O-gauge Lima / Bachman scale question

You're right, but try:

1435/16.5*2 = 43.5 and 100/16.5*2/1435 = 23

Both scales are arrived at by doubling HO but then reverting to traditional "O" track gauge.

1435/45 also doesn't quite make it - better than 1435/76.2 =16.5mm though! I didn't make them up, I'm only reporting others actions.

Regards, Greg.P.

That is Scale7

As is that, but the premise is wrong, 0 gauge came first then they started later on the 00/H0 mess.

That maybe how you arrived at it but not how it was arrived at historically.

Are you not deducing the actions from the end result?

My understanding is that back in the twenties the gauges introduced by Maerklin, 3, 2, 1, and later 0 were just gauges for toy trains, the trains themselves were not scale models and there were no published scales that I have ever seen. The early UK modellers, led by Henry Greenly, invented the mm to the foot scales, the metric system being fashionable at the time and the UK prototype being built in feet and inches. Thus 10mm/ft was chosen instead of the correct 3/8" for gauge 1 until recent years. 7mm/ft became the scale for 0 gauge and ultimately

3.5mm/ft for H0. These last two were exported to Europe but only the last to the USA. The Europeans have since rounded off their version of H0 to be 1:87.

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

No, you're thinking of 'O gauge', added to Marklin's range around 1900 - what we're talking about here are European 'O scale' and in particular _scale standards_ that were defined in the 1950s/60s/70s.

We're talking "O Scale" standards, not O gauge.

To a degree, I wasn't present when the O scale standards were set and we're talking a number of different standards here - three European, one US, two British. The only connection they have to the original O gauge of 1900 is the gauge (at that time defined as 35mm rail center to rail center)

Maerklin introduced 5,4,3,2 and 1 in 1891 at the Leipzig toy fair. O followed in

1900.

That's where we started and disagree - HO was set as the gauge, actually 5/8" (which slightly stuffs my arguement ;-) between Greenly and Bing. If you look at the Bing trains of 1922/23 (there's one on my web-site) there is no pretence at "scale". Trix followed on from Bing and their "scale" was 1:90. The "scale movement" came from enthusiasts trying to use these mechanisims to make actual models. I can't find any evidence of the British mm/foot scales being re-exported to Europe or the USa. What did exist in Europe at the time Morop began to organise standards were to distinct groups, those who took the gauge as the basis for their scale 1:87 and those who took the round figure 1:80 and accepted the gauge mismatch. Those who used Trix tended to go with the Trix 1:90 scale, but the gauge was 5/8"/16mm from the Greenly/Bing tryst.

Regards, Greg.P.

Greg, you are beginning to sound like Flynn Start redefining the subject. You were talking about how the scale came to be 1:43.5

Which is one of historical development, the NEM did not just start ferom scratch in the 1950s/60s and decide that 1:43.5 was a good scale but they better reduce the resulting track gauge by a mm to confudse everybody. They were just codifying the scales/gauges in use much as the NMRA did in the US, with the aim of promoting some consistency/interchangeability.

After 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 you get 0, not O but since there were no computers and computer typefaces the difference was not noticeable in print.

That's not where we disagree, that'ds where we agree.

You have researched Europe more than I have so I'll take your word for it that they arrived at 1:87 totally independently and added the 1/2 mm to the gauge entirely independently in spite of the close links between Greenly/Basset Lowke and the Nuremberg toymakers. Perhaps export or re-export was the wrong word.

In the US case it is fairly clear that the 00 and H0 scales came from the UK but they chose their own gauge for 00. Hence H0 in the US remains 3.5mm to the foot, which is what started this thread in the first place.

All the best Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Keith Norgrove skrev i news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The NEM did never decide that 1:43.5 was a good scale. I have a set of copies of the Paris 1957 issue of the NEM standards (in Danish translation), in this 0 scale is 1:45 and 0 gauge is 32 mm. The scale of

1:43,5 is mentioned as being used in France and Great Britain but *not* as a NEM standard.

Just to muddy the waters a little further - BRMSB standards for 0 Finescale (whatever that is) originally started at 31.8mm with gauge widening to 32mm (OK that's a simplifcation). Obviously people decided to drop the .2mm.

Unfortunately it makes a big difference to running quality - most 0 Finescale stock will happily negotiate 31.2mm (0-SF) provided that the radius is not too sharp (B8 points and above) and run a lot smoother than if the gauge is 32mm - provided that the clearances are tightened up as per the Guild's manual.

In message , Erik Olsen writes

Ouch! (how low can you go?)

They also didn't start with 7mm: 1 foot scale ratio.

You're starting to sound as pedantic as our pal Terry! :-) Europeans normally use the Roman numerals, V, IV, III, II, I, and as there is no "0" in Roman numerals, they use "O" and "HO". (I'd have thought you would have known that ;-)

Good, I'm bringing you around :-)

I'd be pretty certain the 0,5mm came before the scale settled.

No, the US scale as defined by the NMRA is not 3.5mm to the foot, it is rounded to

1:87.1. It certainly was transfered from GB's 3.5mm:1 foot.

Regards, Greg.P.

You changed my H0 to HO then call me pedantic for changing it back.

Numbers are numbers, Roman or not.

Perhaps you should visit the MOROP site and see what they call H0 and

1. Look at NEM 010 for example.

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Sorry, that wasn't intentional.

The Romans didn't have a zero in their counting system. That lack, and the lack of a decimal point made advanced mathematics rather difficult for Roman scholars! Try VIII/XXXII for example.

Hahh, written by non-pedants!

Regards, Greg.P.

lack of a decimal

Easy, it's just the same as I/IV, who needs decimal points and the bloody French decimal system anyway? :-)

I bet I can work out XII/XXXII + I/VIII in my head quicker than you can do

0.375 + 0.125 even with a calculator. ---> VBG

Probably; we have to be able to use it, don't we?

Look at

you'll se that the zeros in "0" and "H0" are genuine arab zeros, no "O's" here.

Touché

There aren't many mathematical calculations that one can make with scale/gauge denominations! eg. 1 / 0 = 1.40625 isn't really acceptable to many mathematicians!

Obviously someone didn't know any better ;-)

Regards, Greg.P.