright, but admittedly they are small ones.

Regards,
John Webb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
If you have a look I think that you will find that Metcalfe buildings are also bigger than Ratio or Peco. I have to admit that personally I am not that fond of them anyway. For some reason or other I just cannot get away with building them and of course they cannot be kit bashed or mixed with other makes as readily as plastic models can. I am currently awaiting delivery of both Pola and Piko kits of industrial buildings, it will be interesting to see how these compare in size with Kestrel etc.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
Building accuracy in N depends on the protot6ype you are modelling - 2mm scale, EU/US N and UK N are all quite different scales as far as rolling stock/loco's are concerned. (2mm = 1:152, EU/US N = 1:160, UK N = 1:144 - as you can see that is considerably larger (1:144 is 11% bigger than 1:160)

Usually size wise (in 4mm scale anyway) the Metcalfe buildings are pretty accurate, so I suspect that Metcalfe are correctly using UK N scale or 2mm vs other brands possibly using 1:160.

Piko and Pola/Vollmer/Faller etc are of course all built to European N (or HO), so they will undoubtedly look smaller than Metcalfe if they create to British N scale....

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
QUOTE (John Webb @ 27 Oct 2007, 18:46) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes, I think there may be differences between British bricks and Dutch ones for such a large difference.
There are also difference between modern bricks (much more standardised) and the ones that a historic building is made from, so counting bricks on a modern building for comparison is not neccessarily helpful.

Andrew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Having just compared a Kestrel terraced house wall with a Metcalfe cottage wall I found that they were both almost identical in height and the bricks and courses were pretty much the same size and spacing.

The difference between the two though is that the Kestrel is about a scale twelve feet wide whereas the Metcalfe is about twenty feet wide when built. This results in the Metcalfe having a higher roof line and also a much bigger look about it. A bit further investigation showed that the Kestrel crossing keepers cottage scales out around twenty two feet wide which would be about right from looking at similar full size buildings that are dotted around this area. The other Kestrel buildings that I have albeit in various degrees originality also are about right in width. So I think that the problem was in my not comparing like with like.

Just out of interest I had another go at the remains of a couple of Metcalfe buildings last night and good kits though they may be unlike Asterix I just cannot get the hang of making them. So I think that I will stick with plastic kits which to me seem to be much easier to build even if you do have to paint them afterwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
QUOTE (ahammond @ 30 Oct 2007, 06:29) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Having just compared a Kestrel terraced house wall with a Metcalfe cottage wall I found that they were both almost identical in height and the bricks and courses were pretty much the same size and spacing.

The difference between the two though is that the Kestrel is about a scale twelve feet wide whereas the Metcalfe is about twenty feet wide when built. This results in the Metcalfe having a higher roof line and also a much bigger look about it. A bit further investigation showed that the Kestrel crossing keepers cottage scales out around twenty two feet wide which would be about right from looking at similar full size buildings that are dotted around this area. The other Kestrel buildings that I have albeit in various degrees originality also are about right in width. So I think that the problem was in my not comparing like with like.

Just out of interest I had another go at the remains of a couple of Metcalfe buildings last night and good kits though they may be unlike Asterix I just cannot get the hang of making them. So I think that I will stick with plastic kits which to me seem to be much easier to build even if you do have to paint them afterwards.

Instead of throwing out perfectly good models why not try placing the larger buildings at the rear of the layout and the smaller ones towards the front,
In reality no two buidings are the same size except in a row as in Coro street , but even there over the years modifations do relieve the sameness. Even in more modern developments the are differences. I scratch build mostly and most buildings are different sizes but that does not mean different scales
regards Tony ( 10001)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
To be perfectly honest I just do not like card kits. For some reason or other I just find that building them is fiddly and I get no real pleasure or satisfaction out of it. I had tried other makes of card kits before I bought the Metcalfe cottages. They all ended up reduced to spares as well. It is just a personal thing but I find it easier and more fun to build and hack plastic kits to suit what I want than build card kits. Having said that the pavement pack that Metcalfe do is an excellent bit of gear. Far better in N gauge than when I used it in 00 even if half of the packet is filled with blank card.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 28 Oct 2007, 07:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Building accuracy in N depends on the protot6ype you are modelling - 2mm scale, EU/US N and UK N are all quite different scales as far as rolling stock/loco's are concerned. (2mm = 1:152, EU/US N = 1:160, UK N = 1:144 - as you can see that is considerably larger (1:144 is 11% bigger than 1:160)

Not quite right - British N gauge is a scale ratio of 1:148 not 1:144 - that is a model aeroplane scale and out of interest Japanese N gauge is 1:150.

G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
QUOTE (Asterix @ 27 Oct 2007, 12:10) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'll try counting courses then!

Counting brick courses in N gauge is not really recommended or very helpful for you. It would have to assume that each course was accurate to N gauge scale ratio whereas you're interested in the overall height of the building. Any slight inaccuracy in brick size will simply be multiplied by the numner of courses;- amplifying the error.

G.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
[quote name='Grahame HHC' date='30 Oct 2007, 21:20' post='38265']
Not quite right - British N gauge is a scale ratio of 1:148 not 1:144 - that is a model aeroplane scale and out of interest Japanese N gauge is 1:150.

G.

**Always happy to stand corrected - The principal is the same though - various national prototypes in differing scales.. (Sorry for the error - the web reference I used was at 1:144 and modelling in 4mm scale I didn't see the mistake):

While we are being pedantic, gauge and scales aren't interchangeable terms... Japanese/UK/EU/US N *gauge* is 9mm: Its the "Scales" that vary

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 30 Oct 2007, 13:41) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>While we are being pedantic, gauge and scales aren't interchangeable terms... Japanese/UK/EU/US N *gauge* is 9mm: Its the "Scales" that vary

Yep, you're right that scale and gauge aren't interchangeable but as the 'N' in 'N gauge' stands for 'nine mm' it means that 'N gauge' is okay as a stand alone description and that "N gauge is 9mm" is really tautology. Plus it's commonly acceptable to add the scale/ratio before or after 'N gauge' to help confirm both the gauge and the scale and thus the country; as in 'the scale/ratio in Japanese N gauge is 1:150'. Strangely in America they say/use 'N scale' which is more incorrect as 9mm is not the scale.


G.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
[quote name='Grahame HHC' date='31 Oct 2007, 02:02' post='38283']
Yep, you're right that scale and gauge aren't interchangeable but as the 'N' in 'N gauge' stands for 'nine mm' it means that 'N gauge' is okay as a stand alone description and that "N gauge is 9mm" is really tautology. Plus it's commonly acceptable to add the scale/ratio before or after 'N gauge' to help confirm both the gauge and the scale and thus the country; as in 'the scale/ratio in Japanese N gauge is 1:150'. Strangely in America they say/use 'N scale' which is more incorrect as 9mm is not the scale.


G.

***
N gauge really does stand alone I agree.

Its amazing how diverse this whole thing really is.... and how most of the significant abberations came from UK modelling! I often have a smile at the comments re model accuracy given the "way off scale" nature of track gauges for UK N, UK OO and UK O scales. (not to mention the atrocuiosly big wheel flanges in N and EU HO Scale)

As to the "interchangeability" of terms...

HO Scale is accurate terminology as both the gauge / scale are correct in ratio - 16.5mm gauge and 1:87 both translate to the same scale/ratio
N Scale is to me an accurate terminology but only for EU "N" and US "N", as in both cases gauge and scale translate near as dammit to 1:160th of the prototype correctly

as to the others, N Gauge alone is as you mention simple 9mm designation, as is HO gauge, but OO and O are not as there are variants.... 2mm scale is an accurate description of both the modelling scale and gauge.

For UK and japanese "N", an accurate description would indeed be a combination of N + the actual scale. Its even more of an issue with the larger scales... Internationally OO means 19mm track in USA and 16.5 in the rest of the world.... and O scale is a no-no as its both "tinplate" and 1/4" to the foot in USA and generally 7mm elsewhere - and yet again track gauges vary - with I think 4+ options between 1/4" & 7mm scales....

I am aware of the arguments but still... I do wonder WHY 19mm was never adopted for OO - Valve gear and the need for better wheel profiles would have been a much harder task for Mfrs but it would have made a HUGE difference to the consistency of the UK modelling scene, which is now fragmented between 16.5, EM and P4. Amusing to0 to think that if this had happened - for the purists - going to P4 would have actually meant it was easier to build a loco!!

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 31 Oct 2007, 13:33) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>not to mention the atrocuiosly big wheel flanges in N

Correct - there's no need to mention it as the shiny wheels with large pizza cutting flanges is old hat in N gauge now. These days most new stock has blackened finer profile wheels to NMRA RP25 standards - the same as used by many other scales.

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 31 Oct 2007, 13:33) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>the UK modelling scene, which is now fragmented between 16.5, EM and P4.

and I understand that '00FS' champions want to adopt 16.2mm as their gauge standard. At least in N gauge it's all 9mm rather than the choice of 16.2, 16.5, 18, 18.2 and 18.87 or whatever ............


G.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top