JohnDMJ Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 It is interesting to note that whilst the dimensions are becoming the focus, sight has been lost that we are talking about Zero-Zero (00) and Half-Zero (H0) systems here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 If you think people are getting fussy on here, try the great non-flaring spoke scandal on the Hornby B12 thread. Link please, i feel like I'm missing out on something! Track threads are like The Village in The Prisoner - there's no escape... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Be very very careful when changing units of measurement Indeed. It is wonderful what pilots achieve when they have experience outside their normal training. Another example of the perils of changing units of measurement is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter My favourite comment from a documentary on the subject is, “It’s not rocket science but it ought to have been.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 It is interesting to note that whilst the dimensions are becoming the focus, sight has been lost that we are talking about Zero-Zero (00) and Half-Zero (H0) systems here Quite right. I have seen a model of a certain steam class described as an OO 02 rather than an 00 O2. All the same, I expect a fussy mathematician to point out that 0×0 and ½×0 both equal 0 (nought in my parlance). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Link please, i feel like I'm missing out on something! Track threads are like The Village in The Prisoner - there's no escape... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105495-Hornby-b12/page-6 There was also the delight of sorting out whether or not the wheel bosses should be green or black. Great stuff and very informative! Good news about the foot of the rail. I knew that bullhead rail was designed to be turned over when the rail head was worn but wondered why it wasn’t done. Thanks to the experts here, I now know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Seeing as individuals have accepted 00 gauge and the improvement brought by adopting bullhead/chaired track for many years, Peco is hardly going to make a boll*cks of its own new 00 track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) It is interesting to note that whilst the dimensions are becoming the focus, sight has been lost that we are talking about Zero-Zero (00) and Half-Zero (H0) systems here Hi John Beware of being pedantic about this. This has always been very vague and on their website even the Gauge O Guild (or Gauge 0 Guild) use both even for their own name They are though registered at Companies House as THE GAUGE "O" GUILD LIMITED with an Oh not a zero). Though 0 gauge and then 00 gauge appear to have been a logical downward progression of the larger gauges 3,2,1 (sometimes III, II, 1) most early references to both scales, including Model Railway News from 1925 and the early books by Edward Beal and Ernest Carter, clearly used a capital O rather than a 0 (the typeset characters are distinctly different). Using the letter rather than the zero seems in the main to have stuck, at least in the English speaking world. As is well known Britain has no generally agreed standards but In their standards the American NMRA definitely refer to O, HO and OO (though H0 sometimes appears in articles) while in Europe MOROP in their NEMs equally clearly use 0 and H0 (with passing references to "Anglo-Saxon" 00) The main French association for 0 gauge is also "Le Cercle de Zéro". but though H0 is pronounced "hah-null" in German it is more like Hachaux or Acho in French where O is pronounced Ohh but 0 is pronounced Zéro. Both H0 and HO appear in adverts and articles there just as 00 and OO both appear in Britain so nobody can really say that one or other is "correct" . Edited October 19, 2016 by Pacific231G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium dhjgreen Posted October 19, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2016 It has been said a number of times on here that early typewriters did not have a 0 or a 1; O and l were used. This was not a problem until the widespread use of computers. Also how many people say their phone number begins with a zero rather than an oh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Hi John Beware of being pedantic about this. This has always been very vague and on their website even the Gauge O Guild (or Gauge 0 Guild) use both even for their own name They are though registered at Companies House as THE GAUGE "O" GUILD LIMITED with an Oh not a zero). Though 0 gauge and then 00 gauge appear to have been a logical downward progression of the larger gauges 3,2,1 (sometimes III, II, 1) most early references to both scales, including Model Railway News from 1925 and the early books by Edward Beal and Ernest Carter, clearly used a capital O rather than a 0. Using the letter rather than the zero seems in the main to have stuck, at least in the English speaking world. As is well known Britain has no generally agreed standards but In their standards the American NMRA definitely refer to O, HO and OO (though H0 sometimes appears in articles) while in Europe MOROP in their NEMs equally clearly use 0 and H0 (with passing references to "Anglo-Saxon" 00) The main French association for 0 gauge is also "Le Cercle de Zéro". but though H0 is pronounced "hah-null" in German it is more like Hachaux or Acho in French where O is pronounced Ohh but 0 is pronounced Zéro. Both H0 and HO appear in adverts and articles there just as 00 and OO both appear in Britain so nobody can really say that one or other is "correct" . Fair enough comment. On the one hand is the “logical downward progression of the larger gauges”, on the other is the reprehensible British habit of using “oh” to mean both the letter and nought. The latter has probably played its part in confusing matters, as has the typewriter practice of using the same character for a capital O and a nought. Word processing has brought us back to two different characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) H0 came about as a consequence of the series of descending number gauges ending at nought (Zero), but then Stewart Reidpath said half nought or half zero sounded like nonsense and Half "O" was adopted in the late twenties. OO developed for the same reason, zero zero, and nought nought were simply too odd, so "OO" came about, with Dublo used by Hornby as a commercial copyrighted name. How people write it is up to them, in the UK there is no academy, or law about the written word, thank goodness. Edited October 19, 2016 by bertiedog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) If you think people are getting fussy on here, try the great non-flaring spoke scandal on the Hornby B12 thread. And the Hornby collectors had all been so deliriously happy till someone noticed that. I did like the comment about the preserved B12 being "incorrect" as if it's a 1:1 scale model of itself. It reminded me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2P2mFT_ac It makes me laugh everytime I watch it. Edited October 19, 2016 by Pacific231G 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 19, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2016 Beware of being pedantic about this. ... ... Though 0 gauge and then 00 gauge appear to have been a logical downward progression of the larger gauges 3,2,1 (sometimes III, II, 1) most early references to both scales, including Model Railway News from 1925 and the early books by Edward Beal and Ernest Carter, clearly used a capital O rather than a 0 I see no reason not to be pedantic. No-one is going to be in any way harmed or inconvenienced if I am. It's important to make a distinction between a symbol, and the value it represents. The symbol (and the way it is spoken) is determined by the mechanical means available, and the choice of the user. There is a fixed range of symbols available on a keyboard, which may or may not include a choice of different shaped rings, and the user may choose to use whichever he or she prefers to convey the intended meaning. The value represented by the symbol is determined by the sequence of which it is a part. If I write the sequence I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 I have clearly created a numeric sequence, and the fact that I chose to use an upper-case i symbol to represent a numeric 1 and an S symbol to represent a numeric 5 doesn't change their meanings. There is a long history of using a numeric sequence to mark a range of sizes. When the range needs to be extended below a numeric zero, additional symbols need to be created to represent the lower values. Typically the symbol representing numeric zero is doubled or trebled as necessary, the 00 symbol being sometimes changed to the symbol 2/0, etc. See for example the sizes of artist's paint brushes: linked from https://www.misterart.com/static/images/cat-a/brushes/brush-sizes.jpg What is clear is that this remains a numeric sequence, and the values represented are still numerics. This is important, because if the values are not numeric, there may be no way to discover the position of a symbol in the sequence. For the letter symbols we have the English alphabet, but the only way to know that the symbol 4 comes between the symbol 3 and the symbol 5 is to know that it represents a numeric value. When it comes to the model railway sizes, we similarly have a numeric sequence because only then is it clear that the 0 or O symbols represent a size one step down from the size represented by the 1 symbol, and that the size represented by the 00 or OO or O0 or 2/0 or 2/O symbols represents a further step down from that. In short it doesn't much matter what symbol is used for 00 gauge, provided it clearly represents the numeric value -1 (minus 1). But if you know that's what it represents, it makes sense to use the symbols normally associated with numeric values, which in this case on a computer keyboard is 00, but on a typewriter can only be OO. Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I see no reason not to be pedantic. No-one is going to be in any way harmed or inconvenienced if I am. It's important to make a distinction between a symbol, and the value it represents. The symbol (and the way it is spoken) is determined by the mechanical means available, and the choice of the user. There is a fixed range of symbols available on a keyboard, which may or may not include a choice of different shaped rings, and the user may choose to use whichever he or she prefers to convey the intended meaning. The value represented by the symbol is determined by the sequence of which it is a part. If I write the sequence I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 I have clearly created a numeric sequence, and the fact that I chose to use an upper-case i symbol to represent a numeric 1 and an S symbol to represent a numeric 5 doesn't change their meanings. There is a long history of using a numeric sequence to mark a range of sizes. When the range needs to be extended below a numeric zero, additional symbols need to be created to represent the lower values. Typically the symbol representing numeric zero is doubled or trebled as necessary, the 00 symbol being sometimes changed to the symbol 2/0, etc. See for example the sizes of artist's paint brushes: linked from https://www.misterart.com/static/images/cat-a/brushes/brush-sizes.jpg What is clear is that this remains a numeric sequence, and the values represented are still numerics. This is important, because if the values are not numeric, there may be no way to discover the position of a symbol in the sequence. For the letter symbols we have the English alphabet, but the only way to know that the symbol 4 comes between the symbol 3 and the symbol 5 is to know that it represents a numeric value. When it comes to the model railway sizes, we similarly have a numeric sequence because only then is it clear that the 0 or O symbols represent a size one step down from the size represented by the 1 symbol, and that the size represented by the 00 or OO or O0 or 2/0 or 2/O symbols represents a further step down from that. In short it doesn't much matter what symbol is used for 00 gauge, provided it clearly represents the numeric value -1 (minus 1). But if you know that's what it represents, it makes sense to use the symbols normally associated with numeric values, which in this case on a computer keyboard is 00, but on a typewriter can only be OO. Martin. I see what you're saying, and don't disagree, but what causes confusion is that the 7mm scale one is called O gauge and not 'nought' or 'zero' gauge. Similarly the 4mm scale one running on 16.5mm track is referred to as OO ('oh- oh') and not 'nought- nought '....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chris116 Posted October 19, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2016 Yawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 7mm scale is not necessarily O gauge, it can be any gauge you like. Don't confuse scale which is a ratio with gauge which is a distance, ie a measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 19, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2016 I see what you're saying, and don't disagree, but what causes confusion is that the 7mm scale one is called O gauge and not 'nought' or 'zero' gauge. Similarly the 4mm scale one running on 16.5mm track is referred to as OO ('oh- oh') and not 'nought- nought '....... They used to be so-called. You can sometimes find old-timers in your local club using those terms. I had a good modelling friend, no longer with us, who did exactly that. In fact I can still remember the first time I heard him do so. On his P4 locomotives he had a motor in the tender and a universal-shaft drive to a gearbox on the engine. When I asked him how he made the universal couplings, he said he used "nought-gauge handrail knobs". When 00 gauge RTR models became much improved and he began converting them to P4, he described them as his "nought-nought gauge models". regards, Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 7mm scale is not necessarily O gauge, it can be any gauge you like. Don't confuse scale which is a ratio with gauge which is a distance, ie a measurement.I am aware of that, but the discussion was about O or 0, and OO or 00? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 They used to be so-called. You can sometimes find old-timers in your local club using those terms. I had a good modelling friend, no longer with us, who did exactly that. In fact I can still remember the first time I heard him do so. On his P4 locomotives he had a motor in the tender and a universal-shaft drive to a gearbox on the engine. When I asked him how he made the universal couplings, he said he used "nought-gauge handrail knobs". When 00 gauge RTR models became much improved and he began converting them to P4, he described them as his "nought-nought gauge models". regards, Martin. I've never come across that - you live and learn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 19, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2016 Yawn! The great advantage of a written conversation, as opposed to a verbal one, is that you you can scroll past the bits you don't want to read. This is preferable to posting a reply which adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever. Martin. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 When I first moved to the US I was confused by the term 'quarter scale' as I couldn't imagine anyone building models that large. However it quickly became apparent that it is quarter inch to the foot scale, ie 1/48th, or American O scale...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) I see no reason not to be pedantic. No-one is going to be in any way harmed or inconvenienced if I am. It's important to make a distinction between a symbol, and the value it represents. When it comes to the model railway sizes, we similarly have a numeric sequence because only then is it clear that the 0 or O symbols represent a size one step down from the size represented by the 1 symbol, and that the size represented by the 00 or OO or O0 or 2/0 or 2/O symbols represents a further step down from that. In short it doesn't much matter what symbol is used for 00 gauge, provided it clearly represents the numeric value -1 (minus 1). But if you know that's what it represents, it makes sense to use the symbols normally associated with numeric values, which in this case on a computer keyboard is 00, but on a typewriter can only be OO. Martin. Unfortunately that breaks down when you decide you need to distinguish H0 and 00. 1,2 & 3 were defined as gauges but OO became more complicated- much more complicated. At one time 00 (or OO) could mean a scale of 3.5 or 4mm to the foot and a nominal gauge of 5/8 inch, 16mm, 16.5mm, 18mm or 19mm (I think the BRMSB renamed "Scale OO" as EM before it became 18.2mm) It's no accident that instead of 000, 0000, and possibly 00000 we got N, Z & T. In any case with only two gauges below 1 in the sequence, O and OO don't really need to be placed in a numerical sequence but can be treated as discrete symbols. One catch with using numerical values with a computer is that, unless you actually tell it that 0, 00 and 000 are text strings NOT numbers it tends to treat them all as zero. O, OO and OOO are of course treated as strings and OO9 doesn't turn into 9 either. I discovered this while indexing magazine articles in a spreadsheet with nominal scale as one of the fields. H0 was no problem but there were an awful lot of 0 gauge layouts and a surprising lack of any 00 layouts. Fortunately I spotted this before I'd indexed more than about twenty magazines but even when I formatted the field as text it had forgotten what I'd originally keyed in so I had to go through a number of them again. I think the typewriter thing is a bit of a red herring as the pre-war magazines were typeset and O and 0 were always different. Edited October 19, 2016 by Pacific231G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 When I first moved to the US I was confused by the term 'quarter scale' as I couldn't imagine anyone building models that large. However it quickly became apparent that it is quarter inch to the foot scale, ie 1/48th, or American O scale......Our colonial cousins who took part in the American Rebellion of 1776 have a lot to answer for........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am aware of that, but the discussion was about O or 0, and OO or 00?Sorry, serious hat removed...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Our colonial cousins who took part in the American Rebellion of 1776 have a lot to answer for........ Including a political system that is described as the envy of the World but is in fact not duplicated anywhere else..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) Including a political system that is described as the envy of the World but is in fact not duplicated anywhere else.....But without it it we would possibly have Donald T to look forward to (sorry, NOT meaning to be in any way political). Edited October 19, 2016 by sp1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts