The forerunners of H0/00 gauge

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Andy Kirkham said:

With that long single splasher it looks to me more like a GCR Lord Farringdon than anything else..

The entire series of 4-6-0, 0-6-0, and 0-6-0T were Greenly-generic, but when you see the KA in the tin, one is in no doubt what it is, whereas the other company versions don’t ring true, especially the GWR one. To me at least, the 0-6-0 looks more convincing (less unconvincing?) when liveried for the LNER.

 

This is better than the Hornby FS, better mechanism, better looking, better coaches, but still a tad unconvincing.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Nearholmer

[sncf231e]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Maybe we should decamp to ‘Coarse 0’, if Fred doesn’t want his sub-0 thread swamped.

I do not mind at all; most of the post are interesting! It is all in the realm of Collectable/Vintage.

To add to BING/BL versus Hornby: I did a clockwork pulling power test and who was the winner?:

Regards

Fred

[Nearholmer]

Maybe I'm being dense, or not paying attention properly, but I couldn't tell who won in terms of distance, although the Bing loco clearly pulled a heavier load.

 

I did try to understand the physics of wrap-springs at one stage, and from what I recall, both width of spring and thickness of steel affect the force derived, but it is length that determines duration in the toy train context, so for a given available space the designer has to juggle these three things to reach an optimum balance of force and duration, then decide how to govern the thing.

[kevinlms]

25 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Maybe I'm being dense, or not paying attention properly, but I couldn't tell who won in terms of distance, although the Bing loco clearly pulled a heavier load.

 

I did try to understand the physics of wrap-springs at one stage, and from what I recall, both width of spring and thickness of steel affect the force derived, but it is length that determines duration in the toy train context, so for a given available space the designer has to juggle these three things to reach an optimum balance of force and duration, then decide how to govern the thing.

Perhaps the true test is to couple them up back to back?

[BR60103]

I have just checked my Volume 1 or Model Railroader magazine (1934).

#2 has an article Oh, Oh! Here's OO  The author mentions 4mm but no other dimensions. He models North American electric coaches.

#4 shows the Diminutive and Obstinate R.R. by George D Stock. This is Pennsylvania RR. He calls it OO gauge but 5/8", with outside 3rd rail. (Interesting: power is 6V DC)

#6 The Space-Saving Grace of HO gauge.  The title photo is British wagon in HO. The writer compares it to O scale at 7mm to the foot.  He talks of two OO gauges -- American at 3/4" and British at 5/8".

#7 proposes another Scale for O gauge. (1/4" on 1 3/16" gauge; having already 1/4" and 17/64" on 1 1/4" gauge)

There is a table of Common Gauges and Scales.

HO 5/8" g, 1/8" or 3.5mm s

U S OO 3/4", 4mm

Brit OO 5/8", 4mm

US O 1 1/4", 1/4" of 17/64"

and No. 1, Standard, and 2 1/2" gauge.

 

(My copy of this is a bound volume which I believe was a reprint given as a bonus for subscribing.)

 

 

[Pacific231G]

On 16/08/2021 at 22:09, GoingUnderground said:

And what if the item isn't a multiple of 3 inches? As the basis is supposed to be 3.5mm:1 ft that's damned damned hard in anybody's language. Working in 0 gauge at 7mm = 12 inches is just as bad. It really looks like dreaming up some sort of scaling that fitted what had been made and the closest fit was this weird hybrid of Imperial:Metric. 

 

My point is that you just wouldn't define a scale in that way, especially if you were working in the metric system as they would have been in Germany from 1872 and from that date the dimensions of the prototypes would have been defined under the metric system. So defining a scale by reference to a measurement system (Imperial) not used in the country just wouldn't happen.

 

Equally, in the UK it was a strange way to define scales back in the period between 1900 and the 1940s as the metric system has only really come into everyday use here from around the 1950s.

Not so  strange as far as Britain was concerned. In 1925, when MRN started, the debate was definitely between 3.5mm/ft and 4mm/ft and few were still expressing model railway gauges (certainly not for No. 0 and No. 00 gauges)  in inches. Even further back in 1909, in volume 1 of the world's first model railway magazine, Henry Greenly's Model Railways and Locmotives,he was already expressing his standards for No. 0, No.1, No.2 and No. 3 gauge  in both "English" and Metric systems so clearly the sort of people who had model railways were very accustomed to both systems. Even at school in the 1960s we used imperial meausres in everyday use but metric measures in anything precision, medical or scientifc

The "standard" gauges of model track 1 1/4, 1 3/4, 2 and 2 1/2 inches for gauges 0 to 3  do look to be British as their metric equivalents are fairly awkward numbers including tenths and quarers of a millimetre.

(update, they were apparently set by Maerklin in the late 19 C as I, II, & III followed later by 0 which cannot  be a Roman numeral as they didn't have zero  so my surmise that they were British ME gauges was wrong)

 

You later had the happy accident with 00 gauge that, once the half of 0 gauge  5/8" (16mm)  gauge had been widened to 16.5mm, 3.5mm/ft whcih IS a more awkward scale for conversion between full size dimensions in feet and model dimensions in mm, is practically spot on in scale for the equally awkward 1435 mm (4ft 8 1/2ins)  standard gauge. in 1:87 scale, the NEM standard scale, it  IS spot on (to 0.5mm when scaled up so well within full size engineering tolerances)

I don't know whether the gauges 1 to 3 (and thence 0 and 00) came from British model engineering practce or from German miniature trains but  For model engineers the gauge is the starting point and whether you build, a standard,narrow or broad gauge loco to run on it  is  not that important as a visit to any ME Society's running track will demonstrate..

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Pacific231G
correction for orign of 0, 1, 2, 3 gauges

[Il Grifone]

The original gauges were I believe a German invention (Märklin?) and just rounded off for the UK on the grounds that no-one understood metric anyway*. The odd fraction of a millimetre would have made no difference with coarse scale anyway. I doubt the manufacturing was that precise in any case. They don't seem to be able to fit wheels to axles with a precise and constant B"B even now. A coach I measured the other day had 4 different settings, of which only one was correct! It ran a lot better once I'd reset the errant wheelsets.

 

*The sort of people who had the space and money pre-WWI would have probably studied classics at school rather than science. I would have thought that measures of ten were easier than 'whatever' though.

I saw a cartoon strip the other day where one character was saying "If you remember five tomatoes (U.S. pronunciation “tomayto” or it doesn't work), it's easy to remember how many feet in a mile". His mate replied that he only had to remember a thousand for metres in a kilometre!

As far as I'm concerned the imperial system became obsolete the moment the metric system was invented, but lots of people disagree with me. (Possibly something to do with it being 'French'?)

[sncf231e]

4 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The original gauges were I believe a German invention (Märklin?)

From: http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/ :

"Many of the track gauges for toy and model trains are an industry standard and are indicated by a letter or number, the most common currently are: Z (6.5 mm), N (9 mm), H0/00 (16.5 mm), S (22.5 mm), 0 (32 mm) and 1 (45 mm). Märklin started this standardization in 1891 introducing a complete gauge I railway system with track, rolling stock and accessories. Gauge I, which had a width of 48 mm, i.e. 45 mm between the rails, is still used and now in general called gauge 1. Larger gauges where standardised indicated by Roman numerals II (54 mm), III (75 mm) in 1892. In1898 Märklin introduced a smaller gauge of 35 mm (32 mm between the rails) which was called gauge 0. Other toy train makers like Bing and Carette followed and later almost all manufacturers around the world followed this industry standard."

Regards

Fred

[railroadbill]

On 20/08/2021 at 11:01, Il Grifone said:

 

 

*The sort of people who had the space and money pre-WWI would have probably studied classics at school rather than science. I would have thought that measures of ten were easier than 'whatever' though.

I saw a cartoon strip the other day where one character was saying "If you remember five tomatoes (U.S. pronunciation “tomayto” or it doesn't work), it's easy to remember how many feet in a mile". His mate replied that he only had to remember a thousand for metres in a kilometre!

As far as I'm concerned the imperial system became obsolete the moment the metric system was invented, but lots of people disagree with me. (Possibly something to do with it being 'French'?)

On the other hand (as I once had to point out to some "metric country" relatives who were taking the mickey) take a length of string.  Fold it in half. That's 1/2. Fold it again, that's 1/4. And again, 1/8th. Again, 1/16th. Then 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256,  still easily manageable.  But with metric,  0.5, 0.25,  0.125, 0.0625, 0.03125, 0.015625 and so on.  Getting a little more tricky to do in your head....

 

When I was at school and we got to GCE O levels (as then was) we had just turned to metric for maths problems, but we used centimetres and centilitres .  A year or two after us it changed to millimetres and litres etc. so we were experimental forerunners of British metrication....

 

Despite buying petrol/diesel in litres for many years, I still have a need to work out the car's fuel consumption in MPG though....

 

[Il Grifone]

The trouble is imperial doesn't do things in twos, but a whole collection of weird figures.

 

Centimetres and centilitres are still in use here in Italy. SI has eliminated all the intermediate values, but it is really a scientific thing and will take a generation or two.

 

I still can't get my head around litres/100kilometres though and still use miles per gallon (or at least kilometres per litre (likewise percentage gradient, I have to convert to 1 in something).

Edited August 23, 2021 by Il Grifone

[railroadbill]

Rods polls perches chains...  it's all the conversions like stones, pounds, ounces that add to the confusion.  Metric is best for modelling,  a number of mm is easier to be accurate about, since a mm as a unit is actually quite small.

[BernardTPM]

1/32" is pretty close to 3/4mm which can be handy when measuring for thin strips sometimes.

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

likewise percentage gradient, I have to convert to 1 in something).

Its a sort of con-trick that % gradient is considered metric, and 1: N imperial, because both are unit-less ratios. 
 

I personally find 1: N far easier to conceptualise, but that’s probably only because I’ve grown-up using it.

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, railroadbill said:

On the other hand (as I once had to point out to some "metric country" relatives who were taking the mickey) take a length of string.  Fold it in half. That's 1/2. Fold it again, that's 1/4. And again, 1/8th. Again, 1/16th. Then 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256,  still easily manageable.  But with metric,  0.5, 0.25,  0.125, 0.0625, 0.03125, 0.015625 and so on.  Getting a little more tricky to do in your head....

 

When I was at school and we got to GCE O levels (as then was) we had just turned to metric for maths problems, but we used centimetres and centilitres .  A year or two after us it changed to millimetres and litres etc. so we were experimental forerunners of British metrication....

 

Despite buying petrol/diesel in litres for many years, I still have a need to work out the car's fuel consumption in MPG though....

 

But such short pieces of string are only useful, if you happen to want to tie small parcels to pigeon legs.

I can't remember the last time I needed too!

 

As for litres per 100km, if you buy fuel by the litre and all the distances are in km, what is the advantage of converting to MPG? In fact if you press certain buttons on the display, it will show L/100km. How easy is that?

 

The significant difference when comparing say different vehicles, is that with MPG, the higher the better. With L/100km, it's the lower the better.

[kevinlms]

24 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Its a sort of con-trick that % gradient is considered metric, and 1: N imperial, because both are unit-less ratios. 
 

I personally find 1: N far easier to conceptualise, but that’s probably only because I’ve grown-up using it.

Anything that uses a basic unit of 10, is considered metric.

 

I give you the electrical designations of Volts, Amps, Ohms, Capacitance, Watts etc. Then there is stuff for lighting, such as Lumens. Although I know little about Lumens, I do know that the higher the number, means brighter, which is good enough for me!

 

The great thing about these, is they are 100% universal around the world, with no serious disagreement.

[Nearholmer]

29 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Anything that uses a basic unit of 10, is considered metric.

 

I’m not at all convinced.

The Metric System is a system defining units of measure, and ratios have no units. Percent, or more correctly, and as it used to be expressed ‘per centum’ has, been used in Britain for centuries in some applications. I think old apothecary jars sometimes have a o/oo symbol on them, which was the forerunner of %.

 

Similarly, currencies are decimal (i.e. they use base ten), but not Metric.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Nearholmer

[goldfish]

16 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Anything that uses a basic unit of 10, is considered metric.

 

Possibly by the uninformed, the pedantic amongst us would point out that a system that uses a base of ten is a decimal system.

 

The metric system is a decimal system that uses the metre, kilogram and second as its base units. It originated as the m.k.s system and was adopted as S.I.

 

Just to confuse matters, the c.g.s. system that uses the centimetre, gram and second as its base units is not metric.

[GoingUnderground]

Metric systems are based on the metre unit of measure for length. Metric is the adjective derived from the noun metre. Hence, by definition, only a system that uses the metre as its unit of length can be a metric system.

 

Decimal is any system that uses a base of 10, which I believe, as it is over 50 years since I last looked at a latin textbook, comes from the latin word "decem" which is the number ten, and the latin word "decimus" meaning tenth as in tenth place.

 

[kevinlms]

21 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m not at all convinced.

The Metric System is a system defining units of measure, and ratios have no units. Percent, or more correctly, and as it used to be expressed ‘per centum’ has, been used in Britain for centuries in some applications. I think old apothecary jars sometimes have a o/oo symbol on them, which was the forerunner of %.

 

Similarly, currencies are decimal (i.e. they use base ten), but not Metric.

 

 

Agreed, I didn't write that at all well. A decimal system is NOT the same as metric.

 

However, what is true about what I wrote earlier, is that decimal or metric are much easier to work with than any Imperial (British), Customary (US) or any other 'old, historical' standard.

[Wolseley]

On 23/08/2021 at 21:38, Il Grifone said:

I still can't get my head around litres/100kilometres though and still use miles per gallon (or at least kilometres per litre........

 

Nice to know I'm not alone.  It's the only metric measurement I can't understand.  I have to convert it to miles per gallon to know what it is.  Before Covid reared its ugly head, I used to do fairly regular trips from Sydney to Canberra (about 330km) and was getting figures under 5 litres per 100km (often around 4.8, sometimes less) and had now idea how little petrol the car was using until I decided to visit a web page to convert it......

[GoingUnderground]

30 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

However, what is true about what I wrote earlier, is that decimal or metric are much easier to work with than any Imperial (British), Customary (US) or any other 'old, historical' standard.

I completely agree.

 

I learned about both Imperial and Metric systems back in the very dim and distant past at school. I don't know if it was because we did all our physics and chemistry lessons using SI units, but whenever I do any DIY or modelling, in short anything that demands accuracy, I use the metric system, but admittedly at the 1/100 level, i.e. centimetres and millimetres as I find them so much easier to read off a tape measure than fractions of an inch.

[GoingUnderground]

As we buy fuel in litres but our cars still measure distance in miles (daft I know, but that's the UK for you), I use miles per litre. So, personally, I couldn't see what was wrong with using kilometres per litre instead of litres per 100 kilometres.

 

So should electric cars be required to express their "fuel" economy in terms of kWH per 100 kilometres instead of range, or is range a better real world measure?

[Nearholmer]

44 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

So should electric cars be required to express their "fuel" economy in terms of kWH per 100 kilometres instead of range, or is range a better real world measure?

 

Nominal range for EVs is about as useful as the cited test figures for MPG for ICVs - at best a guide; at worst misleading. I think they all have Wh/km or J/km (both selectable to /mile) displays that can toggle between instantaneous, trip and lifetime, as well as estimated % battery remaining and/or estimated distance to go. Brochures and road test sites usually give Wh/km too. All useful for different reasons.

 

What we'd probably all really like is a dashboard indicator of £/km, based on what we are paying for petrol/diesel/electricity, and our current driving style! Might frighten us a bit, thereby reducing miles driven, too.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Nearholmer

[railroadbill]

Maybe it would be better for electric cars to show economy in kwh per 100 kilometers to show how efficient each type was rather than which had the biggest battery and longest range. 

 

With the issue of metric vs imperial, in the real world (which is obviously modelling, nothing else matters so much)  I do have my digital micrometer set to mm.  However I've got some balsa wood sheets from long ago that are 1/4 and 1/8th inch and I just know how deep they are, but I'm fine with 1.5mm and 3mm lightply I've bought recently...  base board sizes are best in  feet and inches for me to visualise how big they are, going back to the classic 6ft by 4 ft board for Hornby Dublo  (or indeed Triang of course). It depends on what you're used to I guess. 

 

 

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

As we buy fuel in litres but our cars still measure distance in miles (daft I know, but that's the UK for you), I use miles per litre. So, personally, I couldn't see what was wrong with using kilometres per litre instead of litres per 100 kilometres.

That is indeed a strange concept to have litres and miles, but that expresses the reason why Britain is still in no mans land regarding changing to metric and while that acceptance continues, nothing will ever change.

 

I suspect some thought that a successful Brexit, would lead to a return to Imperial and none of that foreign rubbish. Also the return of the British Empire, but somehow I think neither will happen. The first is a remote possibility, the 2nd never.

 

I understand what you're saying about km per litre, it is a concept of the higher the better.