19mm gauge 00

[Phil Copleston]

    Apologises for those who know the background, but there are a lot of youngsters who do not know why 00 exists or have heard nonsense about it from some very partisan people.

 

    The business of splashers being more common in the UK is important, but the fact is that HO builders were prepared to compromise on widening the splashers, whereas the UK modellers wanted a scale body. It was all down as to what people would accept, and Hambling and Reidpath choose the best route to retain the ability to convert upwards from 00 to more scale standards.

 

    Reidpath's position at first was that HO was better, as long as the bodies width was not too compromised, as the smaller scale gave smaller curves, more suited to the UK.

 

    He changed his view under pressure from Mr Hambling, when the splasher issue was worked through, and involving Henry Greenly's input. He was responsible for suggesting that HO models used undersized frames to try to get more side movement, something all HO makers do to this day.

 

     The HO back to back measurement never allows scale frames in any, repeat, any, HO loco. Only if fine scale 87 is used can the frames width be correct, and frankly most continental modellers in proto 87 etc., leave the frames at HO thickness, whilst fitting very fine wheels, which leaves them with a hidden bonus, the locos can go around tighter curves than P4 by a long margin, some converted Roco can still manage set track curves!

 

As the demand for HO was there, at first Stewart Reidpath put HO into production at his new Herne Bay factory. But the trouble with the body clearances plagued the loco designs, and a rapid change was made to 00 to cure the issue.

 

Both Hambling and Reidpath made versions of the 00 locos with 18 or 19mm gauge to order. It resulted in locos that could only run on larger curves, but they were completely scale. Jim Howard of Hamblings said the 18/19mm locos amounted to a hand full of models made in 1939. In contrast they made several thousand 00 models.

 

The whole point was the body of the 18mm version was identical to the 00 version, only the chassis and gauge was narrowed.

 

There were few serious modellers in HO before the war on the continent, it was a Toy Train market at H0 scale, with few builders of scratchbuilt locos, unlike the UK, where scale building had been common for over 30 years in all scales

.

If a King is made with widened splashers to fit 18/19mm gauge and the use of Average thickness wheels, (forget P4), and was expected to go around curves that could fit a UK house room, of say 12x12 and approx 3 foot radius, then after adding the side movement of the wheels the splashers would be flush with the valence, and you might have to widen the foot plate as well.

 

P4 is different, it just uses the real dimensions, but 19mm British outline would all have nasty compromises far beyond the ones that 00 have, where a perfect scale body can be converted to P4.

 

Back to the US 19mm 4mm scale, the models are very impressive in size, and stood along with UK 4mm locos shows clearly the massive loading gauge.

 

Originally the compatibility with UK 4mm was a big plus point in 1930's America, where most US modellers were looking at the UK as the developers of model railways, and 19 mm gauge 4mm gave the chance to buy UK coaches and stock in a matching scale.

 

But the rapid development of HO killed the interest, and the home produced product was favoured. Varney credited the landscape aspect as well as tempting to US modellers, it's a small difference on paper but does mean more railway in HO.

 

Pre war several US makers were sold in the UK, Mantua was wholesaled and shop sold by Hamblings, who marketed the Fibre based flexible track from Mantua for 2 years, before the war stopped imports. They also stocked the Mantua made motors.

Hamblings also sold Varney parts and motors before the war. The Fibre track idea was adopted by Graham Farish and Wrenn in the UK after the war, much to Mantua's annoyance, but they had moved to plastic bases anyway.

 

Mantua listed the Fibre track in 19mm gauge at one point, but how much was made before the US entered the war remains unknown. I doubt any was imported to the UK. I saw a wartime Model Railroad magazine article, where the 16.5 mm fibre based track was sawn down the middle to widen it to 19mm, complete with infill scraps of cardboard!

 

Track for 19mm was never a problem in the States, most was home made on sleepers with spikes, so you just adjusted the dimensions to your gauge.

 

Stephen..

 

This is getting a bit tedious and circular. Stephen: Please cite your sources for your assertions about the origins and problems concerning British HO and OO, and why this is relevant to American 4mm scale modelling. I want to know where you got this all from. I know something of the history of modelling scales (I have done extensive contemporary reading: books and journals of the day), and like David (Pacific231G) I have my doubts about these old chestnuts concerning splashers and motor sizes regarding the demise of British HO etc.

 

Also, I thought we were going to have a serious and informed discussion about American 4mm modelling (as implied by the title of this thread: "19mm gauge OO"). Which is why I went to all the trouble to post photos of Graham Ray's superb scratchbuilt American 4mm models, which so far, have gone without comment.

[PhilJ W]

One old book I read quoted American 00 as 1/75 scale on 3/4" track. I don't know how true this is but it seems logical.

[bertiedog]

Most of the details are from old columns in the Model Railroader, MRN, and other magazines plus working in the industry and meeting or hearing about the people concerned, nothing comes from the net etc., or from other less reliable sources, unless supported by at least hearing details from several independent sources.

 

Unless these details are mentioned then the history will quietly vanish.

 

It is all relevant to every scale, how and why they started, who developed them, and why there are survivors like the US 4mm 19mm users these days.

 

Everybody does not know as much as they can about the details, it is gathering up these details that provides history.

In the case of the 00 scale problems I met some of the protagonists personally in the 1960's 70's, now alas past away with the years. I worked at Hamblings and worked for several other makers and the information about the companies was talked about and discussed.

 

In collecting I have several US boxcars in 4mm scale, but no Locos apart from a Lionel, they are very rare in the UK, and discussions like the column here bring information and details out that most modellers appreciate. I am seeking nothing from it, I do not write books on the subject or lecture for money, I just like to make sure that the facts are known, and not miss interpreted. If I do not tell anybody about a subject I do know about, what's the point in keeping it secret?

 

An instance is the opinion of Stewart Reidpath about the minimum curves, it was discussed with an ex Essar Staff member, who moved over to Hamblings after the closure. He recounted many of the details of the Essar brand, and the efforts to establish 4mm as a standard, even though on the wrong track in the UK.

 

Comments may be covered many times in different directions, it may be old hat to you, but often younger modellers know nothing about the history of the hobby.

 

That is the point of this, to maximise the knowledge about  US 4mm 19mm gauge, and how it is interwoven into the history of model railways.

[bertiedog]

On the 8 foot minimum I did quote that I had seen an article and I had, but I do not have any reference apart from it must have been MRN, and the conversations about it at work confirmed every detail. Reidpath made a test track to try out the new wheels, and the 8 foot was for a loco with scale fittings and scale clearances, something they did not actually make, as the target was much tighter curves.

[Pacific231G]

One old book I read quoted American 00 as 1/75 scale on 3/4" track. I don't know how true this is but it seems logical.

3/4 inch is 19.05mm so yes that's perfectly logical. Gauges seem to have been specified in half millimetres until EM went from 18mm to 18.2mm   I'm pretty sure that 00 gauge started out as 5/8 inch which is 15.875mm so 16mm. it was a while before the extra half mm was added to make it 16.5.

 

There has been some wandering of scales especially as they've been converted from fractionals to mm/ft and then to ratios. O scale has been variously 1/4 inch to the foot,  7mm/ft,  1:43.5, 1:43,1:45 & 1:48  and H0 scale has been 3.5mm/ft, 1:80,  1:86, 1:87 and 1:87.1 often at the same time (currently accepted scales emboldened)

[Pacific231G]

On the 8 foot minimum I did quote that I had seen an article and I had, but I do not have any reference apart from it must have been MRN, and the conversations about it at work confirmed every detail. Reidpath made a test track to try out the new wheels, and the 8 foot was for a loco with scale fittings and scale clearances, something they did not actually make, as the target was much tighter curves.

I've got all the prewar MRNs in bound volumes so if you've an idea of about which year he wrote it I'll try to dig it out.

[Dava]

And then came TT from Triang, but somehow it was bypassed by N......

By the way, around the time of the US civil war (1880ish) US standard gauge was 5 feet which if modelled would require either 20mm or 17.5mm track for OO or HO.....

British TT [Table Top] gauge was of course another mongrel scale/gauge combination, representing 4' gauge in scale, so little more accurate than OO. Ultimately obsolete commercially but with its own loyal residual followers [i was one once]. Scale modellers in British 1:100 scale now use 14,2mm gauge. 1:100 scale has obvious advantages. American TT gauge models were huge, Continental [still in production and relatively accurate] tiny by comparison. All used 12mm gauge.

 

Trying to pass off a narrow gauge as standard just does not work in scale modelling. Even in 7mm scale there are conflicts between 'coarse', 'fine' and 'scale' seven mm.

 

Dava

[Pacific231G]

British TT [Table Top] gauge was of course another mongrel scale/gauge combination, representing 4' gauge in scale, so little more accurate than OO. Ultimately obsolete commercially but with its own loyal residual followers [i was one once]. Scale modellers in British 1:100 scale now use 14,2mm gauge. 1:100 scale has obvious advantages. American TT gauge models were huge, Continental [still in production and relatively accurate] tiny by comparison. All used 12mm gauge.

 

Trying to pass off a narrow gauge as standard just does not work in scale modelling. Even in 7mm scale there are conflicts between 'coarse', 'fine' and 'scale' seven mm.

 

Dava

Slightly less acurate in fact. OO uses a scale track gauge of 4ft 1.4inches while TT-3 is 4ft exactly. I too had Tri-ang TT3 as a teenager but  I could never get it to run properly unlike the Hornby Dublo three rail I had when I was very young. That was bombproof and ran every time.  I think it was Hal Joyce (H.P. Products Inc). who used the Table Top tag for his new 1:120 scale on 12mm gauge track in 1945 though I think the phrase had been used in the 1920s for OO. That is of course accurate to scale for standard gauge but as usual British manufacturers (in this case Tri-ang)  insisted on yet another compromised scale/gauge relationship.

 

I always rather liked TT as a scale- the problem was Tri-ang - and I've still got some communist era Berliner-Bahn stock intended to provide the rolling stock chassis for a metre gaue layout in H0m before better mechs appeared from Tillig.  It became very popular in East Germany and the old Soviet bloc- presumably because those ghastly workers' appartments didn't have room for H0.

[Pacific231G]

This is getting a bit tedious and circular. Stephen: Please cite your sources for your assertions about the origins and problems concerning British HO and OO, and why this is relevant to American 4mm scale modelling. I want to know where you got this all from. I know something of the history of modelling scales (I have done extensive contemporary reading: books and journals of the day), and like David (Pacific231G) I have my doubts about these old chestnuts concerning splashers and motor sizes regarding the demise of British HO etc.

 

Also, I thought we were going to have a serious and informed discussion about American 4mm modelling (as implied by the title of this thread: "19mm gauge OO"). Which is why I went to all the trouble to post photos of Graham Ray's superb scratchbuilt American 4mm models, which so far, have gone without comment.

OK Phil. I'll comment then- they are superb and for some reason reminded me of Mike Sharman's scratchbuilt locos.

They are mostly (all?) 00n3 and that would presumably have allowed him to use off the shelf components such as wheelsets from the TT manufacturers, rather as a number of modellers in Britain did for narrow gauge before 9mm gauge became widely available.

[Grovenor]

One old book I read quoted American 00 as 1/75 scale on 3/4" track. I don't know how true this is but it seems logical.

The Americans usually put inches first and then translate to metric. Going by the NMRA std the 3/4" is correct but the 1:75 probably someones typo.

 

 

       NAME OF SCALE,                    SCALE,                TRACK GAUGE,

 Alpha,      Common/,   TO FOOT,  PROPORTION,    Min,       Max    

 Numeric.  Fractional,  

  OO,         4.0mm,         0.157”,     1:76.2,.               0.750",     0.772”,

                                    (4.0 mm),                         (19.05 mm), (19.61 mm).

[Jeff Smith]

Although having lived in the US for getting on for 30 years I have not really taken much notice of the US modelling scene except to support my P4 activities (paint, tools, scenic items etc), and more recently my On30 layout.

 

However this weekend I visited a major NMRA show here in Atlanta. I enquired of a couple of dealers if they ever came across American OO items. One who's been trading for 20 years once handled some but not for much money.....

 

I had not had any knowledge of American Flyer which is S gauge but very course. HO was naturally the scale of choice with a predominance of Digitrax for DCC. There were several very large modular group layouts in HO, N and Z. And LEGO. There were far more traders than layouts. Quite interesting but no change of direction for me right now.....

[Pacific231G]

Although having lived in the US for getting on for 30 years I have not really taken much notice of the US modelling scene except to support my P4 activities (paint, tools, scenic items etc), and more recently my On30 layout.

 

However this weekend I visited a major NMRA show here in Atlanta. I enquired of a couple of dealers if they ever came across American OO items. One who's been trading for 20 years once handled some but not for much money.....

 

 

That doesn't surprise me Jeff. American OO seems to be the preserve of a very small number of dedicated scale enthusiasts along with collectors of the pre-war mass market Lionel OO products .

 

When small scale railway models started getting to America from Britain in the 1930s the same two routes to correct the "Greenly compromise" by either using the correct scale for the 16.5 mm gauge or widening the gauge to suit the 4mm/ft scale were available (along with their British names of HO and OO) The widened gauge OO option was for a time a real rival to HO in America. It was adopted particularly in New York where the NYSME had a large OO as well as their O gauge layout.

 

I suspect that this fairly wide adoption of OO, particularly by Lionel, had a lot to do with its slightly larger size allowing more room for mechanisms using the motors then commercially available. By the end of the war, during which all industrial "toy" production in America ceased, small powerful low voltage DC motors had developed greatly. These made it far easier to build mechanisms for H0 (and even TT) and unlike in Britain that scale/gauge combination became dominant. Lionel never restarted OO production after the war and the more specialist and scale manufacturers ceased commercial production during the 1950s. 

 

Some modellers clearly did prefer its slightly larger size but the difference in scale probably isn't great enough to be very advantageous in terms of detailing while having the distinct disadvantage that its larger size and gauge (and therefore minimum curvature) meant getting less railroad into the same space.

 

American OO seems to be far less popular than British H0 which uses the same track as OO and also has access to a worlwide industry of 1:87 scale components.

 

it's worth noting though that during the early 1940s 4mm scale 19mm gauge was seriously considered by the BRMSB for "OO finescale" before opting instead for 18mm gauge.

 

There's a lot more about American OO here http://americanoo.blogspot.co.uk/ and it is a fascinating story

[mightbe]

Re: original post,

 

Can you scan and upload a photo or two of said layout just so we can have some idea? 

 

Quentin

 

*I understand the widespread reluctance I've observed on RMWeb regarding copyright law, but under fair dealing there is an explicit exception for "criticism, review, quotation, or news reporting" as long as it's origins are acknowledged and the material in question has previously been available to the public. Additionally the usage is neither commercial nor a reproduction of the article in full. As the conditions have quite clearly been met I don't see any sort of legal risk, especially given the very limited degree of exposure such a photo would receive in this circumstance. In any case, I seriously doubt anyone would object, let alone be willing to take it to court, given its age and relative obscurity. 

[Pacific231G]

Re: original post,

 

Can you scan and upload a photo or two of said layout just so we can have some idea? 

 

Quentin

 

*I understand the widespread reluctance I've observed on RMWeb regarding copyright law, but under fair dealing there is an explicit exception for "criticism, review, quotation, or news reporting" as long as it's origins are acknowledged and the material in question has previously been available to the public. Additionally the usage is neither commercial nor a reproduction of the article in full. As the conditions have quite clearly been met I don't see any sort of legal risk, especially given the very limited degree of exposure such a photo would receive in this circumstance. In any case, I seriously doubt anyone would object, let alone be willing to take it to court, given its age and relative obscurity. 

Hi Quentin

I don't think I can post them as they'll still be copyright of Railway Modeller and Raymond Mathews (Norman Mathew's son I assume) but I'll PM them to you. The layout was described in the Railway Modeller in Nov-Dec 1950, Jan-Feb 1951 and Mar-April 1951 with a follow up article on PW and pointwork in December 1951. I only have the 1951 articles.

So far as possible all his pointwork was 3ft radius with a standard 11⁰ crossing angle and was built with metal sleepers (for outside 3rd rail). For plain track he used GEM and Evans 18mm gauge sleeper base with rail soldered to staples at the slightly wider gauge. His wheels look to be typical fine scale of the time comparable to those used by people like Peter Denny but certainly not Manchester, Pendon or Proto.