Does anybody know Iain Rice?

It was Henry Greenly, who had a great deal of influence, precisely because he promoted standardisation to sort out an unholy mess of scales and track dimensions perpetrated by the early toy train makers. But he tended to think in terms of diningroom table modelling, more's the pity. For example, he proposed (or copied from early US attempts) that HO be

1/8" to the foot instead of 3.5mm, even though he also proposed the 7mm/ft scale for 0, which became the UK standard. That's a rounding up from the Continental scale of 1:45, or 6.76mm/ft. (O scale is still a mess, with 1:43 for the UK, 1:45 for the Continent, 1:48 for North America, and 1:50 for diecast transport models "suitable for O gauge.")

AFAICT, Greenly proposed 4mm stock on 16.5 mm track because a) he thought 1mm tolerance was a precise as one could reasonably expect with hand tools; b) 4mm/ft give you 1mm equivalent to 3 scale inches, making imperial to metric conversions easy; I suspect that was also his motivation for HO at 1/8" to the foot; and c) 16.5mm track was readily available, and was "close enough".

His aim was to make decent-looking model railways accessible to the "average man", an aim in which he succeeded. I just wish he'd been more tough minded about scale and standards.

Just to stir the mud a little more: 1:45 is "true 0", ie matches the track gauge of 32mm (to within 0.12mm, which is within prototype variation in gauge). Half-0 or H0 would then be 1:90 (3.37mm/ft), a scale that was actually used by some European manufacturers before and after WWII, until 1:87 became the standard. I suspect that HO became

3.5mm/ft because of rounding up; and that became the standard because of the US market.

HTH

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir
Loading thread data ...

Jerry,

It wasn't just the UK. 4mm scale, but on 19mm gauge, was popular pre WW2 in North America and rivalled H0 in popularity up till wartime. So there was a strong following for 4mm scale pre-war on both sides of the Atlantic. Since it was the one scale which didn't follow the 'half of the next one larger' rule, I can only assume that it was derived because the extra half mil over H0 scale gave a bit more elbow room for mechanisms.

I have read that Meccano just wanted to start earning a bit of money from their products as soon as possible post war and chose the cheapest option which was to continue to use the standards they had set pre-war rather than incur the time and cost to re-tool for different wheel and track standards. There could have been a bit of exasperation waiting on the BRMSB to come to a decision (if that did happen) but it was the era of 'my product is fine - stuff yours' when we had four proprietory manufacturers whose standards were completely incompatible. Guess who found that out the hard way as a very young modeller who used his holiday money to buy two Graham Farish 4mm wagons and found out that they wouldn't work on his Trix Twin system :-)

In a funny way, Hornby-Dublo might still be here today if they had taken a bit of time to modernise their product in the 40s and not held off till the 60s when they were too slow off the mark and got overtaken by everyone else, and disappeared.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

I don't think that's a valid interpretation, because motors small enough to fit into HO sized locos were available. Henry Greenly shows that's the case, BTW, in his chapter on designing loco mechanisms. Also, IIRC, a couple of the first HO layouts in the USA used 0-4-0T locos, which would be smaller than a Hall, say. Other HO pioneers used "box motors", electric locos that looked boxcars, and had plenty of room inside them. So, if motors played a role, it was probably more one of cost: small high-precision motors cost more than bigger ones, as they are mor difficult to make.

IMO, we can all blame Henry Greenly, and sleep easy tonight. :-)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

Wolf,

For a time after WW2, 00 gauge was also referred to as 5/8" - which was a bit under gauge at 15.88mm, which was even worse :-) But it made easier understanding for people who didn't understand metric. I think I've got an old immediate post war Trix manual which actually refers to 5/8" gauge. Mind you, with Trix twin wheel standards you only needed to be about +/- 1/16" on gauge :-)

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

Their biggest mistake was not adopting the 2 rail system early (hindsight and all that) and then not embracing plastic more widely, it wasn't a case of modernising - rather not cheapening their products that cause the problems!

The serious railway modeller was, by then, embracing the white metal kit whilst the toy market was embracing cheapo plastic.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

In message , Roderic Cameron writes

Would P87 exist? If we had all been modelling in HO since the end of WW2, would anyone have felt the need to go for nearer-scale track, that ended up with P4 and then, later, P87?

Reply to
Jane Sullivan

Wild Swan will still have the later ones, and I've generally found Nick Tozer helpful with the earlier issues.

Tim

Reply to
Tim Illingworth

Thanks everyone for your comments, silly or otherwise.

For those who propose a different gauge of 16.25 with 1.05 flangeways, well maybe it works but I settled for 1mm flangeways because these can be easily set with a small piece of 1mm steel gauge plate. This saves having to resort to something special for this purpose. It also means that a gauge for building the track to 16.2mm is not that difficult for the home enthusiast to attain without a lathe etc.

As for re-gauging Bachmanns iffy wheels, I did state that this is a Club layout and it was felt that with members owning a large amont of '00' motive power already, we could not ask them to re-wheel in many cases.

It's all there in my mail.

So there you have it. It works even without the need for that extra .05mm.

As for relying on purchases of China produced items, well that's all some can afford and, of course, we have many levels of skill in the membership of most run of the mill MR Clubs.

Reply to
David Smith

In message , Jane Sullivan writes

Who knows? Interesting point though that the moves to 'improve' OO via EM and EEM to P4 have themselves spawned an 'improved' version of HO to equivalent standards of authenticity in the wheel/rail area.

Reply to
Roderic Cameron

David,

My finest H0 fine scale standard uses a track gauge 16.25mm to 16.30mm and flange ways of 1.00mm to 1.05mm. A 1mm steel gauge plate will vary slightly from 1mm, however unless you force the 1mm steel gauge between your rails the resulting flange way is going to be slightly larger than

1mm say 1.01mm or 1.02mm. I agree it's not that hard to build a track gauge if you have the time and patience without a lathe. You do however need a micrometer. You can get suitable gauges from
formatting link
that are going to be close enough.

Reply to
NSWGR

The correct gauge for HO is 16.494mm, or 16.475mm if you insist on

1:87.1 as the correct scale.
Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

"Jim Guthrie" wrote

Indeed - I'm very persuaded by split-frame construction and intend to standardise on it where possible. Just built a set of split-axle assembly jigs out of Romford bushes and the brass guts of electrical wire connectors (the "chocolate bar" ones - of some interest to the modelling fiddler) - we shall see if they provide the necessary concentricity when using K&S Metals tubing and plastic-coated wire with epoxy joints.

Tony Clarke

Reply to
Tony Clarke

"David Smith" wrote

Which I read. And I did say "re-gauge" not "re-wheel". Most modern locos actually have quite reasonable wheel profiles - certainly heaps better than the clunky Triang tractor wheels of yore - largely because they are now expected by the spending public to show compatibility with Code 75 track straight out of the box. (Which is why many can be regauged to EM with the standard wheels, using a replacement set of plain axles 1.7mm longer - EM profile is effectively the HO standard of RP25/88 which is scarcely rocket science).That does not mean that the production line assemblers have done the correct thing when crimping the wheels onto the axles at several hundred an hour, or that the shop has done a QC check at point of sale. (Some do, some don't. I know some shop repairers, and their QC tales are hair-raising, because the buck stops with them much of the time, especially if it's a kiddy in tears because a cherished present doesn't work). If even one wheel has been squashed too far onto its axle, it'll bind on a flangeway and throw the loco off, causing grief. Without a simple gauge - if one doesn't exist for a preferred hybrid standard it's not hard to mill/file one up from a solid material, checked with a basic micrometer - how are you going to eliminate that equally simple error and thus make every user of the layout happy? As well as Occam's Razor, the Five-legged Lamb principle also applies - if you can't measure it, you can't make it work twice.

Tony Clarke

Reply to
Tony Clarke

What are you on? :-))

Reply to
David Smith

"David Smith" wrote

I read your post. Now read mine. The content remains the same. Either you measure or you grizzle. There isn't a middle ground. Happy Xmas to all

*proper* modellers. Including Iain Rice who explains all this stuff for those who actually read his books...

Tony Clarke

Reply to
Tony Clarke

Well I read your post and I can't see why David Smith replied as he did, your post was very clear and concise, but then I have built to P4 standards and read various works by Mr Rice...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

Do you know, I've got an O level in English, but I had real trouble following the above! Let's see, you live in a split-frame house somewhere in Romford surrounded by bushes, where you dance your jigs to the music of a brass band while disembowelling some poor electricians. You are interested in models who can play the violin, and later on you will be doing things to them with metal tubing and plastic-coated wire.... and your joints are a bit poxy (probably the damp weather, I should think). I know there has to be something in there about model railways, but damned if I could spot it!

Cheers, Steve

Reply to
Steve W

Tony,

I just found myself a small, secondhand V block which I'm going to modify to hold the bits of axles. The main mods will be to cut two slots across the Vs where the insulated breaks in the axles will be to clear any excess Araldite. I've found that small amounts of excess glue can mess up alignment by a thou or two. After axles have set, I'll clean off any excess Araldite. I'll also fit some basterdised croc clips to hold the bits firmly down in the Vs.

I've also now settled on making all my split axles three part and having the inner part extending to the inside edges of the axle bearings so that the sections of axles between frames are electrically dead for fitting gears, or for fitting inside motion (if I ever get so far :-) )

An ideal situation for accuracy of alignment would be to use steel tube and Araldite a steel rod inside the tube, then make the insulating cuts when everything has set hard. This should ensure that the resultant axle is true - assuming that the tube was true to start with. I've never found any suitable tube to try this and I'm not sure that I could bore out solid stock all that accurately, but it might be worth a try.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

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.