Specifying Scale & Gauge

[hollywoodfoundry]

This discussion has been happening on another forum, but I thought I would float it here.

 

There are a multitude of ways in which modellers specify what scale or gauge they are using, some obvious, but an awful lot that are just plain obscure. Is there a need to come up with a more universal and intuitive way to specify these factors that can be understood every where.

 

The suggestion is to use the scale factor followed by a forward slash and the gauge used in millimetres. Thus OO would be 76/16.5 and common HO would be 87/16.5. At present there is confusion in the way that modellers specify narrow gauge, for example On3 generally means O scale for a prototypical gauge of 3 feet. But which scale of O gauge are we referring to 1/43 or 1/48? Would it not be better to call it 43/16.5 or 48/16.5 instead?

 

While HOe and HOm are known to most European modellers, elsewhere in the world it is less understood. These could be 87/9 and 87/12 and would better indicate the scale and gauge in use.

 

To help further define the choice, it has been suggested that an F suffix be appended to indicate finescale modelling applies. The temptation would be to add further characters to the specification to explain choices that are not easily contained in the simple specification, but I believe that should be avoided as it would lead to chaos.

 

What do you think?

[Miss Prism]

It's an interesting proposition, but I think any attempt at a universal classification system will be doomed to failure if the context of the proposition is a rallying call for an enforcing standardisation. As a means of colloquial communication, the format scaleratio/metrictrackgauge is a useful device, to an extent, but can be cumbersome, which is why "76.2:approximately18.83" (I suggest a colon is better than a solidus) for example will never be popular compared with "P4".

 

Needless to say, any suffix denoting 'finescale' or other emotive quality will doom the venture from the start.

[Chris Nevard]

I think that the current classifications (albeit it occasionally incorrect-ish when used for narrow gauge) are too entrenched within model railway language. Knowing how conservative most of us are in this hobby I cannot see the simple 'OO' being replaced with '76/16.5' which is a right old mouthful ("seventysixforwardslashsixteenpointfivegauge") - try saying it quickly or after a couple of pints

[hollywoodfoundry]

I would agree with the sentiments of both posters. And, to be honest, I don't give a snowball's chance of it succeeding, for all the reasons mentioned.

 

Admittedly OO is much easier than 76/16.5 to every British modeller, but is almost completely unknown to US modellers. And this is because terms such as OO, EM and P4 do not convey any information to the reader unless they are already aware of what they mean.

 

There was a case recently where the scale HOb5.3 was proposed. Anyone know what that is meant to convey? It means 1/87 scale, modelling broad gauge of 5' 3". But it does not specify what actual gauge the proponent would be prepared to agree to. Technically it should be 18.375mm, but that is not conveyed in the term and frankly specifying a gauge in millimetres to two decimal places is a bit fanciful, much less 3.

 

American modellers have the unfortunate habit of referring to everything in it's prototypical size. For example I may get asked can I supply 42" wheels to one of my mechanisms. If I am feeling a bit cheeky, I might respond with 'Yes, but you might have trouble getting it into your post box'. Often that goes right over the head of the person I am writing to because they automatically expect you to know what scale they are talking about. They never specify.

[BR60103]

I was in a train shop with my nephew who asked if they carried 1" scale figures. Nephew is in war gaming, and they refer to the size as the actual size of the figures. (no, I'm not clear on how it works). The shop owner, I think, would have brought out something in the model engineering range, if he had it.

I believe I have a model in 1" to the foot scale: a model of a 7.5" gauge train that runs on HO (5/8") gauge track.

[Mike Bellamy]

On3 generally means O scale for a prototypical gauge of 3 feet. But which scale of O gauge are we referring to 1/43 or 1/48? Would it not be better to call it 43/16.5 or 48/16.5 instead?

 

By this definition, On3 would become 48/19.05 as the track gauge is 3/4 inch - in the same way On2 modelling an American 2ft line would be 48/12.7 with a track gauge of 1/2 inch. The combination you have quoted as 48/16.5 is what is generally known now as On30 or On2.5. UK 3ft gauge lines would be 43/21 and a 2ft line 43/14. Remember that continental O scale is at a ratio of 1:45. The American example shows the difficulty in mixing imperial with metric measurements - but then we have been doing that for years - why is it mm:ft

 

Mike

[Bernard Lamb]

76/16.5

76/18.2

76/18.83

 

With you so far.

But.

87/16.5

What standard?

How do you allow for P87, H0 Pur or whatever it's called etc etc?

Bernard

[Kenton]

I can't see this ever flying - it looks far too complicated and would be difficult to remember.

 

Let alone the issue of implementation (forcing) it on established users used to and happy with easy to remember understand and perfectly acceptable current practice.

 

To the vast majority who model in the standard scales (2mm, 4mm, 7mm) and gauges (N/OO9/HOe, HO/OO/EM/P4, O/S7) this just seems rather pointless.

I can understand it for the other esoteric and frankly minority peculiarities - but I will be a non adopter.

[zabdiel]

Admittedly OO is much easier than 76/16.5 to every British modeller, but is almost completely unknown to US modellers.

True - but if the Americans are interested it doesn't take long to find out - Wikipedia even has a article on OO gauge and two articles on the different scales used.

 

I'm sure I didn't know what H0n3 etc. etc. but remembering 3 different conventions isn't that difficult. The British convention is the only one that specifies the scale gauge for narrow gauge - maybe should extend that and have OO18.83, OO18.2, OO16.5, OO12 and OO9 for the different standard and narrow gauges in 4mm scale? Some people just say things like "7mm scale on 16.5mm gauge track" but that's a bit of a mouthful. I'm always slightly bemused when people start using the British convention to describe European or US narrow gauge layouts etc. - HO9, OOe etc.

[Ravenser]

I can't see the EMGS or its membership agreeing to rename themselves the 76/18.2 Society. Or the Gauge O Guild renaming itself the 43/32 Society. How would they distinguish themselves from the 43/33 Society (formerly the Scale Seven Group) ?

 

And as a small, but not trivial, point there are large modelling federations called the NMRA in Amercia and MOROP in Continental Europe , both of whom officially define scales , gauges and standards - without them, and their memberships, on board (which is in the "cat in hell" probability range) this is going nowhere

 

This is a bad unworkable idea , on a par with trying to impose Esperanto as the Common European Language - and for similar reasons

[F-UnitMad]

The British convention is the only one that specifies the scale gauge for narrow gauge - maybe should extend that and have OO18.83, OO18.2, OO16.5,

 

What a complicated system this is turning out to be, even just in theory..!!!

 

As for the above examples, surely that doesn't work, as 18.83 and 18.2 have never come under the 'OO' banner (most exponents of them would recoil in horror if they did!!); they've always been seperate entities, within 4mm scale.

 

The mainstream designations are fine as they are; those that are interested in the more obscure scales will find out the relevant reference for their chosen scale; even a devoted Narrow Gauge enthusiast doesn't need to know every single scale/gauge combination there is, do they??

 

One thing that is interesting is how use of the word "Gauge" or "Scale" varies according to subject; when a scale is given in "number/mm", i.e. 2mm, 4mm, 7mm etc, that is usually followed by the word 'Scale'. When letters are used, such as N and OO, those are usually followed by 'Gauge', although as far as I'm aware, HO is mostly referred to as 'HO Scale'.

One distinction I do tend to make personally is that I always say "HO Scale", but "OO Gauge", in recognition of the fact that (without wishing to re-ignite that particular debate!) HO has a true Scale-to-gauge ratio, and OO does not, by a long way... :icon_razz: :icon_mrgreen:

[Adrian Wintle]

I was in a train shop with my nephew who asked if they carried 1" scale figures. Nephew is in war gaming, and they refer to the size as the actual size of the figures. (no, I'm not clear on how it works). The shop owner, I think, would have brought out something in the model engineering range, if he had it.

I believe I have a model in 1" to the foot scale: a model of a 7.5" gauge train that runs on HO (5/8") gauge track.

 

Totally off topic, wargaming figures are often referred to in mm (25mm, 20mm, 54mm), which is the nominal size of a nominal person. Since 'nominal' (in both uses) means different things to different people, you tend to get actual figure scales that are all over the map, and 25mm figures from one manufacturer may look totally wrong alongside 25mm figures from another.

 

Back on topic, wouldn't the scale/gauge (scage?) be 76.2/16.5?

 

Adrian

[Kenton]

HO has a true Scale-to-gauge ratio, and OO does not, by a long way... :icon_razz: :icon_mrgreen:

 

The scale to gauge is IMO irrelevent

I model in (among others) 4mm Scale in OO gauge - I am fully aware that the gauge does not truly represent the UK prototype track gauge for the scale that I model in. If I wanted the gauge scale to be prototypical I would model in 4mm Scale P4 Gauge - I choose not to.

 

I don't - like most of UK modellers - model US outline - if I did then I would probably make the effort to understand the scales and gauges appropriate. Just as if I was American and chose to model British outline, I would make a similar effort.

 

The same applies to all these so called "standards" NMRA - what does it stand for? who does it represent?

[zabdiel]

As for the above examples, surely that doesn't work, as 18.83 and 18.2 have never come under the 'OO' banner (most exponents of them would recoil in horror if they did!!); they've always been seperate entities, within 4mm scale.

Yep - I was certainly not serious. I did consider P416.5 for OO but that doesn't really work. Besides that would presumably be people modelling 4'3" gauge railways to ScaleFour standards.

 

One distinction I do tend to make personally is that I always say "HO Scale", but "OO Gauge"...

That can get taken too far - OO gauge sheep for instance - I'm quite sure the sheep in question don't run on 16.5mm gauge track.

[martin_wynne]

there are large modelling federations called the NMRA in Amercia and MOROP in Continental Europe , both of whom officially define scales , gauges and standards

Hi Ravenser,

 

Please explain the meaning of the word "officially" in that statement.

 

I don't need anyone's permission to designate my scale/gauge combination any way I choose -- and as far as I know the same applies to modellers in America and Continental Europe.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Buckjumper]

Or the Gauge O Guild renaming itself the 43/32 Society.

 

Ahem, 43.5/32 please Rave :icon_wink: but of course that's a little unfair on the G0G which does cater for a broad range of gauges.

 

How would they distinguish themselves from the 43/33 Society

 

Would that be the 43.5/33-33.4 Group (accounting for maximum prototypical gauge widening)? which in no way demeans the S7 modellers who gauge widen in excess of prototypical values who will henceforth be known as the 43.5/33-33.8 chaps, and let's not forget the 0 Gauge modellers who narrow the gauge into turnouts and crossings giving us the 43.5/32-31.5/2/x/whatever...

 

Coat...gone. :icon_mrgreen:

[davknigh]

This has always been a source of interesting conversations when I display my portable at shows here in Canada. Trying to explain P4 to people who are used to HO invokes much eye rolling and head scratching on their part. Which boils down to "why didn't you guys do it right in the first place?" . P4 often gets mistaken for S scale on the basis of the appearance of the track when seen in close proximity to 00 (usually Peco track). On the plus side it can be a great conversation starter

[Ravenser]

Hi Ravenser,

 

Please explain the meaning of the word "officially" in that statement.

 

I don't need anyone's permission to designate my scale/gauge combination any way I choose -- and as far as I know the same applies to modellers in America and Continental Europe.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

No - but both have large sets of standards for each scale/gauge, and those scales are defined as part of their sets of standards.

 

NMRA RP1 and sub sections would appear to be relevant here...

 

My linkNMRA standards

 

 

NMRA = "National Model Railroad Association" and the NMRA's membership runs into the tens of thousands. Before any standard comes into force it has to be ratified by a vote of the members . So before this is going anywhere , you'd have to get a positive vote to change the names of all the scales and all the sheets from a membership of several tens of thousands of modellers in the US. Otherwise they - and the rest of the hobby in North America - are simply going to ignore this nomeclature.

 

MOROP is a federation of federations of clubs , but the principle is the same - you'd have to get them to change all the NEM sheets. Can't see their members agreeing.

 

Otherwise modellers in America and Continental Europe with simply say "sorry that's HO - it says so here" and wave the appropriate datasheet at you

 

When two bodies of 30,000 modellers apiece have decided to call it HO, and they are the ones who are in regular contact with the manufacturers , who also call it HO , someone standing up elsewhere declaring "it's now called 87/16.5" is whistling into a Force 11

 

You're free to call 4mm scale on 18.2mm gauge "the blue banana concept" if you please , but no-one else is going to accept the terminology.... There are such things as recognised terms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

There are such things as recognised terms

Recognised yes, and I agree that they are not going to change.

 

But being widely recognised does not in any sense make them "official". Neither the NMRA nor MOROP have any legal monopoly on the naming of model railway sizes, or the standards dimensions used. You and I can get together and publish something entirely different -- and it would be just as "official".

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[bertiedog]

I am afraid that logical re-naming the gauges with a scale etc., will never be adopted, it has been tried before, and the status quo still exists, with a gauge, a scale, and a standard, each capable of interpretation for each and every standard.

 

The NMRA is not really a good source of reason to turn to, it is a set of standards for the US modeller, and happens to nicely overlap with the requirements for the 00 market as far as gauge and wheels standards go, but is not designed for 4mm to the foot 00. (Yes, I know they do publish 4mm standards for track in a minor way)

 

The UK model market is uniquely confusing, the rest of the world uses more settled systems, H0 is H0 everywhere, but because of the odd issues of scale clearances and small UK prototype, we adopt different scales in relation to other peoples accepted gauges and scale relationships.

 

A logical system of notation would be nice, but it will never be adopted by the States, who have a settled system already, and most Continental modelling is just as settled in description of the gauges and scales.

 

The thing that should be born in mind is that scale and gauge are completely separate and should always both be mentioned in any description of the model.

 

Stephen.

[Ravenser]

The NMRA documents are the official NMRA standards and have all the weight of their large membership behind them . Ditto for MOROP. There are no other standards recognised by those organisations . They are not "unofficial" - they have been formally adopted by large bodies of modellers

 

If I published something on my own it would not be official in that sense. It would not have been formally adopted by a body of modellers , large or small

 

And I strongly suspect that is precisely what is happening here . A bee in someone's bonnet

 

 

[S.A.C Martin]

Recognised yes, and I agree that they are not going to change.

 

But being widely recognised does not in any sense make them "official". Neither the NMRA nor MOROP have any legal monopoly on the naming of model railway sizes, or the standards dimensions used. You and I can get together and publish something entirely different -- and it would be just as "official".

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

If the main organisations which have a direct influence on the manufacturers which provide the tools and toys of our hobby aren't official, then what is?

 

Sorry Martin - you can publish absolutely anything, granted. But just publishing an idea doesn't make it official - it has to be recognised and approved by a body of people who form the majority voice of our hobby (or any hobby). Thats what being "official" is - the recognised overall voice for a group of a people or an organisation that forms the overall voice of said group of people.

 

...and now we're back to square one!

 

The point is, if I publish a book stating "2+2=4" and the League of International Mathematicians has a book saying "2+2=4" - which is the more official book? The one with a single author, or the one with dozens of authors and editors, and hundreds of thousands of members?

[Ravenser]

 

A logical system of notation would be nice, but it will never be adopted by the States, who have a settled system already, and most Continental modelling is just as settled in description of the gauges and scales.

 

Stephen.

 

My point exactly. This seems to be an attempt to rename HO , HOe and HOm , not to mention On30, as well as the UK gauges without bothering to consult the vast majority of modellers working in those scales, who've already sorted out their own "settled system" with the authority of tens of thousands of modellers signed up behind it

[Miss Prism]

Of course, there will always be a few things that defy any sort of logic...

 

[bertiedog]

Of course, there will always be a few things that defy any sort of logic...

 

 

It's a monorail, any scale, but are you including the stabilisation rails, or is it a true monorail like Brennan's?.... I feel a headache coming on........