A Coherent System of Modeling Scales
This is just a thought experiment. It is NOT a proposal of any kind. I'm NOT advocating for the creation of any new modeling scales! That would only create an even bigger mess than we already have!
Having once owned and operated a hobby shop, it always struck me as odd how our common modeling scales are a huge mess of arbitrary proportions. Every community of modelers has their own preferred modeling scales (mostly owing to the desire to maintain compatibility with existing models, parts, and tooling), and so it's often difficult to combine models from different genres, franchises, or manufacturers in the same scene without something being disproportionate. The existing scales are an incoherent mess.
| Genre | Incoherent Scales |
|---|---|
| aircraft | 1/32, 1/72, 1/72, 1/144, 1/100, 1/200, 1/400 |
| boats | 1/48, 1/50, 1/96, 1/144, 1/200, 1/350, 1/700 |
| cars | 1/18, 1/24, 1/32, 1/43, 1/64 |
| construction and farm equipment | 1/16, 1/32, 1/50 |
| mecha | 1/35, 1/48, 1/60, 1/72, 1/100, 1/144 |
| military | 1/16, 1/35, 1/48, 1/72, 1/87, 1/144 |
| model railroads | X (1/5.5), III (1/18), II (1/22.5), F (1/23.32), G (1/22.5 to 1/32), H (1/24), A (1/29), 1 (1/32), US O (1/48), O (1/45), UK O (1/43.5), S (1/64), OO (1/76.2), HO (1/87.1), TT (1/120), UK N (1/148), JP N (1/150), N (1/160), Z (1/220), ZZ (1/300), T (1/450 to 1/500) |
| spacecraft | 1/48, 1/72, 1/100, 1/144, 1/200, 1/250-1/350 |
I've often wondered what a coherent system of modeling scales would look like in an ideal alternate reality, so I set about figuring this out.
My desired criteria:
- Scales should be equally-spaced logarithmically (i.e., the proportions of adjacent scales should always differ by the same factor).
- Fractional powers of 2 (e.g., 1/64, 1/128) are nice, but too far apart, so intermediate scales are needed.
- Scale identifiers should be numerical, and directly related to (but not necessarily directly proportional to) the scale they represent.
- Precision scratchbuilding materials (e.g., styrene and metal sheets, rods, and tubes) with round dimensions in one scale should also have round dimensions in as many other scales as possible, so suppliers and hobby shops aren't unduly burdened with needing to maintain too many SKUs.
- Large scales, such as those used by rideable miniature train clubs / attractions, should be accommodated as well.
The natural consequence of criteria 1 and 2 is that adjacent scales should differ by a factor of either √2 or √3. In the interest of criteria 4, I chose a factor of √2 (just like how ISO paper sizes work) so only two sets of SKUs would be needed for precision scratchbuilding materials (one for even-numbered scales and one for odd-numbered scales).
In this system, the exact proportion of a scale numbered n is calculated as 2-n/2 = 12n/2 = 1(√2)n.
| Hypothetical Scale | Comparable Incoherent Scales | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | Proportion | in / ft | ||
| 0 | 20 | = 1/1 | 12″ | full-scale / prototype |
| 1 | 2-1/2 | ≈ 1/1.41 | 8.49″ | |
| 2 | 2-2/2 | = 1/2 | 6″ | |
| 3 | 2-3/2 | ≈ 1/2.83 | 4.24″ | |
| 4 | 2-4/2 | = 1/4 | 3″ | rideable rolling stock |
| 5 | 2-5/2 | ≈ 1/5.66 | 2.12″ | rideable rolling stock, X (1/5.5), 2-1/2" (1/4.8) |
| 6 | 2-6/2 | = 1/8 | 1-1/2″ | rideable rolling stock, V gauge (≈1/8) |
| 7 | 2-7/2 | ≈ 1/11.3 | 1.06″ | IV gauge (≈1/11), 1” (1/12) |
| 8 | 2-8/2 | = 1/16 | 3/4″ | III gauge (≈1/18) |
| 9 | 2-9/2 | ≈ 1/22.6 | 0.530″ | F (1/20.32), II gauge (1/22.5), G (1/22.5 to 1/32), 1/2" or H (1/24), A (1/29) |
| 10 | 2-10/2 | = 1/32 | 3/8″ | 1/35, I gauge (≈1/32) |
| 11 | 2-11/2 | ≈ 1/45.3 | 0.265″ | US O (1/48), O (1/45), UK O (1/43.5), 1/50 |
| 12 | 2-12/2 | = 1/64 | 3/16″ | 1/60, S (1/64), 1/72 |
| 13 | 2-13/2 | ≈ 1/90.5 | 0.133″ | OO (1/76.2), HO (1/87.1), 1/96, 1/100 |
| 14 | 2-14/2 | = 1/128 | 3/32″ | TT (1/120), 1/144 |
| 15 | 2-15/2 | ≈ 1/181 | 0.0663″ | UK N (1/148), JP N (1/150), N (1/160), 1/200 |
| 16 | 2-16/2 | = 1/256 | 3/64″ | Z (1/220), 1/250, ZZ (1/300) |
| 17 | 2-17/2 | ≈ 1/362 | 0.0331″ | 1/350, 1/400 |
| 18 | 2-18/2 | = 1/512 | 3/128″ | T (1/450 to 1/500) |
| 19 | 2-19/2 | ≈ 1/724 | 0.0166″ | 1/700 |
| 20 | 2-20/2 | = 1/1024 | 3/256″ | 1/1000 |
Benefits of these hypothetical modeling scales:
- Half the scales would be a whole power of 2, conferring one of the benefits that S-scale (1/64) modelers currently enjoy.
- Stock scratchbuilding materials that have round dimensions in one scale, would also have round dimensions in half of all other scales. Think styrene tubing, metal rods, and scale lumber. A 6″ scale pipe in 1/90.5 scale would have the same dimensions as a 12″ scale pipe in 1/181 scale. 2x4 lumber in 1/90.5 scale would have the same dimensions as 4x8 lumber in 1/181 scale.
- With fewer, standardized scales, it would be easier to mix-and-match models from different genres or manufacturers in a diorama without anything being out of proportion. For example, plastic military action figures made in 1/16 scale would fit in die-cast metal vehicles made in 1/16 scale.
- For model railroads, standard-gauge track in one scale would be usable as meter-gauge track in the next-larger scale (it would only be off by 1.5%). Russian-gauge track (5′0″) in one scale would be usable as 3′6″-gauge track in the next-larger scale (it would only be off by 0.7%) and 2′6″-gauge in the scale after that. (Standard-gauge, Russian-gauge, meter-gauge, and 3′6″-gauge are the four most-common rail gauges in the world, as judged by amount of existing track.)
The system could be extended backwards (with negative integers) to accommodate larger-than-life models, though I'm not sure how useful that would be. If you're building something larger-than-life, it's probably something esoteric that doesn't need to be compatible with other models.