[bobknee]

Us British have been using incorrect scale to gauge since OO was introduced, in the 1930's I think. Something to do with the smallest electric motors being too big
to fit in our smaller models.

With CAD development capability, should we now be correcting the OO anomoly and move to the correct scale/gauge combination of HO?

There are so many comments about new models not being exactly correct here and there, but no-one seems to mention that, in each and every case, when viewed head on, the wheels are too close together!

Bob

 

[bobknee]

What I cannot understand about OO, is how all the critics and rivet counters go on about the odd miniscule discrepancies here and there.

As soon as a new model arrives they pick it over like vultures at the end of a wilderbeast migration. They count the rivets, check out dimensions for scale, criticise slight colour variations, decals in slightly the wrong place, grain of the wood being vertical instead of horizontal, cab gauges with needles at zero indicating a dead loco etc. etc. etc.

Without fail, in every case, without exception, they ignore the fact that in a head on view the wheels are too close together!

Whilst I also collect OO scale, I cannot get it out of my head the wheels are to HO gauge.

This is why European continental HO is my first love, both for correct scale/gauge and quality, although British OO's quality has caught up in the lst few years.

 

[bobknee]

This has got me thinking - should I open another topic about British N gauge having a different scale ratio to continental N gauge. Could I be that mischevious!

 

[bobknee]

I hadn't fully realised the prototype size differences until recently.

If one accepts Stanier's Duchess class as Britain's largest loco (excluding Mallets), when one compares an OO model of this loco with a Rivarossi HO model of an American Big Boy, the size difference is quite staggering.

Side by side, the Duchess looks like a mere shunter, even though the Big Boy is 12.5% smaller in scale terms.

I have always admired the Big Boys and have just acquired a Rivarossi model off ebay, hence the ability to do the comparison.

Bob

 

[bobknee]

So why not regauge OO to, I think, 18.82mm between the wheels? This would then be correct OO scale/gauge.

The reason for European HO models being seemingly expensive are 1) better quality and motors 2) expensive manufacturing costs in Europe. I suggest cost is not influenced by the difference between HO & OO scales.

Now that Hornby are reintroducing ex Lima/Jouef/Rivarossi models shortly, we might see the cost issue reduce now that they are manufactured in China.

First indications are the RRP's are not much lower than previously, but there have been significant improvements and it will be the discounted prices that are important.

Bob

 

[bobknee]

If O scale is 7mm to 1' (how & why metric got mixed with imperial I'll never know) then HO, i.e. half O, is correct at 3.5mm to 1'.

I was led to believe this is where HO came from, i.e. in scale terms HO 3.5mm is exactly half of O at 7mm.

Now, if you want to ensure track gauge matches exactly with scale, then surely the current OO/HO track is correct for HO, but incorrect for OO, the latter should be 18.83mm between the rails.

Q.E.D. methinks.

 

[bobknee]

I have seen an explanation as to why Marklin called its Mini-Club range Z gauge.

As most scales/gauges are represented by letters, Marklin simply called their "smallest model railway in the World" Z, because it is the last letter available in the alphabet.

 

[bobknee]

OO & HO can be run on the same track - agreed, but isn't the main complaint that the track itself is HO scale? That is, the size of the sleepers etc is visually smaller than it should be for OO scale.

So, the gauge is the same, enabling both OO and HO stock to run on the same track, but the scale is incorrect for OO.

Cat 'mongst pigeons methinks!