|
|
Post by wjstix on Apr 24, 2024 6:11:25 GMT -8
I would love to see some actual evidence that people and companies saying "1:87" instead of "1:87.1" resulted in any model being built any differently. There's been no change in HO scale, or HO measuring tools etc. It's just easier to refer to it as 1:87.
Re O scale / Half O scale...Marklin made several sizes of electric trains 100+ years ago, all designated by a number. The smallest, No.1 gauge, is 1.75". That now is (unfortunately) either called "G gauge" or "Large Scale", but it's still No.1 gauge. When they went to an even smaller size, 1.25" gauge they called it 0 (zero) gauge. In English speaking countries, it came to be called by the letter O.
If you divide prototype standard gauge, 56.5", by 1.25", you get 45.2...1:45.2 scale. This works out to 17/64" per foot. A few modelers used this scale, and Lionel's O scale Hiawatha and M-10000 were built to that scale. But most people didn't like it. In the US, we went with 1/4" = 1 foot, or 1:48 scale. So our trains run on 5' gauge track instead of 4'8-1/2".
In Europe, where they were more familiar with the metric system, they went 7mm = 1 foot, a scale of 1:43.55. That's why all those nice European built automobiles are built to 1:43 scale.
When Half-O started (I believe in Europe, maybe Marklin again?) they went with half of European O, 1:43.55, which came out to 1:87.1. As mentioned half of US O would have been 1/8" to the foot, 1:96 scale. If they'd used the correct 1:45.2, it would be 1:90.4.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 24, 2024 6:24:43 GMT -8
I'd really like to track down the guy who first said:
"Ya know, the best way to define this new size of model trains is to mix metric and English measurement systems. It just makes TOTAL sense to me! And best of all, we can have this goofy ration of 1:87.xxxxxxxx......."
I can see going with a "decimal" ratio: 1:10. Or 1:100. Oh, yeah. That's been done: TT scale.
Or going with fractional: 1/48. 1/64. Both have been done.
And all those scale ratios are independent of measuring systems. It's 1/48 of a foot = 1 foot. OR: 1/48 of a meter = 1 meter.
Yup. I wanna "meet" that guy!
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by dstark on Apr 24, 2024 6:28:45 GMT -8
What does requoting verbatim your post with the nonsensical "1:87-1" add here? 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 Baikal on Apr 24, 2024 17:35:40 GMT -8
When Half-O started (I believe in Europe, maybe Marklin again?) they went with half of European O, 1:43.55, which came out to 1:87.1.
No, that is not correct.
One more time... HO Scale is not 1:87.1. It is not 1:87, or 1:87.0857142857... Those are roundings, approximations.
Per the NMRA Standards S-1.2 HO scale is 3.5mm:1ft. Nothing else. That's not an approximation.
Because 1 inch is equal 25.4mm, HO Scale works out to the ratio 1:(254/35)*12. That's also not an approximation and it can't be further reduced because 254 and 35 have no common factors.
Get a pencil and paper and work it thru.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 24, 2024 19:33:09 GMT -8
Sure seems like a lot of effort to solve just what issue, exactly? Never have understood the point of this thread…  It’s spring hit the OFF button and get some sunlight.  (Never was any good with numbers) I never got the big deal between 1/24 and 1/25 model cars, either. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 24, 2024 19:38:06 GMT -8
So 1.000000 inch is equal to 25.400000 mm? Exactly?
I don't doubt it, but I ask where it is that makes that so.
Feel free to add lots more zeros.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 24, 2024 19:58:10 GMT -8
So 1.000000 inch is equal to 25.400000 mm? Exactly? I don't doubt it, but I ask where it is that makes that so. Feel free to add lots more zeros. Ed
Yes, Ed. Exactly. Not approximate or "Boeing 737 Max" close.
Your United States Government makes it so by diktat (they have guns). Their Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards says, and I'm quoting: "1 yard = 0.9144 meter" near the bottom of the first column in this doc:
This is the 3rd time I've posted that link, btw.
Zeros will not save you.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd80mac on Apr 25, 2024 5:33:05 GMT -8
Just so I have this straight, there are people upset that model train MFGs stopped putting "1:87:1" on their boxes and started putting "1:87" for HO scale instead. By doing this, said people are convinced that the latter are not true HO scale. There are also people arguing scale dimensions down to hundred millionth decimal point. Does that sound right?
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 25, 2024 5:37:25 GMT -8
So 1.000000 inch is equal to 25.400000 mm? Exactly? I don't doubt it, but I ask where it is that makes that so. Feel free to add lots more zeros. Ed Yes, Ed. Exactly. Not approximate or "Boeing 737 Max" close.
Your United States Government makes it so by diktat (they have guns). Their Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards says, and I'm quoting: "1 yard = 0.9144 meter" near the bottom of the first column in this doc:
This is the 3rd time I've posted that link, btw. I have the same problem. People, too frequently, seem to pass right over what I've posted, and not take any note. Quite amazing, isn't it? Japan established that fact about 80 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by wjstix on Apr 25, 2024 5:43:47 GMT -8
Just so I have this straight, there are people upset that model train MFGs stopped putting "1:87:1" on their boxes and started putting "1:87" for HO scale instead. By doing this, said people are convinced that the latter are not true HO scale. There are also people arguing scale dimensions down to hundred millionth decimal point. Does that sound right? That seems to be the argument of the original poster, that some manufacturers switched from 87.1 to 87 in scaling their models. Which I doubt has ever actually happened. BTW Baikal, I didn't say HO scale was an "approximation". What I said was HO scale is set at 3.5mm per foot because long ago someone chose to make "Half O" scale be one-half of European O scale, which is 7mm per foot. 7mm per foot works out to 1:43.55 scale, so half of that is 1:87.1. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 25, 2024 5:49:20 GMT -8
Just so I have this straight, there are people upset that model train MFGs stopped putting "1:87:1" on their boxes and started putting "1:87" for HO scale instead. By doing this, said people are convinced that the latter are not true HO scale. There are also people arguing scale dimensions down to hundred millionth decimal point. Does that sound right? Not in the latter. As I mentioned earlier, the difference between 1/87 and 1/87.1 would represent 5/8" for a 50' box car. The difference is about .1%. A bit more exactly, it is .11494%, but I don't think anyone has expressed concern or interest to that level, and certainly not as far as you mention. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 25, 2024 8:08:46 GMT -8
Just so I have this straight, there are people upset that model train MFGs stopped putting "1:87:1" on their boxes and started putting "1:87" for HO scale instead. By doing this, said people are convinced that the latter are not true HO scale. There are also people arguing scale dimensions down to hundred millionth decimal point. Does that sound right? That seems to be the argument of the original poster, that some manufacturers switched from 87.1 to 87 in scaling their models. Which I doubt has ever actually happened. BTW Baikal, I didn't say HO scale was an "approximation". What I said was HO scale is set at 3.5mm per foot because long ago someone chose to make "Half O" scale be one-half of European O scale, which is 7mm per foot. 7mm per foot works out to 1:43.55 scale, so half of that is 1:87.1. No that is not correct.
Half of 7mm:1ft is 3.5mm:1ft. Which is not equal to 1:87.1. Because that's rounded. An approximation.
Do the math for yourself, don't take my word for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 25, 2024 8:11:58 GMT -8
Just so I have this straight, there are people upset that model train MFGs stopped putting "1:87:1" on their boxes and started putting "1:87" for HO scale instead. By doing this, said people are convinced that the latter are not true HO scale. There are also people arguing scale dimensions down to hundred millionth decimal point. Does that sound right?
I don't care about what manufacturers put on boxes- that's someone elses' beef. That's marketing and doesn't reflect on what's inside the box (usually).
But people should have an understanding of what HO scale is, and what it is not.
Precision does makes a difference when using CAD or recursive formulas or other functions where the tinyest error is multiplied with subsequent calculations. Having the exact definition of a scale via a simple mixed fraction that most 6th-graders used to be able to understand is useful in manufacturing and geography (another field where Americans fail). Such precision is not so important for most modeling I agree.
In general (not saying you. I don't know you), American's knowlege of math and geography is pitiful. The result is the inability to build quality domestic aircraft, spacecraft, or even passenger cars. India will have people on the moon before the US does again because a goodly percentage of Americans will argue that 2+2 just might equal 5. That's just a short hop from "HO is 1:87".
You're still missing the point by bringing up "hundred millionth decimal point". My point is that's unnecessary because HO scale can be calculated exactly from a fraction- aka it's a rational number.
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Apr 25, 2024 8:12:20 GMT -8
I'm just glad we've (apparently) run out of models to quibble over, and manufacturers to bash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 25, 2024 8:16:08 GMT -8
Just so I have this straight, there are people upset that model train MFGs stopped putting "1:87:1" on their boxes and started putting "1:87" for HO scale instead. By doing this, said people are convinced that the latter are not true HO scale. There are also people arguing scale dimensions down to hundred millionth decimal point. Does that sound right? Not in the latter. As I mentioned earlier, the difference between 1/87 and 1/87.1 would represent 5/8" for a 50' box car. The difference is about .1%. A bit more exactly, it is .11494%, but I don't think anyone has expressed concern or interest to that level, and certainly not as far as you mention. Ed
Someone did bring up the issue of having problems in CAD by using scale rounding. In CAD and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) the creation of tiny slivers of area or points not lining up across different layers is a big problem and can be very hard to fix. Best to avoid them in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by tony on Apr 25, 2024 20:26:55 GMT -8
If the NMRA standard is and has been 1:87.1 - then why not use it?
To say that you can use 1:87 because it is "easier" and only results in minor inaccurate results, well then, should you lose your Rivet Counting Complaint (RCC) card privileges?
Why are some promoting 1:87? I suspect it is because they just don't know. Take for example, the Exactrail.com scale conversion tool. This has been online for 5-6 or more and probably indoctrinated many newcomers into incorrect scale conversion. It uses 1:87 and not 1:87.1 - why? Not exactly exact is it - true. Why would a product company design using 1:87.1, but publish a conversion tool using 1:87? Makes me wonder how many ER models were designed using 1:87. All of them? There are several other conversion tools online using 1:87 as well so beware.
If some CAD programs do not/cannot use 1:87.1 (0.0114810562571757) then I guess that's an issue. File a bug report/enhancement request, or switch tools. I have not encountered this myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 26, 2024 6:31:38 GMT -8
If the NMRA standard is and has been 1:87.1 - then why not use it? To say that you can use 1:87 because it is "easier" and only results in minor inaccurate results, well then, should you lose your Rivet Counting Complaint (RCC) card privileges? Why are some promoting 1:87? I suspect it is because they just don't know. Take for example, the Exactrail.com scale conversion tool. This has been online for 5-6 or more and probably indoctrinated many newcomers into incorrect scale conversion. It uses 1:87 and not 1:87.1 - why? Not exactly exact is it - true. Why would a product company design using 1:87.1, but publish a conversion tool using 1:87? Makes me wonder how many ER models were designed using 1:87. All of them? There are several other conversion tools online using 1:87 as well so beware. If some CAD programs do not/cannot use 1:87.1 (0.0114810562571757) then I guess that's an issue. File a bug report/enhancement request, or switch tools. I have not encountered this myself.
Where does "If the NMRA standard is and has been 1:87.1 - then why not use it?" Come from? Link please?
Your premise is wrong. Don't use 1:87.1 because HO Scale is not 1:87.1. That is rounded.
Per the NMRA Standards S-1.2 HO scale is 3.5mm:1ft. Nothing else. And that is not equal to 1:87.1.
Because 1 inch is equal 25.4mm, HO Scale works out to the ratio 1:(254/35)*12. That's also not an approximation and it can't be further reduced because 254 and 35 have no common factors. Get a pencil and paper and work it thru.
----------------------------
A CAD example that not a "bug": Multiple people working on different parts of a model. Say one doing the trucks, one the body, another the frame. They are taking dimensions from a single set of well-dimensioned prototype paper drawings and actual measurements. If they are using different ratios to convert to HO scale, no matter how small the differences are (only one can be correct, 3.5mm:1ft) when the time comes to merge their work into a single drawing, there will be problems because points won't align over all the geometry. Because they are different scales.
I was just doing that yesterday with a 2-D drawings, fixing points imported from someone elses' drawing that didn't align with my drawing. That can be a big problem and cludging it by forcing points to align may result in serious problems further in the design process. It's best if everyone uses the same scale. Which is the correct scale, 3.5mm:1ft aka 1:(254/35)*12.
|
|
|
|
Post by wjstix on Apr 26, 2024 7:11:57 GMT -8
Right, HO scale is 3.5mm = 1 foot. That scale was chosen for "Half O" scale because it is 1/2 of European O scale, 7mm = 1 foot.
In Britain, 7mm O scale is called "course scale" because they recognize 1:43.55 scale is incorrect. Accurate O scale based on dividing O gauge by real standard gauge comes out to 1:45.2. In North America, we use 1/4" = 1 foot, or 1:48 scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Apr 26, 2024 7:31:40 GMT -8
Right, HO scale is 3.5mm = 1 foot. That scale was chosen for "Half O" scale because it is 1/2 of European O scale, 7mm = 1 foot. In Britain, 7mm O scale is called "course scale" because they recognize 1:43.55 scale is incorrect. "Course", or "coarse"? |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Apr 26, 2024 7:56:53 GMT -8
Right, HO scale is 3.5mm = 1 foot. That scale was chosen for "Half O" scale because it is 1/2 of European O scale, 7mm = 1 foot.
Correct. You may be the first person other than myself in this thread to acknowledge the NMRA Standard of HO Scale. Maybe one other.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 26, 2024 15:47:32 GMT -8
I don't know that I acknowledged it, but I did mention it in an earlier post in this topic, 3 days ago.
It's something I've known for about 60 years.
I've never agonized over the exactness of the scale ratio, as I've never needed to. In my opinion.
But it's interesting to see it discussed, contrary to an opinion from another post.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 26, 2024 16:02:55 GMT -8
I'm just glad we've (apparently) run out of models to quibble over, and manufacturers to bash. I’m sure it’s temporary. |
|
|
|
Post by ncrc5315 on Apr 27, 2024 5:00:38 GMT -8
When reducing from 1:1 to HO scale, how should one proceed?
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Apr 27, 2024 5:17:56 GMT -8
Eat smaller portions, don't snack between meals, and avoid sugary sodas.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Apr 27, 2024 5:17:59 GMT -8
I find that, typically, if I found it in the "HO" aisle at my local hobby shop, generally it fits just fine on my "HO" layout. Good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncrc5315 on Apr 27, 2024 8:17:54 GMT -8
Eat smaller portions, don't snack between meals, and avoid sugary sodas. Ed ROFLMAO   |
|
|
|
Post by NCC42768 on Apr 27, 2024 17:25:19 GMT -8
Is anyone accounting for undecorated vs finished models? Some companies use rather thick paint, and that may make up the difference in overall length/width/height of a boxcar, for 1/87 vs 1/87.1...
Depends at what stage of production you're measuring. And maybe some companies intentionally even tool the model ever-so-slightly off, knowing that paint will slightly increase the size of the finished model.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Apr 27, 2024 19:21:23 GMT -8
Maybe….now THAT is as important as anything else in such a specific based concept as any in this whole discussion, might that possibly be so? Exactly, or…. not?!
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Apr 28, 2024 21:48:39 GMT -8
Is anyone accounting for undecorated vs finished models? Some companies use rather thick paint, and that may make up the difference in overall length/width/height of a boxcar, for 1/87 vs 1/87.1... Depends at what stage of production you're measuring. And maybe some companies intentionally even tool the model ever-so-slightly off, knowing that paint will slightly increase the size of the finished model. Hey that's how you fix that 3D printed X54 box car. Paint three scale inches thick on both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Apr 29, 2024 1:40:48 GMT -8
Wow, 2 pages of guff on a topic that warranted 1 reply.
|
|
