When I was into 1/72 model aircraft and 1/32 (54mm) toy soldiers, I had a rule I referred to as the "10% Rule". In short, it stated that as long as associated pieces were within 10% of my preferred scale, they would be acceptable. There were fudge factors, certainly - for instance, some old model airplanes were in 1/64 scale, which is 12% larger than 1/72, with some aircraft down in the 1/80 size range, with is 11% smaller. As long as two models of the same type in such vastly different scales were not displayed side by side, this technique seemed to work.
In model railroading, however, this is a whole other story.
Let's forget gauge for a moment and talk about the good old days of early mass produced model trains.
Each of the major gauges have mottled histories. We've already read how O gauge is all over the place, but some of the smaller gauges also have had some odd scales to go along with them.
First is HO. Literally, HO historically stood for "Half O", though there is a teensy, tiny little difference in gauge, on the order of half a millimeter. But most of the world acknowledges that in order for this to represent the most common standard gauge, the scale has to be 1/87.1. While they do make proper scale rulers, most people simply say that this is 3.5mm to the foot (here we are again mixing metric and Imperial standards. Alas...).
Yet, some HO gauge models were not HO scale. For instance, Mantua's 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler is closer to 1/76, which happens to be another model railroad scale, OO. That's 14% larger. Bowser (formerly PennLine) produced Challenger 4-6-6-4 and Big Boy 4-8-8-4 locomotives in 1/96, about 10% smaller.
There are plenty of other examples, but as time went on, HO settled down and stabilized*.
As we've seen, though, O gauge has had a colorful love affair with scale, though things are much better today than they have been.
Still, some of the compromises that have been made to sell O gauge products have been interesting to say the least. I'm going to use three companies to demonstrate - Kusan/KMT, Rivarossi, and my favorite, Marx.
Let's start off with a look at a couple of offset side 2-bay hoppers, one from Kusan/KMT, the other a late Marx product -
Now, let's look at some diesels -
On the top is a proper Rivarossi 1/48 scale Fairbanks Morse "C-liner". Below that is the first of our Marx locomotives, a similar but far more common EMD F unit in tin, but scale-wise is a mix and not quite 1/48, being, once more, about 10% smaller. Below that is our second Marx diesel, supposedly an EMD E7, but is truly all over the place. E7's were long locomotives, but this one is shorter. It is also not as tall, but almost as wide as the F unit (speaking for myself, I find both of the Marx diesels lovely).
So why did Marx make this compromise?
To be fair, it wasn't just Marx. While Kusan made a number of precise 1/48 scale cars, they also made boxcars and cabooses that were about 10% smaller. They also made a couple of diesels which, I am told, also have the same compromises. Apparently Lionel also did the same. Marx even went so far as to make tinplate equipment that was proper S scale (as opposed to S gauge) that ran on O gauge track. The reason for these compromises was to allow for the equipment to operate on a common gauge but smaller radius, less expensive track.
Due to my situation, I am having to look at those tighter radius curves as well, due to a severe lack of space. It is a compromise I am willing to make. More on that another time.
*Well, in most of Europe and North America, yes. In the UK, though, OO scale, 1/76, popularly runs on HO gauge track. The Japanese have used 1/80 for their HO track, as their national gauge is smaller, 3 1/2 feet (even still, it is not precise, but it is a compromise).
No comments:
Post a Comment