[Rail-Rider]

I'm afraid I find the mongrel mix of scales that make up OO gauge to be jarring on both the intellect and the eye. Certainly, if someone has never been exposed to anything better, they will learn to accept it as 'normal' and wonder what the fuss is about. But it isn't realistic and it's one reason why British model trains always have a tendency toward a toy-like look, no matter how well made in other respects. It's unavoidable, given the quite substantial difference in scale. 0.5mm on 3.5mm is about 15% and that's enough to turn a scale 6 foot tall human into near enough a 7 foot tall human!

So, yes, there SHOULD be a move to 3.5mm scale but it's very unlikely to happen now - it's just far too entrenched. A pity though, in my opinion.

 

[Rail-Rider]

You've had an hour and a half now, CeeDee, so I hope you are feeling better

The two different scales just makes it look a little too much like narrow gauge to me - I think I'll go and have MY lie down now!

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE they pick it over like vultures at the end of a wilderbeast migration
What a wonderful vision and description!
Surely that's half the fun!
The other half is diverting attention away from that other 'little' matter of course!

 

[Rail-Rider]

Some of those replies had me laughing out loud

Particularly this
QUOTE something like "the model has an accurate body, but the chassis is a complete bodge up as the gauge is 2.33mm too narrow."
I suggest that "bodge up" could shade a tinge towards a slightly more 'colourful' expression down under!

The 1920s or even 1950s excuses for the mongrel OO models (again, Oz may spice this up - I'd like to and am well capable, but I daren't!) have not held true for donkey's years. N gauge and Z gauge put that one to rest long ago. There would be no inherent cost differential involved in modelling to 3.5mm/foot rather than 4mm/foot.

Interesting comments on Chinese sourced prices.
IMHO, it would be a miracle if prices actually reduced. The best that can be hoped for is a short term, maybe medium term restriction on increases. But just wait until the Chinese feel they have a big enough manufacturing monopoly to charge what they like . . . and I am sure they will in time. By then, it's quite likely that there won't be the necessary skills surviving in UK to start up again as a new third-world cheap manufacturing centre. Unless the Chinese then started pumping money back acros the planet. What goes around comes around, as they say.

 

[Rail-Rider]

I haven't tried P4 and never will because I KNOW my modelling skills and patience aren't up to it! But I can see the attraction from several points of view and would have been tempted if I were more skilled. I would suggest a good deal of the improved running is genuinely due to the application of proper, agreed standards to rail and wheel. This has to be 'a good thing' regardless of the actual gauge used. It's an intelligent, logical step towards greater mechanical precision that always pays off with improved efficiency.

 

[Rail-Rider]

Just a reminder that the topic was headed,
QUOTE "Should We Move From OO to HO?, Correcting the Scale/Gauge"
The "History" is interesting but, like most so-called history, is totally unreliable. "History" is whatever piece of writing that one happens to have seen quoted somewhere, sometime and there is rarely proof of its original accuracy. If there were, then there would be NO argument or misunderstanding! Yet, in model trains, there is argument and misunderstanding aplenty - it's neverending.

Unfortunately, time after time, we encounter individuals who repeat their particular spin on their particular piece of evidence, sometimes with a genuine belief that it is reliable and correct evidence, but far too often it is with the intent, NOT of trying to clear up misunderstanding, but of perpetuating it.

But none of it has any bearing on the question as posed.
The one clear fact is that OO gauge IS a mongrel mix of two scales, which could be corrected by either raising the scale of the gauge to match that of everything else or reducing the scale of everything else to match that of the gauge. At that point, it is a very simple factual matter. It is that incongruous mixture of scales which is in question and there is no longer any good modelling reason for maintaining OO.

 

[Rail-Rider]

The very first mention of N gauge was by bobknee, but only with a teasing suggestion to opening another topic to discuss it.
The next was by yourself with thisQUOTE Can N gauge modellers do any of this, and if they can at what price?
Miniaturization means more for less.
I believe the point you were trying to make at the time was that fitting digital chips to HO scale UK locos would be difficult. Surely it is fair to say that if they can be fitted in N-gauge locos, then there should be no problem with HO?
The price is a separate matter - better to deal with one point at a time if we are to avoid confusion. I might add that all the altering of posts and double posting does make it very difficult to be sure of what is really going on.

QUOTE British modellers are now getting continental standards for a lot less money and this is down to OO scale being used. A British tank loco is £40-£50 for a very good model. The HO continental equivalent is £100 or more. I simply am not prepared to pay £100 for a new tank loco no matter what and if HO means that then forget it. And I suspect that I hold a majority view on this point!
Those few lines need some looking at.

On what basis do you decide that British models ARE up to "Continental standards"?
They have improved, but whether they have yet actually equalled Continental is debatable.
I would say it's even pretty questionable as to how that could be fairly judged, even by someone unbiased one way or the other.

So, no problem in saying that UK OO models have improved some over the last 20 years. But I have a big problem with how the improvement can possibly be attributed as "this is down to OO scale being used"? Sorry, but I don't see any connection whatever - UK scale was always OO, so why is quality only recently starting to bridge what was a large gap?

As for the price comparison, you post a couple of prices, plucked from . . . where?
In comparing any items with each other, we need to know which items are being compared or the comparison is meaningless.
So, rather than posting pictures of N gauge and OO locos, which have a VERY large difference in scale, it would be very much more useful to compare equivalent HO and OO models, especially when that is actually the basis for this discussion. Even with the pictures shown, you don't state who makes which model or what their prices are. Could you fill that information in so we can then perhaps make fair comparisons?

"If HO means that (double the price), then forget it"
How can you attribute the price difference purely to the scale and ignore any other consideration?

" . . . I hold a majority view on this point!"
Well, apart from the 'point' being very ambiguous as already mentioned, again, I wonder on what basis you feel you are in a majority. Maybe you are, but I suspect that there just might be a few more rail modellers outside little old UK than inside it and the super massive majority of them wouldn't agree at all!

What would be extremely interesting would be a detailed comparative review of reasonably fair and equivalent UK and Continental locos and perhaps rolling stock. The HUGE problem would be to find someone who wasn't already immovably biased one way OR the other!

 

[Rail-Rider]

Doug
That's a very nice offer if you can manage it!

I would suggest something on the lines of
A 0-6-0 diesel shunter
A 4-6-2 steam loco
A Bo-Bo or Co-Co, either electric or diesel.

Gary
You ignored requests for info on the illustrated OO and N diesels.
Is the problem that the OO model surprised you by costing quite a bit more than the N?

Regarding lateral movement of driving axles - it isn't actually necessary that all the slack be taken up by a single axle to negotiate curves. It can be shared by all the axles and, in many cases, that is what is done by Continental manufacturers. There are other little engineering tricks too.

One thing I will agree on - Continental manufacturers, particularly German ones, do price frighteningly high. But it matters very little which gauge you look at because it isn't the gauge that creates the high figures.

Strange that a UK manufacturer doesn't jump in and start making continental models - I wonder why not?

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE I simply wanted to illustrate that N gauge models do have compromises as a result of the scale
Of course they do - only to be expected when it is half the scale - a huge jump.
But further exacerbated by examples which probably represent the best and worst extremes of available quality. Not a reasonable comparison at all. In practice, they were probably all that you could easily lay hands on, but very unfair in those particular comparisons.

It will be very interesting to see what Doug is able to compare, though sourcing suitable models for fair comparison will be an onerous task. He may regret volunteering!

 

[Rail-Rider]

I just HAVE to say that is as effective a piece of photo manipulation as I have ever seen in such a context - I am dumbstruck!

Absolutely magnificent!!!

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE Judging by sales of the OO scale version overseas probably not.
The problem here is knowing what factors were really responsible for the apparent sales resistance in USA.
Perhaps it was resistance to a model of a UK locomotive.
But equally, it could have been resistance to its 'scale' of . . . OO.
Maybe it was ineffective marketing.
Maybe it was a combination of those three and maybe it was something else again.
We can't really tell can we?

I agree that it would be a commercial risk to produce UK models in HO, one that is probably not worth taking. Though it might become a more attractive proposition once Hornby have got the hang of their recent foreign acquisitions. and beaten them into profitable shape.

 

[Rail-Rider]

It isn't very well known,
but Hornby did, once upon a time (1961-1974), make a range called . . .

HORNBY-ACHO !!!

Click it!

 

[Rail-Rider]

No P4 here but variations on the OO/HO theme

From the top
1. Not sure what it is exactly! But VERY fine rail profile HO nickel silver
Base is stamped "MC 10500-01" so I don't think it's Peco.
2. Graham Farish Code 100 flexy nickel silver
3. Scaleway by SMP - Nickel Silver
4. Scaleway by SMP - Phosphor Bronze

The varying sleeper/tie dimensions are plain to see.
But the phosphor bronze rail isn't plain to see!
It looks a nice colour from a side view but the top view looks nothing like steel and blends into the brown of the sleepers/ties, horribly. Also they all look too red hued on the left side due to tungsten light overspill. Nothing is quite as effective as painting steel rail with filth for realism!

 

[Rail-Rider]

Again we have the difficulty of sturdiness vs appearance.

I have to agree that sturdiness must take precedence for the kids and mass manufacturers have that balancing problem to deal with. Having said that, I would still disagree that fine scale track cannot be mass produced - it certainly can be. But, for instance, that SMP track I picture above would be no use, as it stands, for 'set-track type applications - kids can be brutal little creatures! Pre-setting it into a sturdy base would make it more suitable, but I think the very fine rail section could still be a problem for unskilled hands. But it's always going to be contentious as to where to draw the lines between 'kid-proof' and 'adult-acceptable'.

Roco made what I consider to be possibly the best HO 'set-track' of all with their 'Rocoline', beautifully pre-ballasted and tough, but at a price. I'll try to post a pic of one of their turn-outs in a while.

 

[Rail-Rider]

ROCOLINE TURNOUT

Note the slimmest of solenoids, which is completely hidden beneath the ballast section - yes,the lower picture is the underside!

If you look VERY carefully, you might see the barely visible line, just outside the ends of the sleepers, where the ballast shoulder sections can be removed for infilling between double tracks etc.

Rail height is 2.1mm which would be equivalent to Code 83 I think. Pretty good check rails, wing rails and frog, imho, though certainly not up to P4 standards!

It isn't 'right' for OO and for various reasons, will probably not please either Lisa OR Gary! But for an HO 'set track ', I think this would be extremely hard to better - assuming your pockets can handle the pain!

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE It does not harm the look one bit.
Obviously it does harm the look at least a bit or we would have NO disagreement and thus no discussion here!

For 'the look', it is all a matter of degree of wheel wideness and where each individual draws their particular line. What is acceptable to some people is quite clearly not at all acceptable to others. There is no point whatever in either camp continuing to try to beat the other one into the ground. This will never change anything but will cause friction by driving the views even further into opposing corners.
QUOTE This really does prove the point!
At this point, one might wonder exactly what the point is.
To 'beat' the opposing view?
That is completely pointless.
Some people value just running trains all day regardless of other considerations and that is good.
Others have a greater desire for a realistic fine scale appearance and that is equally good.
There is PLENTY of room for both of these - and all the shades in between - without getting into a scrap over it.