becomming a standard
- Thread starter brubakes
- Start date
ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Actually, the "H-zero" is far from "bozo-ness" as it is absolutely correct and more appropriate than the current HO (H-oh) term we use today!
When toy trains were first produced in Europe, they were grouped according to the width/spacing between the two rails in a system of increasing size from #1 up to #3 or #4 GAUGE.
Around the turn of the last century, a smaller size than #1 was introduce and was designated #0 gauge. When yet another series of toy trains of about 1/2 the size/track spacing of #0 appeared in the late teens, it was classified as Half Zero gauge (H0), only later to be corrupted into the modern H-oh (HO) by Americans.
All these names came about before any of these trains received a specific scale dimension to their sizes. Even then, the "scales" are not uniform across the world and scales O, HO, and N all vary even today depending on which countries are being talked about.
NYW&B
no, it is bozo-ness. It's arcane. It's no longer used by 99.9% of the world. The history of it doesn't matter, or we would spell things like colour, tyres and the ilk. Just because it started that way is no reason to keep it that way.
You're tilting at a windmill.
No...it's just typical of modern ignorance. And it was basically ignorance in the first place that got us shifted from using H0 to HO. Likewise, common usage alone does not automatically make something correct. If you want to use spellings as an example, take a look around the Net at the almost total lack of ability to spell these days. In another generation it seems likely that the written English language will be down right unintelligible.
Incidentally, as I alluded to in my first post, HO doesn't even mean the same thing in different countries!
NYW&B
This is what I meant.
We're not talking about toy trains like Lionel O or O-27 here. We are talking about the adult scale hobby. HO was well established before WWII ever began and, yes, I too lived through the transition from O to HO, so I can tell you that the figures stated are fact.
One look at the issues of Model Railroader or RMC from the 1940's illustrates that HO had clearly taken over control of the hobby from O. HO had become a viable scale as early as 1928-30 and Varney, Mantua, Gilbert (AF), Stock, Lobaugh and a number of others were offering HO locomotives (Gilbert's was RTR!) in the late 1930's. At the same time, HO rolling stock was available from more manufacturers than I have room to list here. In late 1940's magazines (I still have them to refer to), HO ads outnumber those for O or OO by 10 to 1 or more. And by the early 1950's O-gauge didn't even account for 20% of the hobby.
In short, there's no question whatever about MR's figures and they were published at the time, year by year, not at some later date from memory.
NYW&B
In that case, you are going to have to be a lot more specific regarding just what aspects of HO (or N) you are referring to.
Track gauge for HO was well established by the 1930's and wheel sizes (locos and rolling stock) were also fairly uniform across the board by then. Early on the bigggest problem was couplers but that matter was initially solved by the introduction of Mantua's hook and loop design.
NYW&B
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
lmackattack
old school
good question
I think it would have been the late70s-early 80s?
Always saw more HO scale in the store as a kid than N,O,G etc...
I think it would have been the late70s-early 80s?
Always saw more HO scale in the store as a kid than N,O,G etc...
hamltnblue
Active Member
Here's a little history
http://www.traincollectors.org.uk/history.htm
and here
http://www.hotrainsdepot.com/HO- trains- history
http://www.traincollectors.org.uk/history.htm
and here
http://www.hotrainsdepot.com/HO- trains- history
If you mean when did HO become the largest selling scale, that happened just about 1960, when total HO sales passed O scale sales and never looked back. Not sure what you mean about N scale except that N scale presently holds about 25% of the model railroad market share and is climbing while HO seems to be relatively stagnant.
A lot of misinformation presented above, I'm afraid.
The facts are that HO became the hobby's dominant scale way back in 1940! That year, for the first time, HO exceeded O amongst hobbyists in popularity. According to Model Railroader magazine, the breakdown by scale that year was:
HO 46.3%
O 38.3%
OO 13.6%
The previous year, 1939, had seen a virtual deadheat between O and HO.
Thereafter, HO steadily gained further in popularity with every year, until by the mid 1950s it accounted for about 75% of the hobby.
N first appeared in the early 1960's and for perhaps the next two decades slowly made inroads into the hobby's marketplace. Its percentage has remained essentially stabile now for quite a number of years, although you constantly hear claims from N hobbyists that it is growing by leaps and bounds. Currently, N accounts for somewhat less than about 30% of the model train market, HO around 60%, with the other major scales (G, O, S and Z) accounting for the remaining 10%. OO and TT scales are essentially dead today in the United States.
NYW&B
The facts are that HO became the hobby's dominant scale way back in 1940! That year, for the first time, HO exceeded O amongst hobbyists in popularity. According to Model Railroader magazine, the breakdown by scale that year was:
HO 46.3%
O 38.3%
OO 13.6%
The previous year, 1939, had seen a virtual deadheat between O and HO.
Thereafter, HO steadily gained further in popularity with every year, until by the mid 1950s it accounted for about 75% of the hobby.
N first appeared in the early 1960's and for perhaps the next two decades slowly made inroads into the hobby's marketplace. Its percentage has remained essentially stabile now for quite a number of years, although you constantly hear claims from N hobbyists that it is growing by leaps and bounds. Currently, N accounts for somewhat less than about 30% of the model train market, HO around 60%, with the other major scales (G, O, S and Z) accounting for the remaining 10%. OO and TT scales are essentially dead today in the United States.
NYW&B
Actually, the "H-zero" is far from "bozo-ness" as it is absolutely correct and more appropriate than the current HO (H-oh) term we use today!
When toy trains were first produced in Europe, they were grouped according to the width/spacing between the two rails in a system of increasing size from #1 up to #3 or #4 GAUGE.
Around the turn of the last century, a smaller size than #1 was introduce and was designated #0 gauge. When yet another series of toy trains of about 1/2 the size/track spacing of #0 appeared in the late teens, it was classified as Half Zero gauge (H0), only later to be corrupted into the modern H-oh (HO) by Americans.
All these names came about before any of these trains received a specific scale dimension to their sizes. Even then, the "scales" are not uniform across the world and scales O, HO, and N all vary even today depending on which countries are being talked about.
NYW&B
kenw
5th Generation Texian
no, it is bozo-ness. It's arcane. It's no longer used by 99.9% of the world. The history of it doesn't matter, or we would spell things like colour, tyres and the ilk. Just because it started that way is no reason to keep it that way.
You're tilting at a windmill.
No...it's just typical of modern ignorance. And it was basically ignorance in the first place that got us shifted from using H0 to HO. Likewise, common usage alone does not automatically make something correct. If you want to use spellings as an example, take a look around the Net at the almost total lack of ability to spell these days. In another generation it seems likely that the written English language will be down right unintelligible.
Incidentally, as I alluded to in my first post, HO doesn't even mean the same thing in different countries!
NYW&B
Last edited by a moderator:
brubakes
Member
This is what I meant.
HO became the dominant scale in 1940??? I don't care what MR says, they're nuts. I got my first train in 1952 and it was Lionel O scale. I literally knew no one who had HO scale. It was either O or O-27 scale. I think I saw my first HO train layout about 1956 and it was considered an oddity, much like N scale when it first came out. Even Athearn started out in O scale and didn't produce their first HO scale model until 1948. Penn-Line started selling HO in 1947. Revell started in HO in 1956, Tyco in 1952, and AHM in 1953. Varney and Bowser were two of the earliest HO advocates and neither started until 1947. Who exactly were the companies that were producing more models than Lionel or Marx in 1940?
I don't know how old you are, NYW&B, but I lived through the O to HO transition. Misinformation comes in many forms and either you read the MR stats wrong or they are just plain wrong.
I don't know how old you are, NYW&B, but I lived through the O to HO transition. Misinformation comes in many forms and either you read the MR stats wrong or they are just plain wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
We're not talking about toy trains like Lionel O or O-27 here. We are talking about the adult scale hobby. HO was well established before WWII ever began and, yes, I too lived through the transition from O to HO, so I can tell you that the figures stated are fact.
One look at the issues of Model Railroader or RMC from the 1940's illustrates that HO had clearly taken over control of the hobby from O. HO had become a viable scale as early as 1928-30 and Varney, Mantua, Gilbert (AF), Stock, Lobaugh and a number of others were offering HO locomotives (Gilbert's was RTR!) in the late 1930's. At the same time, HO rolling stock was available from more manufacturers than I have room to list here. In late 1940's magazines (I still have them to refer to), HO ads outnumber those for O or OO by 10 to 1 or more. And by the early 1950's O-gauge didn't even account for 20% of the hobby.
In short, there's no question whatever about MR's figures and they were published at the time, year by year, not at some later date from memory.
NYW&B
In that case, you are going to have to be a lot more specific regarding just what aspects of HO (or N) you are referring to.
Track gauge for HO was well established by the 1930's and wheel sizes (locos and rolling stock) were also fairly uniform across the board by then. Early on the bigggest problem was couplers but that matter was initially solved by the introduction of Mantua's hook and loop design.
NYW&B
Wait a minute, first you state that HO was the biggest seller in 1940 and now you say this was only for "the adult scale hobby"? Give me a link to this information from MR - I can't find it anywhere on their site. I think it's totally specious to say that Lionel was just toy trains in the 40's and 50's. HO scale stuff in the 40's and early 50's was just as much a toy train as any Lionel equipment. Varney, Mantua, and Gilbert are classic example of companies who produced almost nothing but "toy" HO models into the early 50's. HO as dominant force in the model railroad hobby simply didn't exist in 1940, whether you call it toy trains or scale modeling.
Edit: Read what Gordon Varney wrote in 1939 at http://www.hoseeker.net/varneyinformation/varney1939catalogpg02.jpg and tell me if it sounds like HO was the dominant player in the industry then. Note also that the models were still being produced for three-rail track. How does this differ from any other toy train of the period?
Edit: Read what Gordon Varney wrote in 1939 at http://www.hoseeker.net/varneyinformation/varney1939catalogpg02.jpg and tell me if it sounds like HO was the dominant player in the industry then. Note also that the models were still being produced for three-rail track. How does this differ from any other toy train of the period?
Last edited by a moderator:
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
Yall excuse me if I ramble a bit.
I can't say if i was 1940, but HO became dominant earlier than the 1960's. I do know that most of the model manufacturers had conveted to war time manufacturing and MR items were pretty much limited to what could bemade out of non-strategic materials.
HO had started in England. And to top it off there was a "battle" between HO3.5 and HO4 in England that started during this time between the backers of HO being 4mm, the current leader, and those backing 3.5mm, which oddly enough both run on the same 16.5mm track gauge. This "discussion" is still ongoing.
Uncle Eric LaNal, the nom de plume of Dr Eric Lake Rice spent a good part of the 1930's writing articles for Model Craftsman, as RMC was known then, on the advantages of "flea" gauge as he referred to it. He especially pushed interurban and trolley systems at first.
Most equipment in those days were designed and built to run with a third rail pickup, either inside al la Lionel & AF, (which was considered just above toys), or outside pickup as used by some of the RR's in the Northeast, (considered more prototypical). The process for applying the insulation needed for two rail application was considered ATT to difficult to manufacture.
HO definitely became dominate after WWII. I read that the trigger was the construction of smaller houses for the returning soldiers, and their families. Most of these homes were the first "slab" homes built and many were built to a common plan. (Anyone remember the original Levittown?) They were built on a concrete slab, and had no basements. There simply was no room for O scale.
I personally believe that it was in the 1950's. I think the 1940 date was when the # of manufacturers who made HO became greater than the O gauge manufacturers.
I can't say if i was 1940, but HO became dominant earlier than the 1960's. I do know that most of the model manufacturers had conveted to war time manufacturing and MR items were pretty much limited to what could bemade out of non-strategic materials.
HO had started in England. And to top it off there was a "battle" between HO3.5 and HO4 in England that started during this time between the backers of HO being 4mm, the current leader, and those backing 3.5mm, which oddly enough both run on the same 16.5mm track gauge. This "discussion" is still ongoing.
Uncle Eric LaNal, the nom de plume of Dr Eric Lake Rice spent a good part of the 1930's writing articles for Model Craftsman, as RMC was known then, on the advantages of "flea" gauge as he referred to it. He especially pushed interurban and trolley systems at first.
Most equipment in those days were designed and built to run with a third rail pickup, either inside al la Lionel & AF, (which was considered just above toys), or outside pickup as used by some of the RR's in the Northeast, (considered more prototypical). The process for applying the insulation needed for two rail application was considered ATT to difficult to manufacture.
HO definitely became dominate after WWII. I read that the trigger was the construction of smaller houses for the returning soldiers, and their families. Most of these homes were the first "slab" homes built and many were built to a common plan. (Anyone remember the original Levittown?) They were built on a concrete slab, and had no basements. There simply was no room for O scale.
I personally believe that it was in the 1950's. I think the 1940 date was when the # of manufacturers who made HO became greater than the O gauge manufacturers.
OK, time for a bit of a history lesson here.
First of all, Lionel (except for its scale Hudson), Flyer and Marx O-gauge trains were always classified as just toys. The serious adult O-scale hobby was quite seperate from them. Those adults who dabbled in these toys, even modified ones, were not widely regarded as a true part of the O-scale community by the mid 1930's and later became known as Hi-Railers, a subset of hobbyists which MR and RMC both thought so little of after the war that they totally ostracized them from the pages of both magazines, classifying them as not being serious scale modelers.
Concerning the division of the hobby by scale, the following are the statistics for scale modelers , not toy train operators, as published in the pages of The Model Railroader magazine. These typically appeared every year or so, with a final compilation also being published in the March 1950 issue.
xx 1936 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 /47 48 1949
HO 36% 34 37 39 46 46 54 49 59 62 69
- O 58% 50 49 41 38 38 31 36 28 22 22
OO 21% 10 11 17 14 15 14 12 09 07 02
(edit: sorry about the way this table looks, couldn't get it to space out right)
The HO scale locomotives in this era were no mere toys. They were accurately scaled and closely represented existing prototype locomotives from various railroads. Varney, Walthers, Mantua, Gilbert and Roundhouse/MDC were all producing locomotives in this class before WWII, with several of them offering entire lines of HO locomotives. This was in addition to a number of custom builders who, for a price, would make you anything you could desire (these custom engines were on the level of today's brass models).
Indeed, prior to the war, many of these trains were operated via outside third rail and some even by AC power but they had no resemblance to out-of-scale, three rail O-gauge toys sold by Lionel, Flyer, or Marx. By the very late 1930's 2 rail DC was becoming increasingly common and my father had a fully operational 2 rail HO layout in '39.
Regarding the Varney piece, if indeed from 1939, it seems surprising dated in its outlook. Alan Lake Rice had built operating HO trains as early as 1927 and had been publishing articles in the hobby press about them for a decade by then. By the late 30's more than half of all the articles in MR centered around HO. Perhaps the message that the Varney material is attempting to convey is that the hobby, in general, was at that time one best suited to skilled craftsmen and not for idle dabblers. You admittedly needed to create and do an awful lot yourself but the same was just as true whether you were in O, or HO. This was still the age when many layouts operated off 6 volt car batteries wired through old secondhand rheostats!
I suspect that very few hobbyists today have a really clear and accurate understanding of the particulars of the hobby's evolution, which often leads to disbelief and confusion over facts whenever the true situation is presented.
NYW&B
First of all, Lionel (except for its scale Hudson), Flyer and Marx O-gauge trains were always classified as just toys. The serious adult O-scale hobby was quite seperate from them. Those adults who dabbled in these toys, even modified ones, were not widely regarded as a true part of the O-scale community by the mid 1930's and later became known as Hi-Railers, a subset of hobbyists which MR and RMC both thought so little of after the war that they totally ostracized them from the pages of both magazines, classifying them as not being serious scale modelers.
Concerning the division of the hobby by scale, the following are the statistics for scale modelers , not toy train operators, as published in the pages of The Model Railroader magazine. These typically appeared every year or so, with a final compilation also being published in the March 1950 issue.
xx 1936 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 /47 48 1949
HO 36% 34 37 39 46 46 54 49 59 62 69
- O 58% 50 49 41 38 38 31 36 28 22 22
OO 21% 10 11 17 14 15 14 12 09 07 02
(edit: sorry about the way this table looks, couldn't get it to space out right)
The HO scale locomotives in this era were no mere toys. They were accurately scaled and closely represented existing prototype locomotives from various railroads. Varney, Walthers, Mantua, Gilbert and Roundhouse/MDC were all producing locomotives in this class before WWII, with several of them offering entire lines of HO locomotives. This was in addition to a number of custom builders who, for a price, would make you anything you could desire (these custom engines were on the level of today's brass models).
Indeed, prior to the war, many of these trains were operated via outside third rail and some even by AC power but they had no resemblance to out-of-scale, three rail O-gauge toys sold by Lionel, Flyer, or Marx. By the very late 1930's 2 rail DC was becoming increasingly common and my father had a fully operational 2 rail HO layout in '39.
Regarding the Varney piece, if indeed from 1939, it seems surprising dated in its outlook. Alan Lake Rice had built operating HO trains as early as 1927 and had been publishing articles in the hobby press about them for a decade by then. By the late 30's more than half of all the articles in MR centered around HO. Perhaps the message that the Varney material is attempting to convey is that the hobby, in general, was at that time one best suited to skilled craftsmen and not for idle dabblers. You admittedly needed to create and do an awful lot yourself but the same was just as true whether you were in O, or HO. This was still the age when many layouts operated off 6 volt car batteries wired through old secondhand rheostats!
I suspect that very few hobbyists today have a really clear and accurate understanding of the particulars of the hobby's evolution, which often leads to disbelief and confusion over facts whenever the true situation is presented.
NYW&B
Last edited by a moderator:
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
Some corrections and addendums to my post.
Yeah Uncle Eric did build HO stuff in the 20's, but by his own words the largest # of articles from him about HO were from the early 30's onward. He also wrote pretty much exclusively for the Model Craftsman, "cause they paid better", he laughingly said once. Actually since MR didn't start til 1934, he had to. He did write some later for MR but still sent most of his stuff to RMC. In my mind he, more than anyone else, created HO Model Railroading in the US.
My first paragraph of course referred to the war years. Why I didn't state that I'll never know. Must be an attack of my half-heimers.
I stand by the statement that most, if not all early, MR equipment was designed to run on third rail or overhead wire. An outside rail or overhead wire was used, due to its being prototypical as opposed to a third rail between the rails like Lionel or AF. The wiring was also easier.
I remember some pictures of older clubs showing the "battery banks" they had for running the layouts. Can you imagine having to charge those things after a session?
Lionel made another engine to scale, the PRR 0-6-0. It and the Hudson were highly prized by any O-scale modeler.
Yeah Uncle Eric did build HO stuff in the 20's, but by his own words the largest # of articles from him about HO were from the early 30's onward. He also wrote pretty much exclusively for the Model Craftsman, "cause they paid better", he laughingly said once. Actually since MR didn't start til 1934, he had to. He did write some later for MR but still sent most of his stuff to RMC. In my mind he, more than anyone else, created HO Model Railroading in the US.
My first paragraph of course referred to the war years. Why I didn't state that I'll never know. Must be an attack of my half-heimers.
I stand by the statement that most, if not all early, MR equipment was designed to run on third rail or overhead wire. An outside rail or overhead wire was used, due to its being prototypical as opposed to a third rail between the rails like Lionel or AF. The wiring was also easier.
I remember some pictures of older clubs showing the "battery banks" they had for running the layouts. Can you imagine having to charge those things after a session?
Lionel made another engine to scale, the PRR 0-6-0. It and the Hudson were highly prized by any O-scale modeler.
The Varney piece is straight from the 1939 Varney catalog, as shown on the website link. Simply go to http://www.hoseeker.org/varneymiscellaneous.html and page through the catalog if you need proof.
How were these MR surveys conducted? As far as I know, it was only with the readers of MR and then only if they bothered to send in a postcard. You have a group of self-selected "scale modelers" who were apparently had more HO layouts than O scale layouts in 1940. While the percentages may be interesting, what do they represent in actual numbers? I know the circulation of MR in 1945 was 20,000 and I suspect it was much less in 1940. But, let's assume it was 20,000. That means, assuming every single HO modeler sent in the postcard, that there were about 9,000 HO modelers in the country. Let's assume that each of these modelers bought two locomotives a year, making a total of 18,000 locomotives. By contrast, Lionel, in 1937, employed 1,000 people and produced approximately 60,000 model train engines, 1.2 million railcars, and more than a million sets of track. At least some of these were scale or close to scale models and many "scale" model railroad clubs in 1940 were exclusively Lionel.
Anyway, we've probably beaten this to death. If you want accept the narrow definition of "scale modelers", I'll agree that HO may have been more popular than O scale in 1940. There's no doubt that Lionel sold more O and O-27 trains until 1956, when total HO production overtook Lionel O scale production and Lionel also started selling HO. Those are the times that I remember HO coming on the scene in a big way, not as a niche scale for a relatively few adult modelers.
How were these MR surveys conducted? As far as I know, it was only with the readers of MR and then only if they bothered to send in a postcard. You have a group of self-selected "scale modelers" who were apparently had more HO layouts than O scale layouts in 1940. While the percentages may be interesting, what do they represent in actual numbers? I know the circulation of MR in 1945 was 20,000 and I suspect it was much less in 1940. But, let's assume it was 20,000. That means, assuming every single HO modeler sent in the postcard, that there were about 9,000 HO modelers in the country. Let's assume that each of these modelers bought two locomotives a year, making a total of 18,000 locomotives. By contrast, Lionel, in 1937, employed 1,000 people and produced approximately 60,000 model train engines, 1.2 million railcars, and more than a million sets of track. At least some of these were scale or close to scale models and many "scale" model railroad clubs in 1940 were exclusively Lionel.
Anyway, we've probably beaten this to death. If you want accept the narrow definition of "scale modelers", I'll agree that HO may have been more popular than O scale in 1940. There's no doubt that Lionel sold more O and O-27 trains until 1956, when total HO production overtook Lionel O scale production and Lionel also started selling HO. Those are the times that I remember HO coming on the scene in a big way, not as a niche scale for a relatively few adult modelers.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)