scale Ideal? scales.

[rocor]

 

Looking at the range of scales that model railways are most commonly constructed in:

 

Continental N - 1:160

British N          - 1:148

Original TT      - 1:120

British TT         - 1:101.6

HO                    - 1:87

OO                     -1:76.2 

S                         -1:64

American O      -1:48

European O      -1:45

British       O      -1:43.5

 

Got me thinking, that given a clean sheet of paper, what scales would I have chosen. The one change to this list that first came to mind, would have been a common scale for OO/HO. I would have chosen 1:80 scale, which would have translated to 3/20” = 1 foot for those using imperial measurements, and 1mm = 80mm for the metric minded.

 

What would your ideal modelling scales be within this range, given the choice to start from scratch?.

[MarkSG]

1:100 would be an interesting idea. It would be a bit bigger than TT, but smaller than OO/HO. That gives enough scope for reasonable detail, but you could fit more in than you can in OO/HO.

[Dungrange]

I'd also go for 1:100 being a common architectural scale.  For me, I find N gauge a bit small, but I'd be happy with something a bit smaller than 00.  In many respects I think TT seems ideal, it's just there isn't the trade support for the scale.  I've never really understood why model railways settled on 1:76 (00) and 1:148 (N), whereas model aircraft settled on 1:72 and 1:144.  Ideally all forms of modelling would have chosen the same scales irrespective of what these were.  Of course there is little chance of that happening now.

[BR60103]

A lot of the scales down to HO size seem to have come from track gauges in fractional inches converted to the nearest convenient metric.

 

American TT is almost the only one where the scale came first and the gauge (.471" IIRC) came from that.  S is wide by 1/2" scale.

 

I contend that a successful scale is about 1/2 of a larger one, which is why S and TT don't have much following.

 

[HonestTom]

13 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I'd also go for 1:100 being a common architectural scale.  For me, I find N gauge a bit small, but I'd be happy with something a bit smaller than 00.  In many respects I think TT seems ideal, it's just there isn't the trade support for the scale.  I've never really understood why model railways settled on 1:76 (00) and 1:148 (N), whereas model aircraft settled on 1:72 and 1:144.  Ideally all forms of modelling would have chosen the same scales irrespective of what these were.  Of course there is little chance of that happening now.

 

I suspect it's because when these things were decided on, nobody really thought that there might be crossover potential. Early model railway layouts tend to put the emphasis on self-contained operation rather than creating a world.

 

I'd agree with 1:100 because it's very easy to mentally convert real life measurements, and it's a good compromise between detail and space. Plus architectural modelling companies produce lots of accessories for the scale - I was in a shop that sold architectural modelling equipment the other day, looking enviously at the range of doors, windows, staircases and furniture you can buy for 1:50 and 1:100.

[Robert Stokes]

I don't like your 1:80 idea if you keep to 16.5mm track gauge. Why propose a scale/gauge combination that's not correct?

 

I'm another one who likes the 1:100 idea. I look at N gauge models and think that they are just too small but I have looked at 3mm scale models (which are very close to 1:100) and really liked them.

[TheQ]

1:100, that would be 14mm track from the manufacturers..

or

1:100EM 14.2mm track, Ok 1:100FM

or

1:100P4/S4 14.295mm track.. OK 1:100P3/S3

 

But you know what I mean...

Edited December 17, 2019 by TheQ

[TheSignalEngineer]

IIRC 1:80 was the scale of the British Trix models which were neither OO nor HO. They scaled out at about 3.8mm : 1ft 

[rocor]

1 hour ago, Robert Stokes said:

I don't like your 1:80 idea if you keep to 16.5mm track gauge. Why propose a scale/gauge combination that's not correct?

 

I'm another one who likes the 1:100 idea. I look at N gauge models and think that they are just too small but I have looked at 3mm scale models (which are very close to 1:100) and really liked them.

 

1:80 Scale would just about be right for EM gauge though.

[rocor]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

IIRC 1:80 was the scale of the British Trix models which were neither OO nor HO. They scaled out at about 3.8mm : 1ft 

 

Some Japanese HO is also produced at 1:80 scale.

[rocor]

2 hours ago, HonestTom said:

 

I suspect it's because when these things were decided on, nobody really thought that there might be crossover potential. Early model railway layouts tend to put the emphasis on self-contained operation rather than creating a world.

 

I'd agree with 1:100 because it's very easy to mentally convert real life measurements, and it's a good compromise between detail and space. Plus architectural modelling companies produce lots of accessories for the scale - I was in a shop that sold architectural modelling equipment the other day, looking enviously at the range of doors, windows, staircases and furniture you can buy for 1:50 and 1:100.

 

Some Japanese plastic kit manufacturers produce Japanese locomotives at 1:50 scale. Many years ago I saw in a toyfair report, that one of these was going to produce a Bulleid pacific to this scale. As I have never seen any other reference to this since, I take it that it never made production.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

IIRC 1:80 was the scale of the British Trix models which were neither OO nor HO. They scaled out at about 3.8mm : 1ft 

I recall Trix UK model being quoted as being 1:82 scale. They may not all have been to quite the same scale.

 

Various European manufacturers produced "HO" models at scales other than 1:87: Rivarossi, Fleischmann certainly did.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Given more time, I would model UK prototype at 1:120 scale.

[Phatbob]

Mine would be another vote for 1:00, or, pragmatically 1:101.6 as it already exists.   Of the current options, TT is the best compromise between size and level of detail IMHO.

[rocor]

22 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Given more time, I would model UK prototype at 1:120 scale.

 

I have considered this as a scale to model mid Victorian railways in. Conveniently larger than N for modelling the smaller vehicles when using N gauge mechanisms. 3D printing the models. Joining the 2mm Scale Association to obtain rail and wheel rims, and using these as the trackwork standards.

[Tiptonian]

I would stay in the area of TT, but my clean-sheet choice would be 1:96, which, of course, translates to 1/8" /ft.  It has the size to detail compromise of all the TT variants, but is also a pure imperial scale, and makes a slightly larger model than my very close second choice, which would be 1:120.

[TheSignalEngineer]

26 minutes ago, Tiptonian said:

I would stay in the area of TT, but my clean-sheet choice would be 1:96, which, of course, translates to 1/8" /ft.  It has the size to detail compromise of all the TT variants, but is also a pure imperial scale, and makes a slightly larger model than my very close second choice, which would be 1:120.

When I started pway manufacturing drawings and our S&T level crossing and building GA drawings were usually done at 1:96. On metrication they changed to 1:100

[flubrush]

15 hours ago, BR60103 said:

I contend that a successful scale is about 1/2 of a larger one, which is why S and TT don't have much following.

 

 

S scale is half of Gauge 1.  In fact in the UK,  S scale was originally known as H1 (Half One) with a scale of 5mm:ft.   The name was changed to S a few years after WW2 to come in line with the US name for the scale and the 1:64 scale was adopted as the UK standard.

 

Jim.

[Nearholmer]

I guess most people who are used to metric units will opt for 1:100, 1:50, 1:25 etc as scales when asked to work from a clean sheet, while those used to Imperial will opt for 1:96, 1:48, 1:24 etc.

 

Of that lot, I think only 1:48 is widely used, very widely in fact, since it is US 0, which is popular for its narrow gauge derivatives as well as standard gauge.

 

1:48 nearly made it as British 0 too, back when scales were first being settled in the early 1900s, and there were even a tiny few mass produced models in that scale for the British market.

 

Personally, I’m not fussed between 1:50 and 1:48, either would do me for standard gauge indoors. I like 1:24 or 1:25 for larger narrow gauge and for outdoor live-steam standard gauge, while 1:12 and 1:10 are superb scales for very tiny narrow gauge prototypes and each is used by a few practitioners.

 

But, we are stuck with what we’ve got unless prepared to plough a lone furrow, such as the Gravetts working to 1:50 for metre gauge.

 

PS: The OP’s 3/20” sounds really weird to me, given how very rarely 1/10” and 1/20”  are used as units in Britain, except when spoken of as ‘a hundred thou’ and ‘fifty thou’. Tenths of an inch are a strange American thing, aren’t they?

Edited December 17, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Andy Reichert]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

SNIP

 

PS: The OP’s 3/20” sounds really weird to me, given how very rarely 1/10” and 1/20”  are used as units in Britain, except when spoken of as ‘a hundred thou’ and ‘fifty thou’. Tenths of an inch are a strange American thing, aren’t they?

 

Welcome to Hornby's new "00 Scale" wheel width.

 

Andy

[Nearholmer]

NMRA RP25?

[Bernard Lamb]

On 16/12/2019 at 18:39, rocor said:

 

 

 

Got me thinking, that given a clean sheet of paper, what scales would I have chosen. The one change to this list that first came to mind, would have been a common scale for OO/HO. I would have chosen 1:80 scale, which would have translated to 3/20” = 1 foot for those using imperial measurements, and 1mm = 80mm for the metric minded.

 

What would your ideal modelling scales be within this range, given the choice to start from scratch?.

The ideal scale is obviously 1:1 but that is out of reach to the vast majority.

I fear you are falling into a trap suggesting that 00 and H0 can have a common base.

As other threads point out they are drifting further apart.

The idea of 1:80 falls down in that we do not in the UK use a twentieth as a unit.

I do like the idea of 1:64 as it is a true imperial scale and it is also a good size to work in.

I have built model boats in this scale but my trains are 00 for UK stock and H0 for German.

I do admit to being a complete Philistine and from time to time run trains on the "wrong" layout.

Bernard

[HonestTom]

20 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I recall Trix UK model being quoted as being 1:82 scale. They may not all have been to quite the same scale.

 

 

They produced some in that scale and then switched up to OO later on. I think their E2 was the last "HO" scale model.

[MJI]

I think that 4mm to the foot is actually a very easy system to work to.

 

Real railway vehicles were built in inches, I know my SI system

 

3" is 1mm

 

Easy to model

[rocor]

14 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I guess most people who are used to metric units will opt for 1:100, 1:50, 1:25 etc as scales when asked to work from a clean sheet, while those used to Imperial will opt for 1:96, 1:48, 1:24 etc.

 

Of that lot, I think only 1:48 is widely used, very widely in fact, since it is US 0, which is popular for its narrow gauge derivatives as well as standard gauge.

 

1:48 nearly made it as British 0 too, back when scales were first being settled in the early 1900s, and there were even a tiny few mass produced models in that scale for the British market.

 

Personally, I’m not fussed between 1:50 and 1:48, either would do me for standard gauge indoors. I like 1:24 or 1:25 for larger narrow gauge and for outdoor live-steam standard gauge, while 1:12 and 1:10 are superb scales for very tiny narrow gauge prototypes and each is used by a few practitioners.

 

But, we are stuck with what we’ve got unless prepared to plough a lone furrow, such as the Gravetts working to 1:50 for metre gauge.

 

PS: The OP’s 3/20” sounds really weird to me, given how very rarely 1/10” and 1/20”  are used as units in Britain, except when spoken of as ‘a hundred thou’ and ‘fifty thou’. Tenths of an inch are a strange American thing, aren’t they?

 

 

Using 10th's of an inch was not that unusual. Double sided rulers pre-metric were usually graduated along their four edges with 1. 1/8th's of an inch, 2. continual halving of an inch 1/2",1/4",1/8"....,  3. 12th's of an inch, 4. 10th's, 20th's, 50th's. This made them useful to a wide range of model makers.