Model Railway Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Should We Move From OO to HO?

14K views 87 replies 13 participants last post by  Dennis David 
#1 ·
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

 
See less See more
1
#53 ·
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!
 
#54 ·
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.
 
#55 · (Edited by Moderator)
Yep, you only have to look at the photos of Coronation (aka D.of Ham.)when it toured the US in 1939 to see how small British locos are.
I don't reckon that the change of scale is on as far as the mass market is concerned - it would be easier for manufacturers to change the gauge to match 4 mm scale. But then you would not be able to run "foreign"....
Perhaps we could persuede the rest of the world adopt 4mm scale instead.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the "coming storm"
Also, lets not knock manufacturers too much when they get things a little wrong.
Its easy to make mistakes and if it something that really bugs you then do some actual modelleing and put it right. Remember that it just is not possible to produce every item on a model loco, coach etc exactly to scale - it just would not be robust enough to work.
Have fun guys - its what a hobby is supposed to be.
Pete
 
#56 · (Edited by Moderator)
QUOTE 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

The wheels on the Hornby loco in the picture are 2.5mm wide which is 0.5mm wider than the figure quoted, not 2mm wider. The Hornby and Bachmann wheels are designed to run on code 100 proprietory set track and do a very good job providing excellent performance in these conditions. The locomotives are smooth and capable of hauling plenty of coaches around set track small radius curves and also are capable of crossing points and other track features.

There are probably a lot of folk reading this who would be surprised that you seem to have so much of a running problem with ready to run Hornby locomotives!


I cannot comment about your own track set up Lisa4P except to say that it is not a proprietory track. If folk choose to use track that has not been produced by a proprietory manufacturer then it is not fair to criticise a manufacturer if running is perceived as not being to a standard required. And remember that manufacturers have to take into account all standards of railway modellers and not just those who are in the top 1-2%.

I think doubleOO made a similar point elsewhere in a track discussion.

You could probably see this point of view?


QUOTE Perhaps we could persuede the rest of the world adopt 4mm scale instead.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the "coming storm"

Nice idea!


Happy modelling
Gary
 
#57 ·
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.
 
#59 · (Edited by Moderator)
I'll be posting some more pictures later for LisaP4 to manipulate.

Not quite sure what Lisa will do when these are posted but they are good pictures!


Its one thing to manipulate images but its the difference between manufacturing on a production line to make a product and offer a complete value package for the masses and hand building a loco to produce a model for the few.

Hornby probably produce 500,000 locos or more each year. Kit white metal manufacturers probably have production runs of 50 to 100 and the running gear is designed for those who seek what LisaP4 is seeking. Why don't kit manufacturers do HO if we are saying that it is possible to do this taking into account all the other variables?


Now I am not saying what is right and what is wrong but there are factors that determine what can and cannot be done easily that we as customers may not appreciate.

Happy modelling
Gary
 
#60 ·
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.
 
#61 · (Edited by Moderator)
QUOTE 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?

What evidence do you have for this?


There are large numbers of correspondents at both Pat Hammonds site and in the modelling press that are very happy with the products that are being offered to us.

I would discount rivet counters that go looking for issues as these are unrepresentative, probably don't appreciate the manufacturing process, and still buy the models anyway!


If they have the right look and feel and nice detail and they run right and appear to offer remarkable value then what more can you ask?

Happy modelling
Gary
 
#62 ·
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.
 
#63 · (Edited by Moderator)
QUOTE 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.

I don't look at my models. I run them. And if you stand far enough away you can't see the detail below!


And my comment that you have refered to was about detail above the body not below and about HO compromise for smaller British prototype locomotives. The fact is (and you cannot deny this) people did not buy these HO locomotives and Rivarossi gave up and Lima quickly moved to OO. The HO models produced by these companies were almost the same width as OO models but were shorter in length by 12.5%. Would you buy one of these HO examples?


They offered "compromise" HO with British Loco bodies that had an above scale width that would sit on a chassis designed for HO models in Europe.

Happy modelling
Gary
 
#64 ·
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.
 
#66 · (Edited by Moderator)
I have done a google search and nobody produces a kit of an HO "Flying Scotsman".

I would agree with LisaP4 that if any British steam loco was to be considered as a candidate for an HO model it should be "Flying Scotsman".

Now given that it is possible to create a smaller HO chassis than is currently available, then an investment of £150,000 would be required to produce a ready to run HO example of this model that would be of an acceptable standard.

And say the production cost was £35 after the start up investment. At a wholesale price to retailers of say £60 with retail at £90 (or whatever the overseas currency conversion rate is at these sort of levels) a sale of 100,000 examples would provide a gross return for the manufacturer of £100,000. Not a lot for the risk.

Now this would be an "export only" model. It would not be available in the UK.

And what about coaches. These would have to be developed and produced in HO also. How could you sell an HO "Flying Scotsman" without matching coaches? This is an additional cost and risk.

Are there 100,000 enthusiasts outside the UK who would be happy to purchase a UK outline HO "Flying Scotsman"?

Judging by sales of the OO scale version overseas probably not. The Bachmann HO "Hogwarts Express" trainset sold in America was not the stunning success of its Hornby brother in the UK. Perhaps evidence that Americans are not too interested in British outline.

These are the sort of numbers you would need to be talking about for an investment of this type to be viable and there is evidence that these sort of numbers would not be met.

Happy modelling
Gary
 
#68 ·
QUOTE You mention that all 00 coaches will not fit H0 locomotive couplings.
I have a mixture of both H0 and 00 locomotives, coaches and I am able to couple an HO coach to a 00 locomotive and vice versa.

What I said was that an HO Flying Scotsman would have to have HO sized coaches made for it. It would not look right hauling OO sized coaches.

I do agree that Hornby tension couplers and the continental style couplers do seem to work together to a fashion. No doubt any new HO coach would have NEM sockets if produced for a global market.

Maybe a missunderstanding so apologies if this was not clear.

Happy modelling
Gary
 
#69 · (Edited by Moderator)
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.
 
#70 ·
I have been following all the posts on 00/H0, UK/Continental models and can't help wondering just how many active modellers there are here. When I say active I mean those with a working model railway either under active construction or in a state where trains are being run for their own sake rather than whether or not they, and their track, are accurate to the nth degree. Just curious.
 
#72 ·
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.
 
#73 ·
I know your right in theory Liza, but I'm not changing my 00 collection for that reason.
Personally I'd love to have R-T-R HO but not at the expence of scapping my collection.
Like most modeller I have quite an investment in my gauge. You cannot erradicate 00
simply by dropping it's manufacture. 00 is here to stay warts and all.
I would also be serriously intrested with the commerial re-introduction of 3mm since in this gauge we have an excellent compromise of gauge and scale. I'm not intrested in constructing my whole railway from scratch, and I don't want a railway the size of a shoebox (no offence to anyone intended). I want an operational model railway, of the size to run reasonably large trains to a timetable, where trains travel to multiple stations on my layout. I want continious run. I want the pleasure of watch my stock run.
I look forward to the challenge of designing a new layout. So HO, OO, 3mm (TT) I just want to enjoy my layout, run trains with a period background. EM & P4 all have their place, but not in my order of things.
 
#74 ·
Both gauges 00 and H0 locomotives, coaches and wagons can run over the same gauge of either 00 or H0 track, therefor inter changeable.
As it was pointed out in another forum, that the new couplings can cause problems when coupling up the different rolling stock gauges if fitted with older type couplings.
I did find the Fleischman DMU 614 two car set, has the new couplings fitted and making it impossible to interchange with my other models. At present I can use the 00 and H0 on my gauge 00 layout.
 
#76 ·
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!

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top