Author Topic: Little coverage in MR on On30  (Read 2452 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10792
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +853
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Little coverage in MR on On30
« on: August 19, 2007, 12:48:57 PM »
0
http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=S&sort=A&output=3&cmdtext=ON30+MR

Only 6 articles spanning almost 30 years surprised me.

wcfn100

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8057
  • Respect: +719
    • Chicago Great Western Modeler
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2007, 01:56:46 PM »
0
I though there was something off about that list:

http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=S&cmdtext=ON21%2F2&sort=D&output=3&view=125

Jason

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10792
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +853
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2007, 01:59:49 PM »
0
Yeah, when you expand the search to all mags you get a bit more - 195 articles.

wcfn100

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8057
  • Respect: +719
    • Chicago Great Western Modeler
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2007, 02:04:31 PM »
0
Oops, didn't mean to do all mags, I know there is more than the 6 articles though in MR unless I'm getting magazines mixed up in my head.


Jason

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10792
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +853
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2007, 02:06:36 PM »
0
Oops, didn't mean to do all mags, I know there is more than the 6 articles though in MR unless I'm getting magazines mixed up in my head.


Jason

I thought so too.  I even remember a construction series a few years back, but no variations of On30 bring up more results in the search. ???

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2007, 02:43:04 PM »
0
There probably weren't more than a dozen modelers building anything in On30 before Bachmann started selling non-prototypical models using HO track and O scale. While not unknown as an industrial gauge, it was not a common carrier gauge, except for one line in México.

O scale narrow gauge modelers used 1/2" track for On2 and 3/4" track for On3. Except for the Porter and Geared locomotives, the Bachmann prototypes were all either 24" gauge or 36" gauge prototypes. That 30" gauge Mogul never existed.

That's why there are so few articles.

sparky

  • Guest
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2007, 02:58:17 PM »
0
Gregg, there's a lot of layouts and modeling of things that never existed.  Freelance modeling is a large sector of our hobby.  On30 is quickly becoming a popular scale, so I think the availability of models, detail parts, and more magazine coverage will increase in the very near future.

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2007, 03:22:44 PM »
0
Gregg, there's a lot of layouts and modeling of things that never existed.  Freelance modeling is a large sector of our hobby.  On30 is quickly becoming a popular scale, so I think the availability of models, detail parts, and more magazine coverage will increase in the very near future.
Yes, but Tom was questioning why there were so few articles in the past. Bachmann's On30 line is what, maybe five years old?

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14288
  • Respect: +3162
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2007, 03:42:02 PM »
0
Every once in a while I find that MR mag index useless...

Like the recent series on a On30 layout, it doesn't come up in the search?

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10792
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +853
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2007, 03:48:00 PM »
0
Gregg is right, the Bachmann Mogul is a actually a model of a C&S 3' gauge prototype.

On30 is a mixture of fantasy (fantasy being Furlow-inspired whimsy) and reality (reality being 30" industrial logging and mining, and 3' gauge prototypes with slightly narrowed trucks).  However, HO track is something like 31" in O scale, so you're talking less than 1/8" difference if you want to model 3' gauge on HO scale track.  In other words, Bachmann made it easy and cheap to model 3' gauge, with the added bonus of being able to model 30" gauge too.

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14288
  • Respect: +3162
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2007, 03:56:34 PM »
0
Grandt Line makes detailed frame spacers to put behind the spread drivers of teh 2-6-0. So for about $75 ($70 loco, $5 Grandt parts) bucks you can have a smooth running On3 locomotive.

CVSNE

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 383
  • Respect: +2
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2007, 10:11:53 AM »
0
Just found this, so pulling it up to the top may be of little use.

The first time I recall seeing O scale models on  HO track was Gordon North's layout, which was featured on the cover of MR back in the late 1970s/early 1980s.  IT also appeared in one of the Kalmbach Video Layout Tour videos.

IF you're having trouble finding listing for this scale/gauge combination remember MR's editorial convention calls for "On30" to be "On21/2" so "On30" doesn't show up in article titles or subject descriptions.

Some On30 modelers get really, really upset about this -- no, I don't know why . . . There really is a logical editorial reason for calling it On21/2 -- after all, we don't call three-foot gauge models "On36" -- we use "On3".

I don't think Bachmann wanted to use "1/2" with their marketing material -- marketeers hate fractions -- so they went with On30. 

Marty


Modeling (or attempting to model) the Central Vermont circa October 1954  . . .

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: Little coverage in MR on On30
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2007, 10:43:54 AM »
0
Marty, "On21/2" would be On10.5 - after all, 21 divided by 2 is 10.5, isn't it??  ;D ;D ;D

Maybe they should consider "On2.5"  ::) ;D