[LisaP4]

I have toyed with the idea of British H0 a few times, as 00 looks awful to my eyes. However the the fact that so much is available in 4mm scale has led me to adopt P4 in order to get the correct gauge for my models, I gave up on EM very quickly as it is just too much work.

I do tend to think that the best option for achieving a scale gauge for our models is for commercial models to be produced to H0 scale. There is no reason why it can't be done, if the H0 models are built with the same coupling as 00 models the 2 would be able to be used together on the same layout. While this wouldn't be ideal it would make for a smoother change over from 00 to H0 scale.

Lima introduced a British H0 scale range a while ago, and Fleischmann even got in on the act with a loco and some coaches. Unfortunately it failed and Lima went over to 00 while fleischmannn haven't been heard of since in the British market. Both of these ranges used the Continental coupling as standard, meaning that British outline modellers couldn't use the h0 stock on their existing 00 layout.

I once heard it mentioned that had Mainline brought their range out in H0 it would have given the scale a real boost and 00 would have died off as a result. Had Lima, Mainline, and Fleischmann pressed on with British H0 that would have left only Hornby and the unreliable Airfix range available in 00, both of whom surely would have changed over to the international standard H0 at some point.

Peco have always produced a semi usable track system for H0 models, and with a few modifications it could have been turned into a true British H0 track system, rather than the ambiguous range they have at present which suits neither 00 or H0.

Hornby may now have the Lima H0 scale moulds in their posession, so if British H0 is to become available in the future it will most probably be from them.

If British H0 were a viable scale I would certainly change over, however at the moment there are no ready to run models, very few kits, and no H0 track system suitable for British models. So for the time being I'll stick to P4, as it's easier than H0 or EM, and I don't consider 00 an option.

 

[LisaP4]

Fleischmann did (and still do) make a H0 Warship diesel hydraulic loco.

I can't agree with the comment of British 00 and US/Continental H0 side by side is more pleasing to the eye, The proprtions are all differant, and they just don't "match" each other, if you've seen the 2 prototypes next to each other you'd know what I mean.

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (bobknee @ 14 Oct 2005, 12:28)What I cannot understand about OO, is how all the critics and rivet counters go on about the odd miniscule discrepancies here and there.
Without fail, in every case, without exception, they ignore the fact that in a head on view the wheels are too close together!

Yes agree entirely, I've put this point across on the net a few times, and have been shot down by the 00 modellers as a rivet counter and elitist!

It's not just noticable from the front either, from the side the wheels are hidden deep in under the model, and the valvegear looks odd because of all the bends in the rods needed to suit the narrow gauge.

I'd love to see a magazine review saying something like "the model has an accurate body, but the chassis is a complete bodge up as the gauge is 2.33mm too narrow."

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (bobknee @ 14 Oct 2005, 13:53)So why not regauge OO to, I think, 18.82mm between the wheels? This would then be correct OO scale/gauge.

18.83mm/P4, that's exactly what I do, improves the appearance (and running qualities) no end.

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (nzpaul @ 15 Oct 2005, 00:59)hmmm, hows this.... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And lets be a little real about fine scale, are you sure it's not the £60 motor/gearbox and fully compensated chassis that makes your average P4 model run better, as opposed the a 2mm wider guage?

Absolutely certain it's not that, all my current loco's are just regauged RTR models, no springing or compensation on any of them (other than the occassional single axle which the manufacturer made "sprung").

Likewise 90% of my rollingstock has a rigid chassis, they run just as well as the odd compensated vehicle I've experimented with, and springing seems to be alot of fuss for not much gain.

 

[LisaP4]

Originally 0 gauge was built to 1/4" to the foot scale on a gauge of 1.25".

American 0 gauge still uses 1/4" scale but with the metric gauge of 32mm.

0 finescale uses a track gauge of 32mm at a scale of 7mm/foot, the strictly correct gauge is 32.96mm, so scale7 uses a gauge of 33mm.

H0 was developed by Marklin in the 1920's, and is exactly Half 0 at 3.5mm/foot with a gauge of 16.5mm, P87 uses the exact track gauge of 16.48mm.

00 was developed in America with a gauge of 19mm(3/4"), British modellers attempting to use the Marklin H0 chassis found the British bodies woudn't fit, so built the bodies to 00 scale but retained the H0 gauge, hence British 00 was born.

Attempts at increasing the gauge of British models were made in the 1940's, this used a gauge of 18mm which is now known as EM (literally Eighteen Millimetre), the gauge of EM was later widened to 18.2mm to solve running problems on curves.

Use of the correct gauge for 00 models of 18.83mm was first made in the 1960's, this became known as P4 (Protofour, Prototype gauge at Four millimetre to the foot scale).

America later abandoned 00 in favour of the smaller H0.

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (Gary @ 18 Oct 2005, 07:09)The Brits have very simple standards - O, OO and OOO . Otherwise known as the Father Xmas standards.

Its everybody else who makes life very complicated with a hotch potch of letters to define scales.

Gauges used to be simple to follow,
Gauge 0 - 1.25" / 32mm
Gauge 1 - 1.75" / 45mm
Gauge 2 - 2.125" / 54mm
Gauge 3 - 2.5" / 63.5mm

H0 therefore made sense at Half 0

TT was the ideal Table Top railway at 12mm gauge

Then it all went haywire
00 doesn't fit any where and it certainly isn't double the size of 0.

Likewise 000 isn't 3 times the size of 0, but is half 00 (H00?).

N is the standard name for 9mm gauge representing standard gauge, even though the scale varies.

Z seems like it was meant to be Half TT but didn't shrink quite enough.

And S? Drawing letters form a hat methinks.

And then of course there's the narrowgauges like H0m & H0n2.5 or even 0012 or 00n3.

Confused? That's just the start, there is literally 100's of model gauge names, some of which mean exactly the same thing!

 

[LisaP4]

Would disagree entirely with you there Gary.
QUOTE ...prototype British locomotives operate to a smaller gauge on the rail network than European and American counterparts and so would be significantly smaller in size in HO.
Which is exactly the problem at present, run the 2 together and they look wrong side-by-side, because they are differant scales.

To cover each of your points.:-

1) QUOTE ...OO gauge was adopted partly to permit the clearance of the overscale wheel flanges by these wheel arches and at the same time to preserve the appearance of the model in miniture.
That was using the course wheel profiles from the middle of last century, use a wheel about 2mm wide and the "problem" magically dissapears.

2) QUOTE ... permits the bogies on locomotives with these overscale flanges to have sufficient clearance to swing at the angles required of them to function properly on the standard set track curve radius. Note that Hornby do provide alternative scale bogies with some locomotives for modellers who only have large radius curves.
Again this is less of a problem with modern wheelsets, and in any case the solution is the same as that mentioned, except with the added bonus of having one less compromise because the gauge is correct.

3) As for motors I have 2 words - Mashima 1220 - use a decent motor and it doesn't have to be big to be powerfull. Why were tender drives introduced? Because it is easier to have one drive that fits 20 loco's, than it is to have a seperate drive for each model.

4) QUOTE Psychologically HO gauge is at a disadvantage for modellers because it involves working to a scale involving a fraction. Buy a scale ruler like the rest of the world does.

5) QUOTE OO provides more room for accurate detailing of outside valve gear and cylinder detail taking into account the issues above.
Not really, it just has to be bent and modified to fit the underscale wheels, which looks wrong.

6) QUOTE A smaller scale alters buffer and coupling heights and could make uncoupling and coupling even more difficult than it already is for British outline locomotives.
Actually the smaller scale would make things easier because the scale would match other prototypes.

7) QUOTE Bearing in mind the fine detail that we currently enjoy on OO gauge British locomotives and the parts and components used to create this detail, I fail to see how these detail parts could be made any smaller/thinner without making the locomotives less durable and without increasing the costs of production.
Bearing in mind that the details on a H0 British loco are the same physical size as those on overseas prototypes in H0, this wouldn't be any more of a problem for British models than it is on foreign models.

As a practical gauge for the family and the typical British household who wants something reliable that runs straight out of the box and on a layout that has been quickly set up then it is very hard to beat H0 from any perspective, as it means multiple prototypes can be run on the same layout without problems, or compromises in appearance.

Anything else is simply going to increase costs and prices!

QUOTE And are we happy to pay higher prices for HO?

No, but then we wouldn't have to, as has been shown in the past with British H0 models.

QUOTE I know Lima and Rivarossi produced HO gauge models for the UK. Have a close look at their locomotives next time you get the opportunity and see what compromises had to be made to the bodies in terms of bufferbeam heights and wheelarch size and spacing. Only 25 years on and this would not be acceptable to the modellers of today I suspect.

Again, with toadys wheelsets there wouldn't be the problem there was 25 years ago.

 

[LisaP4]

Gary, your image there illustrates my earlier point about grossly overscale wheel widths, halve the width of that wheel and there's alot more clearance.
In any case your argument has a major flaw, if I were to drop a set of P4 wheels into that model it would be running on the correct gauge for it's scale, therefore H0 being the correct gauge for the scale would not have a problem either.

 

[LisaP4]

Romford wheels are still grossly over width.

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (Gary @ 21 Oct 2005, 09:34)Don't take this the wrong way Lisa4P as I can see the merits of P4 and EM. However forget P4 and EM!

Its not practical. Modellers want to run both continental and American HO on the same track as British OO. To say that you want ready to run manufacturers to produce British outline locomotives that only run on special 18mm track (or whetever) is not a serious option.
I didn't say I wanted RTR P4, so I don't know where you pulled that from.

I definitely support the adoption of RTR British H0 rather than P4, for the same reasons you mention. I simply mentioned P4 because fitting the correct gauge wheels into a model is quite relevent when discussing a change from 00 to H0.

QUOTE I have covered this in an earlier post with reference to Romford wheels only giving an extra 2mm when we need to find 4.5mm.

European and American HO ready to run manufacturers use wheels that are the same width as British OO manufacturers.

It is unfair to single out British manufacturers in this respect.

It is done for several reasons and these are reliability, strength and cost I suspect.

We still need to find 2.5mm from somewhere assuming that narrow wheels and fine/smaller less deep rivets/bolts have the strength required for a ready to run loco that might suffer abuse from a minor.

I've cut 2 of your posts together there as they are on the same subject. I can't comment on European prototypes but most US models these days use the NMRA RP25/88 wheel standard, this gives a wheel which is 2mm wide, compare this to the 4mm wide wheels you keep bringing up and that's a reduction of 4mm over the wheelset, 00 uses wide wheels so that the valve gear doesn't have to be modified too much to fit the narrow gauge, and also so the wheels aren't hidden too far under the model which would alter it's appearance more so. The width of the wheel treads have no bearing on the running qualities of a model, unless you're handlaying the track and can't keep the gauge even!

QUOTE Hornby locomotives operate for 100's of hours without maintenance. Can you say that of P4 and EM models with all this very fine detail under the chassis?
You mean the Bachmann and Hornby models I've fitted new wheelsets to? I give them the occassional drop of oil but other than that they are just as maintenance free as when they were on 00 wheels, except they now run much smoother.

 

[LisaP4]

OK, so we still need to find around 2mm on each side, lets look at that picture you posted then

Obviously we reduce the width of the wheel by 0.5mm, then reduce the gap between wheel and coupling rod, the head on the crankpin can be thinned down a bit, and the connecting rod can be fitted in the crosshead where it should be instead of just bolted on the back of it.
That gives us a model that looks like this

Then move the wheels out to where they should be and we have this, clearly there is still plenty of clearance.

Also I didn't say I have problems with the running of RTR models. I did say that they run smother with the decent wheel and track standards I use.
And my track is commercial flexible track and commercial points, nothing special there.

 

[LisaP4]

There are H0 kits for British outline, have a look around and you'll find them, I'm pretty sure DJH even to a few of them.
Also there was a linited run of ready to run LNER A3's produced a few years ago, so clearly it is entirely possible.

One comment that has come up a few times in this discussion is "would we be willing to accept the compromises necessary to build models to H0 scale?"
I'll put that question back to you all,
Why are we willing to accept a major flaw (the gauge) in all our 00 models, when we clearly won't accept the odd dimensional inaccuracy in other areas?

And Gary please get my UID correct in your posts.

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (Gary @ 23 Oct 2005, 10:51)What evidence do you have for this?
My evidence is in one of your own posts.
QUOTE (Gary @ 20 Oct 2005, 10:47)I know Lima and Rivarossi produced HO gauge models for the UK. Have a close look at their locomotives next time you get the opportunity and see what compromises had to be made to the bodies in terms of bufferbeam heights and wheelarch size and spacing. Only 25 years on and this would not be acceptable to the modellers of today I suspect.

The thing is 00 models don't have "the right look and feel" below the chassis, although some will say it isn't noticable if you stand far enough away from it and look at it from a certain angle and ignore it.

 

[LisaP4]

The only model that was made over wide was the Lima class 33 diesel, quite needlessly as if you narrow the body to the correct width it still runs on trainset curves without problems. There's an article on how to narrow the body at the British H0 societies website.

The biggest problems with their H0 range was that they chose the European coupling, so British modellers couldn't use H0 stock with their existing 00 stock and therefore the idea of changing in one big leap put them off buying the things.

I very nearly built a British H0 layout as the Lima 33's would have been ideal traction for it. I only decided against it due to the lack of commercial support for the scale in British outline, so yes I would buy one.

 

[LisaP4]

There was a limited run (100 models I think) of hand crafted brass H0 Flying Scotsman models a while back (about 10 years ago I think), they sold for au$2000 when new (this was actually cheap for that manufacturer!), I saw one go on Ebay a few months back for nearly au$8000, so there's definitely market for H0 Scotsman's.

Gary, the Hornby 4F is based on the original Airfix model which for some reason has an underscale body width. I think they got their H0 and 00 messed up when making the tooling.

CeeDeeI, I have an end-to-end layout and circular test track, both are running, but apart from some buildings I haven't done alot to the layout. I'm not bothered with technical exactness, but doo like my models to run well and look right, so P4 is the only option as far as I'm concerned, unless British H0 becomes more available.

 

[LisaP4]

Here's a comparison between H0 track on the left and P4 (which is correct for 00) on the right.

Something I missed earlier was Gary showing an N gauge 08 trying to make a point about compromises that would be necessary in H0, sorry Gary but Roco already do a H0 scale 08, it's been on the market for years and is no less accurate than the latest Hornby or Bachmann offerings.

 

[LisaP4]

The thing about the current "H0/00" track that bugs me the most, is that the sleeper size and spacing is underscale even for H0!
No wonder it looks so awful. Funnily enough the old Triang Super 4 track was pretty good for accuracy in regards sleeper size and spacing, an updated version of that would be far better than the current series 6 track which Hornby now use.

 

[LisaP4]

Hence my comment on Triang Super 4 track, it certainly wasn't fragile, yet it had scale sleepering and didn't have that awful moulded "ballast".

And I haven't a clue why you think P4 track is more fragile than anything else, as it's the same thing, just the rails are in differant places and there's less sleepers.

 

[LisaP4]

Again your talking of back in the age of wide wheels.