HO scale question

I'll give you that one =8^(

Reply to
Greg Procter
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Greg Procter

I don't see that it matters so long as all parts of the model are in proportion. If I see photos of a well done model in a mag. I can't pick the scale with any surety withing 50% (ie is that model N, TT, HO or P4? or even O?)

Since the advent of pocket calculators and prototypes going to metric dimensions there has been no real advantage to "logical" scales.

I'd like to argue but the only point in favour I can come up with is the relative simplicity of valve geat construction for OO.

Converting feet, inches, fractions and barleycorns etc of prototype dimensions to a calculator friendly number and then translating the result into materials in metrics, inch fractions and inch thou's can be a pain.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg Procter

Good catch. Thank you.(cut and paste error)

Reply to
J Barnstorf

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.
Reply to
Mark Mathu

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.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

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.

Reply to
Stick

GP:

Gaaaaaaah.

.625

:P

Cordially yours: Gerard P.

Reply to
pawlowsk002

OK, so you _can_ change! ;-) There's still no difference, 1/8" and 0.625" are the same dimension, whatever scale you're using!

Reply to
Greg Procter

opps: 5/8" and 0.625" ...

Reply to
Greg Procter

GP:

Sure. I got married, after all.

"I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess."

Cordially yours: Gerard P. President, a box of track and some plans.

Reply to
pawlowsk002

Correct. I pooched the calculations. I inadvertantly multiplied the difference by 12 instead of leaving it as is. My goof. :-}

Reply to
J Barnstorf

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
Reply to
J Barnstorf

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.