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
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
--
Modelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk
Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekๆmpelse, elektronik og andet:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Klaus, thanks a lot. I'll look for nmra.org. Mike

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

1:87 or 3.5mm/foot
Chris P
Railway Pictures Website http://chrispackman.fotopic.net
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1:87
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HO scale is 87.1:1. Here are some sites with helpful information:
Christopher Coleman's excellent website:
http://www.spikesys.com/Modelrr/scales.html
Scale conversions:
http://www.billsrailroad.net/scale-conversions.html
Da Trains scale-to-scale:
http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRconvcharts.html
Bill Bill's Railroad Empire N Scale Model Railroad: http://www.billsrailroad.net Brief History of N Scale: http://www.billsrailroad.net/history/n-scale Model Railroad Books, Toys, and Trains: http://www.billsrailroad.net/bookstore Resources--Links to 1,200 sites: http://www.billsrailroad.net/bills-favorite-links
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Lawson wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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*.
--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

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!
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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????

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No!
The difference in length of a 48' container in the two ratios (1:87 and 1:87.1) is 0.01 actual inches, but that doesn't work out to be 9 HO scale inches. 0.01 actual inches is about 3/4 scale inches, regardless of whether you use the 1:87 or 1:87.1 ratio.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu spake thus:

Which, as I stated earlier (in so many words) is imperceptible; *nobody* is going to be able to tell whether one used 1:87 or 1:87.1 with such a small difference.
By the way, just to answer Anal Greg's straw-man objection: nobody, at least nobody in their right mind, is ever going to mix those two scales (1:87 and 1:87.1) *on the same model*. One will use the same scale throughout, probably throughout one's entire model railroad for that matter. So that argument is totally off the wall, as usual for you.
--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Was wondering when this thread was going to resort into unpleasantness and personal insults. David always comes through (: Thanks Dave!
My friends and I have a version of a drinking game (like where one takes a drink when a particular person on TV says a predescribed word) We watch r.m.r for the insult fest it has sadly become - our game involves money.
Sadly I lost on this one. This thread went on far beyond my expectations, still intelligently discussing a subject for quite a few posts.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:21:01 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Correct. I pooched the calculations. I inadvertantly multiplied the difference by 12 instead of leaving it as is. My goof. :-}

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let's see if I have my numbers correct this time (rounded to 3 decimals on display, no rounding on spreadsheet) model size physical size difference prototype at scale size at scale feet inches 87 87.1 diff 87 87.1 1 12 0.138 0.138 0.00* 0.014 0.014 5 60 0.690 0.689 0.001 0.069 0.069 10 120 1.379 1.378 0.002 0.138 0.138 20 240 2.759 2.755 0.003 0.276 0.276 50 600 6.897 6.889 0.008 0.689 0.690 100 1200 13.793 13.777 0.016 1.378 1.379 200 2400 27.586 27.555 0.032 2.755 2.759 500 6000 68.966 68.886 0.079 6.889 6.897 1000 12000 137.931 137.773 0.158 13.777 13.793 2000 24000 275.862 275.545 0.317 27.555 27.586 3500 42000 482.759 482.204 0.554 48.220 48.276

Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J Barnstorf wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:

In 1:87/1:87.1/3.5mm:1foot scale there isn't any difference in 5/8". One has to go to a measuring system with much finer increments, such as metrics or thou's of an inch. ;-)
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

GP:
Gaaaaaaah.
.625
:P
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:

OK, so you _can_ change! ;-) There's still no difference, 1/8" and 0.625" are the same dimension, whatever scale you're using!
Add pictures here
โœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.