History of MRR'ing question: I don't get it: Was 2 Rail O EVER very popular?

[Anonymous]

I grew up thinking 2 Rail O was a very popular scale. I visited a 2 rail O scale layout at the Los Angeles County Fair every year as a kid.

I thought my Dad and I were oddballs because we had HO at home (and this was in the 80's, mind you!)

As I grew older, I never saw ANY other 2 rail O scale layouts. They call "O", "The King of All Scales", right?

Why do they call it this? Was 2 rail O ever the king? Or was 3 rail O always the king, with simply a few Odd-ball 2 rail O guys on the fringes. Then HO came along and that's when scale modeling really heated up. Is that what really happened?

What's the history here folks?

[wjstix]

Well...sort of. Most early O scale layouts built to true 1:48th scale used outside third rail so that they could use Lionel's scale Hudson and 0-6-0. These were scale layouts, not tinplate or "hi-rail", they handlaid track etc. Frank Ellison's Delta Lines would be a good example.

If you include both 2-railers and outside-third-railers together, then O scale was by far the most popular model railroad scale from the start of scale modelling in the 30's up until somewhere around 1955 or so when HO took over. Since then HO has been consistently by far the most popular.

I would guess in about 1980 there were more model railroads in HO scale than in all the other scales combined. G scale and N scale have diversified things in recent years, but HO is still no.1

[Anonymous]

It's probably called the "King of Scales" because you need the finances of a king to have an O scale 2-rail layout! The only one I've seen belongs to a friend, and he's an orthodontist - need I say more?

Bob Boudreau

[cacole]

Most of those who model O scale 2 rail call it Proto:48. I think the "King of Scales" moniker was one of Lionel's sales pitches. Joshua Lionel Cowan was a first-class salesman who came up with all manner of buzz words and catchy phrases to make people believe that his products were superior to Marx, American Flyer, etc.

I know of a few people in Southern California who used to have outdoor Proto:48 layouts running DCC and wireless remote control.

[Anonymous]

Secondly to the replies above, the King of Scales was a craftsman scale, requireing at least the skills to convert three rail to two with the conversion from AC to DC thrown in as an added hurdle. "O" was king when the modellers built all of their own rolling stock, locomotives and hand layed track. turnouts etc.. The move to HO was brought on for the same reason that N is now growing so rapidly, more layout for the same space, and readily available good quality products that the average individual with minimal skills and little or no need for a lathe, drill press and casting and metal working tools and skills. As the eyes age and our sight requires, the King and "G" both look better and better(pun intended!)
Will

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wjstix

Well...sort of. Most early O scale layouts built to true 1:48th scale used outside third rail so that they could use Lionel's scale Hudson and 0-6-0. These were scale layouts, not tinplate or "hi-rail", they handlaid track etc.

If you include both 2-railers and outside-third-railers together, then O scale was by far the most popular model railroad scale from the start of scale modelling in the 30's up until somewhere around 1955 or so when HO took over. Since then HO has been consistently by far the most popular.

I would guess in about 1980 there were more model railroads in HO scale than in all the other scales combined. G scale and N scale have diversified things in recent years, but HO is still no.1

The true facts are a bit different from the above. True O-Scalers were the hobby leaders in pure numbers up until about the beginning of WWII. While there were those in the hobby utilizing 3-rail Lionel/Flyer equipment run realistically (Hi-Railers) on some fairly well done, at least for the time, layouts during that era, the 2-railers often regarded those folks as playing with toy trains, while O-Scale was a serious, adult, craftsmen's, hobby.

In the early 1930's HO models were consider as not much more than toys as well, or at least too small to be taken as serious models...the semi-derogatory term " the watchmaker's scale" being applied to them by O-Scalers. There was good reason for this opinion, as HO models usually were decidedly lacking in detail, while well done O-Scale models often were as detailed as the prototype!

However, half-O made great in roads into the hobby as 1940 approached, largely through the efforts of Eric LaNal (a.k.a. Alan Lake Rice), and the number of hobbyists were about equally split between HO and O by the earliest years of WWII, with HO emerging as the clear leader by the war's end. During the 1950's the "war" over what size O-Scale should actually be (quarter-inch or 17/64) didn't help O's declining popularity. Although OO-Scale, S-Scale (originally C-D Scale) and TT-Scale arose just preceding, during, and after the war years (even later there was N-Scale), HO'ers have outnumbered all other scales combined since about 1950. The relative percentage of hobbyists in the various scales has remained pretty much fixed since around 1975, although the introduction of G Multi-Scale has recently created a new, minor, diversion.

So, yes, from the standpoint of model railroading being a serious adult hobby, O-Scale definitely did hold the dominant position in popularity for perhaps a decade or so prior to WWII. And the impact of its extreme level of detailing lived on long, long after it lost that position.

CNJ831

[jag193]

I don't agree that O-scale is any more expensive than good quality HO. Having modeled in both, I am spending about the same to complete my On3 layout as I did in HO a few years ago. The big difference is that, being less popular these days, O scale requires a lot more scratchbuilding and similar innovation. If you are into that sort of thing, O-scale can be incredibly rewarding. I think that the reason O-scale faded is simply a matter of size and room ...not many of us can afford the space. I am lucky to have an enclosed 2-car garage for my layout ... in O-scale it's about the same size as what I could have fit into a spare bedroom in HO. Besides, my eyes get wors and worse as I get older and older and those little tiny parts get harder and harder to see.

[on30francisco]

I think that O scale is gaining in popularity due to Bachmann's release and support of On30. The locos and equipment are of excellent quality, cost no more than quality HO equipment, and can be operated in the amount of space that an HO layout normally would require. Since On30 and HO use the same gauge of track, a person interested in O scale can take advantage of all the quality equipment and layout possibilities that HO offers and vice versa. You can have your cake and eat it too.

[ben10ben]

By the way, Proto 48 and 2-rail O scale are different. When Joshua Lionel Cowen started making O gauge trains in 1915, he made the track 1 1/4" wide. Many of the models were shrunken down standard gauge models, most of which were just rough representations of prototypes that may or may not have existed, and had no scale assigned to them.

When the 773 Hudson came out in the '30s, they chose to build it to 1/48 scale, or 1/4"=1'. Using this scale made O scale track a scale five feet wide, but this was decided in preference to using an oddball scale that would be difficult to work with. Most O-scalers, two and three rail both, today still use this scale 5' wide track.

Some, though, use 1/48" but change the width of the track to a scale 4' 8 1/2". These modelers call this Proto 48. As far as I know, there are very few, if any, ready made Proto 48 models, so these people are excellent scratchbuilders.

[John Busby]

Hi CARRfan
2 rail "O" Did not really get a chance to take off.
As by the time two rail was the way to go in HO and 00 some where
in the late fifties early sixties "O" scale was well on the way out as the major player as far as scale modeling goes.
So many of the scale model layouts you see are likely to be three rail or stud contact though some will be two rail "O" has had a couple of attempts at a big revival but the smaller scales are well and truly in the place of the large scales
One of the reasons for that not so far mentioned is that houses have got smaller so the room just isn't there for the larger scales which is why many of the "G" scalers are out in the garden.
regards John

[mersenne6]

Well, from the pages of Model Railroader - March 1950 - we have the following:
Relative Popularity of Gauges by Year (expressed as percent of poll respondents) - No poll conducted from 1944-46

Gauge 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1947 1948 1949
HO 36 33.9 36.5 39.3 46.3 45.6 53.5 48.9 59.4 62.0 69.3
O 58 50 48.6 40.5 38.3 38.2 30.5 36.1 28.2 21.5 22.2
OO 2.1 10.3 10.6 16.9 13.6 14.8 13.6 12.0 8.5 6.5 2.1

As for the phrase King of Scales - that was an ad campaign by one of the O scale manufacturers not by Lionel.

[tsgtbob]

O scalers, as opposed to O gaugers, tend to be an almost rabid lot, and were drawn to the scale by a need to "do it themselves".
O scale has ups and downs, right now, O is in an upsurge, riding the coattails of the nice 3 rail stuff from MTH and such, plus Atlas O has re-entered the scale market as well as the hi-rail market.
Bachmann is also drawing many into the scale with their nicely made On30.
There seem to be pockets of the scale, one being tin the Cumberland Valley of Pa, Md, and W.Va.
For many years, the Hagerstown Model Railroad club had an excellent layout at the old fairgrounds in that town. Sadly, the layout was torn down in the mid '90s, and the group has mved to the Smithsburg Md. area.
As far as the expense, if one is a careful shopper, new stuff can be found for prices close to the currrent price of good quality HO.
Plus, there is always the old Atlas F-9 and cars [^]

[edkowal]

If you're able to find any issues of Model Railroader or other periodicals from the 1950's and earlier, you'll be able to see that O scale was very popular indeed. Many of the articles which were published concerned models built to 1:48 scale. There were at the time a large number of clubs, since O scale requires a large amount of space. Not everyone had the space in their own home, so they built models at home, but ran them "at the club," which had the space for 6 foot radius curves, large passenger terminals, and decent sized freight yards.

At the present time, there are sufficient numbers of O scalers to support a national convention every year, several magazines and an ever changing mix of kits, brass models and detail parts. Remember, even if O scale represents 10 or 15 % of the model railroad hobby, that's still 10 to 15 % of a total of greater than 100,000 model railroaders. ( I don't remember what the recent numbers are for either total numbers of modelers, or O scale's proportion of that total. These were just picked as ballpark figures.)

Here's a link which may be of interest. It will connect you to the website of the magazine 48/Ft. O Scale News oscalenews.com/

-Ed

[BRAKIE]

O Scale was very popular well into the 50s..Take a closer look at the hobby and you will find O Scale still has a large following.

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth, I had trains as a kid up through age 17 when I went to college. When I was 30 and got my first non-rented home, I re-entered the hobby. At that point, the world was wide open, and I considered O-scale (2 rail), HO and N.

I came to decide on HO as a compromise between being able to have a reasonble amount of running space (versus O) and a reasonable level of physical size (versus N) that I find to be aesthetically pleasing.

While everyone differs, I think HO remains (and will remain) the most-widely-used scale for that simple reason - whatever your parameters, HO will often be the best compromise among them. Those with keen interest in maximized running will still tend toward N or evan Z scale, and those with a desire for maximum detail (and/or with ageing eyes and dexterity, present company not excluded) will gravitate toward O or even "G" scale.

A long way of saying Vive la Difference! I find debating which is 'dominant' or 'best' to be a pointless exercise, at best.

[Anonymous]

It's true, the physical size of our bodies and the homes we occupy have a lot to do with the scale choice. If small was best, or large was best, we'd all be running only Z scale or 7-1/2 gauge or whatever those ride-on trains are.

I always grew up thinking HO was a relatively new scale, and that O 2 rail was pretty common. Having been alive for a few more years now, it seems 2 rail O is somewhat rare (I get excited every time I see some in MR, but it's not that often).

One of my favorite layouts I've seen in MR was an O scale traction layout - Les Lewis' layout in October 1997. Wow, that was cool.

Another fine O scale traction layout is Michael Tylick's layout in April 1997.

The most recent GMR has an awesome 2 rail O scale layout - John Peterson's layout.

I think my favorite yet is a modular O scale layout from July 2005 - that layout was killer.

There's something unmistakably cool about the larger scales.

Just getting back into the hobby, there's a little O-scale switching layout devil on my shoulder, and I'm trying to fend him off the best I can...

[Anonymous]

CARRFAN -

You've stolen my devil, send him back!

At least if he's the one whispering about O-scale switching _AND_ the consumption of beer on weekends, while building it...

If not, has anyone seen my devil?

[Jetrock]

There are and were some classic 2-rail O scale layouts: the East Bay Model Engineer's Society had a magnificent O scale club layout, featuring both traction and steam/diesel. And Godfrey Humann's basement empire, modeled after the SP's Shasta Route, is still around and absolutely magnificent--although it is uncertain that the layout will be open to the public again. I'm an HO scaler myself, but O has a real mass to it, and when one is working with scale models rather than the toy-train stuff, it has a very different sort of feel. I imagine that large-scale modelers know the feeling, but they must have the kind of salaries that make orthodontists jealous!

[mersenne6]

Not really Jetrock - they just have fewer items. Being in O scale myself I can say it is quite possible to run O scale without being one of those people who think that 401K is the amount of money needed for a starter O gauge layout. Obviously, if you want to model the PRR circa 1950 and want to have Horseshoe Curve in one corner of the train room then we are talking some very serious cash but if you want to model a branch line, a switching layout, or an operating diorama the amount of money involved is about what you would spend on a layout in any other gauge.

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

There are and were some classic 2-rail O scale layouts: the East Bay Model Engineer's Society had a magnificent O scale club layout, featuring both traction and steam/diesel.

I'm not sure if this is the group that Jetrock is thinking of, but the Bay State Model Railroad Museum, which grew from the Bay State Society of Model Engineers and one other club, has a club layout which seems to fit that description. Photos can be found at: bsmrm.org/o_photos.asp You can use the "O group" button at the top of the window at that site to find more info.

Links to this group, and other clubs, can be found at the Clubs page on the 48/Ft. O Scale News website: http://users.foxvalley.net/~osn/Club.htm

On another note, I'm not trying to convince readers that O Scale is the "best" scale to be modeling in. To each his own. There's been magnificent work done in every scale, and every modeler has to make a decision about what's best for them, given their circumstances. What I was trying to do, and I think it's true for some of the other posts here, was tell about the history of the hobby, as well as provide some information about what's still being done, and what can still be seen. If it came off as "cheerleading," I apologize, it wasn't intended that way.

-Ed

[IRONROOSTER]

I don't think O scale ever declined, what happened was the hobby grew tremendously after WWII and most of the new hobbyists went into HO. The last twenty years have seen tremendous product growth for the six popular scales - Z, N, HO, S, O, and G. While HO may have the widest variety, all the others have plenty of stuff.
Enjoy
Paul

[Jetrock]

edkowal: I have heard about the Bay State museum but have never seen it--an acquaintance on a Yahoo-group send me some photos and a track plan for the old EBMES layout and its Sacramento Northern equipment--most impressive. The current O layout seems to have a lot of traction action--good to see!

mersenne: By "large-scale modelers" I refer mostly to people who model big steam and diesel garden railroads, rather than O scalers...some of the boxcars I have seen cost more than all of my rolling stock put together!

[JamesPH1966]

One of the things I've always liked about HO, as opposed to O (scale or tinplate) is the abundance of "shake-the-box" kits (Athearn and MDC/Roundhouse come to mind). This allows a modeler the ability to build a huge collection of rolling stock without taking out a second mortgage. It's a shame no real market for this ever was created or tapped in O. Even S scale/tinplate has American Models and S-Helper Service!

Because of this I've always had O tinplate as my "running" scale (i.e. toy trains on a big layout) and HO as my "modeling" (i.e. prototypical, scale models) scale. In addition I still can't wrap my head around the pricing difference between O (especially "modern" tinscale) and HO - for basically the same product with the same features made in the same factory, just bigger (but not any more detailed). IMHO 3-rail modelers get mugged!

Anyway - 2 rail O was the major scale prior to World War 2, and was only eclipsed in the post-war era with the expansion of the hobby and the post-war housing boom (the building of more affordable, but smaller houses is considered a contributing factor - as much as the Depression killed Standard Gauge in the 1930's). BTW - Lionel didn't invent O gauge - O (or 0 - as a numbered gauge like #1, #2, etc., "gauge" was more important than "scale" to early manufacturers) dates back to the early 1900's as the "smallest practical gauge for modeling"!