~Done~
P.S.i knew it was half of O scale i wanted the fraction
OMG
Scale: The size of things on a model railroad relative to things on a real railroad. For example, in the most popular scale, HO, models are 1/87th full size. Other popular scales are Z (1/220), n (1/160), S (1/64), and O (1/48).
This was cut from the “Worlds greatest Hobby” pages at http://www.greatesthobby.com There is lots of good beginner information there in the FAQ section.
thx
computerwiz77,
87.1:1…to be exact. In other words, for every 1" in HO scale, it’s 87.1" (or 7’-3.1") in real life.
Tom
Brian,
Remember, you and I had to learn the same thing at one time…[:)]
Tom
I am curious as to how the scale for HO of 1:87.1 was arrived at. Surely early on someone or some company established the standard. Did it evolve from another scale and why the additional .1. I’ve also just calculated that if the standard had been established at 1:88, a scale mile would be exactly 60 feet.
thats interesting i was just thinking why the .1 i dont c y they did not put ut as 1:88 it would ,make life easier for those people who try to make stuff almost exactly as real life
Because it originates from Europe and is 3.5 mm to the foot. Weird but true. So blame whoever invented the metric system and the guys who were too “lazy” to convert feet to meters and just decided that 3.5mm to a foot “looked about 1/2 of O scale” (HO=half O) LOL. Fred
I would think that at the time HO was established, the length of a scale mile would have less importance since very few people (or many fewer than today) would even be able to have 60 feet of mainline trackage.
I would think that the .1 resulted from calculation error before more precise measurement was available (Guess)
Just my two cents.
Thank you for saying it for me. Absolutely correct.
(Replies snipped)
Jeez, guys, know your hobby’s history! Orginally toy manufacturers produced trains in #1,#2,and #3 gauges (sizes). Zero (today corupted to “O” ) gauge was introduced as a smaller size and thus less expensive to market. It had a track spacing of 1.25", from which was adopted a “scale” of 1/43 so that 7mm equaled a foot. When HO (half O) was introduced in the 1920’s it naturally corresponded 3.5mm to the foot. This scales out to 1:87.1 and a rail separation 0.65 inches (very close to half that of O).
The full story is a bit more complex than this (as O today is generally considered 1:48) but close enough to answer the question posed.
CNJ831
You can also use 3.5mm to the foot which is a lot easier to use.[:D].
But it involves combining metric with imperial mesaurments.
Alexander
Those who haven’t seen this somewhat true, somewhat fanciful explanation of the origin of the US Standard railroad gauge might find this amusing:
It’s significant that this nonsense only does the rounds of the internet
- I have NEVER seen ANY reference in any well-researched railway
history written by any reputable railway historian that linked the
dimension of standard gauge to Roman chariots. I did once read an
interesting piece that suggested the practical limit for making ***ed
iron axles in the very early days of railways was about five feet in
length, in which the author conjectured may have been an influencing
factor on the gauge. I reckon that there is far more likelihood of it
being a prosaic matter such as this, rather than some fanciful twaddle
about “war chariots”, that influenced the early railway builders.
According to various reputable historians, by the time of the Roman
Republic (before the Empire) when the era of Roman conquest and
road-building began, they had long since abandoned chariots as military
vehicles in favor of mounted cavalry. And they weren’t very big on
cavalry either until very late in the Empire. The Imperial Romans
apparently did use chariots for racing and ceremonial purposes, but not
for war. The Roman “war chariot” is largely an invention of Hollywood.
As for that other utterly stupid claim about the shuttle SRBs being
limited to a particular size by small US railroad tunnels - “The tunnel
is only slightly wider than the railroad track” - a quick glance at any
clearance diagram will show that this statement is pure bulldust.
I couldn’t find a current clearance diagram for the line in question,
but here’s a D&RGW diagram for lines in Utah in 1955. The dimensions
were mandated by the state of Utah, so any railroad in that state would
have tunnels conforming to this order.
http://users2.ev1.net/~swmeier/DRGW/MOWBooks/1966Book/images/Page%20290.1.jpg
Note that the tunnel width on tangent track is 16’. The only o
According to most experts, the whole chariot “gauge” thingy is considered to be urban myth. Fred
Um… what about I K brunel’s 7’ 1/4" gauge?
By the way… the original British O (Owe) gauge is correctly Naught - 0 - Gauge. 7mm equalled 1 foot because the Briti***oy trade went to the available mass toy makers… who were German and casually came up with the loose principle that 1/4" is about the same as 7mm. The US 0 Scale 1/4" = 1’ is better… except that it adopted the 32mm gauge track from 0 Gauge.
H0 is Half Naught… 3.5mm = 1’
I’ve posted the long version before.
Alexander,How so? 3.5mm equals one scale foot.So 7mm would equal 2 scale feet and so on…I been using 3.5mm for as long as I care to remember and it has always worked for me…[:D]
You use the best measurements that is easiest for you to use. .[8D][:D]
HO=Half O, can’t remember where I read it, hope it helps!