ThaneofFife Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Would a P4 1st, 2nd or 3rd radius set track curve or your common or garden small medium or even long radius turnouts really be prototypical? 00 may not be bob on scale but certainly has its place where space is at a premium with many people using the 6x4 or 8x4 baseboard. You couldnt get anywhere near the same track plan on them with P4. I guess the compromise works both ways then - if you have limited space but want exact scale track then P4 is the way, if scale track isnt on your radar or you are think the resulting track plan too restrictive/tight for space then 00 is your friend. I sense the market has a nice mix to cater for all scenarios so if you have the room/skills to build, the money, etc then P4 is there for the taking. Rest assured if everyone here was equal and we could all afford P4 and had the requisite room for our chosen layout plan we would take it anyday over 00. Code 75 finescale track is a good compromise in terms of its appearance and one that many 00 modellers are happy to go with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc smith Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 ...... it would be good if we could discuss this issue seriously without trying to score points...... However, you opened with a crude attempt to "score a point" with your sentence "how can OO be justified" If you had wanted a discussion, there were many ways to start your thread.... Many would agree that the term "finescale" is an approach to modelling rather than a specific set of dimensions or gauge (which, in 4mm cannot be agreed on by many anyhow) and I would say that there are plenty of RTR OO, N and O gauge modellers who, despite modelling an "incorrect" gauge, are fine modellers All modelling is a compromise! It will remain so, until someone can invent a little person, who walks out of a hut and uncouples my wagons from the locomotive, and until it can really rain on a layout...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torn-on-the-platform Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Renovator 1, you make an interesting point and I can see your reasoning behind it, however: Such a move would act to bring in new customers and to raise the quality of RTR products even higher Forgive me if I have misinterpreted this statement, but how many people have been put off railway modelling entirely because the mainstream gauge isn't quite accurate enough for them? Few, if any, I would imagine. I can't see any of the major manufacturers seeing any commercial sense in moving into P4. They have invested decades of work into OO and have established huge client bases, with a huge back catalogue of stock. I also doubt that there would be sufficient client base to support a new company with the ambition of making P4 the new big thing, at least initially, to get it off the ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Happy Hippo Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2012 Is there a future for 'OO'? In a word: Yes! Regards Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold DaveF Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2012 If P4 became the norm then we would have to build layouts with radius of curves and turnouts much nearer to the prototype. For those of us who live in small modern houses and do not have a spare garage we would probably not be able to squeeze a mainline through station into a fairly small space. I did measure my loft and found that wasn't big enough either. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2012 I believe the time has come to swing the balance in RTR away from "OO" towards "P4". This includes not only the rolling stock but the track as well, in other words that P4 would become the norm and not the exception. Such a move would act to bring in new customers and to raise the quality of RTR products even higher. So what's stopping you? Anyone can set up a business to manufacture RTR models in P4. Over to you. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 It would need to include Home Improvements too to increase my layout space that comfortably fits 00 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadman Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 The exact opposite was asked in MRJ a while back. Namely why not? With good quality rtr models why go to the bother of converting to EM or P4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Another £ down the drain. I had 14.15 in the sweep for the time this thread was locked.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolitan Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Why is this thread in the Kitbuilding section of the forum? I wish the Mods would move it so I wouldn't be tempted to look at it anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 is there a future for these "is there a future" threads on rmweb? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod3 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Why is this thread in the Kitbuilding section of the forum? I wish the Mods would move it so I wouldn't be tempted to look at it anymore. John - perhaps the report button would be a better way of attracting attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thos Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I can understand the thought processes that went from O to half-O and 'we can't fit a motor into that, so we'll make it a bit bigger for the UK, but keep the gauge'. However, the next step (as soon as technology allowed) should have been 1/100 for metric and 1/8" to the foot for imperial. It just seems weird to me that we adopted the strange combinations of 7, 4, 3 and 2mm to the foot scales rather than 1/4" (1/48), 3/16" (1/64), 1/8" (1/96). N/2mm doesn't have a convenient equivalent and the next fraction that works is 1/16" (1/192). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodshaw Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Reducing the track gauge for RTR is the sensible thing to do. The UK got it right. regards, Martin. It wasn't a case of reducing the track gauge, but of increasing the scale. British manufacturers kept the existing HO gauge of 16.5mm, but had to make bigger locos by increasing the scale from 3.5mm/ft to 4mm/ft because of the problems getting mechanisms, wheels etc. into the smaller British locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodshaw Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I can understand the thought processes that went from O to half-O and 'we can't fit a motor into that, so we'll make it a bit bigger for the UK, but keep the gauge'. However, the next step (as soon as technology allowed) should have been 1/100 for metric and 1/8" to the foot for imperial. It just seems weird to me that we adopted the strange combinations of 7, 4, 3 and 2mm to the foot scales rather than 1/4" (1/48), 3/16" (1/64), 1/8" (1/96). N/2mm doesn't have a convenient equivalent and the next fraction that works is 1/16" (1/192). I read somewhere that the strange mix of imperial and metric was the result of a collaboration between Basset-Lowke and a continental manufacturer. Nevertheless, a weird sort of compromise to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Both scales work togrther for me. (sometimes !!) Here is my "Tyne Dock ore train" - A Hornby OO Railroad 9F hauling 9 Hornby Continental HO German Hoppers - (ex lima). I must add the wagons run superbly and have kept their original continental metal couplings "in train" except for the two end ones. Loco will be weathered, air pumps added, renumbered and wagons await weathering. OH ! nearly forgot - OO v HO v EM v Protofour - As a once Tri-ang TT sufferer (err - modeller !!) I think they are all great, all have a place. An american G scale modeller once summed up O, HO & N guages as follows O = Ordinary HO = How Ordinary N = Nothing No one will ever win. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2012 It wasn't a case of reducing the track gauge, but of increasing the scale. British manufacturers kept the existing HO gauge of 16.5mm, but had to make bigger locos by increasing the scale from 3.5mm/ft to 4mm/ft because of the problems getting mechanisms, wheels etc. into the smaller British locos. British locos being smaller is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter how big they are, H0 still doesn't work -- it gets the track right at the expense of the models being wrong. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Trainshed Terry Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2012 ER!!!! What is (sorry its 101.6:1) in mm. please. Terry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2012 Hell fire, I go and do some layout work and come in to find I've missed this tsunami of a thread. It does get people worked up, doesn't it? Is there a future for OO? Yes, why shouldn't there be? Loads of us use it and I don't see Bachmann, Hornby, Dapol, Heljan discussing pulling out of the market and changing to some other gauge. It'd be commercial suicide! From a selfish point of view, as long as OO survives for another 30-40 years, it'll see me out safely! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2012 What is (sorry its 101.6:1) in mm. please. Hi Terry, 3mm/ft Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodshaw Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 British locos being smaller is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter how big they are, H0 still doesn't work -- it gets the track right at the expense of the models being wrong. Martin. Size may be irrelevant now but it wasn't when 4mm was introduced. It was the reason British manufacturers went for it in the first place. It wasn't a decision based on the models looking wrong (since when did that deter manufacturers?). At the time, their motors etc. simply weren't small enough for a British 3.5mm scale, otherwise they'd no doubt have done it and we'd all be merrily running HO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torn-on-the-platform Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Hell fire, I go and do some layout work and come in to find I've missed this tsunami of a thread. It does get people worked up, doesn't it? Indeed! Its a bit of a shame really. There is some good discussion to be had here, its not just your normal 'P4 is better than OO' 'NO! OO is better than P4' argument. is there a future for these "is there a future" threads on rmweb? Whilst I actually have enjoyed the more reasoned answers on this thread, and contributing myself, I hope not! There does seem to be an increasing number of them! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Some years back, and at various times, several of the "Big Names", had a dabble in UK H0, they all got their fingers burnt, and either pulled out, or re-tooled to the long established UK 4mm scale. Comercial 00 is here to stay, like it or not. Mick Nicholson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 The exact opposite was asked in MRJ a while back. Namely why not? With good quality rtr models why go to the bother of converting to EM or P4? I think these days it is pretty much down to whether the "narrow gauge" look of 00 bothers you. 00 Finescale looks good and works well. Iain Rice makes a good argument that if you design 00 layouts to be displayed near eye level (i.e. looking across the rails rather than down on them), the gauge is not really visible anyway. I think there is a lot to be said for such pragmatism. Meanwhile, for those who enjoy the challenge of working as close to scale as possible then there are options in the form of EM/P4. I think there is no question that 00 has a bright future. The question for me is how disruptive new technologies such as 3D printing may start to affect the market. Peco have not updated their N gauge track range since they introduced code 55 (20+ years ago?). Now we have someone designing an N gauge equivelent of 00 finescale with proper UK sleeper spacing. This is no longer about cottage kits, we are heading for a situation where people can produce RTR products with a relatively modest engineering outlay. That to me is far more interesting than rehashing scale/gauge debates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfwit Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 'The plain fact was simple - and I have had this from two individuals who worked in 3.5mm scale - it is extremely difficult to make an accurate model of many British steam locomotives in HO. Two factors cause this, the first the size of the prototype, the second the existence, in Britain, of the raised platform. It is worth, in this connection, comparing the clearences between driving wheels and motion in British OO and Continental HO gauge steam locomotives. In general, there is fractionally more room on the Continental model. As a result, most British modellers in the 1930s opted for 4mm scale... The choice was freely made, by the modellers of the time.' C.J. Freezer, from 'All About Model Railways', a Model Railways extra magazine from 1983. 18mm gauge was known as 'scale OO' in 1940s and possibly earlier, there is a set of standards in Beal's 'New Developments in Railway Modelling' (1947). I think that the extra .2mm came much later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.