Pet O Scale Annoyance

well said

@Dave Koehler posted:

well said

Agreed, but unfortunately the folks who need to take this into consideration and adopt our terminology conventions are not members of this forum.

The peeve is recognized wholeheartedly however the OP is preaching to the choir and not those who need to change.

How do we reach those who need to change?

Mike

I agree. It definitely can be confusing and a waste of time figuring out what is what on that site. My peeve is I wish that they had a separate listing for 3 rail and 2 rail.

All Good and Sound Information.

BUT... I think you are pushing a Rope UP HILL.

I suspect a lot/or most of the potential Vendors you are targeting with the error are not in the hobby only the profession of Selling Off Items they bought at other Auctions/Estate Sales etc.

They don't understand and don't care.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above.  Depending on who has the item for sale on THAT site, I sometimes send them a message stating, this is a 3 Rail not 2 Rail car or this is not a Precision Scale Car, or that isn't Scale etc.  Sometimes I am ignored, sometimes I am told to mind my own business, and sometimes a thank you and a change in the ad.  Mostly I am ignored...and many times I ignore the ad and move forward.

Preaching to the choir here, but at least I can commiserate with you.

@prrjim posted:

Various manufacturers have made products ranging from 1:20 to 1:32 scale to run on this gauge track.     If  you are looking  for a new passenger car for narrow gauge 1:22 scale trains and see one listed as a G Scale coach  - what is it?    Is 1:32 and way too large to fit with  your layout, or is 1:22 and a perfect fit, or 1:20 and a close fit?

Uhh... 1:32 scale would be a lot smaller than 1:22 scale, so if 1:22 fits, 1:32 will surely fit!

Gunnrunner,

You are right, I stated that the wrong way, 1:32 would be smaller than 1:22.

But It would still be way out of proportion.    Just the other way.    the doors would be too small, the windows would be too small, the wheels would be too small.    It would be like putting an S scale car on the layout among your 1:43 or 1:48 cars.    It would not surely fit in for a scale modeler.    But RULE #1 applies, it is your model RR and you can do whatever pleases you.

my personal pet peeve is when people refer to NMRA O gauge as OW5. O gauge as defined by the NMRA is 1.25 inches between the rails. There is no need to refer to it as OW5 on any other derogatory term. Were dose one go to find the definition of OW5 ?  Now I am noticing manufactures using this term. Just call it what it is, O gauge.

@prrjim posted:

Gunnrunner,

You are right, I stated that the wrong way, 1:32 would be smaller than 1:22.

But It would still be way out of proportion.    Just the other way.    the doors would be too small, the windows would be too small, the wheels would be too small.    It would be like putting an S scale car on the layout among your 1:43 or 1:48 cars.    It would not surely fit in for a scale modeler.    But RULE #1 applies, it is your model RR and you can do whatever pleases you.

In my World:

Rule #1--People are dumb!

Rule #2--See Rule #1

To Americans and Canadians, "scale" and "gauge" are equivalent.  There are a handful of outliers like American Flyer and Marx S scale but O gauge trains.

To Britons, "scale" and "gauge" are different because the primary scale is HO/OO, which are OO scale trains running on HO scale track.  This is a relic from the 1920s, when HO motors were too big to fit in British outline locomotives.  But they fit into the 10% larger OO locomotive boilers.

"To Americans and Canadians, "scale" and "gauge" are equivalent."

I disagree with this, except for those that are very casual in the hobby.  I think that most people that have been into trains for a while and are inclined to be on a forum like this understand the difference as the OP outlined.  Interesting factoid about OO.  I always wondered about that.

@cbq9911a posted: ...snip...

OO scale trains running on HO scale track.  ...snip...

Technically making it OOnsomething!

@David Eisinger posted:

my personal pet peeve is when people refer to NMRA O gauge as OW5. O gauge as defined by the NMRA is 1.25 inches between the rails. There is no need to refer to it as OW5 on any other derogatory term. Were dose one go to find the definition of OW5 ?  Now I am noticing manufactures using this term. Just call it what it is, O gauge.

I agree with you 100%. But then if you model Baltimore's former trolley system, you would be running on On5. Or even Philadelphia's trolleys; old  or current.

You're preaching to the choir.

On the other hand, the confusion, mis-representations and misspellings of auction items can work for you. I often find items that I'm looking for, and often am the sole bidder, because I know (remember) how the illiterati mis-represent and misspell things.

I collect (hoard) many different groups of stuff. As an example, if I want to find electric-outline locomotives, or the wiring system where they derive their power, I plug in the search term "cantenary" which, of course, is a misspelling of the real word. But often I find the things that I want using that term.

@Grampstrains posted:

Worrying about ebay is a waste of time.

Start & stop right there.....

Go to YouTube.  You will see multiple videos advertised as beautiful O Scale layouts.  They are beautiful layouts.  However, many them are semi-scale running 1950's Lionel 3-rail trains.  Many people use the words scale and gauge as meaning exactly the same thing.  NH Joe

Exactly my point many people use the words Scale and Gauge to mean the same thing, but my opinion is that is wrong.     As I described above, they describe two different and specific things.    Words are the way we communicate and if they are used improperly, the communications get confused.

I used to use the terms interchangably when I first got into the hobby during the pandemic (on the 3-rail side). After steeping for some time in the hobby I eventually caught on to the fact that there is a difference between MTH Premier and Railking, Lionel Traditional and Standard O, etc. I also learned that not every 1:48 scale-sized model is a scale model of the prototype. Since these discoveries, I've learned to be less generous with the O scale term. All O models are O gauge, but not all are O scale.

Then there's the question of how flexible the definition of O scale is. Some on the 2-rail side will claim exclusive rights to O-scale and will argue that 3 rail is not O scale, for one reason or another. On the 3 rail side, some only consider a model "scale" if it has kadees. Others may say otherwise. So while we have a firm definition (1:48), how flexible is the "O scale" label, and how much can it be stretched? It will depend on who you ask.

Of the trains I've bought over eBay, some of them have been from sellers who were either selling a late family member's collection, selling on behalf of a personal friend, selling to pay a bill, etc. So I don't expect an average Joe selling on eBay to know and understand the nuances of gauge vs scale. For shopping, the simple solution is to research the product before you buy it, checking pictures and looking up the SKU, etc. I am on the 3 rail side but like 1:48-sized models, so I don't want 6464 boxcars either. While I can say that I would try to honor the O gauge vs O scale convention if I ever sell anything in the future, I don't know how you would bring non-hobbyists onboard with the convention.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

For shopping, the simple solution is to research the product before you buy it, checking pictures and looking up the SKU, etc.

. . . and I think that's the heart of the matter.

I suspect there are few in our hobby by now that are *not* aware that terms like "O gauge" and "O scale" are used loosely at best, even among those who should know better. To try to hold each and every seller on eBay responsible for the precisely correct usage is asking way too much; rather, IMHO this is a perfect case to apply the old maxim, "caveat emptor" ("Let the buyer beware"). IOW, I do *not* think it would be fair to blame the seller, unless at minimum the seller had affirmatively confirmed the 'misrepresentation' after it was questioned, and if the truth is only a few clicks away, even then the seller might not be held legally liable. Whether eBay would force a refund out of an accused seller anyway is another matter entirely . . .

As a 2 rail O scale modeler, I have 2 railed MTH and Lionel 3 rail items, so I want to know if it is 1/48 scale or not.

@harley rider posted:

As a 2 rail O scale modeler, I have 2 railed MTH and Lionel 3 rail items, so I want to know if it is 1/48 scale or not.

Fair enough. My point is only that you are *not* entitled to solely rely on possibly loose, possibly mis-used terms employed by the seller in the description, without either doing your own research or at least asking the seller to confirm your understanding of what is on offer. Again, classic caveat emptor . . .

@prrjim posted:

Scale is the term describing a model's proportion to the actual prototype.    O Scale means the model is 1/48 the size of the actual prototype.   It also means the scale is 1/4 inch of model representing 1 foot on the prototype in all dimensions.    S-Scale is 1:64 and HO scale is 1:87 ( a discussion of why HO is 1:87 and not 1:96 is for another thread).    These have specific meanings to modelers and define what the model is and what it will fit in with and look appropriate.

Now where this becomes very confusing to O scale modelers, is when people refer products from the major 3 rail O GAUGE manufacturers as "O Scale"     I have seen old 6464 series boxcars listed as "O Scale"    These are not O Scale!   I don't know what scale they are - somewhere between O and S I think.     It is obvious to most O Scale modelers in 2 or 3 rail, that these are not O scale.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

I used to use the terms interchangably when I first got into the hobby during the pandemic (on the 3-rail side). After steeping for some time in the hobby I eventually caught on to the fact that there is a difference between MTH Premier and Railking, Lionel Traditional and Standard O, etc. I also learned that not every 1:48 scale-sized model is a scale model of the prototype. Since these discoveries, I've learned to be less generous with the O scale term. All O models are O gauge, but not all are O scale.

Then there's the question of how flexible the definition of O scale is. Some on the 2-rail side will claim exclusive rights to O-scale and will argue that 3 rail is not O scale, for one reason or another. On the 3 rail side, some only consider a model "scale" if it has kadees. Others may say otherwise. So while we have a firm definition (1:48), how flexible is the "O scale" label, and how much can it be stretched? It will depend on who you ask.

And K-Line's O die-cast cars are 1:43.  How would a 2-railer define those?  They certainly aren't the same size as Menards' 1:48 O-scale, and I've learned the hard way that certain types of Menards' 1:48 die-cast vehicles (specifically the pickup trucks & power wagons, but also perhaps the panel vans) will not fit into the lower level of a "O Gauge RailKing Auto Carrier Flat Car."  [It was kind of annoying, as I specifically purchased that railcar to carry those vehicles (not in any way the seller's fault, but MTH's.)]

@Micro posted:

And K-Line's O die-cast cars are 1:43.  How would a 2-railer define those?  They certainly aren't the same size as Menards' 1:48 O-scale, and I've learned the hard way that certain types of Menards' 1:48 die-cast vehicles (specifically the pickup trucks & power wagons, but also perhaps the panel vans) will not fit into the lower level of a "O Gauge RailKing Auto Carrier Flat Car."  [It was kind of annoying, as I specifically purchased that railcar to carry those vehicles (not in any way the seller's fault, but MTH's.)]

I did not know that K-line's diecast cars were 1:43, nor did I know that Menards' were 1:48 (I thought they were Traditional O sized). Learn something new every day!

Who brought up British standards?  The land where O Scale is universally understood to be 1/43...

Its not that hard . 0 Scale refers  to the proportions the model is built to. ( This Includes everything from the flanges on up to the top of the model From the couplers.    Designed To be displayed or operated on scale (prototype track)   0 48 1/2 , 0 gauge 1 1/4", 0n3,. on2,ect. Al built to 1/48th scale proportions.......  0 Gauge  Trains traditionally refer to most any train designed to run on 1 1/4" gauge track  regardless of scale proportions and details, and usually ran on 3rail (but not always) track.       

My pet O scale annoyance is models that are obvious misrepresentations of their prototype.

One example is the Lionel "E5"; this is their E6 in the Burlington E7/E8/E9 silver paint scheme.  It would have been workable if Lionel had shadowlined the corrugated side panels.

Another example is the K-Line orange South Shore Line car.  South Shore Line cars had round roofs; K-Line's car has a clerestory roof.

"Misrepresentation" is a design issue.  If you put an orange South Shore Line body on a Lionel RDC mechanism, you'd have an acceptable model, even though the trucks are wrong.

@David Eisinger posted:

my personal pet peeve is when people refer to NMRA O gauge as OW5. O gauge as defined by the NMRA is 1.25 inches between the rails. There is no need to refer to it as OW5 on any other derogatory term. Were dose one go to find the definition of OW5 ?  Now I am noticing manufactures using this term. Just call it what it is, O gauge.

OW5 means the track, 1.25", actually measures 5', 1/4" = 1'.     5/4 = 5' or OW5.

@CBQer posted:

OW5 means the track, 1.25", actually measures 5', 1/4" = 1'.     5/4 = 5' or OW5.

I think the question was: Where does one go to find the definition of OW5.  It sure isn't a common description of O-gauge track...

I'll just say this:

Yes, it's true that there is some well-intentioned misinformation in some listings of model trains for sale, mostly through the seller being unaware of distinctions.  However, I have not found it impossible to determine whether a car or engine is O Scale or O Gauge.  Sometimes it just requires extra effort.  True, it can be  annoying, but, unless the item is specifically described as 2-rail or 3-rail, that's just part of life in the O Gauge/O Scale segment of our hobby.  If it is too annoying, we can switch to HO scale and be rid of the annoyance.  

An observation: OW5 would not apply to O scale in certain other countries that do not use 1:48 for O scale.  In the UK and France, O scale is 1:43.5 which makes 1-1/4" O gauge track slightly on the narrow side.  In Germany and most of the rest of continental Europe, 1:45.2 prevails which matches the scale to the track gauge.  Note that MTH matched the prevailing scale for the respective European countries with their European prototype models.  The track gauge is what stays constant.

Originally a model called "O" was simply a model that would operate on O gauge track.  "O" like Standard or "G" did not refer to a model that had a fixed relationship to the prototype.  It only referred to the width between the rails.  Remember for a time American Flyer was producing O items that were 3/16" scale.  The idea that "O" means a model that is 1:48 or 1/4" scale arose later.  It has never been entirely accepted in this country.  It isn't followed in other countries.  And it is only truly correct if you are modelling certain Southern lines before the Great Gauge Change. 

So don't assume you are speaking the same language.  Do your homework.  Ask the seller for more information.  Plus, even if it is a "1:48 model designed to operate on O gauge 2 rail track" it can still be garbage.

Let's knock this use of Ow5 on the head.  The track gauge for 2- and 3- rail O track is 1¼".  At 1:48 this scales out at 5'0" which is 3½" wider than the world's railways Standard Gauge 4'8½".  P48 is a way of correcting this mistake and like most improvements in our world promoted 'heated debate'.  The term Ow5 was dropped into the debate as an easy way to remember where we were coming from.   OK, back to modelling....

What's that, I haven't covered the many differen... oh yes, P48 is a useful abbreviation for Proto48, you know like Proto87, nearer the real thing at that scale.  Well who was going to remember '1/4inAAR' or however it was spelled.

Ow5 became the accurate, if a bit too smug, rallying cry for 2-rail O-scalers like me who:
- had too much stuff to switch to P48
- had only just got to grips with code 145 wheel thicknesses after fault-free years of 172 or 6 or ....
- had little hobby time, so needed RTR in most boxes
- needed easy stuff to take along to existing club layouts

... c'mon bang in some more.
Jason

So Ow5 refers to 2-rail scale track that is 1.25” gauge, while P48's 2-rail scale track gauge is 1.177".  This is 2-rail stuff and has nothing to do with 3-rail, so I think maybe us 3-railers should stay out of the Ow5 discussion (I see at least one reply has been deleted).

Back to the OP's comment, I do agree with the replies that if you want 1:48 scale dimensioned products you need to do your homework prior to buying any item.  Don't depend on the seller's description.  If you are not sure, don't buy it.  As I transition some of my trains to 3RS this has become a requirement (actually, just adding Kadees).

I thought this thread was gonna be about cats jumping up on the train table🤦🏼‍♂️

Cats jumping  up on a layout is very annoying - On my previous layout when we had a cat, she chewed the tops off of the telephone poles I had installed along with black thread for wire!    She got about 6-8 of them, and spent some time in the proverbial "doghouse".

This thread was started about the words scale and gauge and using them properly, regardless of how many rails are on the track, or what the track gauge is.

As mentioned above, the buyer should be aware.    But on the other hand, isn't the seller being rude, unethical, or stretching the point,  unethical when they miss-describe a product?     Shouldn't a seller have the courtesy, or morality to properly describe what he is trying to sell?

@prrjim posted:

As mentioned above, the buyer should be aware.    But on the other hand, isn't the seller being rude, unethical, or stretching the point,  unethical when they miss-describe a product?     Shouldn't a seller have the courtesy, or morality to properly describe what he is trying to sell?

No one has said the seller is entitled to use deliberately deceptive or intentionally misleading language, only that a significant number of would-be sellers do *not* know how to "properly" describe what they are offering --heck, a lot of *this* thread consists of some of us "experts" disagreeing about what the "proper" descriptors should be! Knowing that a completely clear and perfectly accurate description is a rarity and that that situation is highly unlikely to change any time soon, I'm afraid that the final protection burden will still have to fall to the buyer. That's not condoning sloppy descriptions or unethical sellers, just a reality check. IOW, you can just complain about others, or you can take proactive measures to protect yourself -- your choice.

I had a cat that used to hang out in the tunnel of my layout, but I digress.

Jim I sympathize with your goal.  I just don't agree that "O scale" is the vehicle to do it.  "O scale" is not what in my field is referred to as a term of art.  Some people use "O scale" and "O gauge" interchangeably.  Some use "O scale" and "O 2 rail" synonymously.  Some consider 6464 boxcars or shorty passenger cars, cars that have some but not all dimensions 1:48, as "O scale".  Most are not being ignorant, rude, unethical, stretching the point or miss-describing the product when they call it "O scale" even though it is not 1:48 accurate.  They are using the term differently than you and the NMRA are.  What you want is a new term that does not already have other meanings in the O community.

@prrjim posted:

  ...snip... and HO scale is 1:87 ( a discussion of why HO is 1:87 and not 1:96 is for another thread).  ...snip...  

Because it is half English O 1/43.5

@PRRMP54 posted:

Because it is half English O 1/43.5

Wait, so English O and American O are not the same size?    Are these both "scale"? Please explain because I am very confused.  Apologies.