|
|
Post by tony on Apr 22, 2024 13:57:38 GMT -8
I remember back in the 1980's HO scale was clearly marked and the NMRA well documented HO Scale as 1:87.1.
However, over the past 10-12 years there appears to be many non-exact and not so well scaled trains. With a lot of people using just 1:87.
How did this happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 22, 2024 14:40:38 GMT -8
The difference between 1:87.1 and 1:87 is a tenth of 1 %
That's 5/8" for a 50' boxcar.
I doubt you can see the difference.
The "...non-exact and not so well scaled trains." you're having trouble with are not due to that. They are just sloppy work by people who don't care.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by prr 4467 on Apr 22, 2024 14:47:35 GMT -8
Isn't this just simply rounding the end number and not much more than that?
In engineering and surveying there is the US Survey Foot = 0.30480061 meters
And there is the International Foot = 0.3048 meters exactly, by definition, with no rounding whatsoever.
There are reasons that both definitions are used in science and otherwise.
The difference is about 1 part per million, but it adds up over long distances and in cadd you cannot mix files in the two different units, because your bridge location will be off by feet which is really, really bad. (I've had to fix it when bridge plans were wrong because projects in two different units were combined for construction and multiple firms failed to realize there was an issue. Fix involves writing a spreadsheet to compute the adjustments to state plane coordinates or to local project coordinates, whichever you choose to use).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trainiac on Apr 22, 2024 14:58:16 GMT -8
Can you give some examples of these 'non-exact' models that appeared in the last few years? This feels like you have a false premise fallacy, where you're basing an argument on incorrect initial assumptions. If anything, non-exact models are being phased out rather than being newly created. For example, Athearn is retooling many 'widebody' MDC boxcars to rectify scaling and measurement errors. Just because a model was incorrectly manufactured doesn't mean the definition of HO scale has been corrupted.
Model errors these days like ride height issues or roof height issues are based on misinterpetation of drawings or field measurements, or having to convert imperial units to metric when the models are manufactured in China. Besides, the difference between 1/87 and 1/87.1 is negligible. Even if I did redefine HO scale, barely anyone would notice. On an HO 50 foot boxcar, the length difference would be less than 0.01"
HO is 3.5mm to a foot. This means the real ratio is 1/87.0857129... Rounding up to 1/87.1 is easier to write, and 1/87 is even easier than that. Even though we commonly say 1/87, models are not built to that scale. Nobody has redefined HO to be 1/87 flat. The scale is still 1/87.085129..., but it's just quicker to say 1/87.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 22, 2024 15:32:37 GMT -8
Think of all the ink they save by rounding down.
|
|
|
|
Post by unittrain on Apr 22, 2024 15:51:55 GMT -8
Normal expansion and contraction due to environment would easily make irrelevant any concern of such tiny measurements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 22, 2024 16:59:45 GMT -8
I remember back in the 1980's HO scale was clearly marked and the NMRA well documented HO Scale as 1:87.1. However, over the past 10-12 years there appears to be many non-exact and not so well scaled trains. With a lot of people using just 1:87. How did this happen?
1:87.1 and 1:87 are both approximations and marketing text that may or may not reflect the actual scale of what's in the box. Would not make much of a difference even if it did reflect the True Scale of the model. Meh.
BUT- HO Scale is exactly 1:(254/35)*12 per NMRA and US Gov't Standards. Round that as far as needed, or don't round at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 22, 2024 17:10:08 GMT -8
Isn't this just simply rounding the end number and not much more than that? In engineering and surveying there is the US Survey Foot = 0.30480061 meters And there is the International Foot = 0.3048 meters exactly, by definition, with no rounding whatsoever. There are reasons that both definitions are used in science and otherwise. The difference is about 1 part per million, but it adds up over long distances and in cadd you cannot mix files in the two different units, because your bridge location will be off by feet which is really, really bad. (I've had to fix it when bridge plans were wrong because projects in two different units were combined for construction and multiple firms failed to realize there was an issue. Fix involves writing a spreadsheet to compute the adjustments to state plane coordinates or to local project coordinates, whichever you choose to use).
The Survey Foot was officially phased out in 2022. Avoid. It wouldn't have been used for building railcars or models anyway. www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfootSince 6/1/59 the The Bureau of Standards defines the Yard as .9144 Meters, exactly. www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/frn-59-5442-1959.pdfWhich is equivalant to 1 inch = 25.4mm in handy units for modeling purposes. A good ratio to remember as almost all other Metric System <---> British Collection length conversions can be derived. Plus some volume conversions, etc. Doing the maths HO Scale is 1:(254/35)*12 which can't be further reduced. Exact, no rounding. |
|
|
|
Post by captainmudflap (AL) on Apr 22, 2024 20:49:09 GMT -8
Try: 1:87-1
works for me...
AL
|
|
pjm20
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pjm20 on Apr 23, 2024 4:04:09 GMT -8
The difference between 1:87.1 and 1:87 is a tenth of 1 % That's 5/8" for a 50' boxcar. I'd imagine well within the tolerance of major dimensions on freight cars |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Apr 23, 2024 4:09:47 GMT -8
So basically a nothing burger.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 23, 2024 4:32:28 GMT -8
So basically a nothing burger. I agree, yet, do you want fries with that?  |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Apr 23, 2024 5:04:12 GMT -8
The OO scale modellers have been quiet on this subject, haven't they.
|
|
|
|
Post by prr 4467 on Apr 23, 2024 7:05:29 GMT -8
Isn't this just simply rounding the end number and not much more than that? In engineering and surveying there is the US Survey Foot = 0.30480061 meters And there is the International Foot = 0.3048 meters exactly, by definition, with no rounding whatsoever. There are reasons that both definitions are used in science and otherwise. The difference is about 1 part per million, but it adds up over long distances and in cadd you cannot mix files in the two different units, because your bridge location will be off by feet which is really, really bad. (I've had to fix it when bridge plans were wrong because projects in two different units were combined for construction and multiple firms failed to realize there was an issue. Fix involves writing a spreadsheet to compute the adjustments to state plane coordinates or to local project coordinates, whichever you choose to use).
The Survey Foot was officially phased out in 2022. Avoid. It wouldn't have been used for building railcars or models anyway. www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfootSince 6/1/59 the The Bureau of Standards defines the Yard as .9144 Meters, exactly. www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/frn-59-5442-1959.pdfWhich is equivalant to 1 inch = 25.4mm in handy units for modeling purposes. A good ratio to remember as almost all other Metric System <---> British Collection length conversions can be derived. Plus some volume conversions, etc. Doing the maths HO Scale is 1:(254/35)*12 which can't be further reduced. Exact, no rounding. Baikal-- I ONLY mentioned the US Survey Foot versus International foot as it relates to the rounding issue in this thread because to most people the difference between 1:87 rounded scale and "exact" HO scale is negligible, which is the whole point. You WOULD see the difference over long distances only, like across a county or state, where the differences will become apparent. The US Survey Foot has most definitely NOT been phased out. Just because one federal agency says we "should not use it" most definitely does not mean that FHWA, USDOT, and/or other federal agencies all share the same opinion. In fact there are state laws in place in the US that require all surveying work to be completed using US Survey Feet. Until that changes both units are still in use. |
|
|
|
Post by middledivision on Apr 23, 2024 7:21:38 GMT -8
What's next? Z scale is off by .000001 percent?
|
|
|
|
Post by sknorcal on Apr 23, 2024 7:51:22 GMT -8
It is amusing to see rivet counters downplaying details. 1:87...1:87.1....ehhh, who cares?
But then when Rapido releases a model that scales out to 1:86.9, they will be executed.
FWIW the NMRA specifies that HO scale is 3.5mm to the foot. Proportionally, that is 1:87.1. (NMRA S-1.2)
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 23, 2024 8:18:40 GMT -8
But then when Rapido releases a model that scales out to 1:86.9, they will be executed. I confess I missed that unfortunate event. Which model was it? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Apr 23, 2024 8:27:37 GMT -8
But then when Rapido releases a model that scales out to 1:86.9, they will be executed. I confess I missed that unfortunate event. Which model was it? Ed Obviously, the B36-7 stepwells were scaled at 1:86.9. |
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 23, 2024 8:28:31 GMT -8
The OO scale modellers have been quiet on this subject, haven't they. Seems they have nothing:nothing to add…  |
|
|
|
Post by SOMECALLMETIM on Apr 23, 2024 8:32:36 GMT -8
Wouldn't that have made the step wells narrower - which they should have been for the CSX ones...? I confess I missed that unfortunate event. Which model was it? Ed Obviously, the B36-7 stepwells were scaled at 1:86.9. |
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Apr 23, 2024 8:51:20 GMT -8
Wouldn't that have made the step wells narrower - which they should have been for the CSX ones...? Obviously, the B36-7 stepwells were scaled at 1:86.9. Wider. 1:86 makes for a larger model than 1:87. |
|
|
|
Post by captainmudflap (AL) on Apr 23, 2024 12:01:06 GMT -8
IIRC, (and I actually do), the letter terminology for this once new scale of: 1:87-1 - was that "HO" meant: "Half-O" (as-in) Half the proportion of "O-SCALE" 1:48-1. It isn't half, but a bit larger... (but close enough!)  "O Scale" was the most popular (way-back-when), but HO soon became #1 in popularity. I hate seeing any "HO" product advertised-as, and/or referred-to as: "H0"...or "Ho" - but it happens... If you "live-in" ~Optivisor World~ - you-may see thing's that normally aren't seen...but so-it-goes. It's ALL good! (I think!) HAPPY RAILROADING! - GANG! ~AL~ 
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Apr 23, 2024 13:21:09 GMT -8
Try: 1:87-1 works for me... AL This makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 23, 2024 14:04:31 GMT -8
It is amusing to see rivet counters downplaying details. 1:87...1:87.1....ehhh, who cares? But then when Rapido releases a model that scales out to 1:86.9, they will be executed. FWIW the NMRA specifies that HO scale is 3.5mm to the foot. Proportionally, that is 1:87.1. (NMRA S-1.2)
3.5mm to the foot is the NMRA definition of HO Scale, period. 1:87.1 is an approximation. Do the math. They aren't the same so they can't both be The Standard.
Yes this is mostly a nothing burger for HO models. Except some CAD work & anything using recursive or other formulas where the error would grow. I think someone posted an example of this happening.
There can be only one Standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 23, 2024 14:11:29 GMT -8
IIRC, (and I actually do), the letter terminology for this once new scale of: 1:87-1 - was that "HO" meant: "Half-O" (as-in) Half the proportion of "O-SCALE" 1:48-1. It isn't half, but a bit larger... (but close enough!) "O Scale" was the most popular (way-back-when), but HO soon became #1 in popularity. I hate seeing any "HO" product advertised-as, and/or referred-to as: "H0"...or "Ho" - but it happens... If you "live-in" ~Optivisor World~ - you-may see thing's that normally aren't seen...but so-it-goes. It's ALL good! (I think!) HAPPY RAILROADING! - GANG! ~AL~
Some O was/is 1:45 or 1:43. Web search turns up the histories. Brit vs. USA, 3 rails, tinplate, etc. Much is messy with models running on incorrect gauge track.
|
|
|
|
Post by marknycfan on Apr 23, 2024 14:26:35 GMT -8
As I stated in another thread, if the model is not based on a prototype and 99.9% perfect, destroy the molds!
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 23, 2024 14:39:10 GMT -8
0 scale comes in several flavors. One is 7mm = 1 foot. It apparently is/was used in Britain and France. Half of that (H0) is 3.5mm = 1 foot.
Our HO is developed from European standards, not US. And I have no idea why someone in Europe thought it clever to mix metric and inch. "Jolly joker", as Schultz used to say.
If it was based on US, it would be 1:96 (half of US O scale). And, yes, I know there's at least two US 0 scales. I'm talking about the regular one.
And, as a twist, Europe seems to have redefined THEIR HO to be a true 1/87 reduction. Perhaps they were embarrassed to be associated with a prehistoric standards system (I'm not).
Ed
I know I'm repeating what others have said. But I got called away by a pesky customer. Since I was done, I thought I'd drop it in, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainmudflap (AL) on Apr 23, 2024 17:36:33 GMT -8
IIRC, (and I actually do), the letter terminology for this once new scale of: 1:87-1 - was that "HO" meant: "Half-O" (as-in) Half the proportion of "O-SCALE" 1:48-1. It isn't half, but a bit larger... (but close enough!) "O Scale" was the most popular (way-back-when), but HO soon became #1 in popularity. I hate seeing any "HO" product advertised-as, and/or referred-to as: "H0"...or "Ho" - but it happens... Or worse... "HO GAUGE"  If you "live-in" ~Optivisor World~ - you-may see thing's that normally aren't seen...but so-it-goes. It's ALL good! (I think!) HAPPY RAILROADING! - GANG! ~AL~
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 23, 2024 17:41:44 GMT -8
Don't EVEN get started on narrow gage, or is it guage? Certainly some narrow points of view in that world.  |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 23, 2024 19:23:40 GMT -8
Don't EVEN get started on narrow gage, or is it guage? I tend to use "gage" for spacing between rails. And "gauge" for all other uses, like "30 gauge wire". That's more of an idiosyncratic willfulness (and I ain't changin'!!) For communicating between humans and/or AI bots, I don't think it matters. Ed |
|
