Apologies for getting away from the current political debate on u.r.m.r but I thought people might like to know that Bachmann have actually confirmed their intention at this weekend's open event to produce a class 47 in OO-scale next year.
John.
Any word on likely liveries?
According to MREx Mag they are '47478' in BR blue
"kim"
If you Really must have a diesel, at least this one's painted in the right colours as it doesn't look like it's trying to be an airliner.
Why do they insist on painting trains and busses to look like airliners?
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
So that will be 19mm gauge, then? :o))
Of course we all know that you really meant 00 Gauge.
John Turner wrote:
"Dick Ganderton" wrote
OO-scale is 4mm to 1 foot OO-gauge is 16.5mm
I'm not sure what I meant! ;-)
John.
What amazes me is the photo of the Flying Pig. Marvellous, I could almost be back in Boston in 1960.
I cant wish my life away, but October seems too far in the future.
My dreams will come true.
They have been in contact with at least one Class 47 preservation group for assistance, so they are showing signs of going about it the right way. Let's see if the ethic makes it all the way to the moulds!
Cheers, Francis K.
OO (in Britain) is a _scale_. The gauge is HO.
"Greg Procter" wrote
Both OO and HO are scales. Both OO and HO can refer to gauges (both being notionally the same).
John.
Hmm.
00 Scale is 4mm = 1ft on 19mm gauge.00 Gauge is 4mm = 1 ft on 16.5mm gauge.
Talk about anything with 'Scale' in its name then it implies the US version. Hence 0 Scale is 1:48 scale on 32mm gauge. 0 Gauge is most of the rest of the world and is 1:43.5 on 32mm gauge.
By the way it's 00 not OO - even though it's usually spoken as 'oh-oh' or 'double O' and not 'nought-nought'.
John Turner wrote:
Agreed.
If you mention "OO gauge" you bring out the "That's 19mm" chorus! :-)
Regards, Greg.P.
Hi Dick,
m> Hmm.
"00 scale" is purely the _scale_, 4mm:1 foot or 1:76.2. The gauge is related to the prototype being modelled and therefore can be any dimension in proportion to the prototype (or not, as in the case of UK00)
3'6" gauge in 00 scale = 14mm, 2' gauge = 8mm, monorail = 0mm etc.The scale is the apparent ratio between prototype and model.
The name was derived by Marklin in their diminishing sequence of gauges 5,
4, 3, 2, 1 (1891) and 0 (1900)Regards. Greg.P.
Since no one else has mentioned it, whereabouts is the photo of the Flying Pig? Or did you mean it in the metaphorical sense as in "pigs will fly"?
(kim)
"Greg Procter" wrote
Not in the UK. 99.9% of UK modellers wouldn't even know that OO-gauge exists in the USA, and the number over there wouldn't be much lower.
John.
Not at all.
Of course I know that scale is the ratio of the model to the full size and that gauge is the distance between the rails.
Unfortunately in the dimm and distant past things were confused by someone's decision to name the various 'whatevers' as a series of numbers followed by the word Gauge.
So '0 Gauge' means 7mm = 1ft on 32mm track gauge - unless you happen to be in the USA where it means something quite different. 00 Gauge means 4mm = 1ft on
16.5mm track gauge.In the USA they at some point changed from using 'Gauge' to using 'Scale' and this is, in fact, useful in determining where a model comes from. So, 0 Scale implies 1:48 scale on 32mm track gauge, rather than 1:43.5 on 32mm track gauge. Likewise, 00 Scale implies 4mm = 1ft scale on 19mm track gauge rather than 00 Gauge (4mm = 1ft on 16.5mm track gauge).
Interestingly, why did the US change from 1:43.5 (7mm = 1ft) for 0 Gauge to
1:48? Makes it difficult to explain to an American why H0 is Half 0 but is not 1:97 but 1:87.1. Of course, it all stems from the fact that H0 originated in the UK - even more intriguing as the UK later rejected H0 in favour of 00.I wouldn't object so much if people just refered to their modelling as being
00, 0, H0, P4, S7, N, 000, etc. leaving off the words 'Gauge' or 'Scale'.On your last point I did state that 'it's 00 and not OO' - 0 being a zero and O an uppercase o.
Greg Procter wrote:
What like they were in contact (and crawling all over!) the preserved deltic .....
"Jeff McGhie" wrote
You're a cynic Jeff, they got the 66 something like, but then didn't someone else do the drawings for that? ;-)
John.
Indeed, I've said many times that in cases where Bachmann (and no doubt Hornby as well) are handed a CAD drawing then the resulting model is - 9 out of 10 times - as near to spot on as possible. It's only when they've got to actually measure something that problems come in.
I hope that their 57's and 47's are up to scratch but I've no plans on getting rid of any of the Heljan examples yet.
Cheers Jeff.
There's a very good reason for that. I was driving my open top cabriolet along a dirt track close to Barwell when I came to a duck pond in the middle of the road. The chief draftsman from Bachmann was sitting on a nearby fence with a straw in his mouth. I said: "Excuse me my good fellow, how deep is the water in this pond?". He said: "No worries guv'nor, it be only a couple of inches" (because that's how they speak in Leicestershire). So I continued driving and my car plunged into the water up to it's windscreen level and was completely ruined. "You silly fool!" I shouted (or words to that effect), "I thought you said the water was only a couple of inches?". "That be funny?" he replied, "It only ever came half-way up them ducks?".
(kim)
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.