7mm Scale History

[Mark Laidlay]

We know Henry Greenly used imperial measurements so how did 1/4" scale morph into 7mm scale?  Or is  my assumption about Greenly wrong and he did nominated 7mm scale?

On a similar matter, when did 3/8"scale become 10mm scale?

 

Mark in Melbourne

[sncf231e]

Table by Greenly:

 

See further my ebook on the subject: http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/

 

Regards

Fred

[Mark Carne]

Greenly and Bassett Lowke changed scales in both O and 1 before WW1.

 

The first 3 scale model locos in gauge 1 that BL commissioned from Bing, the GCR Sir Alexandera, a GWR Atbara, and the LNWR Precursor were all 3/8" to the foot, but after that, they shifted to 10mm to the foot, the last being the Precursor introduced in 1907.

 

The first O gauge scale model loco BL commissioned from Bing was the O gauge version of the GWR Atbara, which was 1/4" to the foot. It looks a crude thing to modern eyes, but in 1904, it was nothing short of a miracle which we cannot comprehend, as we are so accustomed to smaller scale model railways. It was still very early days for model railways in O gauge, and without digging through reference books, I cannot recall another scale model O gauge loco commissioned by BL from Bing before they went to 7mm scale.

 

Note in the catalogue description of the GWR loco, it even mentions the scale, 3/8".

 

Mark

[Mark Laidlay]

8 hours ago, sncf231e said:

Table by Greenly:

 

See further my ebook on the subject: http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/

 

Regards

Fred

I'm going to love reading your ebook.  My pedantic nature is already coming out as I must point out that Hornby (Binns Road version) did produce H0 models under the predictable name of "Hornby Acho".

 

Unfortunately RMWEB won't allow me to link an article regarding the development of 00.  You've probably seen it already on their website.  "A History of OO Gauge - The Double O Gauge Association".

 

Thanks for your interest

Mark in Melbourne

[Mark Laidlay]

8 hours ago, Mark Carne said:

Greenly and Bassett Lowke changed scales in both O and 1 before WW1.

 

The first 3 scale model locos in gauge 1 that BL commissioned from Bing, the GCR Sir Alexandera, a GWR Atbara, and the LNWR Precursor were all 3/8" to the foot, but after that, they shifted to 10mm to the foot, the last being the Precursor introduced in 1907.

 

The first O gauge scale model loco BL commissioned from Bing was the O gauge version of the GWR Atbara, which was 1/4" to the foot. It looks a crude thing to modern eyes, but in 1904, it was nothing short of a miracle which we cannot comprehend, as we are so accustomed to smaller scale model railways. It was still very early days for model railways in O gauge, and without digging through reference books, I cannot recall another scale model O gauge loco commissioned by BL from Bing before they went to 7mm scale.

 

Note in the catalogue description of the GWR loco, it even mentions the scale, 3/8".

 

Mark

Thanks, fascinating to see the they started with 1/4" I wonder why they changed so quickly though.

[Hibelroad]

According to Iain Rice (Railway Modelling the realistic way) Germany in the 1890s disdained metric, possibly because it was too French. So I would think that they later rounded up to 7mm once they changed to metric. However a track gauge of an inch and a quarter works out as 31.75 mm so it’s not clear if the current 32mm was part of the same rounding exercise. This is mostly my guesses, I don’t have much in the way of contemporaneous material to support them. 

[Metropolitan H]

15 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I'm going to love reading your ebook.  My pedantic nature is already coming out as I must point out that Hornby (Binns Road version) did produce H0 models under the predictable name of "Hornby Acho".

 

Unfortunately RMWEB won't allow me to link an article regarding the development of 00.  You've probably seen it already on their website.  "A History of OO Gauge - The Double O Gauge Association".

 

Thanks for your interest

Mark in Melbourne

I understood that "Hornby AcHo" trains were very French - being produced by the "Hornby Paris" off-shoot at their factory in Bobigny, as the British OO models just didn't sell into the French market. I don't think Binns Road made any of the HO models?

 

Regards

Chris H

[doilum]

I don’t usually admit that the Americans have something right but if only they had set O gauge at 28mm. Quarter inch /6mm to the foot ,1/48..............

Edited December 30, 2023 by doilum

[sncf231e]

22 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I'm going to love reading your ebook.  My pedantic nature is already coming out as I must point out that Hornby (Binns Road version) did produce H0 models under the predictable name of "Hornby Acho".

 

Hornby Acho is mentioned in my e-book and, as Chris H also mentions, as far as I know these were made in France. I wonder whether Hornby at that time could have made something nice like this 😉

Regards

Fred

[Mark Laidlay]

I remember seeing a US reference to "H1" as an early reference to S scale, 3/16"/1' scale.  No idea exactly where though.

[Mark Laidlay]

I wonder why the US adopted 1:48 1/4" scale when Bassett-Lowke changed it so quickly, maybe it developed independently there...

[Nearholmer]

Greenly used both scales in parallel for a period running up to when he decided to ‘pin’ to 7mm/ft, sometimes presenting a plan at 1/4”, sometimes at 7mm.

 

The track gauge question is different. The gauge came well before the scales, as 35mm measured between the centres, not the gauge faces, of tinplate track, which has the rail heads rolled to 1/8” (or maybe 3mm!) diameter, so once Greenly and others started measuring “properly”, between gauge faces, it became 32mm or 1.25”. Greenly usually gave “near equivalent” metric and imperial dimensions, rather than descending to very tiny fractions/decimals* to give precise equivalence, which was sensible given that things built to either would interoperate happily, and that neither industrial toy makers or most amateurs wanted to work to superfine tolerances.
 

*IIRC in one or two places he gives the gauge as 31.75mm and gets down as far as 64ths of an inch.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

On 30/12/2023 at 07:18, Hibelroad said:

Germany in the 1890s disdained metric, possibly because it was too French. So I would think that they later rounded up to 7mm

No, Germany adopted 1:45, not 1:43.5 (7mm/ft) for 0 scale once things progressed from gauge to scale, and the track gauge didn’t start as 1.25” anyway, see above.

[Mark Laidlay]

On 30/12/2023 at 18:18, Hibelroad said:

According to Iain Rice (Railway Modelling the realistic way) Germany in the 1890s disdained metric, possibly because it was too French. So I would think that they later rounded up to 7mm once they changed to metric. However a track gauge of an inch and a quarter works out as 31.75 mm so it’s not clear if the current 32mm was part of the same rounding exercise. This is mostly my guesses, I don’t have much in the way of contemporaneous material to support them. 

So why would Germans have gone to 10mm/ft scale rather that 3/8/ft?  Seems contradictory.

Mark

[Nearholmer]

I’m not near my old magazines currently, but when I am I will copy the first set of tables of standardised dimensions that Greenly published (1909 IIRC). I’ve done so before in my own thread, along with other tables up to the 1930s, and I think it was ‘Goldfish’ who provided tables from the 1940/50s, so that we had a complete set showing the evolution of 0 standards in Britain, but most of it got lost in the mass extinction of photos from RMWeb.

 

Its important when talking about Greenly’s standards to quote dates, because he refined things over the years, and to remember that even at the very start he acknowledged and often gave dimensions for what he called “exhibition standards”, much finer than those he recommended for mass produced items and for general amateur use, which were intended for serious model engineers, the sort of chaps who would now be into S7 or P4. 
 

A key thing to remember too is that up to the 1930s, anything mass-produced had to run on standard tinplate track, because that was what every boy had, and what every serious modeller progressed from. So, the standards for ‘scale’ track had to be compatible with wheels that ran happily on tinplate, to avoid the need to re-wheel every item of stock when moving to ‘scale’. Even now, the de-facto standard for coarse-scale products is that they must run on 2ft radius tinplate curves, which is why they have wheel-sets that don’t comply in all respects with G0G ‘coarse’, which is just a bit too fine for really reliable running on tinplate.

 

Its all a bit complicated!

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Mark Carne]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m not near my old magazines currently, but when I am I will copy the first set of tables of standardised dimensions that Greenly published (1909 IIRC). I’ve done so before in my own thread, along with other tables up to the 1930s, and I think it was ‘Goldfish’ who provided tables from the 1940/50s, so that we had a complete set showing the evolution of 0 standards in Britain, but most of it got lost in the mass extinction of photos from RMWeb.

 

Its important when talking about Greenly’s standards to quote dates, because he refined things over the years, and to remember that even at the very start he acknowledged and often gave dimensions for what he called “exhibition standards”, much finer than those he recommended for mass produced items and for general amateur use, which were intended for serious model engineers, the sort of chaps who would now be into S7 or P4. 
 

A key thing to remember too is that up to the 1930s, anything mass-produced had to run on standard tinplate track, because that was what every boy had, and what every serious modeller progressed from. So, the standards for ‘scale’ track had to be compatible with wheels that ran happily on tinplate, to avoid the need to re-wheel every item of stock when moving to ‘scale’. Even now, the de-facto standard for coarse-scale products is that they must run on 2ft radius tinplate curves, which is why they have wheel-sets that don’t comply in all respects with G0G ‘coarse’, which is just a bit too fine for really reliable running on tinplate.

 

Its all a bit complicated!

 

Well, we're back to the inavoidable truth, that there are actually three different standards for track and wheels in O gauge, namely tinplate, coarse scale, and fine scale. Because of peoples lack of familiarity with the first two, they don't realise that they are not one and the same, and that they are mostly not compatible.

 

The first 'scale' O gauge track, sold by Bassett Lowke, their Small Scale Permanent Way, was anything but scale, but it was a lot better in appearance than anything else on the market. It was scale track, but for gauge 2, and was chosen as a suitable compromise for use with gauges O, 1, 2, and 3, whereby it would be a little under scale for gauge 3, a little bit overscale for gauge 1, but not that much, as it's only in the last 20 or so years that gauge 1 has begun to move away from that standard and develop a widely adopted 'finescale' standard, and hugely over scale for O, but able to accept the commercial O gauge wheels of the day, designed to run on tinplate track. And this was all a big leap forward, as before that, the only 'scale' type track BL sold was their original 'Scale Model Permanent Way'. originally designed by George Winteringham, which was scale for 3 and a 1/4' gauge.

 

One of the best sources of how Greenly, and others, developed and changed the O gauge standards, it the Bassett Lowke Model Railway Handbook, published periodically by Bassett Lowke from about 1906 to about 1950, over about 12 or 13 editions, with a huge rewrite and change of all the illustrations around the mid 1930s. It a;ways included a table of the current standards, and the earliest copy I have, from 1909, clearly shows that the then current standards for O gauge track and wheels was what Bing and Carette were making to run on O gauge tinplate track.

 

I recall a time more recently, when both Ace Trains and Darstaed were both trying to find a compromise standard, that might be all things to all men, but it was a fruitless, and impossible task, and Ace sensibly moved back towards a more tinplate track wheel standard, and Dardtaed moved out of the modern tinplate O gauge scene completely.

 

Mark

 

 

 

[goldfish]

9 hours ago, Mark Carne said:

Well, we're back to the inavoidable truth, that there are actually three different standards for track and wheels in O gauge, namely tinplate, coarse scale, and fine scale. Because of peoples lack of familiarity with the first two, they don't realise that they are not one and the same, and that they are mostly not compatible.

 

Only three standards, come now there are far more than that. BRSMB managed four, Fine, Standard, Coarse and Unified, all incompatible of course. Add in the internal and proprietary standards and it really is complicated.

[Nearholmer]

Of course, when it comes to classifying things one can invent whatever classification system one fancies, and I shall opt for one with only two classes:

 

- turnouts with no check or wing rails, so mainly tinplate track; and,

 

- turnouts with wing and check rails, as per the vast majority of real railway track.

 

The second class contains a continuum of clearance dimensions, at the one end “dead scale”, the sort of thing that S7 gets pretty close to, and at the other “very large”, for instance Greenly 1909.
 

Marking a distinction between ‘fine’ and ‘coarse’ along this continuum is an arbitrary exercise, and in many ways it’s a pity that G0G chose to do that, because the terms are often misunderstood to imply things that they don’t mean; “G0G Track and Wheel Practices A and B” might have been a better choice of terminology.

 

One could, if feeling truly obsessive, go further and add figures for scale and for minimum curve radius (mm), so a model might be coded 0-43.5-G0GA-610, or 0-48-G0GB-1800, or 0-45-NEM-900, or 0-Vague-Tin-300.

 

(I promise to spend the rest of 2024 devoting my residual mental energies to something more useful)

 

 

[Mark Laidlay]

On 01/01/2024 at 21:06, Nearholmer said:

 

 

One could, if feeling truly obsessive, go further and add figures for scale and for minimum curve radius (mm), so a model might be coded 0-43.5-G0GA-610, or 0-48-G0GB-1800, or 0-45-NEM-900, or 0-Vague-Tin-300.

 

(I promise to spend the rest of 2024 devoting my residual mental energies to something more useful)

 

 

Yes, the "naming" of scale/gauge/standard is something I would fix after the revolution and I am in charge.  Maybe (and maybe not) we need a worldwide method of indication scale, prototype gauge, model gauge and standards.  Combining metric and imperial measurements is lunacy, the only way of indicating scale would be the proportion, 43.5, 48, 87.1, 76.2, 64 etc etc.  Next some current names tell us the prototype gauge (H0n3 etc) but not the model gauge, others (0/16.5) tell us the opposite, my method would tell us both.  Then the standard, Coarse, Medium, Fine and Prototype might work.  So 00 would become 76.2-S-16.5-M and H0n3 would be 87.1-N3'-10.5-M.  P4, 76.2-S-18.83-P.  That would work and no beginner would ever be confused again, anyone who did not comply would be up against the wall.

Of course that's gunna confuse people so maybe we stick with the current confusion, I suspect that P4 modellers know that a 00 "gauge" Skaledale building will work on their layout but just don't want to use them.

 

Mark in Melbourne dreaming of the revolution.