[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.

 

[nzpaul]

hmmm, hows this.... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've been seeing this one pop up in forums all over the place, end result = we still have 00, why? cos nobody's going to biff away millions of dollars of investment in tooling to start again ( thats my guess anyhow). 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? In fact I've seen some 00 loco's that I'm sure would behave as well as any P4 loco, kinda comes down to the builder.
So I'm going to be ultra controvesial and say LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE, mainly because I've got a truck load of 00 and I don't need some upstart coming along and changing all the rules just for fun. I'll go and hide under the bed now

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Gary]

Just checking something else out and discovered this bit of trivia.

O gauge is 32mm. W. J Bassett-Lowke in a letter to Model railway News in 1937 claims that OO always has been the recognised symbol for railways of 16mm gauge as the British were the originators of small scale railways. We (the British) have never departed from this standard symbol. How the symbol HO came about no one can determine although Mr Bassett-Lowke speculates that it may have come from America.

So it appears that 16mm gauge has the official symbol OO wherever you are in the world!

And it is further argued that all locomotives that run on standard gauge track no matter what their size when scaled down to run on OO scale track should be deemed to be OO scale.

So as this is the case why are we having this debate as HO does not exist!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Gary]

You are a genius when it comes to the DCC side of things Lisa4P but it seems that history is not your strong point.

According to Marklin's own timeline they did not introduce HO until 1935.

http://www.marklin.com/about/timeline.html

Bassett-Lowke introduced Bing into Britain in 1921 and this was an OO gauge (as used by Bing) system running on 16mm track and scaled at 4mm. So yes, a German company first produced small scale table top railways but it was not Marklin.

In 1927 Marshall Stewart of London introduced what they termed HO (half O, 3.5mm).

In 1938 Mr George Mellor of Meccano put the case for adopting a slighty overscale OO with the Hornby Dublo range in the Meccano magazine and the rest as they say is history. It was claimed to be nothing at all to do with the size of electric motors but more to do with getting the best running performance on 16mm tin plate track given that it was a toy for children. Oversized flanges were required and these could not easily be accomodated in a HO scale body.

Its all in Michael Fosters book on the subject of Hornby Dublo.

Now given that the model trains are still perceived as something to introduce the kids to then surely it is best to stick with the scale in Britain that best accomodates their needs. And it has to be said that in Hornby train sets the locomotives do normally have a courser scale of wheel which in the circumstances is reasonable. After all sets are normally purchased by starters to the hobby. And they would be discouraged if every time they set up a layout the trains kept coming off the track.

I supose the real argument has to be with Rovex of Richmond in 1950 when they introduced their brand new system for the first time that undercut Hornby Dublo significantly on price. Now why did Rovex persist with an OO scale when they could have adopted an HO scale in 1950?

Rovex production moved from Richmond to a new factory in Margate in 1954...

I'll take a few pictures of my Rovex Princess Elizabeth train set of 1951 made at the Richmond factory and then you can all see what a proper train set looks like!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Dennis David]

I think I'll stick with N-Scale or is that gauge?

 

[Gary]

N scale should be classified as "OOO" gauge as it used to be in the UK.

Think Lone Star triple O railways. British N gauge is not N gauge at all but half OO (or it should be).

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.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Dennis David]

Now I'm really getting a headache.

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MPCooper]

I must agree on both counts.
The 50 or more year old reason for the existence of mongrel OO gauge has long disappeared, though it's easy to understand why it will probably continue, regardless.

It's also pretty clear that, while most people make an honest effort to clarify a confusing situation, others appear to take a perverse delight in muddying it still further, which is far from helpful. In fact it is the very opposite, in creating yet further argument where there was already more than enough potential.

 

[Gary]

QUOTE there is no longer any good modelling reason for maintaining OO.

Would disagree entirely. And the history has to be introduced as it guides us as to the reasons for OO gauge being adopted in the first place. Remember 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.

A reminder.:-

1) Unlike locomotives overseas a large number of British locomotives have wheel arches over the top of the wheels. Only a small number such as the Q1 and the BR Standards do not. 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.

2) The slightly overscale OO 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.

3) Whatever one says the can motor even now just about fits within the width of an OO scale body. Think about why tender drives where introduced in the first place! And even now tender drives with traction tyres do have unbeatable pulling power. You can reduce the size of the motor but at the cost of hauling power and a reduction in overall performance (unless you want traction tyres back!)

4) Psychologically HO gauge is at a disadvantage for modellers because it involves working to a scale involving a fraction. (4mm to 1ft is much easier on the mind than 3.5mm to 1ft)

5) OO provides more room for accurate detailing of outside valve gear and cylinder detail taking into account the issues above.

6) 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.

7) 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. More and more things are shipped by the Post Office as a result of online sales so durability is an issue to consider.

I have said enough. Let the small band of British HO enthusiasts continue along their merry way with perfectly prototypical scratch built locomotives and track.

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 OO from a British perspective. Anything else is simply going to increase costs and prices!

And are we happy to pay higher prices for HO?

Say double!!!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS 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.

 

[MPCooper]

The above obviously written by someone who wants to maintain OO, come hell or high water and I can easily understand that and I am also quite sure that OO will continue for a long time to come.

However the actual 'arguments' brought to bear are severely flawed in that they totally ignore the very successful presence of HO, N and Z gauges, which overcome most of the objections voiced above. Sorry but their existence, their high quality and their usability virtually negates it all.

Just a couple of other points:

I completely fail to understand on what basis it is intimated that HO British models would automatically cost more than OO. I see no reason whatsoever for that presumption.

I would also particularly question the comments on 'psychology of scale'.
4mm/1 foot sounds simpler than 3.5mm/1 foot?
If everything were dimensioned in nice whole feet, that just might hold true for the numerically challenged. But they are rarely nice round numbers and, in any case and much more importantly, manufacturers must work to AT LEAST 0.1mm tolerances if their products are to perform satisfactorily. Thus the difference between 4.0 and 3.5 becomes a very superficial matter indeed.
Four feet eight and a half inches anyone?
In any case, isn't Britain now totally metricated?
That whole numbers argument held almost no water in the first place and metrication has now emptied that bucket altogether!

Sorry, but none of the 'questionably factual' arguments are any way convincing.
Far more convincing would be,
"I don't care about accuracy of scale, or having TWO scales, I like it just the way it is now, I have too much time and money already invested in OO and I'm not going to change it no matter what anyone says, so there!!!"
That would be simple, straighforward, honest and actually makes sense.

However, one would possibly wonder just how long it will continue to make sense to a company that manufactures both HO and OO scales (on a large scale)!

 

[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.

 

[Gary]

QUOTE However the actual 'arguments' brought to bear are severely flawed in that they totally ignore the very successful presence of HO, N and Z gauges, which overcome most of the objections voiced above. Sorry but their existence, their high quality and their usability virtually negates it all.

I would guess that N and Z gauge modellers would die for OO gauge style detail and accuracy!

No mention of price or cost in the reply. A Z gauge railway 1/3 the size of OO probably costs at least 50% more to put together! And that is without the cost of the magnifying glass required to see the detail! Having chatted with a lot of modellers at shows and exhibitions N and Z gauge is seen as the young man's gauges as you need good eyesight and steady hands. I hear this time after time!

And the points don't ignore the presence of HO gauge. They simply say why OO scale works for mass produced British outline locomotives.

Again its down to what is practical.

I'll tell you what. Let Bachmann switch their entire future production to HO scale and let Hornby continue with OO scale. That is the best solution and no more model duplication either! And Bachmann could raise their prices aswell to European levels so everybody wins! Customers who get a choice of scales, retailers who no longer have model duplication on the shelves, and manufacturers who are no longer in competition with each other!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS I'll respond to Lisa4P's points another day but I want to let the dust settle first!

 

[MPCooper]

QUOTE I would guess that N and Z gauge modellers would die for OO gauge style detail and accuracy!
Hardly!
If it was THAT important, surely they would have opted for OO in the first place!
In any case. what have either N or Z gauge to do with this specific HO/OO comparison?

1. Z gauge.
As far as I know, OO gauge applies only to British prototypes, so any comparisons of OO with Z gauge is effectively impossible.

2. N Gauge.
Modellers of non-British prototype would not have any option for OO either. I would suggest there are hugely more of them in the world than of British prototype modellers. British prototype N gauge is a very small segment of a world market.

3. Prices
Comparing OO prices with Z is seriously misleading.
Why not compare OO with O gauge as well?

Basically, all the foregoing is right off track and off topic. The only valid comparison is between HO and OO and I still see no supportable reason as to why this small matter of 0.5mm in scale should create any difference in price between them.