QUOTE IF ONLY when 00 started it had been proper British HO with 3.5mm to the foot scale I'm sure that we would all be a lot happier today. Anyway, that's enough ranting for now.
the reasons for british adoption of 4mm scale, but with 16.5mm track, are well documented.
But 4mm as a scale isn't unique...the americans also have a 4 mm scale movement, albeit on 19mm gauge track.
and 3mm scale isn't quite as accurate as OO gauge, either, with the TT track gauge being 12mm! N scale is a compromise as well....why not 2mm scale, which I think pre-dates N scale?
3mm isn't so VERY far off 3.5mm scale, is it?
one advantage of OO gauge..ie 4mm scale with 16.5mm track, as per HO....is that the scale allows a slightly more bulky, or 'meaty' model, than would be the case in HO (3.5mm scale), but with the added advantage a narrower track gauge gives, of being able to squeeze curvature, etc into a tighter space?...[a valid reason for the prototype being ''narrow gauge?'']......certainly EMgauge doesn't suit the sort of trainset curves found in OO?
and no, I'm aware of the scale appearance, etc...I'm referring to the MECHANICS of a track gauge at 18 mm.
so OO gauge gives us the mechanics/space advantages of HO, and the visual and manual bulk of a larger scale.
(eg, I now struggle to 'see', let alone model, handrail/steps in HO ..US prototype.....on a US box car.
On anOO gauge brakevan, I have less of a problem,with the 'same' item.....in fact, a reason why I am investigating S scale!)
I do like to fight the other's corner!
which doesn't help Ted one iota.