HO scale question

I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it.......
What is the scall between HO and full size trains?
This should just be so easy to find, but googling various HO terms just
seems to showup other portals or some website trying to sell something.
Along those lines, anyone know of a good model train 'reference' site as
well?
Thanks, Mike
Reply to
Mike Lawson
Loading thread data ...
Mike Lawson skriver:
1:87
Depending on what you mean ?
Here in Europe we have morop.org wich represent most of the european railroaders. The allso have their NEM norms who descibes mutch about allmost anything.
I US there is NMRA.org
Klaus
Reply to
Klaus D. Mikkelsen
1:87 or 3.5mm/foot
Chris P
Railway Pictures Website
formatting link
Reply to
Chris Packman
Klaus, thanks a lot. I'll look for nmra.org. Mike
Reply to
Mike Lawson
1:87
Reply to
Robert Heller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HO scale is 87.1:1. Here are some sites with helpful information:
Christopher Coleman's excellent website:
formatting link
Scale conversions:
formatting link
Da Trains scale-to-scale:
formatting link

Bill Bill's Railroad Empire N Scale Model Railroad:
formatting link
History of N Scale:
formatting link
Railroad Books, Toys, and Trains:
formatting link
to 1,200 sites:
formatting link
Reply to
Bill
In Europe; 1:87. In Britain; 3.5mm to 1'. In the USa; 1:87.1 (a rounding of 3.5mm:1')
While the differences are minimal, they are differences and model railway fans can be picky about such things.
MOROP (Europe) historically classifes everything from 1:80 to 1:90 as HO, probably because Trix Express (1935-60s) was 1:90 while Fleischmann was 1:82 until 1964, 1:84 1964-75) Rivarossi Italian was 1:80.
Reply to
Greg Procter
Greg Procter spake thus:
At least anal ones like you. You're going to tell us with a straight face that you, or anyone else on Earth for that matter, can tell the difference between 1:87 and 1:87.1? *Snort*.
Reply to
David Nebenzahl
I can if I'm scratchbuiding.
Say for example I build an underframe at 3.5mm/1 foot and then make the superstructure at 1:87, they aren't going to match.
If I'm going to build it myself, why shouldn't I build it right?
Is there any particular reason why you feel the need to be obnoxious?
Regards, Greg.P.
That's about right!
Reply to
Greg Procter
Very interesting. I've always been curious about that. Thanks.
Reply to
Drew
That IS very interesting. I have heard all three scaling options but never related to a global location. The actual scale is 3.5mm = 1'. That works out to a ratio of 1:87.085714..... The difference in 1:87 and 1:87.1 is insignificant, especially if you are consistent. I always use metric for my measurements since that is what the scale is and I never have to worry how the numbers are rounded off. However, when your measuremnts get down to a tenth of a millimeter or less it's pretty hard to get absolute accuracy no matter what your measuring system is.
J. Bright
Reply to
Jim Bright
The actual scale is whichever of the three you decide to go with. A scale expressed in two different measuring systems is plain daft!
Sure it's insignificant, but why introduce a fudge factor (the rounding up) before introducing one's own fudge factor of working to the nearest 0.2-0.5mm or whatever? That becomes a multipication of fudge factors. (a fudge factor multiplied by a fudge factor = a blunder factor :-)
I've recently been scratchbuilding prototypes built in feet, inches and fractions thereof. My materials have thicknesses in millimeters or fractions of inches or thousandths of inches. When some component requires a combination of all three added together (as has happened) the maths required leaves plenty of room for error.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
I was wondering if I could tell the difference between 1/87 and 1/87.1. I cant to my eye, however... I put this in a spreadsheet, double check my calcualtions. scale physical size in inches scale difference feet inches @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 1 12 0.1379 0.1377 0.1653 0.1655 inches 5 60 0.6896 0.6888 0.8266 0.8275 inches 10 120 1.3793 1.3777 1.6532 1.6551 inches 20 240 2.7586 2.7554 3.3065 3.3103 inches 50 600 6.8965 6.8886 8.2663 8.2758 inches 100 1200 13.7931 13.7772 1.3777 1.3793 feet 200 2400 27.5862 27.5545 2.7554 2.7586 feet 500 6000 68.9655 68.8863 6.8886 6.8965 feet 1000 12000 137.9310 137.7726 13.7772 13.7931 feet 2000 24000 275.8620 275.5453 27.5545 27.5862 feet 3500 42000 482.7586 482.2043 48.2204 48.2758 feet
btw the spreadsheet calculated to more decimals, ie... 482.204362801377727
so at 200' we're talking a little more than 1/3" actual size difference between scales. Perhaps an issue if you're scratchbuilding prototype size buildings. However! A 48' container would have a 1/10" difference in size between the two scales. Considering there may be 4-8" of spare room between the container and the car sides, that 1/10" works out to 9", enough to make a 1/87 car too small to carry a 1/87.1 container. Interesting. Perhaps this is why A-Line containers don't always fit in Walthers container cars? a 1/87.1 container in a 1/87 car????
Reply to
J Barnstorf
sorry, my last post reformatted my table into a pile of junk Let's see if this is more readable:
physical size scale scale in inches difference feet inches @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 1 12 0.1379 0.1377 0.1653 0.1655 inches 5 60 0.6896 0.6888 0.8266 0.8275 inches 10 120 1.3793 1.3777 1.6532 1.6551 inches 20 240 2.7586 2.7554 3.3065 3.3103 inches 50 600 6.8965 6.8886 8.2663 8.2758 inches 100 1200 13.7931 13.7772 1.3777 1.3793 feet 200 2400 27.5862 27.5545 2.7554 2.7586 feet 500 6000 68.9655 68.8863 6.8886 6.8965 feet 1000 12000 137.9310 137.7726 13.7772 13.7931 feet 2000 24000 275.8620 275.5453 27.5545 27.5862 feet 3500 42000 482.7586 482.2043 48.2204 48.2758 feet
Jb
Reply to
J Barnstorf
Snip:
Anyone who has done the math has to realize that debating this scale subject has to be "tongue in cheek". The largest difference in the scale options discussed is .115%. That factors out to a little more that a hundredth of an inch in a foot. Divide that by 87 or what ever and you see how small the differences really are. I don't know if there is affordable instrumentation that can routinely measure that accurately, but if there is it would be a good trick to model to it.
J. Bright
Reply to
Jim Bright
You caught me ;-)
However, converting dimensions (during scratchbuilding) dividing by 87 is quicker by two key presses than 87.1 . Generally there are a lot of dimensions to be converted so the chances of incorrect conversions is reduced. I stand by my comment that any scaling factor that uses two different measuring systems is daft.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
[...]
Maybe so, but it's _traditionally_ daft.
Hah!
Reply to
Wolf K
JB:
Okay, you made an error here - that 'feet' all the way on the right should be 'inches'. A 100-scale foot high pile of 1:87.1 haggis would be .016 actual inches, or 1.379 1:87.1 scale inches, taller than a 1:87 scale model of the same haggis- heap.
.016" is about the thickness of five sheets of typing paper. This is a considerable error if you are trying for a press or snug fit on a small part (as in scratchbuilding rolling stock) but we don't usually run into single components that long. On bridges & so forth the worst you would get is a bit of a rail gap, if you were completely going by measurement.
In cutting frame slots on a steam loco, let's say 5/8" actual inches from center to center, the error between 1:87 scaling and 1:87.1 would be around .001" (actual inches).
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Reply to
pawlowsk002
JB:
Well, you can split a thousandth pretty easily on a micrometer, if you've used one enough times to be consistent with the pressure (there are a few thousandths of deflection between the proper 'light drag' and 'screwed down like a C clamp'.) Some have vernier lines for measuring to .0001", too. I'm certainly not at this stage in modelmaking -- my micrometer use is at work -- but micrometers are not prohibitively costly. Once you get to dimensions of around 100 scale feet and more, the difference is in hundredths, which are not impossible to read on a scale, but then the big parts like that don't usually need to be the precise ones in model railroading.
Cordially yours: Gerard P. President, a box of track and some plans.
Reply to
pawlowsk002
GP:
Agreed. In fact, using an unround number like 87 at all is daft. 1:100 would have been quite nice, but at least the US didn't get stuck like the British with using 4mm scale on 3.5mm scale track. :) Now that's daft.
Anyway, I usually use a cheap pocket calculator and a normal rule to lay out dimensions. Any factor would be easy that way.
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Reply to
pawlowsk002

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.