It does have to be said that I spent a certain amount of time and effort building out a few sections of railroad to test and demonstrate the ideas broached in Trains Magazine (remember "The Case for the Double-Track Train" which was actually illustrated with HO track?) This had the necessary equalizing beams and side bearings, etc. to work on track where the line, surface, and superelevation were not comparable "field side to field side the long way". "First best use" was the same idea as one incarnation of RRollway: loading an Auto-Train service 'sideways' at relatively high density, then having not just relatively luxurious accommodations for the clients...
Let's say it seemed to be a better idea than a solution...
Did you even look at the site I linked? Some very nice models there.
Most British modelers do OO. The original reasoning was that since most British outline locomotives are much smaller than North American locomotives so the slightly larger scale allows more room for the motors to fit. Not an issue any more, with modern motors, but back in the day it definitely was an issue. That allowed the locomotives to be slightly oversize to fit the motors. Track gauge is still the same as HO.
The prototype perfect scale modelers are the 2mm Society using 2mm scale, 4mm Society using 4mm scale (OO with the correct track gauge), and the 7mm Society, using 7mm scale. Like Proto:48 elsewhere, doing O scale with proper gauge track. 5' gauge - just use standard O scale track and make the locos and cars a little bigger, the track is already 5' wide in 1:48.
Most off the shelf RTR models in GB are OO, not HO. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is a silly, minority scale.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
LastspikemikeI'm still chuckling about the assertion that Germany was a non-combatant in the Crimean War, no kidding.
I'm assuming you have historical proof of specifically-Prussian combat, and can cite specific units and dates. That is what being a 'combatant' means by any definition of the word that matters. It will be highly interesting to see what your definition of 'technically' comes to be contorted to mean (incidentally your use is incorrect; "technically" they would have to be 'a combatant' and not a 'non-combatant' to be anything of importance in this context).
Guys, the references to broad-gauge modeling I've seen use the letter 'b' (for broad) rather than 'w' when referring to the opposite of 'n' for narrow. Not sayin' we can't adopt the w, only that there is established usage for the b.
Interesting that there seems to be so little support for modeling at an appropriate true scale that makes "HO" gauge track the equivalent of either 5'3" or 5'6", especially considering how much of the prototype equipment is specific in detail to broad gauge... if we consider an earlier mike analogy there are enough potential broad-gauge modelers in India alone to support a whole new scale based around easy trackwork.
Lastspikemike I'm still chuckling about the assertion that Germany was a non-combatant in the Crimean War, no kidding. Prussia either was, technically, or Russia thought they were or might be.
I'm still chuckling about the assertion that Germany was a non-combatant in the Crimean War, no kidding.
Prussia either was, technically, or Russia thought they were or might be.
Rich
Alton Junction
Erik_Mag BART is 5'6" gauge for stability. If Marin county had voted for BART, the tracks from SF to Marin would have been on the lower deck of the Golden Gate briidge and the wide gauge was to improve stability in high winds.
BART is 5'6" gauge for stability. If Marin county had voted for BART, the tracks from SF to Marin would have been on the lower deck of the Golden Gate briidge and the wide gauge was to improve stability in high winds.
Its also part of the reason they are having a hard time maintaining it. They built outside the US standard and now its costing them big money to fix it.
Colorado Front Range Railroad: http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/
LastspikemikeI assume Prussia signing the Treaty of Paris (the peace treaty ending that particular war) was irrelevant to you all.
Prussia as a 'great power' had diplomatic presence at the Congress of Paris, which put together the terms. That is not at all the same thing as participating in the war itself, unless you want to claim 'diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means'.
I'm not certain there is an objective reason to prefer HO (3.5mm) over OO (finescale version, 4mm) since virtually everything needs to be scratchbuilt anyway, and the cost of mastering and etching a scale ruler for either would be about the same. The 4mm models would be a little larger and easier to detail, but would need more material and 'real estate'. There would be more scenery and detail material in HO, but most of that is reasonably close in size to use in OO. PLENTY of room for decoders, speakers, motors and interiors in either one...
I'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War.
richhotrainI'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War.
Never mind; I see his point now. He was laughing at someone else thinking that "Germany" was a "combatant" in the Crimean war, not asserting it himself. We should let this die now.
As I noted, any 'scale' discussion of OO necessarily involves finescale 4mm, as most precisely delineated in the Scalefour Society's S4 standard. Once the obvious kludges in using HO gauge for 1:76 are eliminated, even EM ('eighteen millimeter') is within Mike's close-enough standard for visible track.
I do find it surprising that the Broad Gauge Society makes no formal mention of HO, or its finescale equivalent P:87, anywhere in its discussion of broad-gauge standards development. This could be due to a British insistence on using British refinements for perhaps that most quintessentially Victorian British thing, the broad-gauge GWR; I do not know if P:87 smacks too excessively of 'not invented here' to appeal to them as an option. Mike's point about HO (at any level of finescale) not catching on in British modeling is interesting.
The point remains that BG4 is an established scale for modeling the broad-gauge GWR ... which was part of the OP's question. It is no less accurate than anything in HO; prejudices against toylike concerns in OO having no relevance once S4 became the base for modeling standards. It would not take much work to develop just as good a "BG3.5" standard ... but then again, why is there no "Scalethreeandahalf Society" (I grant you it would need a better name) in Blighty in the first place?
Mike's other implied point -- that very few modelers in 3.5mm scale would have much interest in replicating something exquisitely Britannic that was legislated out of existence while 4-4-0s were still first-line passenger power -- is a reasonable one. I had frankly hoped that the Broad Gauge Society was going to have a worldwide scope of enthusiasts of many nations; that doesn't seem to be of much importance.
There is a substantial community of Civil War-era modeling (it successfully weathered the transition from a Yahoo Group to groups.io and now has regular Zoom meets) and their opinions on how to model Pennsylvania, Ohio, or southern 5' during this period might be interesting. At least some of the "HOb6" represented by Erie and associated prototype would logically match the period scope (although little associated with typical 'Civil War' layouts or themes.)
Lastspikemike richhotrain I'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War. Rich Always happy when I can make anyone laugh.
richhotrain I'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War. Rich
Always happy when I can make anyone laugh.