 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / November 2006HO scale question
I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it....... What is the scall between HO and full size trains? This should just be so easy to find, but googling various HO terms just seems to showup other portals or some website trying to sell something. Along those lines, anyone know of a good model train 'reference' site as well? Thanks, Mike > What is the scall between HO and full size trains? 1:87 > This should just be so easy to find, but googling various HO terms just > seems to showup other portals or some website trying to sell something. > Along those lines, anyone know of a good model train 'reference' site as > well? Depending on what you mean ? Here in Europe we have morop.org wich represent most of the european railroaders. The allso have their NEM norms who descibes mutch about allmost anything. I US there is NMRA.org Klaus  SignatureModelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekæmpelse, elektronik og andet: http://home6.inet.tele.dk/moppe Klaus, thanks a lot. I'll look for nmra.org. Mike >> What is the scall between HO and full size trains? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Klaus > I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it....... > > What is the scall between HO and full size trains? 1:87 or 3.5mm/foot Chris P Railway Pictures Website http://chrispackman.fotopic.net > I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it....... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Along those lines, anyone know of a good model train 'reference' site as > well? 1:87 > Thanks, Mike > > SignatureRobert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk > I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it....... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HO scale is 87.1:1. Here are some sites with helpful information: Christopher Coleman's excellent website: http://www.spikesys.com/Modelrr/scales.html Scale conversions: http://www.billsrailroad.net/scale-conversions.html Da Trains scale-to-scale: http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRconvcharts.html Bill Bill's Railroad Empire N Scale Model Railroad: http://www.billsrailroad.net Brief History of N Scale: http://www.billsrailroad.net/history/n-scale Model Railroad Books, Toys, and Trains: http://www.billsrailroad.net/bookstore Resources--Links to 1,200 sites: http://www.billsrailroad.net/bills-favorite-links > I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it....... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks, Mike In Europe; 1:87. In Britain; 3.5mm to 1'. In the USa; 1:87.1 (a rounding of 3.5mm:1') While the differences are minimal, they are differences and model railway fans can be picky about such things. MOROP (Europe) historically classifes everything from 1:80 to 1:90 as HO, probably because Trix Express (1935-60s) was 1:90 while Fleischmann was 1:82 until 1964, 1:84 1964-75) Rivarossi Italian was 1:80. Greg Procter spake thus: >>I know I should know this - but I can't seem to find it....... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > While the differences are minimal, they are differences and model > railway fans can be picky about such things. At least anal ones like you. You're going to tell us with a straight face that you, or anyone else on Earth for that matter, can tell the difference between 1:87 and 1:87.1? *Snort*. SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > face that you, or anyone else on Earth for that matter, can tell the > difference between 1:87 and 1:87.1? *Snort*. I can if I'm scratchbuiding. Say for example I build an underframe at 3.5mm/1 foot and then make the superstructure at 1:87, they aren't going to match. If I'm going to build it myself, why shouldn't I build it right? Is there any particular reason why you feel the need to be obnoxious? Regards, Greg.P. > -- > Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really > care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when > you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. That's about right! I was wondering if I could tell the difference between 1/87 and 1/87.1. I cant to my eye, however... I put this in a spreadsheet, double check my calcualtions. scale physical size in inches scale difference feet inches @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 1 12 0.1379 0.1377 0.1653 0.1655 inches 5 60 0.6896 0.6888 0.8266 0.8275 inches 10 120 1.3793 1.3777 1.6532 1.6551 inches 20 240 2.7586 2.7554 3.3065 3.3103 inches 50 600 6.8965 6.8886 8.2663 8.2758 inches 100 1200 13.7931 13.7772 1.3777 1.3793 feet 200 2400 27.5862 27.5545 2.7554 2.7586 feet 500 6000 68.9655 68.8863 6.8886 6.8965 feet 1000 12000 137.9310 137.7726 13.7772 13.7931 feet 2000 24000 275.8620 275.5453 27.5545 27.5862 feet 3500 42000 482.7586 482.2043 48.2204 48.2758 feet btw the spreadsheet calculated to more decimals, ie... 482.204362801377727 so at 200' we're talking a little more than 1/3" actual size difference between scales. Perhaps an issue if you're scratchbuilding prototype size buildings. However! A 48' container would have a 1/10" difference in size between the two scales. Considering there may be 4-8" of spare room between the container and the car sides, that 1/10" works out to 9", enough to make a 1/87 car too small to carry a 1/87.1 container. Interesting. Perhaps this is why A-Line containers don't always fit in Walthers container cars? a 1/87.1 container in a 1/87 car???? > Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that you, or anyone else on Earth for that matter, can tell the difference > between 1:87 and 1:87.1? *Snort*. > However! A 48' container would have a 1/10" difference in size between the > two scales. Considering there may be 4-8" of spare room between the > container and the car sides, that 1/10" works out to 9", enough to make a > 1/87 car too small to carry a 1/87.1 container. Interesting. Perhaps this > is why A-Line containers don't always fit in Walthers container cars? a > 1/87.1 container in a 1/87 car???? No! The difference in length of a 48' container in the two ratios (1:87 and 1:87.1) is 0.01 actual inches, but that doesn't work out to be 9 HO scale inches. 0.01 actual inches is about 3/4 scale inches, regardless of whether you use the 1:87 or 1:87.1 ratio. Mark Mathu spake thus: >>However! A 48' container would have a 1/10" difference in size between the >>two scales. Considering there may be 4-8" of spare room between the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > inches. 0.01 actual inches is about 3/4 scale inches, regardless of whether > you use the 1:87 or 1:87.1 ratio. Which, as I stated earlier (in so many words) is imperceptible; *nobody* is going to be able to tell whether one used 1:87 or 1:87.1 with such a small difference. By the way, just to answer Anal Greg's straw-man objection: nobody, at least nobody in their right mind, is ever going to mix those two scales (1:87 and 1:87.1) *on the same model*. One will use the same scale throughout, probably throughout one's entire model railroad for that matter. So that argument is totally off the wall, as usual for you. SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) Was wondering when this thread was going to resort into unpleasantness and personal insults. David always comes through (: Thanks Dave! My friends and I have a version of a drinking game (like where one takes a drink when a particular person on TV says a predescribed word) We watch r.m.r for the insult fest it has sadly become - our game involves money. Sadly I lost on this one. This thread went on far beyond my expectations, still intelligently discussing a subject for quite a few posts. >Mark Mathu spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >throughout, probably throughout one's entire model railroad for that >matter. So that argument is totally off the wall, as usual for you. Correct. I pooched the calculations. I inadvertantly multiplied the difference by 12 instead of leaving it as is. My goof. :-} >> However! A 48' container would have a 1/10" difference in size between >> the two scales. Considering there may be 4-8" of spare room between the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > inches. 0.01 actual inches is about 3/4 scale inches, regardless of > whether you use the 1:87 or 1:87.1 ratio. Let's see if I have my numbers correct this time (rounded to 3 decimals on display, no rounding on spreadsheet) model size physical size difference prototype at scale size at scale feet inches 87 87.1 diff 87 87.1 1 12 0.138 0.138 0.00* 0.014 0.014 5 60 0.690 0.689 0.001 0.069 0.069 10 120 1.379 1.378 0.002 0.138 0.138 20 240 2.759 2.755 0.003 0.276 0.276 50 600 6.897 6.889 0.008 0.689 0.690 100 1200 13.793 13.777 0.016 1.378 1.379 200 2400 27.586 27.555 0.032 2.755 2.759 500 6000 68.966 68.886 0.079 6.889 6.897 1000 12000 137.931 137.773 0.158 13.777 13.793 2000 24000 275.862 275.545 0.317 27.555 27.586 3500 42000 482.759 482.204 0.554 48.220 48.276 >> However! A 48' container would have a 1/10" difference in size between >> the two scales. Considering there may be 4-8" of spare room between the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > inches. 0.01 actual inches is about 3/4 scale inches, regardless of > whether you use the 1:87 or 1:87.1 ratio. sorry, my last post reformatted my table into a pile of junk Let's see if this is more readable: physical size scale scale in inches difference feet inches @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 1 12 0.1379 0.1377 0.1653 0.1655 inches 5 60 0.6896 0.6888 0.8266 0.8275 inches 10 120 1.3793 1.3777 1.6532 1.6551 inches 20 240 2.7586 2.7554 3.3065 3.3103 inches 50 600 6.8965 6.8886 8.2663 8.2758 inches 100 1200 13.7931 13.7772 1.3777 1.3793 feet 200 2400 27.5862 27.5545 2.7554 2.7586 feet 500 6000 68.9655 68.8863 6.8886 6.8965 feet 1000 12000 137.9310 137.7726 13.7772 13.7931 feet 2000 24000 275.8620 275.5453 27.5545 27.5862 feet 3500 42000 482.7586 482.2043 48.2204 48.2758 feet Jb > physical size scale > scale in inches difference > feet inches @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 @ 1/87 @ 1/87.1 > 100 1200 13.7931 13.7772 1.3777 1.3793 feet JB: Okay, you made an error here - that 'feet' all the way on the right should be 'inches'. A 100-scale foot high pile of 1:87.1 haggis would be .016 actual inches, or 1.379 1:87.1 scale inches, taller than a 1:87 scale model of the same haggis- heap. .016" is about the thickness of five sheets of typing paper. This is a considerable error if you are trying for a press or snug fit on a small part (as in scratchbuilding rolling stock) but we don't usually run into single components that long. On bridges & so forth the worst you would get is a bit of a rail gap, if you were completely going by measurement. In cutting frame slots on a steam loco, let's say 5/8" actual inches from center to center, the error between 1:87 scaling and 1:87.1 would be around .001" (actual inches). Cordially yours: Gerard P. > > physical size scale > > scale in inches difference [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > inches from center to center, the error between 1:87 scaling > and 1:87.1 would be around .001" (actual inches). In 1:87/1:87.1/3.5mm:1foot scale there isn't any difference in 5/8". One has to go to a measuring system with much finer increments, such as metrics or thou's of an inch. ;-) Regards, Greg.P. > > In cutting frame slots on a steam loco, let's say 5/8" actual > > inches from center to center, the error between 1:87 scaling [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > metrics or thou's of an inch. > ;-) GP: Gaaaaaaah. .625 :P Cordially yours: Gerard P. > > > In cutting frame slots on a steam loco, let's say 5/8" actual > > > inches from center to center, the error between 1:87 scaling [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Cordially yours: > Gerard P. OK, so you _can_ change! ;-) There's still no difference, 1/8" and 0.625" are the same dimension, whatever scale you're using! > > > > In cutting frame slots on a steam loco, let's say 5/8" actual > > > > inches from center to center, the error between 1:87 scaling [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > There's still no difference, 1/8" and 0.625" are the same dimension, > whatever scale you're using! opps: 5/8" and 0.625" ... > OK, so you _can_ change! ;-) GP: Sure. I got married, after all. "I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess." Cordially yours: Gerard P. President, a box of track and some plans. Good catch. Thank you.(cut and paste error) >> physical size scale >> scale in inches difference [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cordially yours: > Gerard P. > In Europe; 1:87. > In Britain; 3.5mm to 1'. > In the USa; 1:87.1 (a rounding of 3.5mm:1') > [snip] Very interesting. I've always been curious about that. Thanks. SignatureDrew That IS very interesting. I have heard all three scaling options but never related to a global location. The actual scale is 3.5mm = 1'. That works out to a ratio of 1:87.085714..... The difference in 1:87 and 1:87.1 is insignificant, especially if you are consistent. I always use metric for my measurements since that is what the scale is and I never have to worry how the numbers are rounded off. However, when your measuremnts get down to a tenth of a millimeter or less it's pretty hard to get absolute accuracy no matter what your measuring system is. J. Bright >> In Europe; 1:87. >> In Britain; 3.5mm to 1'. >> In the USa; 1:87.1 (a rounding of 3.5mm:1') >> [snip] > > Very interesting. I've always been curious about that. Thanks. > That IS very interesting. I have heard all three scaling options but never > related to a global location. The actual scale is 3.5mm = 1'. The actual scale is whichever of the three you decide to go with. A scale expressed in two different measuring systems is plain daft! > That works out > to a ratio of 1:87.085714..... The difference in 1:87 and 1:87.1 is > insignificant, especially if you are consistent. Sure it's insignificant, but why introduce a fudge factor (the rounding up) before introducing one's own fudge factor of working to the nearest 0.2-0.5mm or whatever? That becomes a multipication of fudge factors. (a fudge factor multiplied by a fudge factor = a blunder factor :-) > I always use metric for my > measurements since that is what the scale is and I never have to worry how > the numbers are rounded off. However, when your measuremnts get down to a > tenth of a millimeter or less it's pretty hard to get absolute accuracy no > matter what your measuring system is. I've recently been scratchbuilding prototypes built in feet, inches and fractions thereof. My materials have thicknesses in millimeters or fractions of inches or thousandths of inches. When some component requires a combination of all three added together (as has happened) the maths required leaves plenty of room for error. Regards, Greg.P. Snip: > The actual scale is whichever of the three you decide to go with. A > scale expressed in two different measuring systems is plain daft! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. Anyone who has done the math has to realize that debating this scale subject has to be "tongue in cheek". The largest difference in the scale options discussed is .115%. That factors out to a little more that a hundredth of an inch in a foot. Divide that by 87 or what ever and you see how small the differences really are. I don't know if there is affordable instrumentation that can routinely measure that accurately, but if there is it would be a good trick to model to it. J. Bright > Snip: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > J. Bright You caught me ;-) However, converting dimensions (during scratchbuilding) dividing by 87 is quicker by two key presses than 87.1 . Generally there are a lot of dimensions to be converted so the chances of incorrect conversions is reduced. I stand by my comment that any scaling factor that uses two different measuring systems is daft. Regards, Greg.P. [...] > I stand by my comment that any scaling factor that uses two different > measuring systems is daft. > > Regards, > Greg.P. Maybe so, but it's _traditionally_ daft. Hah! > [...] > > I stand by my comment that any scaling factor that uses two different [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hah! I'll give you that one =8^( > I stand by my comment that any scaling factor that uses two different > measuring systems is daft. GP: Agreed. In fact, using an unround number like 87 at all is daft. 1:100 would have been quite nice, but at least the US didn't get stuck like the British with using 4mm scale on 3.5mm scale track. :) Now that's daft. Anyway, I usually use a cheap pocket calculator and a normal rule to lay out dimensions. Any factor would be easy that way. Cordially yours: Gerard P. > > I stand by my comment that any scaling factor that uses two different > > measuring systems is daft. > > GP: > > Agreed. In fact, using an unround number like 87 at all is daft. I don't see that it matters so long as all parts of the model are in proportion. If I see photos of a well done model in a mag. I can't pick the scale with any surety withing 50% (ie is that model N, TT, HO or P4? or even O?) > 1:100 > would have been quite nice, Since the advent of pocket calculators and prototypes going to metric dimensions there has been no real advantage to "logical" scales. > but at least the US didn't get stuck like > the British with using 4mm scale on 3.5mm scale track. :) Now that's > daft. I'd like to argue but the only point in favour I can come up with is the relative simplicity of valve geat construction for OO. > Anyway, I usually use a cheap pocket calculator and a normal rule to > lay out dimensions. Any factor would be easy that way. Converting feet, inches, fractions and barleycorns etc of prototype dimensions to a calculator friendly number and then translating the result into materials in metrics, inch fractions and inch thou's can be a pain. Regards, Greg.P. > Anyone who has done the math has to realize that debating this scale subject > has to be "tongue in cheek". The largest difference in the scale options [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that can routinely measure that accurately, but if there is it would be a > good trick to model to it. JB: Well, you can split a thousandth pretty easily on a micrometer, if you've used one enough times to be consistent with the pressure (there are a few thousandths of deflection between the proper 'light drag' and 'screwed down like a C clamp'.) Some have vernier lines for measuring to .0001", too. I'm certainly not at this stage in modelmaking -- my micrometer use is at work -- but micrometers are not prohibitively costly. Once you get to dimensions of around 100 scale feet and more, the difference is in hundredths, which are not impossible to read on a scale, but then the big parts like that don't usually need to be the precise ones in model railroading. Cordially yours: Gerard P. President, a box of track and some plans. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.