OO and HO differences

[Nearholmer]

Well, you did ask.

 

Oh, actually, perhaps you didn’t.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, Lantavian said:

Could someone explain, please, the point of EM? Why go to so much effort to produce something that's closer to the correct gauge, but still isn't right?

The brief summary would be that at the time of introduction in the 1950s it was an attainable improvement over the scale to gauge mismatch of OO. Most modelling had to be done on a shoestring budget, with relatively few tools and limited materials and specific supplies. What commercial components were then available essentially set the limit. 'I was there' when the young turks thrust the 'P4' concept into Uk railway modelling, and most of us struggling to make our EM projects run really well looked upon it as madness. But it was proven to be practical. At least for some given value of practical, you still don't see pacifics being whanged along at scale for 90mph on true scale 4mm layouts. But it was true scale, so if you were 'serious' you had to conform to the new programme.

 

Long ago burned the hair shirt of zemblanity and settled for happy mediocrity with OO. And the serendipity of RTR pacific models that can romp along at scale for 90mph, and enter a hidden way underscale radius curve with no harm.

[Guest Half-full]

I seriously considered EM for my next project, but the constant squabbling you read on tenths of millimeters put me right off, thats not enjoyment, thats torture!

 

Fair play to those who stick it out though.

[philsandy]

6 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

 

Yes, but most HO track is easily converted to 16.5 mm gauge Proto-87. Changing the gauge is a massive amount of work and skill by comparison. And you can convert UK 00 RTR vehicles stock to P87 by  just changing the wheels

 

For UK modellers in particular, A slightly wider flange way version of P87 is 00 P. This uses the P4 flange way on 16.5 mm gauge and so allows the use of the existing wide range of UK P4 wheels for steam locos. The crossing in the pictures above is actually the 00P version, but it's appearance is almost identical to to true P87.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Does that not defeat the object of modelling in P87,  using 00 vehicles that are 14% over size?

[Andy Reichert]

49 minutes ago, philsandy said:

 

Does that not defeat the object of modelling in P87,  using 00 vehicles that are 14% over size?

 

In my case I have both reasonable rosters of both US HO and UK 4mm vehicles, but only space for one largish layout. The latter can run anywhere on the 16.5 mm gauge Proto-scale track work but can still have close to scale P4 wheels. Sideways on they look as realistic as true P4 vehicles. But I don't have to hand lay any separate track for them. ( Nor hand lay any track if I prefer to easily convert commercial 16.5mm  gauge track) .

 

So I can have a layout with very realistic models, fairly ambiguous scenery except in a few places where it is deliberately one or the other, and operate in either US or UK mode depending on my preference at the time. Some UK only modellers may also like the proto-scale appearance without a lot of the skill and effort and almost irreversible gauge change commitment of full P4.

 

Andy

[relaxinghobby]

On 01/05/2020 at 00:40, DavidCBroad said:

OO / HO is the track gauge 16.5mm.   OO scale is 4mm to the foot 1/76   HO scale is 3.5 mm to the foot 1/87.   1/72 is the old standard  Aircraft and Military modelling scale.  The standard professional modelling scale for models of proposed buildings etc is 1/100 and lots of figures seem to be made for 1/100 and sold as OO/HO

There are big variations in the height of OO/HO model people some are 24mm tall 6ft in OO others  20mm  tall 5ft in OO or 5ft 9 ish in HO.  However most are badly proportioned,  Tall and fat, short and thin.   Bachmann loco crew are awful, like a couple of 12 year old boys.  For me basically OO/HO figures fall into 2 groups, 1) Too expensive and 2) Rubbish, only Dapol seem to fall between the two. Dapol trackside are my favorites for railwaymen, several have had limbs amputated to fit my locomotives and a few guillotined to provide just the head.

For OO gauge vehicles 1/72 looks OK at the front of the layout, 1/87 at the back but only 1/76 works for vehicles on wagons, Later Airfix Tanks are 1/76 and fit OO wagons nicely whereas the old 1/72 ones just don't.

As for gulls, that's a step too far for me,  Maybe you could use a 1/160 N gauge albatross?

Just measure the height of the figures, cars and buildings.

What were the average size of height of men and women back in the day or now if you make modern image layout. I model pre-grouping so if a figure's height scales out at 5ft 6" that's OK as that was tall for a working class man in the 19th century. If the little people seem to be in some sort of miss match just keeps them in height appartite on separate sections of the layout.

The Preiser figures have the most realistic looking selection and along with Dapol one are made in a hard plastic that can be cut, glued or model puttied into other shapes and poses. I have to add filler putty skirt extensions to mini-skirted modern figurettes for instance. No female liberation in 1890. Men wore hats and and caps so glue on little disks of plasticard.

Always the ruler is your friend and will tell you what who is an accurate size.

 

 

A metal figure Merit? out for a stroll in H0 lane, some H0 plastic continental kits hacked and glued into low relief 00 models. Destined for use at the back of a new layout. The man is 22 mm tall. The door for the half timbered olde shoppee is a bit low compared to the man but is meant to be very old Dickensian.

Look around at an old town any street of houses shows different door and floor heights.

I convinced myself these buildings are all right but locking at pictures on the internet.

Edited May 2, 2020 by relaxinghobby
Add image

[BR60103]

I have a suspicion that the larger scale for superstructure than track had to do with British locos having parts of the footplate coming down outside the wheels. Since wheels then were quite thick, to have the footplate and cylinders the right width, the inside of the wheels, i.e. the flanges, had to be set in a bit. When EM came about the wheels were thinner but still not scale thickness.

I think the same may have applied to TT. TT started as 1/10" to a foot (1:120).

 

Digression: If TT3 is rounded to 1:100, the largest TT3 model in the world is Disneyland's Matterhorn.

 

 

[AndyID]

30 minutes ago, BR60103 said:

I have a suspicion that the larger scale for superstructure than track had to do with British locos having parts of the footplate coming down outside the wheels. Since wheels then were quite thick, to have the footplate and cylinders the right width, the inside of the wheels, i.e. the flanges, had to be set in a bit. When EM came about the wheels were thinner but still not scale thickness.

 

 

I completely agree. The proportions of old Hornby Dublo steam-outline locomotives are very good and the outside faces of the wheels are close to spot-on. The wheel treads and flanges had to be much larger to allow them to negotiate very small radius track on uneven surfaces. (The old story about making the bodies larger to accommodate electric motors has been floating around for many years but it's likely apocryphal.)

 

The running gear on European steam-outline locomotives to HO scale always strikes me as being out of scale. US steam-outline locos don't look bad because the superstructures are usually so enormous and with diesels, where the wheels are almost always hidden behind frames, the effect is barely noticeable.