# 1:160 ? 1:150 ?



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

I've been browsing n scale figures (people) and I find 1:150 scale. So 1:150 would be larger than 1:160. Is there a noticeable difference? Do 1:150 scale people look out of place beside 1:60 scale buildings and vehicles? 

The reason I ask is because all buildings I have put together up to now are 1:160 scale. Some time ago I ordered a building kit from Tomy Tec. I set it aside at the time and just took it out to begin putting it together. All of the writing on the box is Japanese, but I noticed in one corner on the front of the box it says 1:150 scale. I took some of the pieces and put them up against a couple of Walthers Cornerstone buildings I have put together. I found the difference to be very noticeable when side by side. Maybe the 1:150 building wouldn't look out of place in a corner of the layout by itself, but right beside the others, it just doesn't look right. So...in the case of people figures, it would be helpful to know ahead of time how much of a difference is noticeable. Crap, I thought n scale was n scale. But 1:150 compared to 1:160 can look out of place. Any experiences?


----------



## AmFlyer (Mar 16, 2012)

Your post title really caught my eye. I believe you meant to type 1:160 ? 1:150. Otherwise the buildings are bigger than S scale but smaller than O scale.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

There are 1:160 N scale figures on ebay..Why not just purchase them and fuggeddaboudit !!


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

N scale is 1:160.....so no, 1:50 scale equipment would not work with N scale......


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

What Old Hobo said. I would have thought it was a typo, except that you were consistent in your use of those numbers.

1:150 is somewhat oversized for N scale, rather like OO (1/76) and HO (1/87), which are often lumped together because they use the same track gauge. Unless you have some very good reason for using it, I'd leave it off.


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

When it comes to vehicles and buildings yes, I've noticed a slight difference in size betwixt the 1:150 and 1:160 scale sizes. I don't let the minor difference bother me because 1) N Scale is somewhat limited on the array of vehicles, steamer era with Model T's and A's up to WWII, then post-war 50's era of American cars, and then modern era, all I've found are the European and British road vehicles. 2) The array of buildings that are actually available are generally wooden houses with some newer brick styles, Mayberry USA town buildings, European / Alpine styles, and a vast array of industrial from across several eras. To me, these fit pretty well as far as scale goes but I'm not a rivet or board counter. With 1:150 and 1:160, an old saying of "it's close enough for government work" applies here


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

AmFlyer said:


> Your post title really caught my eye. I believe you meant to type 1:160 ? 1:150. Otherwise the buildings are bigger than S scale but smaller than O scale.


You are absolutely right AmFlyer.....1:160 and 1:150 are what I meant to write. Thanks for catching that!


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

telltale said:


> There are 1:160 N scale figures on ebay..Why not just purchase them and fuggeddaboudit !!


Ahhh, if life were always that simple. The reason I ask is because my daughter wants to purchase some figures for me, for my birthday. She doesn't want to go the gift certificate route, she wants to put some thought into her purchase. If she were nearer to me it wouldn't be such a big deal. I could simply return the purchase, or have her return the purchase, if she bought me the wrong thing. I live in Ontario, Canada...she lives in Raleigh North Carolina. She knows I model in N scale. If there is such a difference between the two ( 1:160 and 1:150 ), why are both listed when I browse N scale categories?


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

Old_Hobo said:


> N scale is 1:160.....so no, 1:50 scale equipment would not work with N scale......


Of course. Stands to reason. Why the discrepency when browsing "N scale"? Should just be 1:160...no?


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> What Old Hobo said. I would have thought it was a typo, except that you were consistent in your use of those numbers.
> 
> 1:150 is somewhat oversized for N scale, rather like OO (1/76) and HO (1/87), which are often lumped together because they use the same track gauge. Unless you have some very good reason for using it, I'd leave it off.


My original post was a mistake.....I have edited. Thanks.


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

Wooky_Choo_Bacca said:


> When it comes to vehicles and buildings yes, I've noticed a slight difference in size betwixt the 1:150 and 1:160 scale sizes. I don't let the minor difference bother me because 1) N Scale is somewhat limited on the array of vehicles, steamer era with Model T's and A's up to WWII, then post-war 50's era of American cars, and then modern era, all I've found are the European and British road vehicles. 2) The array of buildings that are actually available are generally wooden houses with some newer brick styles, Mayberry USA town buildings, European / Alpine styles, and a vast array of industrial from across several eras. To me, these fit pretty well as far as scale goes but I'm not a rivet or board counter. With 1:150 and 1:160, an old saying of "it's close enough for government work" applies here


I agree with what you are saying. I am not a rivet counter either. However, I have not purchased any "people" for my layout yet and I don't want my people to look like they are in the Land of the Giants. As usual, good responses from all. Thank you.


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

TommyB said:


> My original post was a mistake.....I have edited. Thanks.


Well.........I thought I had edited ! OK, now I have edited.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

A slightly different point of view says go for either 1/150 or 1/160 or even mix them. A 6 foot tall person modeled in 1/160 scale would be a model that is .45 inches tall. Modeled in 1/150 scale would be .48 inches tall. My eyes cannot tell the difference of 3/100 of an inch. Some people can tell that difference but some people can. If someone complained about the size, I would just point out that not every person in the real world is the exact same height, so my model people should also vary in height.

But I am a modeller for my enjoyment and do not keep true to the prototype on anything. I have trolleys on my layout because I like trolleys. The ones I found happen to be in the markings of the old St. Louis area transit company. But I live in Texas near a railroad and in an oil area, so my layout has a small cattle ranch with an oil well on it. Not too many oil wells in St. Louis that I know of.

If you want to be strictly true to a prototype, you can do that. Then you should stick with figures that are 1/160 scale. There is definitely nothing wrong with being detail oriented and true to scale. There is also nothing wrong with doing it my way and being relaxed and giving the impression of something without being exact. As others have commented in other threads: your railroad, your rules.


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

Steve Rothstein said:


> A slightly different point of view says go for either 1/150 or 1/160 or even mix them. A 6 foot tall person modeled in 1/160 scale would be a model that is .45 inches tall. Modeled in 1/150 scale would be .48 inches tall. My eyes cannot tell the difference of 3/100 of an inch. Some people can tell that difference but some people can. If someone complained about the size, I would just point out that not every person in the real world is the exact same height, so my model people should also vary in height.
> 
> But I am a modeller for my enjoyment and do not keep true to the prototype on anything. I have trolleys on my layout because I like trolleys. The ones I found happen to be in the markings of the old St. Louis area transit company. But I live in Texas near a railroad and in an oil area, so my layout has a small cattle ranch with an oil well on it. Not too many oil wells in St. Louis that I know of.
> 
> If you want to be strictly true to a prototype, you can do that. Then you should stick with figures that are 1/160 scale. There is definitely nothing wrong with being detail oriented and true to scale. There is also nothing wrong with doing it my way and being relaxed and giving the impression of something without being exact. As others have commented in other threads: your railroad, your rules.


Good point, Steve. I'm not strictly prototype either. I just want to stay within a certain time frame, my younger days, because I'm so familiar with that. Industries and downtown shops will reflect stores and manufacturers that were in my town back then. They will not be, and could never be, exactly as the prototypes. I have steered my daughter to Preiser and Woodland Scenics figures listed on the Walthers site. This makes it easier for her, as she has used them for gifts to me before. I know these items will be good for what I want. Thanks.


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

Steve Rothstein said:


> A slightly different point of view says go for either 1/150 or 1/160 or even mix them. A 6 foot tall person modeled in 1/160 scale would be a model that is .45 inches tall. Modeled in 1/150 scale would be .48 inches tall. My eyes cannot tell the difference of 3/100 of an inch. Some people can tell that difference but some people can. If someone complained about the size, I would just point out that not every person in the real world is the exact same height, so my model people should also vary in height..


A perhaps perfect point here, I can't remember exactly what scale (it said "N Scale"), painted and sitting people I put in the three passenger cars of my Kato Silver Streak Zephyr, also listed as N Scale. On some of them I had to amputate them at the knees (it's ok, my son is a Doctor LOL) so they'd fit in the seats on their butts. you'd never know it unless taking the shell off the cars. Some had no "surgery" done as they were in the center facing lounge seats. In other "people kits" they were roughly the same size and could have been standing passengers but they were the warehouse / forklift guys or were in the Band (I made the Marshall Stacks)















I'm on the left playing the Sax


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

Wooky_Choo_Bacca said:


> A perhaps perfect point here, I can't remember exactly what scale (it said "N Scale"), painted and sitting people I put in the three passenger cars of my Kato Silver Streak Zephyr, also listed as N Scale. On some of them I had to amputate them at the knees (it's ok, my son is a Doctor LOL) so they'd fit in the seats on their butts. you'd never know it unless taking the shell off the cars. Some had no "surgery" done as they were in the center facing lounge seats. In other "people kits" they were roughly the same size and could have been standing passengers but they were the warehouse / forklift guys or were in the Band (I made the Marshall Stacks)
> View attachment 555949
> View attachment 555950
> 
> I'm on the left playing the Sax


So I guess the reality is that there is not a big difference between 1:160 and 1:150 when it comes to people figures, it seems. It looks like it depends on how and where you use them. I'm still relatively new to N scale (1 year). Sometimes I see something that catches me off guard, like two different scales or ratios, and yet they are both included in the N scale category. I guess I prefer to be cautious, and ask questions about things that are probably no-brainers to the seasoned modelers. But....that's how you learn. Thank you.

By the way, I have seen your band before. Very cool. I might just have to do something like that in a park on my layout. The bass player (me) will be front and centre, though.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

N-gauge track is 9 mm between the rails. If using the American standard of 4'-8 1/2" prototypical track gauge, then 9 mm between the rails calculates out to 1/160 scale (or rounds off pretty darn close to it).

The 1/150 scale is based on the Japanese using 4'-6" prototype track gauge, instead of our 4' 8-1/2" gauge (although I do believe they have been slowly converting to 4'-8 1/2" gauge). But to make their N-scale trains look more properly proportioned to N-gauge track, they produce their Japanese prototypes to 1/150 scale. Actually, it really figures out to 1/152.444 scale, but in the metric system, it is common to go with multiples of ten. Hence rounding off to 1/150, and letting it run on 9 mm track.

There are other, non-train related models built to 1/144 scale. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of this stuff occasionally gets packaged as "N-scale" in the Japanese market. The slight difference in size between it and 1/150 scale wouldn't be too noticeable in most cases. This 1/144 stuff can be used with our 1/160 N-scale, but the size difference is a little easier to tell by discerning eyes.


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

Mixed Freight said:


> N-gauge track is 9 mm between the rails. If using the American standard of 4'-8 1/2" prototypical track gauge, then 9 mm between the rails calculates out to 1/160 scale (or rounds off pretty darn close to it).
> 
> The 1/150 scale is based on the Japanese using 4'-6" prototype track gauge, instead of our 4' 8-1/2" gauge (although I do believe they have been slowly converting to 4'-8 1/2" gauge). But to make their N-scale trains look more properly proportioned to N-gauge track, they produce their Japanese prototypes to 1/150 scale. Actually, it really figures out to 1/152.444 scale, but in the metric system, it is common to go with multiples of ten. Hence rounding off to 1/150, and letting it run on 9 mm track.
> 
> There are other, non-train related models built to 1/144 scale. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of this stuff occasionally gets packaged as "N-scale" in the Japanese market. The slight difference in size between it and 1/150 scale wouldn't be too noticeable in most cases. This 1/144 stuff can be used with our 1/160 N-scale, but the size difference is a little easier to tell by discerning eyes.


There is no shortage of knowledgeable people on this forum.....thank you.


----------



## AmFlyer (Mar 16, 2012)

In Japan the Shinkansen lines are all standard gauge, 4'-8 1/2". About 85% of all the remaining track is Cape gauge which is 3'-6". 4'-6" was used on a few stand alone lines but in terms of total track miles it is under 10%. I have no idea what N scale track sold in Japan is supposed to model, but all the real track you will likely see in the major metropolitan areas and inter city runs in Japan will be standard gauge Shinkansen or Cape gauge.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Steve Rothstein said:


> A slightly different point of view says go for either 1/150 or 1/160 or even mix them. A 6 foot tall person modeled in 1/160 scale would be a model that is .45 inches tall. Modeled in 1/150 scale would be .48 inches tall. My eyes cannot tell the difference of 3/100 of an inch. Some people can tell that difference but some people can. If someone complained about the size, I would just point out that not every person in the real world is the exact same height, so my model people should also vary in height.
> 
> But I am a modeller for my enjoyment and do not keep true to the prototype on anything. I have trolleys on my layout because I like trolleys. The ones I found happen to be in the markings of the old St. Louis area transit company. But I live in Texas near a railroad and in an oil area, so my layout has a small cattle ranch with an oil well on it. Not too many oil wells in St. Louis that I know of.
> 
> If you want to be strictly true to a prototype, you can do that. Then you should stick with figures that are 1/160 scale. There is definitely nothing wrong with being detail oriented and true to scale. There is also nothing wrong with doing it my way and being relaxed and giving the impression of something without being exact. As others have commented in other threads: your railroad, your rules.


To an extent, you're right about the size difference -- especially given that OO Is about 10% larger than HO, while the difference between 1/150 and 1/160 is somewhat less. But sometimes things just look "off". I have a beautiful set of "HO" scale farm outbuildings: chicken coop, tool shed, outhouse, and tractor shed. They're beautiful models. But get them too close to a true HO scale figure or vehicle, and you realize that a person couldn't stand up innthe outhouse, and a tractor's exhaust won't actually fit under the door of the tractor shed, etc. So you have to place things carefully if you don't want the discrepancy to be obvious, which can ruin the illusion.


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

TommyB said:


> There is no shortage of knowledgeable people on this forum.....thank you.


Yeah, and I've only been at it for just over a year now, working on layout 2.0


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

1/150th figures are almost a head taller than 1/160 so adult figures mixed will be noticeable. Also the large lot cheap price figures on ebay are almost always 1/150, are poorly modeled, mostly Asian clothes and hairdos and poor paint. I'd suggest telling her to stick to the major 1/160th well done figures from companies like Preiser, Heller, Woodland Scenics.


----------



## TommyB (Jan 30, 2020)

scenicsRme said:


> 1/150th figures are almost a head taller than 1/160 so adult figures mixed will be noticeable. Also the large lot cheap price figures on ebay are almost always 1/150, are poorly modeled, mostly Asian clothes and hairdos and poor paint. I'd suggest telling her to stick to the major 1/160th well done figures from companies like Preiser, Heller, Woodland Scenics.
> [/QUO


A head taller, I think, would be very noticeable as you say. And yes, you are correct that I was looking at those cheaper "bag full" of figures when I noticed the 1:150. The good news for me is that my daughter is not a cheapskate..LOL. She has been looking at the Woodland Scenics figures and told me she has gone "crazy", and that I should expect a very big Happy Birthday delivery within the next two weeks or so.

I figure it is a good thing that I came across those 1:150 items, and that I posted an inquiry here. All these responses were very helpful.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Those bag-o-people are ok for populating passenger cars where you cut the legs off anyway, store window manekins, inside apartment and office buildings (cut off at mid calf so they aren't taller than the window top), in background scenes where the detail doesnt matter, but I still do a fair amount of repainting. Both Preiser ( my favorite figures) and Woodland Scenics sells large assortments of unpainted figures (former) and large sets of painted figures (latter) for a considerable savings over the small packs). I prefer my visible figures be in small groups relating to one another, or doing activities, making mini scenes when I place them. Why are they here and what is going on? Unless it's an accident scene or a parade, I don't just line them up in a line.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

scenicsRme said:


> 1/150th figures are almost a head taller than 1/160 so adult figures mixed will be noticeable. Also the large lot cheap price figures on ebay are almost always 1/150, are poorly modeled, mostly Asian clothes and hairdos and poor paint. I'd suggest telling her to stick to the major 1/160th well done figures from companies like Preiser, Heller, Woodland Scenics.


Mertens, Noch, and Faller also make good figures, but some of them look overly European in dress / accessories to work well on a layout. Walthers makes nice HO figures, too, but I don't think the make them in N.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> Mertens, Noch, and Faller also make good figures, but some of them look overly European in dress / accessories to work well on a layout


Careful, you wouldn’t want to hurt MichaelE’s feelings now, would you.....? 😉


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Well, they _are_ well dressed...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MichaelE said:


> Well, they _are_ well dressed...


Well dressed is always a plus... because it is more important to LOOK marvelous than to BE marvelous!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Old_Hobo said:


> Careful, you wouldn’t want to hurt MichaelE’s feelings now, would you.....? 😉


I should have said "on a North American-themed" layout... but a cheap shot at MichaelE isn't always a bad thing...


----------



## Railtunes (Jun 19, 2012)

Mixed Freight said:


> N-gauge track is 9 mm between the rails. If using the American standard of 4'-8 1/2" prototypical track gauge, then 9 mm between the rails calculates out to 1/160 scale (or rounds off pretty darn close to it).
> 
> The 1/150 scale is based on the Japanese using 4'-6" prototype track gauge, instead of our 4' 8-1/2" gauge (although I do believe they have been slowly converting to 4'-8 1/2" gauge). But to make their N-scale trains look more properly proportioned to N-gauge track, they produce their Japanese prototypes to 1/150 scale. Actually, it really figures out to 1/152.444 scale, but in the metric system, it is common to go with multiples of ten. Hence rounding off to 1/150, and letting it run on 9 mm track.
> 
> There are other, non-train related models built to 1/144 scale. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of this stuff occasionally gets packaged as "N-scale" in the Japanese market. The slight difference in size between it and 1/150 scale wouldn't be too noticeable in most cases. This 1/144 stuff can be used with our 1/160 N-scale, but the size difference is a little easier to tell by discerning eyes.


A slight correction: Most of the Japanese rail network is 1067mm gauge. That's *THREE* foot, six inch gauge. The Shinkansen (bullet train) network is standard gauge (4' 8 1/2"). So, in order to simulate the narrower gauge, the Japanese N scale manufacturers increased the scale to 1:150 for most models, but use 1:160 for the bullet trains. 
1:152.4 scale is exactly 2mm to the foot. It's used by fine scale modelers mainly in the UK and is called 2mm scale. It is *NOT* the same as 1:150 scale, and the track and wheel standards are not compatible. The Japanese models are _*NOT*_ trying to be 1:152.4 scale.
To add yet another complication to the N scale scene, the British standard for N scale is 1:148. That's a long historical story! But all N scale trains of any of the three commercially manufactured N scales (but _*NOT*_ 2mm fine scale) will run on the same 9mm gauge track.

As for figures and structures in 1:160 vs 1:150, as another replier noted above, people come in different sizes, so you can combine these elements on the same layout. And 1:150 scale is a common architectural model scale, so you can source accessories and figures from those sources as well.
And, much of the time, you can get away with 1:144 scale models like aircraft and military models too.

I've been in N scale since the 1960s, both as a modeler and a manufacturer. I model in ALL THREE of the N scales noted above, mixing and matching stuff from around the world, so I hope I've helped clarify more accurately what is being discussed here.

Paul Ingraham, Coordinator, AsianRail: N scale modular modeling group, San Francisco Bay Area.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

Railtunes said:


> A slight correction: Most of the Japanese rail network is 1067mm gauge. That's *THREE* foot, six inch gauge. The Shinkansen (bullet train) network is standard gauge (4' 8 1/2"). So, in order to simulate the narrower gauge, the Japanese N scale manufacturers increased the scale to 1:150 for most models, but use 1:160 for the bullet trains.
> 1:152.4 scale is exactly 2mm to the foot. It's used by fine scale modelers mainly in the UK and is called 2mm scale. It is *NOT* the same as 1:150 scale, and the track and wheel standards are not compatible. The Japanese models are _*NOT*_ trying to be 1:152.4 scale.
> To add yet another complication to the N scale scene, the British standard for N scale is 1:148. That's a long historical story! But all N scale trains of any of the three commercially manufactured N scales (but _*NOT*_ 2mm fine scale) will run on the same 9mm gauge track.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I guess we might have to revert back to saying 'N-Gauge', instead of 'N-scale'. 
Apparently it's every bit as consistent as 'O-gauge'!  (3-rail O-gauge'rs know all about rubberized scales! )


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I have taken to asking folks if they are in N, HO or O.....no mention of the word “scale“ needed at that level......


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

Old_Hobo said:


> I have taken to asking folks if they are in N, HO or O.....no mention of scale needed at that level......


Pretty astute thinking.   It really helps simplify the situation.


----------



## vette-kid (May 2, 2020)

Well I have 1:144, 1:50 and 1:160 on my layout. Of course it's dinosaurs, so I pendant get away with a little avant change easier!

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## Railtunes (Jun 19, 2012)

Mixed Freight said:


> Interesting. I guess we might have to revert back to saying 'N-Gauge', instead of 'N-scale'.
> Apparently it's every bit as consistent as 'O-gauge'!  (3-rail O-gauge'rs know all about rubberized scales! )


You're sure right about the "rubber scale/gauge" of O scale/gauge - and G scale is pretty much just as inconsistent!
As for N scale/gauge, the British pretty consistently use "gauge" rather than "scale" - even the manufacturers do it! They do it for OO gauge and O gauge too!
Back in the 1970s, I started using a combination of scale/gauge (always in millimeters for international understanding) to make things clearer. So, for instance, if I'm talking about N scale British at 1:148 scale, running on 9 mm gauge track, I'd call it 148/9. HOn3 would be 87/10.5. And some New Zealand modellers have chosen TT scale at 1:120, running on N gauge 9mm track, to quite accurately model their 3'6" (1067mm) gauge home railways - that combination would be 120/9. And you can figure out what 1/1435 would be!
- Paul


----------

