Okay, I´ll buy that it isn´t really true [:D]
It is often said that the gauges was made after ordinary horsedrawn wagons that was converted to rail use. And as being such it is probably where the story comes from.
I know however that the extra 1/2" that was added to the original 4´ 8" was to reduce binding in curves using the older equipment that was already in use.
Mark, it’s actually worse than you think!
“Someone,” was George Stephenson, he of Rocket fame, widely considered to be the father of the steam locomotive. He was a civil engineer at a colliery when hired by the Stockton and Darlington to build their to-be-common carrier railroad. He adopted the wheel specifications from the colliery’s rolling stock, but, noting that the S&D ‘waggons’ would have longer wheelbases than the mine carts, eased the original 56 inch gauge by 1/2 inch to reduce binding on curves.
When Isambard Kingdom Brunel got into the railroad business he derided the Stephenson specified 56.5 inches as, “Mine cart gauge,” and preoceeded to build HIS railroads to a gauge of seven feet. Plus 1/4 inch…
N scale is 1:160 everywhere but in Japan, where it’s 1:150. In similar manner, my scale (1:80 or HOj) is a direct numeric division, but the 16.5mm track gauge is WAY over prototype (should be 1067mm, is actually 1325mm.) Recently, some purists have gone to 13mm (1040mm.) Then, someone noticed the excessive width of wheels, axle boxes etc. and decided that 12mm would be correct - when it’s actually too narrow for meter gauge.
Many years ago, someone on the MRR staff made the tongue-in-cheek observation that anyone choosing to model in 1:72 could use printers’ scale, one pica (12 points) to the foot. Judging by product availability, it took with military modelers…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The college textbook I have on railway engineering notes that railroads started in England and the 4-8.5 gauge was adopted because that was the width of tread of most carriages used on roads at the time. So, the track width was designed to fit the carriages. Thus, the track gauge was determined by English carriage builders following their usual construction specifications. Why carriage makers used that particular width isn’t answered in the book. One wonders how carriage builders settled on that width. I’d bet on tradition. (Now that Fiddler On the Roof song is filling my head.)
So Crandell, what is the truth? If it isn’t true about the Roman carriages, I’m also curious as to what width the Roman legions used on theirs.
Mark
Chuck, sometimes you make my head spin more than it normally does!
Mark [:D]
I read somewhere a long time ago that individual railroads would adjust the gauge of their tracks (depart from the 4-8.5) a wee bit for some perceived benefit.
Mark
Yep, that’s why I got out of HO. [(-D] [(-D] [(-D] [(-D]
I went to O and found that was worse!!! [#oops]
So I finally wound up in S.
Enjoy
Paul
Wow - Thanks for all the replies. OK, I think I got it…while the European standards NEM still use the definition HO = 1:87 , the NMRA define HO = 3.5mm/foot which happens to be 1:87,085…right? A bit academic, but should do much less harm than the ‘goofy’ scales in G…
Michael
I have seen various makes of calipers graduated in scale feet and inches. Try Micro Mark.
Yes,its called a HO scale ruler.
Okay, so the minecart is mentioned later, but what you say is true. I have seen paintings of engine like the DeWitt with people’s carraiges. They leased a horse in town and pulled the carraige off the engine. Gee, the first Roadrailer AND the first Hi-railer.
Personally, I prefer 1:87 to 3.5mm. 3.5 just doesn’t make as much sense to me as 1foot=87 scale feet