Scales and Gauges - History
Ian J.
inform me as to where the scales and gauges we currently use in railway
modelling originally came from?
For instance, surely O gauge wasn't originally conceived as 7mm / foot, as
the metric system mixed with imperial does sound so odd to me...
TIA,
Ian J.
John Turner
"Ian J." wrote
At the turn of the century the principle scales used by commercials
manufacturers (mostly German) were gauge 1 & 2, and I believe 0 was simply a
step down from that and was not originally conceived (at least for the
British market) as 7mm:1 foot but probably something like 5/16" to one foot.
H0 was/is Half 0, and 00 simply a British corruption of the latter to allow
large bodies (for the smaller British prototypes) to fit H0 chassis.
John.
MartinS
1:48 is exactly 1/4 inch to the foot. 5/16 inch to the foot would be
1:38.4, whereas 11/32 inch to the foot is 1:43.2 and 7mm to the foot is
1:43.5. Just stating facts, not drawing any conclusions!
--
Martin S.
John Turner
"MartinS" wrote
> 1:48 is exactly 1/4 inch to the foot. 5/16 inch to the foot would be
> 1:38.4, whereas 11/32 inch to the foot is 1:43.2 and 7mm to the foot is
> 1:43.5. Just stating facts, not drawing any conclusions!
British O-gauge was never 1:48, but has eveloved to approximately 1:43
(presumably started out somewhere around 5/16" or 11/32" to the foot).
Remember that in the early 20th century we were very much talking toys and
not models, and some of the tinplate manufacturers were not at all fussy
with scale.
Take a look at the pre-war Hornby O-gauge range and tell me what scale they
used, because I'm bug#ered if I can figure out any real consistency,
although the track gauge was *standard*. Scale is also irrelevent if we're
talking about a freelance product, which much British O-gauge of the period
was.
John.
Jim Guthrie
<jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
John,
>British O-gauge was never 1:48, but has eveloved to approximately 1:43
>(presumably started out somewhere around 5/16" or 11/32" to the foot).
>Remember that in the early 20th century we were very much talking toys and
>not models, and some of the tinplate manufacturers were not at all fussy
>with scale.
IIRC, Henry Greenly, in cahoots with Mr. Bassett-Lowke, decided that
British 0 scale would be 7mm:ft, and that would have been around
about the end of WW1. So it didn't really evolve as such - the scale
was cast in stone from almost Day 1 and pandered to Greenly's taste
for over large body scales on over narrow rail gauges. Remember it
had to be in existence so that we could invent H0 scale in the 20s :-)
Jim.
John Turner
"Jim Guthrie" wrote
> IIRC, Henry Greenly, in cahoots with Mr. Bassett-Lowke, decided that
> British 0 scale would be 7mm:ft, and that would have been around
> about the end of WW1.
I personally think that most unlikely. Why would a UK manufacturer choose
to adopt a part metric, part imperial system when the former was virtually
unknown in Great Britain at the time and for many years afterwards,
especially having just concluded a major conflict with Germany.
John.
Jim Guthrie
<jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
John,
>I personally think that most unlikely. Why would a UK manufacturer choose
>to adopt a part metric, part imperial system when the former was virtually
>unknown in Great Britain at the time and for many years afterwards,
>especially having just concluded a major conflict with Germany.
I'm miles away from home at the moment so can't get my hands on
sources to quote from, But also remember that our infamous 00
scale/gauge combination (4mm:ft) was conceived not long after, and
that was a bastardisation of the existent H0 scale (3.5mm:ft) which
was derived from 0 scale (7mm:ft). All these developments had to
have happened in the 1920s since H0 scale and 00 scale were being used
by modellers in the 1930s.
It's a question that's often been raised when there are discussions
about the British railway modelling scales - i.e. why Greenly chose
mixed metric/imperial scales.
And metric was not unknown in the UK. For example, our favourite BA
thread standard is based on the metric system and it appeared on the
scene well over 100 years ago.
http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_BA.htm.
Jim.
GbH
news:avemoh$gv9$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net
Allied to our good friends the French, who IIRC are somewhat into metrics!
>
> John.
--
If your spec. is imprecise, you'll likely get what you asked for not what you
wanted. Why waste money going to expensive emporia
just to have your intelligence insulted.
Come to .Talkland and we'll do it for free.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. So There!!!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.437 / Virus Database: 245 - Release Date: 06/01/2003
John Turner
"GbH" wrote
> Allied to our good friends the French, who IIRC are somewhat into metrics!
Oh yes, those well known model railway enthusiasts, who would certainly have
had a great influence in such a decision! ;-)
John.
John Sullivan
<jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> writes
Take a look at http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/modrail/faq/r1gener.txt
When you have this in your browser, search for "Gauges and scales"
(without the quotes, of course. You will see an article headed "The
development of model railway scales and gauges" which is very
informative, and explains some of the apparent inconsistencies referred
to in this thread.
--
John Sullivan
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
Jim
describes O Gauge
as being:
Gauge No. O = 1 1/4"
Scale 7mm:1ft
1/44 full size
tonnage coeff. (whatever that was!) 29.
Interesting to note that he suggests that " Gauge No 1 is the best gauge for
an indoor
model electric, steam or clockwork locomotive. The scale is a convenient
one from a
designer's point of view, every centimetre equalling one foot in the
prototype."
Jim
"John Sullivan" <jo...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3R8wn5aJ...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk...
John Turner
"Jim" wrote
> I have a copy of Henry Greenly's 1924 book "Model Railways" where he
> describes O Gauge
> as being:
>
> Gauge No. O = 1 1/4"
> Scale 7mm:1ft
> 1/44 full size
[In pedantic mode] - 7mm:1ft does not equate to 1/44th scale, but to
something like 1/43.5 so both cannot be correct and just shows/confirms that
we are/were not talking about *precise art* during that era!
John.
Jim Guthrie
<jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
John,
>> Gauge No. O = 1 1/4"
>> Scale 7mm:1ft
>> 1/44 full size
>
>[In pedantic mode] - 7mm:1ft does not equate to 1/44th scale, but to
>something like 1/43.5 so both cannot be correct and just shows/confirms that
>we are/were not talking about *precise art* during that era!
I suspect that Henry Greenly was trying to keep things "simple" by
keeping all values in integers and avoiding the hassle you get as soon
as numbers appear after decimal points ;-).
Sorry I couldn't respond to you earlier. I've mislaid my 1950s BRMSB
Handbook which had a very good detailed history of the birth of our
scales - the result of a workshop spring clean a year ago :-)
Jim.
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>Interesting to note that he suggests that " Gauge No 1 is the best gauge for
=>an indoor
=>model electric, steam or clockwork locomotive. The scale is a convenient
=>one from a
=>designer's point of view, every centimetre equalling one foot in the
=>prototype."
=>
=>Jim
Yeah, it's that "convenience factor" that has caused the mess in British
railway modelling. Bah! That 10mm = 1ft is not correct for 45 mm anyhow -
it's 1:30 scale, not 1:32, which is correct for 45mm gauge representing
stadard gauge. Bah! again.
It's been said that the reason for OO being 4mm scale bodies running n 16.5mm
track is that 3.5mm scale would have made the locos too small. That's nonense
IMO; there was no technical reason whatsoever to choose this bastard
scale/gauge combination. If the size of the models had been the real problem,
the correct track gauge would have been chosen (18.83mm, or 19mm rounded
off.)
The real reason for British OO is Henry Greenly's ideas about "convenience."
He was trying to make model train building easy for the ordinary bloke who
had only hand tools and a school drafting set available. HO scale mechanisms
were relatively easy to get, but calculating and laying out dimensions with a
3.5mm = 1 ft scale was too cumbersome in Greenly's opinion. With 4mm = 1ft,
1mm = 3", and that's about the precision he expected of the ordinary bloke. A
not-too-sharp pencil will make a line 1/2 to 1mm thick, so Greenly figured
that 1mm was the practical limit of precision, I guess.
As I've said before: Greenly has a lot to answer for.
That being said, I've found good modelling techniques in Greenley's book.
Wolf Kirchmeir
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train?
(Garrison Keillor)
Jim Guthrie
<wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Wolf,
>It's been said that the reason for OO being 4mm scale bodies running n 16.5mm
>track is that 3.5mm scale would have made the locos too small. That's nonense
>IMO; there was no technical reason whatsoever to choose this bastard
>scale/gauge combination. If the size of the models had been the real problem,
>the correct track gauge would have been chosen (18.83mm, or 19mm rounded
>off.)
Whether it was intended or not, an advantage of the narrow gauge in
4mm meant that you could get outside motion and cylinders on a model
with the over wide wheel tyres of the day and still have a good chance
of staying within the scaled down loading gauge. Even with that, a
lot of earlier 00 models had cylinders which stuck out like elephants'
ears :-) The same could be said for the Greenly's 7mm 0 scale as
well.
The one good thing that happened to H0 when it was derived from the UK
0 scale was that the gauge was widened to give a much better
scale/gauge ratio.
Jim.
John Turner
"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
>A not-too-sharp pencil will make a line 1/2 to 1mm thick, so Greenly
figured
> that 1mm was the practical limit of precision, I guess.
So why didn't he stick with the accepted Imperial meanurement of 1/16inch?
This was about as accurate as many craftsmen could work to in that era, was
familiar to its users, and was pretty close to 0.5mm.
John.
Jim Guthrie
<jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
John,
>So why didn't he stick with the accepted Imperial meanurement of 1/16inch?
>This was about as accurate as many craftsmen could work to in that era, was
>familiar to its users, and was pretty close to 0.5mm.
With 1/16" = 3", you've got 1/4" scale (or 0 scale in the US)
With 1/16" = 4" you've got 3/16" scale (or what was Half One scale
later to become S scale)
With 1/16" = 6", you've got 1/8" scale (or close to H0 as we know it)
If you wanted something in between, then you had to look for some
other easy measurement, and the millimetre = 3" fitted the bill :-)
You could have used 1/16" = 5", but that starts to give you a lot of
fairly messy fractions when dealing with the duodecimal foot.
Mind you, I don't see how this argument could be applied to 7mm scale
since that gives you some atrocious fractions to deal with :-)
Jim.
GbH
I seem to recall 1/16" as being about 1.5mm (1.5875mm?)
--
If your spec. is imprecise, you'll likely get what you asked for not what you
wanted. Why waste money going to expensive emporia
just to have your intelligence insulted.
Come to .Talkland and we'll do it for free.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. So There!!!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.438 / Virus Database: 246 - Release Date: 08/01/2003
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>
=>"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
=>
=>>A not-too-sharp pencil will make a line 1/2 to 1mm thick, so Greenly
=>figured
=>> that 1mm was the practical limit of precision, I guess.
=>
=>So why didn't he stick with the accepted Imperial meanurement of 1/16inch?
=>This was about as accurate as many craftsmen could work to in that era, was
=>familiar to its users, and was pretty close to 0.5mm.
=>
=>John.
I think you mean 1/64th (= ca 1/3rd mm), which is a little fine for most
ordinary blokes IMO. 1/32" (ca 2/3rd mm) would have been workable precision
for most people, with 1/64th possible if you had a really sharp (and hard)
pencil or scriber.
1/8th=1ft scale is too small for HO, which is close to 1/7th"=1ft. 5/8th"
gauge, which Greenly gave for HO(!) is about .6mm too narrow - considerable,
when you consider back-to-back, check gauge, etc.
Anyhow, it's an academic discussion. I believe there's a market for Bristh
outline in true HO. But not if it's produced as another specialty scale, with
the small production runs, high prices, and incomplete kits that seem to be
the norm for such products. (Another of my pet peeves is that so many UK kits
come without wheels and motors -- GAAGH!)
2c Can (1.3c US, 0.8 pence UK)
HTH
John Turner
"GbH" wrote
> I seem to recall 1/16" as being about 1.5mm (1.5875mm?)
I think I need to go back to school, mindst it is a *long* time since I
left. I meant 1/32" in reality, with 11/32" to 1 ft being a fairly close
approximation to modern 0-gauge.
John.
Ian J.
> outline in true HO. But not if it's produced as another specialty scale,
with
> the small production runs, high prices, and incomplete kits that seem to
be
> the norm for such products. (Another of my pet peeves is that so many UK
kits
> come without wheels and motors -- GAAGH!)
>
I'm not so bothered with the issue of no motor or wheels in the kits, more
that the prices of the kits already seem high in some cases, and then you
don't get good instructions, wheels, or motors. When the cost of the extras
is then added in, the kit becomes phenomenally expensive - expecially it
seems in the case of coaches, which often don't have wheels, or interiors,
or underframe detailing, all of which have to be bought separately, which
can add another 25%-30% to already expensive items...that's why I'd love
Hornby/Bachmann to produce some *accurate* RTR Maunsell stock...
I suppose the same is true of locos, as when the cost of wheels, motor,
gearbox etc is totted up, the price gets truly hairy...
Ian J.
Keith Norgrove
<wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> (Another of my pet peeves is that so many UK kits
>come without wheels and motors -- GAAGH!)
>
Can't please everybody, I dislike kits that come with wheels which I
then have to replace, wasteful. But kudos to Parkside Dundas
<http//:www.parksidedundas.co.uk/> who provide wheels to keep you
happy and offer an exchange service to keep me happy.
Keith
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>
=>I think I need to go back to school, mindst it is a *long* time since I
=>left. I meant 1/32" in reality, with 11/32" to 1 ft being a fairly close
=>approximation to modern 0-gauge.
11/32" to 1ft is 1:35, which is closer to #1 scale (1:32) than to O scale
(1:43.5 to 1:48).
I think yerz meanter say 8/32" (1:48).
HTH
John Sullivan
Kirchmeir <wwol...@sympatico.ca> writes
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:32:11 -0000, John Turner wrote:
>
>=>
>=>I think I need to go back to school, mindst it is a *long* time since I
>=>left. I meant 1/32" in reality, with 11/32" to 1 ft being a fairly close
>=>approximation to modern 0-gauge.
>
>11/32" to 1ft is 1:35, which is closer to #1 scale (1:32) than to O scale
>(1:43.5 to 1:48).
>
>I think yerz meanter say 8/32" (1:48).
*Nobody* says 8/32". If you want 8/32 you say 1/4.
>
>HTH
>
>
>Wolf Kirchmeir
>
>If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train?
>(Garrison Keillor)
>
>
--
John Turner
"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote
> I think yerz meanter say 8/32" (1:48).
Maybe I'll quit whilst I'm behind!
John.
Terry Flynn
"John Turner" <jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:avemoh$gv9$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
I have seen a book from the UK on hobbies which was printed either just
before or after WW1. It referred to mm/ft for various scales. This fits with
Jim's comments.
--
Terry Flynn
For HO scale track standards go to
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort
estimates