The Mystery of E Gauge, or Egads! Model Railroading in 1/96 Scale!

 I have previously written about how H0 used a plethora of scales to ride on 16.5mm (0.65") gauge track. One of the more common scales, at least here in the United States as near as I can tell, was 1/8" = 1', or 1/96. This was most commonly used for structures, where reducing them somewhat so they didn't overwhelm the railroad was a good idea, something akin to selective compression. 

As it turns out, there was a proposed model railroad scale that would have been 1/96 (I suspect this wasn't the only one, but I digress).

In Louis Hertz's seminal work "Riding The Tinplate Rails" he makes mention of such - 

Needless to say, it was short lived, though in some sense the cat was already out of the bag. Knapp made their lovely 4-8-2 in 1/96, and the later Bowser Challenger and Big Boy locomotives were reportedly in this scale as well. StromBecker released their Rock Island Rocket set in this scale as well, and it had the option to be motorized. 

Of course, in Europe many models were already slightly smaller than 1/87, the scale for accepted for H0. Trix on the continent, for instance, used 1/90, but once again I digress. 

Aside from some passenger equipment, and of course the aforementioned StromBecker kit, I have yet to see much in the way of rolling stock in E scale. With a nominal gauge of 5/8" (15.88mm) or 0.625", it was just slightly smaller than H0. What this meant was that if any equipment had been set to that gauge it would have had only slight problems riding on H0. The reverse, however, wouldn't be true - H0 equipment is too wide in gauge. 

How about the size differences?

Lacking the Bowser and Knapp examples, I must instead rely on what I have on hand, and yes, I do have a few pieces. Let's compare the H0 Marx Hudson with the Nomura/Rosko "Almost" Hudson - 

Rather considerable, actually. By the way, this "Almost Hudson" is destined for some improvements. 

I also have a copy of the venerable StromBecker 40' boxcar that has been reduced to 1/96, as part of a planned mini-train set project. Here it is compared with one of my completed StromBecker kits - 

In the end, nothing ever became of E scale. It was decided to go with the already established H0 standards, though of course some 1/96 equipment did escape into the wild. This isn't to say that there is no room for 1/96 scale in model railroading today. There are many countries that use 5' gauge still, including a sizeable chunk of Eastern Europe. Brazil has gone one better and uses "Irish Gauge". 5' 3", on a considerable stretch of their railways, which is 1.6 meters. When scaled down, it works out well to either H0 or E. 

Either way, 16.5mm/0.65" as defined to H0 is pretty much here to stay. 

The Marx H0 0-6-0 - A Battery Powered Mystery

 The Marx H0 battery powered 0-6-0 is something of a mystery. As I previously mentioned, it apparently had a very short production and is considered rare by some. I am unsure where it falls in the Marx H0 timeline, though I suspect that it predates their battery powered 0-4-0 ersatz PRR Atlantic-like model. For all I know it came at the end, but regardless, it is rare. 

Which is sad, really. 

It is a nice, though very simple, model of a USRA 0-6-0. From an engineering standpoint, it is rather ingenious. 

They managed to cram a lightweight, low voltage smoke unit and bellows pump into the forward part of the boiler, with the motor located under the cab. The original motor in this one was damaged, so I replaced it with the closest approximation, a clone of the classic Mabuchi F-130. This motor is slightly longer so some modifications to the back of the cab were necessary. 

By the way, the drawbar is being held in place temporarily by a brass paper fastener until I redesign the screw mount. 

For all its ingenuity, though, the designers failed to consider weight. Even with all this shoved into the plastic boiler it still remains very light. 

At 4.34 oz, its weight is similar to the cars it would be hauling. Bear in mind this is after I replaced the original motor, which was even lighter. Compare this to the weight of one of the 0-4-0s, in this case a rubber band driven one.

That additional 2.3 ozs actually makes a significant difference. The weight on the 0-4-0 is distributed over just four wheels, whilst the lighter weight of the 0-6-0 is spread out over six. Put this way, the tractive weight per wheel on the 0-4-0 is approximately 1.66 oz whilst the 0-6-0 has 0.72 oz, less than half. 

Another problem is the width of the treads.

The 0-6-0 has very scale like wheels in this regard, but for such a lightweight model this is a detriment. It derails very easily. You can also see another problem here - the tin used to manufacture the frame is extremely thin. It was already bent at the junction between the motor area and the rear driver, and in the process of removing the motor I caused the beginning of a stress fracture. I used a small length of heavier tin and glued it into place the sturdy things up (I chose not to solder for now, pending any future work).

The question remains as to what to do. 

I hesitate to do too much in the way of improvement to this model. It is too unusual, the only other Marx H0 steam locomotive that was very scale-like. There is also the issue of its apparent rareness. There is nothing pressing here in terms of what my "line" needs. There are better USRA six wheeled switchers out there, though the only one I can think that might be of similar vintage is the Rivarossi model (something I need to investigate). MDC made a six that was modeled on Southern Pacific switchers starting in 1949 that were very similar and appear to have been based on the USRA design.

If I want the model to operate reliably something needs to be done.The process of adding a slightly heavier motor that far back behind the last axle shifted the center of gravity enough that it derails far easier, even at 3VDC. Some weight needs to be added somehow, but the lack of space inside the locomotive is a huge problem. I do have lead tape from my model rocketry hobby that could be added in places, but at best that won't add enough. While the smoke unit in this model appears to be dead, I really don't want to remove it. The space in the frame beneath the smoke unit was considered, but in addition to serving as the air space for the bellows, there is once again the issue of working around that very fragile tin. More lead tape inside the boiler, perhaps? It would need to be a heavier stock than what I have on hand at the moment, and right now all hobby spending has been suspended because I need to eat for the remainder of the month.

Hopefully, I will figure something out. I would really like to see this six wheeler hauling revenue.

Marx's "Low Voltage" H0 Steamers - A Personal Overview

 Marx did not stay in H0 very long, just about a decade from 1957 to the mid 1960's. They didn't just end the lines, instead they sort of switched from regular 12 VDC fare to 3-6 VDC battery operated sets, while the rest of the H0 went to Model Power (but not all of it, sadly). 

Marx would continue with their 0 gauge trains until the company finally ended production in the mid-1970's. 

For their battery powered sets, Marx made one diesel using their old F unit shell and an incredibly cranky mechanism, and two steam locomotive designs. I will eventually touch on that diesel, because it is interesting, but the steamers are what I want to focus on here. 

The Marx "Battery Powered" Steam Locomotives

Top to bottom, we have a nicely proportioned 0-6-0, which really appears based on the USRA design, and the 0-4-0 variants. The basic 0-4-0 really looks like it should be something else, like a light Atlantic. In my mind it really resembles a Pennsylvania E class 4-4-2, right down to the Belpaire boiler. Sadly, because of limitations of the design, there is no way to add lead or trailing wheels, though they can be "faked" (something the author is seriously considering).

This arrangement presents a timeline of sorts. As near as I can tell, the 0-6-0 was offered first, but then was pulled. I have suspicions as to why. The 0-4-0 was the replacement, and remained in production until the end, but even it was modified, not just visually but mechanically.

These were all products of Marx Hong Kong.

I want to save the 0-6-0 for another time, as I still trying to find more information on it, suffice to say that it is not the best runner as it is very light. For now, let's talk about the far more common 0-4-0.

Undersides

While there were visually a few differences, notably with the red drivered Green Valley "Old Timer" locomotive, mechanically there appears to have been two mechanisms. From what I can tell, the older design is the one that used this rubber band drive.

This was the first one of this design I came across, sold by a kind eBay seller who held on to it while I adjusted my finances to buy it. It became my testbed, to see how the design worked. As it turned out, the wheels were borderline unusable. They were diecast cheaply, typical of too many of the Marx Hong Kong output I'm afraid, and in addition to breaking they were also poor at conducting (no fault of the seller, only something I encountered whist doing the rebuild). Fortunately, I had some spares, though one of the originals remains on the model.

This is why I think the design didn't last long. First, the drive isn't smooth. It is rather jerky. The bigger problem, though, is that when the rubber bands broke (and the always do) the wheels had nothing retaining them in the chassis, and with that, the model falls apart.

As luck would have it, immediately after securing the first one, another arrived in a junk lot, much to my surprise. 

The 0-4-0 that replaced the rubber band drive was far more reliable, though still rather unique in its design. 

They replaced the rubber band drive with gears, but the main worm gear on that long motor shaft is in the form of a stiff metal spring. Frankly, rather clever. Also, with the new design the wheels are held in place by the frame. The KTK motor is pretty reliable, though I wonder what one would do if it needed replacement. Personally, I don't think that would be a problem, it would just take some fiddling about (something I am notorious for).  By the way, the locomotive in this photo was my first one of this model, and was an extensive rebuild, hence the red drivers. This version is far more reliable, and enjoyed a longer production life. 

On the subject of color variations, the body itself had two main variations - standard black, and the "Valley Railroad" "old timer" variant, with extended domes, a cowcatcher, and larger smokestack (mine is missing), done in resplendent red and gold, which never appears to have been applied well. Also, one of my geared models is labelled "New York Central" and "999", a number that had also been applied to a very common Marx 0-27 2-4-2. 

I want to talk about the 0-6-0 in another post, as I find it both intriguing, and downright frustrating all at once. The only thing that remained after it disappeared was its tender, which was used in modified form for the 0-4-0s. 

Rather sad that these did not go to Model Power as well. 

HO vs H0, OO vs 00, Etc...

 Recently, I began using H0 in my annotations. 

Look again. That's "aitch zero", not "aitch oh". 

Why, you ask?

Well, you see, the original designations for model railroad gauges were numerical, with 3 for 2.5", 2 for 2", 1 for 1.75", and 0 for 1.25". In the world of toy and model railroading, there was no incremental step to the next smaller commercial gauge. 

It was a leap - 00, which was idealized as half of 0, but worked out to be 0.65", or 16.5mm. This was followed in time by 000, 2mm to the foot, 9mm gauge. 

Then things started getting messy.

Just before the Second World War, in an attempt to make more scale like models but keep costs under control, American Flyer and Marx began making 3/16" to the foot models that ran on 0 gauge track. After the war, Marx continued this practice, but American Flyer switched to 7/8" gauge, and thus S gauge was born.

A letter designation has now entered the fray. 

Prior to that there were attempts to make more scale like rolling stock on 00 track. Doing the math, it was found that the gauge worked out closer to 1/87 scale than the larger scales (variously 1/80 to 1/70) used on 00. To differentiate these finer scale models the designation H0 was chosen.

With the postwar boom in smaller scales, especially H0, it was inevitable that someone, somewhere, would go even smaller. 

In 1945, Hal Joyce introduced TT gauge in the United States, 1/120 scale, 0.472" gauge. While it never really caught on in the US, it did become quite popular in Europe.

So now we have three model railroad sizes with letters - S, H0, and TT.

In time, they would be followed by even more letters - N, Z, T on the small end of the scale spectrum, and G on the larger. 

Naturally, there is very little visual difference betwixt O (oh) and 0 (zero), and in many places "oh" and "zero" are interchangeable in things such as counting (though of course not spelling). The transition of 0 to O, 00 to OO, and H0 to HO was really inevitable. 

Yet I now find some odd comfort in using H0 ("aitch zero"). It's legacy remains in that designation.

I suspect I will vacillate between HO and H0, being as I am only human, and a curious one at that.

Lionel H0 - A Study In Overengineering

 

The two chassis you see up there are from late 1950's Lionel H0 locomotives. They are amazing pieces of work.

And infuriating.

In my opinion, they are overengineered. As someone who used to own a couple of Volvo 200s, I know too well what overengineering is like on the consumer end. When everything works properly, it's amazing. 

When it doesn't, well, that's a problem. In the case of my Volvos, a 264 sedan and a 245 estate, the problems were various. For the 245, it was the electrical system, with redundant fuel pump relays that were prone to failure at inopportune moments, like the expressway. 

The 264, though, was a nightmare. The motor, designed by Peugeot and Volvo, was frequently prone to oil blockages, due to how narrow the channels that the lubricant had to pass through. Also, the automatic transmissions for the production year 1978 (Borg-Warner) were high maintenance - when properly maintained, they'd last forever. My car was parked in 1989 and wasn't driven again until 2006 when I got it. To say the least, the transmission was not properly maintained. But I digress.

My point is that sometimes overengineering produces products that work properly as long as they are cared for. In the case of old toy and model trains, chances are really good that they weren't. 

The GP7 diesel came to me in pieces, and after shelling out a few more dollars I managed to get it sort of running. But it's anemic and jerky. I still have yet to properly rewire the chassis. Lionel designed these things to extremely tight tolerances, and the wiring soldered into place, which means that parts that would eventually fail (and they will) required taking the unit apart, or to a Lionel Service Center. On mine, I soldered new leads to the trucks, and will use twist on connectors. 

The other locomotive arrived to me as parts as well, the Lionel 0-4-0T. As before, it uses a belt/band to get the power from the motor down to the driveshaft and to the wheels. This is the second Lionel belt driven steamer I have, the other is their 2-4-2, which runs, albeit much like the GP7. 

However, the tolerances in both cases for the steamers is even tighter. 

While I was able to use some #10 elastic bands that I had on hand from motorizing my Athearn F7 for the Geep, the same would not work for the steamers. The path that the elastic has to take is too close, and the slightest bulge will lock it up. 

For the 2-4-2 (which needs its own entry, as it is such an odd looking locomotive), it took a few hours and specially ordered elastic to do the job. I still needed to properly quarter the wheels, which took a lots of trial and error, but I did manage to get the wee beastie running. 

This 0-4-0T is not being as gracious. 

It is still binding somewhere. The couple of times when I thought it would run properly it did so for a moment, and again, it would stall. 

I have little doubt that the problem is in the rods somewhere, but with each stall it stretches that belt even further, and I am concerned that it might soon get to the point where it is too loose to work properly. 

After having worked on these I think I understand why Lionel's first attempt at H0 didn't sell that well. Compared to simpler designs from Athearn, and even their arch rival Marx, they were too prone to problems. 

Which is sad, really. They looked great. 

A "Junque" Lionel H0 GP7 - Such An Odd Bird

Recently my latest batch of "junk" locomotives arrived, and amongst them was a Lionel GP7 from about 1957. Like many other mass market H0 locomotives from this period, it uses that accursed rubber band drive (which, I promise, will be the subject of its own entry). 

This is my third Lionel H0 locomotive, and the first diesel. It's low on some crucial detail, lacking handrails (or even a way to install them), and comes with ALCO style trucks instead of Blomberg. At some point in this models life someone attempted to repaint it - this was originally New York Central (I suspect the flat red paint is old Pactra, it certainly looks it. I need to find a way to remove it, however). 

But I want this model to run. I was surprised it was as complete as it was, with only one truck needing to be replaced. A few dollars later, a replacement was ordered (hat tip to Henry at Close Out Trains of New Jersey). 

Still, there is the problem of replacing those blasted "belts". 

I know that #10 rubber bands might work, but I worry about binding. The other problem is simply the act of installing them. Each truck has what appear to be nylon clips holding the truck drive shafts in place. Nylon gets incredibly brittle with age, and I am rather concerned that trying to pry them off will cause them to break. 

Yet I truly want to give this a try. 

The motor is still strong, and the lights (amazing things, really!) work fine. 

Once I get this beast running, I will of course share here.

I Know You've Been Missing Me... I Hope...

Well, it's been a couple of weeks, hain't it? Lots of changes here, biggest of which is I can see better than I have since 1988, which is a very big deal. Since my main daily activity is solar astronomy I've been busy getting all of that caught up.

Now that's done, I can fiddle a bit more with the trains, which means writing about them.

Soon.