1:100 scale

[sp1]

A couple of things here. Yes, the main advantage is it can get more into a smaller space when compared to OO. When compared to N it is that it is less fiddly and can have more detail.

 

As was stated above, the poll was of locomotives suggested to me.

 

1:100 can, in no way, shape or form, be described as a "random scale"

It is by far the most logical scale, with the possible exceptions of O (1:48) and S (1:64). Having it at 1:100 also enables people who model 5'3 (Irish and Australian) to use standard HO scale track, rather than having to scratchbuild a completely random gauge.

 

For 1:100, there are a couple of easy things to get straight.

1 - Standard Gauge comes out at approximately 14.2mm gauge.

2 - Sleepers come out at 24mm length, 1.5mm height and 2.5mm width

3 - 5'3" Broad Gauge comes out at 16mm, which is close enough to 16.5mm, which is HO/OO scale track.

4 - For people who enjoy scratchbuilding it is a far more logical scale.

5 - It can fit more into a space than OO, while being nowhere near as fiddly as N

 

 

If you look, I have edited the poll to include what I have seen as being the most popular models available. The thing about starting out this scale at 1:100, is that we don't want to have compromises, such as OO being oversized for the tracks, HO not being available for British items, and N being fiddly and comparatively less-detailed.

Is it logical though? - 3mm to the foot makes sense to me!, but what does 1:100 look like?

I have scratchbuilt models, and can equate say, 2mm or 4mm to the foot easily (admittedly have not tried 3mm to the foot, but this would be no more difficult) - if you gave me a Dimensioned drawing and said build that to Xmm to the foot that would be easy -? Do the same and say build it 1:100 I wouldn't have a clue...

[sp1]

Another thought - do you have, or have you ever built models to 1:100 - it would be interesting to compare them to 00, N and Triang TT for size?

[JohnR]

Have you thought about asking the 3mm Society? They will probably have a good idea of what people would want in that scale - plus have experience of the technical issues.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Have you thought about asking the 3mm Society? They will probably have a good idea of what people would want in that scale - plus have experience of the technical issues.

No, I haven't.

 

Good thought, thanks!

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Another thought - do you have, or have you ever built models to 1:100 - it would be interesting to compare them to 00, N and Triang TT for size?

I am currently scratchbuilding a section of track, which will be followed by a wagon or 2 and possibly a coach.

 

The reason 1:100 is more logical is that it is 10mm/meter, as well as roughly 3mm/ft.

[Dungrange]

I agree that 1:100 is a very logical scale for the metric era (ie exactly 10mm to 1 metre) and is often used for architectural modelling, but it may appear less logical to those who think in feet and inches, which is probably the majority of the population who are over 40.  I've never understood the logic of mixing metric and imperial measurements in scales such as 1:76.2 (4 mm = 1 ft).  I agree that this would appear to be a great compromise between the 2 mm and 4 mm markets.

 

Good luck if you try to launch this as a new modelling scale.

[Jeff Smith]

New scales are hard to get traction. 1/55 which happens to also be 5.5mm/ft has a small following as 16.5mm track represents 3' gauge....some Bachmann 0n30 locos are nearer 1/55th than 1/48th but still you need to scratch build much of the rest.

[sp1]

I am currently scratchbuilding a section of track, which will be followed by a wagon or 2 and possibly a coach.

 

The reason 1:100 is more logical is that it is 10mm/meter, as well as roughly 3mm/ft.

It's very late, so my mind might be playing tricks, but isn't 3mm to the foot closer to 1:120 - that's a big difference at these sizes?

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

It's very late, so my mind might be playing tricks, but isn't 3mm to the foot closer to 1:120 - that's a big difference at these sizes?

These are just my calculations, so they may be incorrect

 

1:100 makes Standard Gauge 14.2mm

Standard Gauge is 4.7', or 4' 8.5

 

14.2 / 4.7 = 3.02

 

3.02 mm to the foot equates to 14.2mm being 4.7' which is 4'8.5

 

If I am wrong please let me know, but these are my calculations.

 

A couple more calculations - 3' is 914mm

 

1000mm is 10mm in 1:100

914mm is 9.14mm in 1:100, so 3' is 9.14mm

 

Therefore, 9.14 / 3 roughly comes out at 3.04, which is close enough to my original calculation of 3.02mm/ft.

[Tiptonian]

3mm to the foot is 1:101.6, which is so close to 1:100 not many people would notice, so I would suggest 3mm/ft for imperial prototypes, and 1:100 for metric prototypes. I would, like JohnR, urge you to approach the 3mm society. With their guidance, you can get track and wheel standards set in stone from the word go and not end up with the arguments for this gauge that have frequently ensued (on this and other forums) about track and wheel standards in 00 gauge.

 

To attract beginners to a new scale (and I am thinking of children or young adults who have never previously had model trains) you really need starter Train Sets as were sold in the early years of DCC to promote the then new technology to youngsters. One thing which you may like to consider as a "Unique" Selling Point is using Bluerail Bluetooth 4 APP-based radio control as your standard from the outset instead of DCC. I could see having an Apple i-phone (or other i-device) as your model railway controller appealing very much to a new generation of modellers. 

 

Although the gauge of 3mm is generally stated as 14.2mm, the actual figure the 3mm society use is 14.125. It is these minor details which highlight the importance of talking to the 3mm Society. Yes, it is getting late!

[sp1]

3mm to the foot is 1:101.6, which is so close to 1:100 not many people would notice, so I would suggest 3mm/ft for imperial prototypes, and 1:100 for metric prototypes. I would, like JohnR, urge you to approach the 3mm society. With their guidance, you can get track and wheel standards set in stone from the word go and not end up with the arguments for this gauge that have frequently ensued (on this and other forums) about track and wheel standards in 00 gauge.

 

To attract beginners to a new scale (and I am thinking of children or young adults who have never previously had model trains) you really need starter Train Sets as were sold in the early years of DCC to promote the then new technology to youngsters. One thing which you may like to consider as a "Unique" Selling Point is using Bluerail Bluetooth 4 APP-based radio control as your standard from the outset instead of DCC. I could see having an Apple i-phone (or other i-device) as your model railway controller appealing very much to a new generation of modellers.

Some interesting points - it also seems I got 1:100 and 1:120!mixed up in my earlier post! (I did say it was hard to visualise ratios rather than mm to the foot!).

Incidentally, with a user name like Tiptonian you are either in Tennessee or just down the road from me!

[railsquid]

To attract beginners to a new scale (and I am thinking of children or young adults who have never previously had model trains) you really need starter Train Sets as were sold in the early years of DCC to promote the then new technology to youngsters. One thing which you may like to consider as a "Unique" Selling Point is using Bluerail Bluetooth 4 APP-based radio control as your standard from the outset instead of DCC. I could see having an Apple i-phone (or other i-device) as your model railway controller appealing very much to a new generation of modellers. 

 

Just a thought - every time someone mentions something app-based, I have to wonder about the long-term viability of such a solution? What happens if the layout is put away for a few years, technology moves on, app manufacturer goes bust and no-one has an old iPhone 11 any more and no way of installing the old app?  Or the manufacturer decides the app will only work on a pay-for-play basis...

[MGR Hooper!]

I have edited the poll to include 24 locomotives, ranging from LMS Jinty and LBSCR A1 Terrier to the LNER P2, and the BR Class 91.

You may delete your vote and revote.

Hi Peter,

 

I've currently deleted my vote. The poll says "select 5". Now with that entire list, I think you should allow people to vote for as much as they want because in the end we can only have the top 3 steam locos and top 3 diesel/electrics

[raymw]

Just a thought - every time someone mentions something app-based, I have to wonder about the long-term viability of such a solution? What happens if the layout is put away for a few years, technology moves on, app manufacturer goes bust and no-one has an old iPhone 11 any more and no way of installing the old app?  Or the manufacturer decides the app will only work on a pay-for-play basis...

You open source the app and codes.

[Dagworth]

So, having made my selection in the loco poll, who is actually going to put the money into making these models?

 

Andi

[Dungrange]

These are just my calculations, so they may be incorrect

 

1:100 makes Standard Gauge 14.2mm

Standard Gauge is 4.7', or 4' 8.5

 

14.2 / 4.7 = 3.02

 

3.02 mm to the foot equates to 14.2mm being 4.7' which is 4'8.5

 

If I am wrong please let me know, but these are my calculations.

 

A couple more calculations - 3' is 914mm

 

1000mm is 10mm in 1:100

914mm is 9.14mm in 1:100, so 3' is 9.14mm

 

Therefore, 9.14 / 3 roughly comes out at 3.04, which is close enough to my original calculation of 3.02mm/ft.

 

I'm a little confused by your calculations with regards track gauge.  In the UK, the standard track gauge was always quoted as 4' 8.5".  If you convert this to metric, the track gauge becomes 1.4351 m (ie 56.5 inches * 25.4 mm / inch). At a scale of 1:100, the track gauge should therefore be 14.351 mm.  However, in the modern era the UK track gauge is now quoted as 1435 mm, which would equate to a model track gauge of 14.35 mm, which is what you should be proposing if this (H Scale) is to be a 'new' scale that you want 'finescale' modellers to adopt.  If memory serves me correctly, there was a spell where this was officially reduced to 1432 mm on the prototype, but I can't remember the reasoning and I think current infrastructure works have reverted to the 1435 mm standard.  If you try and adopt 14.2 mm, then it falls into the same 00 / EM pitfalls.

 

14.2 mm track gauge is a scale ratio of 1:101.06 (ie 1: (1435 / 14.2)).  Note that this is not quite 3 mm : 1 ft.

 

3 mm: 1 ft is a scale ratio of 1:101.6 (ie 304.8 / 3) and should have a track gauge of 14.125 mm (ie 1435.1 / 101.6).  This is why it has been highlighted that the 3 mm society adopt this gauge.

 

If you adopt a track gauge of 14.2 mm and a scale of 1:100, you are introducing all of the compromises that have created issues with 00, including a myriad of track and wheel standards.  What starts out as a small market is then likely to split between those who are willing to accept 'narrow' gauge track (ie 14.2 mm) and those who want to adopt the 'correct' tack gauge.  Before progressing too far with this I think there is a need to define what makes this H scale (1:100) better than the other existing standards such as 3 mm : 1 ft with which it would compete.  Is there a realistic market for another scale that is halfway between N and 00?

[Dungrange]

Hi Peter,

 

I've currently deleted my vote. The poll says "select 5". Now with that entire list, I think you should allow people to vote for as much as they want because in the end we can only have the top 3 steam locos and top 3 diesel/electrics

Given the amount of capital that would be involved in starting up a new scale, I don't think it's realistic to try and produce a range of prototypes to cater for all.  Realistically, I suspect that any backer would have to produce two locomotives (and probably only two locomotives) that could ideally be used together to create a layout.  Although I'm biased, I would pick an 08 shunter and a Class 37 as both could be produced in similar liveries to allow a layout to be built and have spanned a long period in history.

 

However, the principal question is what is the unique selling point and who would this new scale appeal to most?  For older modellers, who already have a lot of stock in 00 (or N), are they going to switch to a new scale for which there is very little available - I doubt it other than as a small side project.  The main market is going to come from the next generation for two principal reasons:

 

1) the do not currently have any stock or a part built layout, so could consider this scale from the outset; and

2) being brought up in the metric era (feet and inches haven't been taught in schools for four decades) a scale of 1:100 becomes more logical to this demographic.

 

As such, I suspect that the most likely audience would favor modern stock (ie the class 66 - for which dimensioned drawings will be in mm) and leave the older generation modelling the steam era to stick with 3 mm: 1 ft.  If they are sufficiently attracted to this scale, they have possibly already taken that route.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I'm a little confused by your calculations with regards track gauge.  In the UK, the standard track gauge was always quoted as 4' 8.5".  If you convert this to metric, the track gauge becomes 1.4351 m (ie 56.5 inches * 25.4 mm / inch). At a scale of 1:100, the track gauge should therefore be 14.351 mm.  However, in the modern era the UK track gauge is now quoted as 1435 mm, which would equate to a model track gauge of 14.35 mm, which is what you should be proposing if this (H Scale) is to be a 'new' scale that you want 'finescale' modellers to adopt.  If memory serves me correctly, there was a spell where this was officially reduced to 1432 mm on the prototype, but I can't remember the reasoning and I think current infrastructure works have reverted to the 1435 mm standard.  If you try and adopt 14.2 mm, then it falls into the same 00 / EM pitfalls.

 

14.2 mm track gauge is a scale ratio of 1:101.06 (ie 1: (1435 / 14.2)).  Note that this is not quite 3 mm : 1 ft.

 

3 mm: 1 ft is a scale ratio of 1:101.6 (ie 304.8 / 3) and should have a track gauge of 14.125 mm (ie 1435.1 / 101.6).  This is why it has been highlighted that the 3 mm society adopt this gauge.

 

If you adopt a track gauge of 14.2 mm and a scale of 1:100, you are introducing all of the compromises that have created issues with 00, including a myriad of track and wheel standards.  What starts out as a small market is then likely to split between those who are willing to accept 'narrow' gauge track (ie 14.2 mm) and those who want to adopt the 'correct' tack gauge.  Before progressing too far with this I think there is a need to define what makes this H scale (1:100) better than the other existing standards such as 3 mm : 1 ft with which it would compete.  Is there a realistic market for another scale that is halfway between N and 00?

Hi.

 

I am aware of the actual gauge, however I have just been rounding it off for now, as for all intents and purposes (for now at least) .15mm isn't going to make much of a difference. Obviously when released it will be done at 14.35mm, simply to have it perfectly to scale.

 

Given the amount of capital that would be involved in starting up a new scale, I don't think it's realistic to try and produce a range of prototypes to cater for all.  Realistically, I suspect that any backer would have to produce two locomotives (and probably only two locomotives) that could ideally be used together to create a layout.  Although I'm biased, I would pick an 08 shunter and a Class 37 as both could be produced in similar liveries to allow a layout to be built and have spanned a long period in history.

 

However, the principal question is what is the unique selling point and who would this new scale appeal to most?  For older modellers, who already have a lot of stock in 00 (or N), are they going to switch to a new scale for which there is very little available - I doubt it other than as a small side project.  The main market is going to come from the next generation for two principal reasons:

 

1) the do not currently have any stock or a part built layout, so could consider this scale from the outset; and

2) being brought up in the metric era (feet and inches haven't been taught in schools for four decades) a scale of 1:100 becomes more logical to this demographic.

 

As such, I suspect that the most likely audience would favor modern stock (ie the class 66 - for which dimensioned drawings will be in mm) and leave the older generation modelling the steam era to stick with 3 mm: 1 ft.  If they are sufficiently attracted to this scale, they have possibly already taken that route.

That is very true. However, from what I have seen, there are little/no starter sets in modern image, as kids (such as myself) are much more drawn to steam locos, such as the ones seen in Thomas the Tank Engine. Now for obvious reasons the TTE range can't be done, as licencing etc would be too much of a pain. However, doing a BR Blue 0-6-0 (while it never happened) is close enough yet different enough to Thomas to pass. As for the 08/09 idea, there are a number of locos in TTE based on the 08's. 

 

However, all that said there are a couple of things to take into consideration - 

 

Kids love fast trains. Hence why the A4 or Duchess class may be an obvious choice.

Kids also love trains that stand out - I was always drawn towards the Silver Streak A4's.

 

I agree about starting the range small, with 2 locos, some wagons and maybe some coaches too. 

 

As I have said, I am working on track and building a straight-track jig at the moment, so when I have sourced some Code 75 rail to use for it, I will post photos of the completed idea. This is being built at 14.35mm gauge.

[Dagworth]

As I have said, I am working on track and building a straight-track jig at the moment, so when I have sourced some Code 75 rail to use for it, I will post photos of the completed idea. This is being built at 14.35mm gauge.

Code 75 is way over scale for 1:100, Code 60 would be much closer.

 

Real rail dimensions for the heaviest track in regular UK use (UIC60) is 172 mm tall. 

Older BS113 rail is 158.75mm tall. 

 

Code 75 is roughly 20% too tall to represent BS113 rail and will look like narrow gauge track

 

Andi

[Anglian]

I notion of being able to buy R-T-R models that are correct to gauge for their size is a heady prospect and one that might make those who already model in other sizes decide to work in 3mm. I've always regarded it as the perfect size and 1:100 as a perfect scale. More so nowadays as modern homes often only have an 10' x 8' spare room as the potential railway space. It's also one of the scales that architects use when commissioning models.

 

However, a couple of things come to mind: the models have to be as detailed as modern N gauge as a minimum quality and preferably much closer, if the not the same, as modern 00. If not then I can see a counter argument against the purchase of 3mm R-T-R along the lines of 'I can get as detailed models in N that save me more space than 3mm', or equally 'but 3mm isn't as detailed as 4mm and I want detail for my money.'

 

I do think the suggestion to look at some of the smaller engines is very valid rather than focusing on the express engines, if you have to have a flag ship model at launch then the Britannia seems to be a good choice. Might a 3MT tank be worth consideration?

 

Equally why not choose engines that are viable for folks wishing to dabble in a new scale so they can hope to build an historically plausible layout. I'm not a GWR fan but just as an example of this thinking a 44xx and a 64xx make a branch line possible. Or add a 4F to the Jinty and Black Five of your list and you have a trio of LMS/BR MR engines. If you want to focus on the most popular then I think you have to start with BR standard classes and green diesels.

 

That written I'm so keen for this to see fruition that I'd buy any small in R-T-R 3mm 1:100 scale engine to start me off. I agree that the track should of lower profile that Code 75. To me the USP of this range is true scale to gauge and I'd not throw that important consideration out by then employing less than realistic track standards. This is a chance to get it all right in a R-T-R format. Great detail, reliable mechanisms, space saving and visual and historical plausibility.

 

If there is anything I can do to help you send me a PM. I would dearly love to see this come to fruition.

[Allegheny1600]

It seems to me that all this talk of 1/100 scale for a new commerical scale is utterly pointless.

Are you trying to re-invent the wheel?

What's wrong with 1/120 scale as used in continental Europe?

If you want to attempt to introduce a new scale into the UK market, then you need to contemplate why? as well as how?

I believe that someone recently said that 1/120 is too close to 1/160, well 1/100 is far closer to 1/87 which has a far larger following, worldwide.

If you go for commercial 1/100 scale, you have to produce everything yourself, track, mechanisms, wheels etc.

Go for 1/120 and these items already exist, commercially.

One loco already on your list is to be produced I believe, the class 66 - this would make a great start for an up to date layout. With this in mind, I would suggest that any attempt in such a 'new' scale focus on 1/120 scale, expand on what is already available or coming - all this would provide the 'seeds' for any new scale to succeed and grow. In which case, you need to look at items complimentary to the 66 - like an 08 or 37.

Five or ten years down the line when the scale has maybe become better established - that's the time to start wishlisting about steam locos.

If you really want to develop a new scale, you must think world-wide - we are now a global society and what's more British locos are operating in parts of Europe, therefore any new British models need to be compatible with other models already available in Europe.

Any new scale which might be introduced that only aimed for sales in the British market would be doomed to failure. I'm not talking about scratch-builders and kit makers, I'm talking on a commercial basis - such as if one were to attempt to plead your case with a major manufacturer, or even a smaller concern really. Such folks would need to be assured that their cash, time & effort would be amply rewarded and that means profit, lots of it.

[Anglian]

If you only consider modern image, as you are doing, it makes even less sense to me to use 1:120 since the current UK outline N gauge models are very nice, there's a wide range available and they are very popular.

 

Wouldn't 1:120 be dead in the water for a UK outline range? It's too close to our N gauge so why bother with it at all – what's the gain over N? I can't see one – takes up slightly more space, isn't much larger in terms of building locomotives and an awful lot of 3mm UK outline kits exist that are compatible with 1:100 scale but that are utterly useless for 1:120 so the buyer is totally reliant on a new range. In short anybody who currently models in 3mm British Outline is instantly excluded and they are a significant part of the target market. 

 

I think making a British outline range that fits with current British outline 3mm modelling makes more sense rather than, as you write 'reinventing the wheel' by changing the widely accepted scale of British outline 3mm modelling. However, I would forgo the more popular 12mm track and take the opportunity to bring to market the only true scale to gauge British outline R-T-R range available. That's a major part of the attraction and how I think a potentially correct scale/gauge combination could bring those who currently model in N and OO to change to 3mm for their next project. Again if you only make modern image models you are excluding a part of your potential market. However, if you were so minded that 1:120 was the way to go then trying to secure crowd-funding a single contemporary locomotive production run would soon tell you if such an enterprise would be worthwhile.

 

That 1:100 is close to HO as you write, is of course unarguable, but British outline 1:87 scale modelling is a rare thing and it itself is even closer to the most popular 4mm standard. 

[Dagworth]

There are no companies supplying RTR 3mm stock in the UK (or anywhere else).

There are several companies supplying 1:120 locos, rolling stock, track, scenic accessories. Yes, they are continental but with so many ex UK locos on the continent there is a ready market abroad as well for 1:120 UK locos.

 

To go off on a "new" scale - which isn't, it's a historic scale, with a society that number at max about 500 members, quite a few of whom work in 1:120 anyway - would be foolish. Why re-invent the wheel (ok, the track) when there is a very good range of readily available 12mm track for 1:120 as well as numerous mechanisms for those that want to build their own locos.

 

How many here have actually seen/handled/operated 1:120 models? 

 

Andi

[Jeff Smith]

Peter, you are ambitious, well read and meticulous. These are fantastic attributes, especially considering your age, however if you have immersed yourself in any of the 'better looking OO track' threads you will have seen a considerable amount of disagreement on what form this should actually take. Financing a new range of OO track has been discussed with possibly one person seriously considering it. This is only track in a existing well served scale and gauge. The financing to start a completely new range of models in a new scale would be very hard to justify, and frankly the chances of success would be minimal. As a flight of fancy it is great but that's all it can ever be......

[Anglian]

There are no companies supplying RTR 3mm stock in the UK (or anywhere else).

There are several companies supplying 1:120 locos, rolling stock, track, scenic accessories. Yes, they are continental but with so many ex UK locos on the continent there is a ready market abroad as well for 1:120 UK locos.

 

To go off on a "new" scale - which isn't, it's a historic scale, with a society that number at max about 500 members, quite a few of whom work in 1:120 anyway - would be foolish. Why re-invent the wheel (ok, the track) when there is a very good range of readily available 12mm track for 1:120 as well as numerous mechanisms for those that want to build their own locos.

 

How many here have actually seen/handled/operated 1:120 models? 

 

Andi

 

 

Andi,

I've seen continental 1:120 models and quite liked them but not as much as I've liked the UK 3mm models I've seen. I think we both have valid points – who would choose be a manufacturer in such a market!

 

I suspect that had Hornby gone ahead we may well have seen UK 3mm to the foot sized models on 12mm track which I think would be the poorest outcome. 

 

A safe start could to be to see if the crowd funding support was there to produce a R-T-R locomotive.