I recently learned that British OO trains are larger in scale than our HO ( I used to think they were exactly the same in every respect except for the names OO / HO. Yet, Peco track packages read 'OO/HO'. This causes me to believe that ,yes, Britain's OO trains are larger than HO but that their track is thus a tad narrow at 1:87, gauge-wise. Otherwise why would the Peco packages state this ? Sorry if I've asked this before. I'd forget my head if it wasn't screwed on...M
Thanks. So my thinking was right. 00 scalers are running on slightly narrower than what would be in 1:1 scale, standard gauge of 4'8.5". That must also be why 00 ties are further apart than say, Atlas, ME HO. They'r are attempting to create a bit more realism by at least spacing the ties (sleepers there) 1/76 scale apart ! But since we HOers are still seeing 1/87 rail gauging, gazing at 00 track 'looks like' HO (gauged) rails with ties too far apart..But then, in the early days of British MRRing, why did they go TO 1/76 size and either follow thru with 1/76 scale track, or, manufacture HO 1/87 scale trains?! Reason for all this now is I find myself visiting English train and model train videos allot lately. Especially Tony Wright's videos. Totally unrelated: I've been trying to find out why while I'm typing the screen intermittently jumps to the bottom of the page. I asked this in another post but since some of you may not have read it, maybe one of you who knows how to remedy this. I did a 'clear browsing data' to no avail...I'm starting to think the Vert. curser (couser?) line drops away a millisecond before I hit the space bar. YES ! I watched very [clo <just did it here] closely and curser was absent before I hit the spacer bar and page jumped ! OK! Now I believe it's a curser problem, not the space bar..This only occurs in TBoard, nowhere else (email, YouTube, Twitter). That's what's even weirder ! Any dibs ? ..M
OO track in 70 size is also good for 'old tyme' recreation with sleepers a little wider spaced ... and [mostly] the reason for 1/76 rather than 1/87 was simple physical space ..
Not sure I understand. If it's a cramped space problem, 1/76 is larger than 1/87. If bodies of trains are larger than HO, using HO 'size' track I think would not help the allotted space dilemma. No? Sorry no savvy yet.
When British OO was first developed, the motors were too big to fit into 1/87 bodies so they made them 1/76 but made the track standard gauge 1/87. The Brits did this several times with different scales. Treble-O-Lectric trains are 1/152 scale but run on N gauge track - 9mm. Doug
OO gauge came about in 1922 with the "The Table Railway" by Bing and the motors in question were actually clockwork, not electric. OO gauge really took off from 1938 when Mechano released "Hornby Dublo" and has been dominant ever since
It gets confusing when you mix brands. A lot of Lima OO is OO, but I also have some Lima British Rail that is HO. As with most models, it really helps if you squint.
That'll be when Lima wasn't part of Hornby but an Italian company trying to please the British market (OO) and the European market (HO) at the same time. The purists back in those days would NEVER dream of running OO equipment on an HO layout and vise versa... FYI there is a correct track gauge for OO - it's called EM and is something like 18 or 19mm as opposed to HO's 16.5mm
And an even more exact gauge S4 at 18.83 mm (0.741 in) for 4 mm scale. Pretty much a masochistic craftsman gauge using 4 mm as the scale (1/76.1) as opposed to EM which is 18.2 mm gauge. I would guess 95% of UK modelers use 16.5 mm gauge track. The S4 and EM people make a lot of noise to compensate. Any new RTR or kit product is loudly castigated for using 16,5 mm gauge rather than their respective holy grails of S4 or EM. They could have saved the angst by switching to HO when there was a chance in the 1960's with some movement in that direction. But the Not Invented Here crowd won out. Peco is introducing a more realistic version of 16.5 mm Bullhead Rail UK tie (aka sleeper) spacing to match closer to 4 mm scale.
Still trying to get my head round some of the naming conventions, would I be correct in assuming that 4mm scale gets it's name from 4mm on the model is 1ft (I love mixing metric and imperial measurements) which is the same as 1/76 scale which is the same as OO scale, except for the track in OO scale which is 16.5mm wide which is 1/86,where it should really be 18.7mm wide if it was true 1/76 scale.
My AHM/Rivarossi Genoa and Inyo 4-4-0s are OO scale. It really sucks when they’re next to HO scale models. I can tell the difference and it bugs me.
It came about because in the 20's /30's even 40's when commercial motors were too big to fit in smaller British locos at H0 scale .Also European rolling stock and locos , as in the USA ,has a wider loading gauge so motors ar an easier fit .As many of the early manufacturers of British trains were European it was solved by sticking 16.5 with track but making the models to 4 mm scale as opposed to the correct 3.5 mm .Hornby Dublo went with 4mm scale 16.5 mm track gauge and a star was born lt has of course been a bone of contention ever since ,solved by first making EM gauge(18 mm track roughly ) available from small suppliers and scratch building suppliers and also p4 and several sizes inbetween best known to their adherents .I couldnt give a rats arse about it all but to others its an important issue . I sculpt figures for 4 mm UK types and some American stuff for 3.5 so they dont really clash and my income is safe. I hope this helps but I doubt it .Like the Marie Celeste its there ,live with it .
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson. The British just carry on with these inconsistencies in the predominant scale used for Railway modeling with only the tiny screams of P4 and EM advocates ringing in their ears.....