TRIX OO Scale products?
mindesign
Just wondering where the Trix range of products lay quality-wise against
Wrenn, Hornby, etc.
Any info appreciated
thanks
Steve
John Turner
"mindesign" wrote
> Just wondering where the Trix range of products lay quality-wise against
> Wrenn, Hornby, etc.
That's not an easy question to answer as the Trix range was extremely
diverse and varied from totally inaccurate pre-war 3-rail AC powered toys
through a stage of scale irregularity (3.8 mm:1 foot) to some moderately
competent plastic models with generally poor mechanisms.
You need to be much more specific.
John.
mindesign
Trix is not on par with modern Hornby or Bachmann locos - or Wrenn diecast
Thanks
Steve
"John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:e7g91e$eh4$1...@newsreaderm2.core.theplanet.net...
John Turner
"mindesign" wrote
>I actually think you may have answered the question - it would appear
>that Trix is not on par with modern Hornby or Bachmann locos - or Wrenn
>diecast
I think that's fair comment in many respects, but Wrenn (in my estimation)
is not generally on a par with the latest Hornby super-detailed or Bachmann
offerings.
On the other hand I'd sooner have a die-cast Trix EM1 electric than a Wrenn
Duchess or a Royal Scot, and I'd sooner have a Wrenn 'Brighton Belle'
Pullman than a current Hornby class 47 or 86.
John.
MartinS
Saw some old Trix Twin at a train show recently. They were extremely
crude, with large brush holders sticking out the side. Not a patch on
Hornby Dublo, or even that plastic early Triang.
--
Martin S.
Christopher A. Lee
They did make some models which I liked when I was much younger, and
would love to see re-introduced to modern standards - particularly
their 4-Cor EMUs.
Jim Guthrie
<seriph_I_SAID_...@consultant.com> wrote:
>I actually think you may have answered the question - it would appear that
>Trix is not on par with modern Hornby or Bachmann locos - or Wrenn diecast
I might argue with that ;-) The standard of the locos that they
produced in the 60's, when they went two rail, was very good -
certainly their models of the E3000 electric loco and the Western
Diesel. The quality was well ahead of Triang/Hornby and the motor
bogies were well built with a decent, well made, five pole motor
powering them. The only drawback was their 'in between' scale of
about 3.8mm:ft.
In the late 50s, they re-vamped their original designs and improved
the track, but still retained the three rail and the two loco
running. The quality was a bit better than the original pre and post
war AC locos, but it was still what you might call representational,
rather than in any way near scale accuracy. This re-vamp wasn't all
that successful and, IIRC, the company want through a period of
being taken over until it reappeared in the 60s with two nrail
operation and very good quality models - as mentioned above.
Jim.
David Costigan
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9frn92dhaii5kuj5m...@4ax.com...
They also made a Trans-Pennine dmu or, more correctly, they made the two end
coaches - and apart from the 3.8mm to the foot scale they looked superb and
ran very well. As they were not designed to couple to anything other than
the four intermediate cars, the scale difference wasn't noticeable.
Unfortunately Trix never followed it up properly; the intermediate coaches
they (eventually) introduced were normal Mark 1's but in dmu green, and not
the distinctive coaches they should have been. The "dmu green Mark 1's"
never looked either as attractive or accurate as the two power cars.
Hope this helps,
David C
John Turner
"David Costigan" wrote
> They also made a Trans-Pennine dmu or, more correctly, they made the two
> end
> coaches - and apart from the 3.8mm to the foot scale they looked superb
> and
> ran very well.
The scale of these was inconsistent and they had a very much over-wide look
for their height. The motor bogie was adequate for use with a two-car set,
but wouldn't pull a full 6-car train even though, from memory, there were
traction tyres on some of the powered axles.
I don't recall Trix doing a 4-Cor EMU.
John.
Mike B
"mindesign" <seriph_I_SAID_...@consultant.com> wrote in message
news:A4Omg.3556$b6.8...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
crude, more like smaller versions of pre-war O scale locos, but the models
produced in the late sixties eg Warship, WR tank, EM1, were good for their
time - better than Triang. Let's remember how standards in OO models have
improved in the last five years to be comparable to those that HO modellers
in the USA and Germany have accepted as standard for many years. The current
Bachmann standard class 5 and the forty year old Trix model look a lot more
similar than say, Minis, of comparable age. The shoes for 2/3-rail operation
were always a problem, but many people are still apparently happy to use
Maerklin models today.
chorl...@hotmail.com
and A4 Pacifics were better than Triang Hornby stuff of the same period
and cheaper than Wrenn of the same period. I had a couple of Trix Kit
built Pullmans which had the advantage of a simple bogie that a 12 year
old boy could screw a tension lock coupling onto, and Voila! you have a
Hornby Dublo to triang coupling converter coach that otherwise would
not be available since Rovex didn't produce one. Went nice with my
underscale Deltic, *and it had half insulated wheels so I could
illuminate it myself for a lot less than Rovex wanted for their
illuminated mark 2s....
Wondered for years why my Tri-ang EE type 3 was bigger than my Hornby
Deltic... my friend's Trix Warship was a good runner, but the
collection shoes made it more like a 600 series....
happy days, we shall not see them again.
David
Waldviertler
I have to say that the Trans Pennine DMU was a nice model.
Didn't they do a Peppercorn A2 as well which was quite nice ?
I remember my dad had some of the Trix stuff including the Western.
When you think of the amount of sub OO scale stuff done it is quite
astonishing.
All those lovely Bullied coaches and Warship from Fleishmann too.
Regards
Phil
Christopher A. Lee
<wyrle...@netscape.net> wrote:
Those were HO and looked too small against OO stuff. Fleishmann didn't
really know what they were doing - the Warship/Bulleid combination
didn't last very long and was restricted to the ex- LSWR main
line.They were very nice though.
They also did an unrebuilt Royal Scot and some very nice LMS coaches,
a heck of a lot better than contemporary British manufactures, but
again they looked to small alongside OO stuff.
>Regards
>Phil
John Turner
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
> Those were HO and looked too small against OO stuff. Fleishmann didn't
> really know what they were doing - the Warship/Bulleid combination
> didn't last very long and was restricted to the ex- LSWR main
> line.They were very nice though.
And still in (occasional) production apparantly, either that or Fleischmann
are still trying to sell their original production batch.
> They also did an unrebuilt Royal Scot and some very nice LMS coaches,
> a heck of a lot better than contemporary British manufactures, but
> again they looked to small alongside OO stuff.
That was Rivarossi, not Fleschmann. A poor choice of prototype in my
opinion as the parallel boiler Scots had all but disappeared by
nationalisation (ok I know 46137 lasted into the mid-50s, but that was
exceptional) and gave little scope for additional liveries.
What a pity both chose HO-scale. Had they gone for OO we might well have
seen them giving Hornby a real kicking.
John.
Christopher A. Lee
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>
>> Those were HO and looked too small against OO stuff. Fleishmann didn't
>> really know what they were doing - the Warship/Bulleid combination
>> didn't last very long and was restricted to the ex- LSWR main
>> line.They were very nice though.
>
>And still in (occasional) production apparantly, either that or Fleischmann
>are still trying to sell their original production batch.
>
>> They also did an unrebuilt Royal Scot and some very nice LMS coaches,
>> a heck of a lot better than contemporary British manufactures, but
>> again they looked to small alongside OO stuff.
>
>That was Rivarossi, not Fleschmann. A poor choice of prototype in my
>opinion as the parallel boiler Scots had all but disappeared by
>nationalisation (ok I know 46137 lasted into the mid-50s, but that was
>exceptional) and gave little scope for additional liveries.
My mistake. Thanks.
>What a pity both chose HO-scale. Had they gone for OO we might well have
>seen them giving Hornby a real kicking.
Yes.
>John.
>
MartinS
Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!
--
Martin S.
John Turner
"MartinS" wrote
> Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!
Hornby have never led, they've always followed others and they were
certainly not the first in the field with British OO, a privilege which I
believe would belong to the German firm of Bing.
John.
Jim Guthrie
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
John,
From what I have read, they did lead just after WW2 when toy
production re-started, and stuck to the pre-war standards rather than
review their products - i.e. better 4mm scale track gauge, or H0
scale.
Jim.
Kevin Martin
>>What a pity both chose HO-scale. Had they gone for OO we might well
>>have seen them giving Hornby a real kicking.
>
>
> Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!
>
The problem with British HO is that nobody has ever produced any! Every
"HO model" produced has been a distorted half HO and half OO model, no
wonder British HO has never taken off.
The real chance for British HO was in the 1970's when there was a number
of new entries into the British market. Most notable of these were Lima,
Mainline and Airfix all of which had extensive model expertise in scales
other than 4mm. If all of these had gone to HO then Tri-ang Hornby and
Wrenn would have had a huge decision to make.
Instead they choose to listen to the Railway Modeller staff and choose
OO, strange really as Peco could have continued almost without change on
their main product - track.
In case any one suggests that Mainline & Airfix would have fallen over
choosing HO, the answer is that they did anyway. Lima were big enough to
last another 30 years, but it wasn't the British market that killed them.
--
Regards
Kevin Martin
To reply - delete what is "not required" (Abbrev) from my address.
Christopher A. Lee
<kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>MartinS wrote:
>
>>>What a pity both chose HO-scale. Had they gone for OO we might well
>>>have seen them giving Hornby a real kicking.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!
>
>The problem with British HO is that nobody has ever produced any! Every
>"HO model" produced has been a distorted half HO and half OO model, no
>wonder British HO has never taken off.
Palitoy's first foray into model railways, pre-Mainline, was HO.
As were Lima's first British models.
We've already mentioned the Rivarossi Royal Scot and the Fleischmann
Warship.
>The real chance for British HO was in the 1970's when there was a number
>of new entries into the British market. Most notable of these were Lima,
>Mainline and Airfix all of which had extensive model expertise in scales
>other than 4mm. If all of these had gone to HO then Tri-ang Hornby and
>Wrenn would have had a huge decision to make.
No. OO was already too well established.
>Instead they choose to listen to the Railway Modeller staff and choose
>OO, strange really as Peco could have continued almost without change on
>their main product - track.
No. Because that's where the market was,
Palitoy had already tried British HO and got nowhere with it before
they introduced the Mainline range.
>In case any one suggests that Mainline & Airfix would have fallen over
>choosing HO, the answer is that they did anyway. Lima were big enough to
>last another 30 years, but it wasn't the British market that killed them.
They would have fallen over a lot quicker. If they had produced HO
very few people would have bought it because most of their potential
customers were already in OO.
John Turner
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
> No. Because that's where the market was,
Absolutely right, Lima, Fleischmann and Rivarossi (not to mention the much
inferior Playcraft range) all started to produce UK models in HO scale and
where are any of them in today's British market?
John.
Kevin Martin
But my point is that Lima, Fleischmann, Rivarossi & Playcraft if you
like, did *not produce HO models, but some mythical in between scale* .
How did any of these big brands ever expect British HO to take off?
If your going to challenge a new market seriously, you have to be
prepared to do the job properly. If you want customers to change their
loyalty, you have to provide a better alternative. Instead the HO models
were *all crap, regardless of scale* and something to be sold to
unsuspecting parents/relatives at High St toy shops.
The Rivarossi LMS coaches in particular looked to be quite a high
quality model but the proportions were dreadful & they would have lost a
lot of money on their tooling costs. Kittle Hobby's were trying to flog
them off for years afterwards :-)
When Lima failed in their British HO, they significantly lifted their
game for the OO versions, just look at the HO & OO Class 33s side by
side, there is simply no comparison.
At least Lima recognised eventually that there was a significant number
adult modellers and the British market was not just kids train sets at
bargain prices.
My memories of Playcraft suggest that they were the closet to being a
consistent 3.5mm scale compared to the others, if the models were
somewhat crude - OK then, complete rubbish.
John Turner
"Kevin Martin" wrote
> But my point is that Lima, Fleischmann, Rivarossi & Playcraft if you like,
> did *not produce HO models, but some mythical in between scale* .
As far as I'm aware only Trix produced models to the odd-ball 3.8mm:1 foot
scale, the others were pretty much standard HO.
Lima of course did produce a bastard scale 'Deltic' but that was because
they'd already started to produce at HO-scale and switched half-way through,
but that was really a one-off, other than the class 50 which utilised the HO
scale 'Deltic' bogies.
John.
Model Depot
"John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> they'd already started to produce at HO-scale and switched half-way
through,
> but that was really a one-off, other than the class 50 which utilised the
HO
> scale 'Deltic' bogies.
>
> John.
Did the Lima class 37 have these bogies too or were they from a different
mould ?
Simon
Keith
The Lima class 37 bogies were to 4mm scale, a different mould and a
very acceptable result.
Keith
>
manat...@hotmail.com
Kevin Martin wrote:
> In case any one suggests that Mainline & Airfix would have fallen over
> choosing HO, the answer is that they did anyway.
Which doesn't prove anything, either way.
> Lima were big enough to
> last another 30 years, but it wasn't the British market that killed them.
>
They lasted 30 years because they had a large market for continental
HO. If they had been a company whose sole product line was British HO
they would have gone a lot quicker.
MBQ
Kevin Martin
> Kevin Martin wrote:
>
>>In case any one suggests that Mainline & Airfix would have fallen over
>>choosing HO, the answer is that they did anyway.
>
>
> Which doesn't prove anything, either way.
>
>
kim
news:449d7f5a$0$215$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
In what way is it a "pity"? The only difference it makes is to those running
combinations of British and foreign outline which hardly ever happened in
real life.
(kim)
kim
news:btgr92lnrtfemv2ee...@4ax.com...
They didn't have much choice. Britsh industry was completely burned out
after WW2, there wasn't any money for investment in new tooling. Rovex had
the advantage of not starting before the economy started to pick up again in
the 1950's.
(kim)
Paul Stevenson
"kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4vadnabWcov...@giganews.com...
>
> In what way is it a "pity"? The only difference it makes is to those
running
> combinations of British and foreign outline which hardly ever happened in
> real life.
>
> (kim)
Kim,
it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge ratio
would have been near enough spot on.
Paul
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Stevenson
> They didn't have much choice. Britsh industry was completely burned out
> after WW2, there wasn't any money for investment in new tooling. Rovex had
> the advantage of not starting before the economy started to pick up again
in
> the 1950's.
>
> (kim)
>
Kim,
Rovex pretty quickly invested in new tools once they had the Track Master
tools modified and working but Meccano were much slower off the mark.
Kevin Martin
>
> They didn't have much choice. Britsh industry was completely burned out
> after WW2, there wasn't any money for investment in new tooling. Rovex had
> the advantage of not starting before the economy started to pick up again in
> the 1950's.
>
Not quite true. Page 49 of Hornby Book of Trains 25 year edition, tells
a different story, where the desired choice of materials was not
available due to Gov't restriction on the use of nonferrous metals. This
was because of the Korean War.
It also tells of brass plunger pick ups (mounted vertically) lifting the
driving wheels sufficiently to prevent a Princess from hauling more than
2 coaches ;-)
Kevin Martin
>
> it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge ratio
> would have been near enough spot on.
>
Ah, Thank you Paul. Some one with the right answer at last ;-)
It's always been a Furphy, the comments about British & Continental
outline not mixing. I have never understood the relevance of that
argument at all. The prototypes are built to the same scale, so why not
the models? Especially when it leads to a total botchup that OO is.
Martin Wynne
> it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale
> the scale/gauge ratio would have been near enough spot on.
There is no advantage in getting the scale/gauge ratio correct
unless you can also use narrow wheels with dead-scale profile
(proto87 for H0, P4 for 4mm), which you can't reliably do for an
r-t-r train set.
If you use wider r-t-r overscale wheels with the correct gauge,
the wheels and valve gear won't fit behind outside cylinders,
inside the spashers, etc., which have to be widened to fit. If you
use r-t-r wheels with a correct gauge, the inevitable result is that
the model is over scale width in running gear, bogie sides,
axleboxes, etc. This is noticeable on all r-t-r H0 models.
Those who promote coarse-scale H0 for British-outline steam
locomotives have never addressed this issue.
The best solution for r-t-r wheels is to narrow the gauge slightly
so that you can get the wheels to fit within a scale width model.
Going right down to 00 gauge for 4mm/ft scale is overdoing it a
bit, but reflects the time when r-t-r wheels were much wider than
they are now. But the principle of using a narrowed gauge for r-t-r
models is correct. What's the advantage of having an exact track
gauge if the models look wrong?
regards,
Martin.
----------
email: mar...@templot.com
web: http://www.templot.com
kim
news:44a13159$0$9927$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> "kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4vadnabWcov...@giganews.com...
>
> >
> > In what way is it a "pity"? The only difference it makes is to those
> running
> > combinations of British and foreign outline which hardly ever happened
in
> > real life.
> >
> > (kim)
>
> Kim,
>
> it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge ratio
> would have been near enough spot on.
It would also have been near enough spot on if they had chosen the alternate
"19mm" gauge which was around at the time but they didn't for the same
reasons they didn't adopt H0 scale.
(kim)
Christopher A. Lee
<kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Paul Stevenson wrote:
>
>>
>> it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge ratio
>> would have been near enough spot on.
>>
>
>Ah, Thank you Paul. Some one with the right answer at last ;-)
>It's always been a Furphy, the comments about British & Continental
>outline not mixing. I have never understood the relevance of that
>argument at all. The prototypes are built to the same scale, so why not
>the models? Especially when it leads to a total botchup that OO is.
Because Henry Greenly wasn't a scale modeller. His main interest was
functioning large scale live steam. Most of which was over-scale to
give more powerul, more impressive engines but nobody really noticed
it.
So when HO was introduced he made the engines over-scale to fit the
available mechanisms because British prototypes were smaller than
European or American. Hence OO using HO track.
I
Paul Stevenson
"Kevin Martin" <kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44a14744$0$9902$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Paul Stevenson wrote:
>
> >
> > it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge
ratio
> > would have been near enough spot on.
> >
>
> Ah, Thank you Paul. Some one with the right answer at last ;-)
> It's always been a Furphy, the comments about British & Continental
> outline not mixing. I have never understood the relevance of that
> argument at all. The prototypes are built to the same scale, so why not
> the models? Especially when it leads to a total botchup that OO is.
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Kevin Martin
Kevin,
no problem! :-)
Just think of all the agro that would have been avoided EM, EEM, Scale 4,
whatever the other one was called? Protofour? All the bellyaching about 4mm
scale bodies not being wide enough to get scale gauge wheels into.
If Hornby Dublo had declared towards the end of the war or just after that
new releases were to have been in HO new manufacturers would have followed
suite, Trix would not have been bothered and all the effort could have been
put into making better models. Much as it galls (sp) me just look at the
American models of the sixties, streets ahead of our stuff, yes I know there
were other considerations.
The big opportunity missed and I bet 3mm scale would have been dead in the
water!
Paul Stevenson
got to take issue here!
"Martin Wynne" <85a...@ision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1151422498.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Paul,
>
> > it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale
> > the scale/gauge ratio would have been near enough spot on.
>
> There is no advantage in getting the scale/gauge ratio correct
> unless you can also use narrow wheels with dead-scale profile
> (proto87 for H0, P4 for 4mm), which you can't reliably do for an
> r-t-r train set.
I have to say you are missing the point. Get the fundamentals right and
work can be done on the other stuff. Flange depth is not a function of
gauge.
> If you use wider r-t-r overscale wheels with the correct gauge,
> the wheels and valve gear won't fit behind outside cylinders,
> inside the spashers, etc., which have to be widened to fit. If you
> use r-t-r wheels with a correct gauge, the inevitable result is that
> the model is over scale width in running gear, bogie sides,
> axleboxes, etc. This is noticeable on all r-t-r H0 models.
Yup I agree but not half as noticeable as the narow gauge, its over 2mm out
for goodness sake!
> Those who promote coarse-scale H0 for British-outline steam
> locomotives have never addressed this issue.
Its a problem for the dead scale 4mm types!
> The best solution for r-t-r wheels is to narrow the gauge slightly
> so that you can get the wheels to fit within a scale width model.
> Going right down to 00 gauge for 4mm/ft scale is overdoing it a
> bit, but reflects the time when r-t-r wheels were much wider than
> they are now. But the principle of using a narrowed gauge for r-t-r
> models is correct. What's the advantage of having an exact track
> gauge if the models look wrong?
Whats the point of having scale width cylinders and motion if the gauge
looks wrong?
> regards,
>
> Martin.
> ----------
> email: mar...@templot.com
> web: http://www.templot.com
Paul
Paul Stevenson
Which were?
Getting the gauge/scale ratio right is fundamental. Lots of people were
using the gauge so why not used a true scale? 19mm gauge was a complete non
starter as hardly anyone in the UK was using it, no one on the Continent,
only in the US did it gain a foot hold.
Martin Wynne
> Getting the gauge/scale ratio right is fundamental.
Who says so? Where is it written down? What's so sacrosanct
about the track gauge dimension above all the others?
I could equally say that getting the dimension across the outside
faces of the wheels right is fundamental.
But you can't have them both right unless you adopt P4 or proto87.
I'm not defending the reduction all the way to 16.5mm gauge, but
the principle that as you coarsen the wheel profile, so you reduce
the gauge, is correct.
regards,
Martin.
----------------------------------
Jim Guthrie
Kim,
>> From what I have read, they did lead just after WW2 when toy
>> production re-started, and stuck to the pre-war standards rather than
>> review their products - i.e. better 4mm scale track gauge, or H0
>> scale.
>
>They didn't have much choice. Britsh industry was completely burned out
>after WW2, there wasn't any money for investment in new tooling. Rovex had
>the advantage of not starting before the economy started to pick up again in
>the 1950's.
If I get the time, I'll try and dig out my reference which was a long
article in Your Model Railways many years ago which recounted the
development of British railway modelling.
Immediately after WW2, the BRMSB (British Railway Modelling Standards
Bureau) was keen to evaluate and set up new standards for railway
modelling - in effect, drawing together and rationalising the various
threads of development which had been going on before WW2. I think
they had the example of the NMRA in North America and what it had set
about to do to bring some semblance of order to the North American
modelling market.
The long break in toy manufacturing caused by the war could have given
a clean slate to start over again with fresh ideas, but for whatever
reasons, Hornby decided to put their old production line back into
operation with exactly the same standards as they had used pre-war.
Since they were the leading British producer at the time, that
virtually decided the standard and the BRMSB didn't have the teeth to
push for anything much different.
They did bring out the BRMSB 00 standards which were not the same as
Hornby Dublo, but the HD standards were included in their set of
standards. Trix came back into the market with their very coarse
standards and Rovex(Triang) came into the market with their own coarse
standards. The only manufacturer who produced to BRMSB standards in
4mm scale was Graham Farish.
People were looking to widen the gauge of 00 at that time, and EM
(Eighteen Millimetre) gauge came into existence and was included in
the BRMSB standards as well.. Maybe if BRMSB had had their way, EM
would have become the accepted gauge for 4mm modelling in the UK -
being a fair compromise between gauge and width over wheels (see
Martin Wynne's post on the practicalities of gauge and wheel widths.)
Jim.
kim
>
> "kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Ebydncf-utsnzzzZ...@giganews.com...
> > "Paul Stevenson" <pa...@pdsteveo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:44a13159$0$9927$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> > >
> > > "kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4vadnabWcov...@giganews.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In what way is it a "pity"? The only difference it makes is to those
> > > running
> > > > combinations of British and foreign outline which hardly ever
happened
> > in
> > > > real life.
> > > >
> > > > (kim)
> > >
> > > Kim,
> > >
> > > it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge
> ratio
> > > would have been near enough spot on.
> >
> > It would also have been near enough spot on if they had chosen the
> alternate
> > "19mm" gauge which was around at the time but they didn't for the same
> > reasons they didn't adopt H0 scale.
> >
> > (kim)
>
> Which were?
According to the letter written by George E. Mellor of GEM Products fame to
the Railway Modeller in 1926 it was to disguise the overscale tyres and
flanges necessary for operation on typical curves at the time. For that
reason he preferred 00 to either H0 or 19mm "finescale" although his company
made all three to special order.
(kim)
kim
There were complaints at the time that even 00 was too small. "Electric
mice" was the disparaging term used at the time, "Too small to even see". H0
would have been even smaller and less marketable. Remember that the vast
majority of train sets in use at the time were still 0-gauge which Hornby
promised to continue supporting but immediately dumped.
> Much as it galls (sp) me just look at the
> American models of the sixties, streets ahead of our stuff, yes I know
there
> were other considerations.
>
> The big opportunity missed and I bet 3mm scale would have been dead in the
> water!
There's no reason to suppose H0 would have faired any better than TT.
(kim)
kim
> Martin,
>
> got to take issue here!
>
> "Martin Wynne" <85a...@ision.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1151422498.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > > it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale
> > > the scale/gauge ratio would have been near enough spot on.
> >
> > There is no advantage in getting the scale/gauge ratio correct
> > unless you can also use narrow wheels with dead-scale profile
> > (proto87 for H0, P4 for 4mm), which you can't reliably do for an
> > r-t-r train set.
>
> I have to say you are missing the point. Get the fundamentals right and
> work can be done on the other stuff. Flange depth is not a function of
> gauge.
>
> > If you use wider r-t-r overscale wheels with the correct gauge,
> > the wheels and valve gear won't fit behind outside cylinders,
> > inside the spashers, etc., which have to be widened to fit. If you
> > use r-t-r wheels with a correct gauge, the inevitable result is that
> > the model is over scale width in running gear, bogie sides,
> > axleboxes, etc. This is noticeable on all r-t-r H0 models.
>
> Yup I agree but not half as noticeable as the narow gauge, its over 2mm
out
> for goodness sake!
You only notice the "narrow gauge" of British models when viewing head-on
whereas the pastry cutter flanges on foreign toys are prominent from every
angle.
(kim)
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> There were complaints at the time that even 00 was too small. "Electric
> mice" was the disparaging term used at the time, "Too small to even see".
> H0
> would have been even smaller and less marketable. Remember that the vast
> majority of train sets in use at the time were still 0-gauge which Hornby
> promised to continue supporting but immediately dumped.
Hornby O-gauge continued in production until the early 1960s. That hardly
constitutes being immediately dropped.
John.
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> You only notice the "narrow gauge" of British models when viewing head-on
> whereas the pastry cutter flanges on foreign toys are prominent from every
> angle.
Got to agree with the latter comment - even the latest Fleischmann stuff has
overstated flanges, but I can live with that and also the under-scale gauge
of OO so I guess it's horses for courses.
John.
Kevin Martin
>
> Because Henry Greenly wasn't a scale modeller. His main interest was
> functioning large scale live steam. Most of which was over-scale to
> give more powerul, more impressive engines but nobody really noticed
> it.
>
> So when HO was introduced he made the engines over-scale to fit the
> available mechanisms because British prototypes were smaller than
> European or American. Hence OO using HO track.
>
So your suggesting that
a/ The "standard" was derived by someone who had no idea what he was
doing as regard model railways.
b/ The market place was awash with British made commercial bodies on
continental made R-T-R chassis? Can you give any examples of these models?
c/ I was under the impression that pre WW2 the British market was almost
totally dominated by O gauge, with only a very small amount of 3.5mm or
4mm scale equipment available.
Are your comments supposed to be *defending* OO or confirming my
thoughts that OO should never have existed?
You and others have still not addressed the point I made that *no
manufacturer has EVER produced half decent British HO models* .
By half decent I mean to the standards of Athearn of the US or
Fleischmann of Europe. Instead all that was ever offered to the British
market in HO were wildly distorted efforts that were generally to 4mm
scale width, but 3.5mm scale height. The worst possible combination IMHO
;-) Yet they seemed to be disappointed it never took off, I wonder why?
Forget the finescale argument for the moment, remember Athearn for
decades made models on RP25 that ran vastly superior to any British made
diesel model. Only very recently have any British models run to the same
standards as some Athearn models of the 1960s even.
I agree with Paul, the finescale aspect is something that should only
worry the minority who care enough to do something about it. Like lots
of things there are various degrees of standards & I and almost
certainly Paul, are not promoting the old pizza cutter wheels of some
lesser continental brands of old. Its about overall impression.
Something about 10% of the effort & 90% of the result comes to mind.
For the record I should point out that I have no interest in US or
Continental prototypes & therefore no interest in modelling either. It
has historically been frustrating to see say Hornby/Lima ringfield
powered diesels staggering around the track, whilst Athearn locos with
flywheel drives comparatively glide around the track.
OK Hornby and Lima models can be made to run better, but why should this
be required if others can do better out of the box?
I am also at a quandary at the moment, being between layouts, do I build
a new one to my previous EM standards? Or do I just take the new
standard models & plonk them on OO track and not have to worry about
"will they ever run the same again"? Just about all the locos I
converted years ago have got new versions available & are vastly
superior to my modified ones.
Thinking about it now, I am at the same stage I was in the mid 70s, when
Airfix and Mainline hit the market. If they had chosen HO then & gone
about it properly I would have done so too. Because they didn't, I went
EM and used some of their products which were superior to Hornby's. In
fact it is only very recently that Hornby have caught up (and passed)
the quality of the mouldings of Airfix/Mainline.
John Turner
"Kevin Martin" wrote
> So your suggesting that
> a/ The "standard" was derived by someone who had no idea what he was doing
> as regard model railways.
There really was no such thing as 'model railways' at the time, the product
was basically for the toy market.
John.
Christopher A. Lee
<kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> Because Henry Greenly wasn't a scale modeller. His main interest was
>> functioning large scale live steam. Most of which was over-scale to
>> give more powerul, more impressive engines but nobody really noticed
>> it.
>>
>> So when HO was introduced he made the engines over-scale to fit the
>> available mechanisms because British prototypes were smaller than
>> European or American. Hence OO using HO track.
>
>So your suggesting that
>a/ The "standard" was derived by someone who had no idea what he was
>doing as regard model railways.
>b/ The market place was awash with British made commercial bodies on
>continental made R-T-R chassis? Can you give any examples of these models?
>c/ I was under the impression that pre WW2 the British market was almost
>totally dominated by O gauge, with only a very small amount of 3.5mm or
>4mm scale equipment available.
Where did I say any of your straw men?
Motors large, boilers small.
>Are your comments supposed to be *defending* OO or confirming my
>thoughts that OO should never have existed?
Look up "false dichotomy".
>You and others have still not addressed the point I made that *no
>manufacturer has EVER produced half decent British HO models* .
>By half decent I mean to the standards of Athearn of the US or
>Fleischmann of Europe. Instead all that was ever offered to the British
>market in HO were wildly distorted efforts that were generally to 4mm
>scale width, but 3.5mm scale height. The worst possible combination IMHO
>;-) Yet they seemed to be disappointed it never took off, I wonder why?
The point was irrelevant.
Once 4mm was established, 3.5mm had no chance.
And British manufactures built down to a price, which is why the
mechanisms were poor. They would have been just as poor in HO.
>Forget the finescale argument for the moment, remember Athearn for
>decades made models on RP25 that ran vastly superior to any British made
>diesel model. Only very recently have any British models run to the same
>standards as some Athearn models of the 1960s even.
If they'd made HO they would have still done it down to a cost. Athena
was OK but eventually (the early stuff used rubber band drive).
Cheaper manufacturers like Model Power, Lifelike, Bachmann, Pemco etc
until recently were just as bad as the British. Using the same factory
in China(or Hong Kong?).
RP25 isn't that good. It looks OK from the side but they're like
steam-roller wheels from the front.
Athearn weren't ready-to-run until recently.
>I agree with Paul, the finescale aspect is something that should only
>worry the minority who care enough to do something about it. Like lots
>of things there are various degrees of standards & I and almost
>certainly Paul, are not promoting the old pizza cutter wheels of some
>lesser continental brands of old. Its about overall impression.
>Something about 10% of the effort & 90% of the result comes to mind.
>
>For the record I should point out that I have no interest in US or
>Continental prototypes & therefore no interest in modelling either. It
>has historically been frustrating to see say Hornby/Lima ringfield
>powered diesels staggering around the track, whilst Athearn locos with
>flywheel drives comparatively glide around the track.
>OK Hornby and Lima models can be made to run better, but why should this
>be required if others can do better out of the box?
See above about Model Power, Lifelike, Pemco, Bachmann etc.
It's only recently that these manufacturers have improved. Even
Athearn needed tweaking, and their mouldings weren't that good.
>I am also at a quandary at the moment, being between layouts, do I build
>a new one to my previous EM standards? Or do I just take the new
>standard models & plonk them on OO track and not have to worry about
>"will they ever run the same again"? Just about all the locos I
>converted years ago have got new versions available & are vastly
>superior to my modified ones.
That's life.
>Thinking about it now, I am at the same stage I was in the mid 70s, when
>Airfix and Mainline hit the market. If they had chosen HO then & gone
>about it properly I would have done so too. Because they didn't, I went
>EM and used some of their products which were superior to Hornby's. In
>fact it is only very recently that Hornby have caught up (and passed)
>the quality of the mouldings of Airfix/Mainline.
Their market was already in OO, not HO.
Kevin Martin
> There really was no such thing as 'model railways' at the time, the product
> was basically for the toy market.
>
Agreed, and Hornby has only recently recognised the difference when they
moved production to China & have vastly improved their product range.
Was it about 2002 that they modified their range to be compatible with
Peco code 75 track? Code 75 is not that terrifc, but compared to Code
100 its like chalk and cheese.
Kevin Martin
>
>>You and others have still not addressed the point I made that *no
>>manufacturer has EVER produced half decent British HO models* .
>>By half decent I mean to the standards of Athearn of the US or
>>Fleischmann of Europe. Instead all that was ever offered to the British
>>market in HO were wildly distorted efforts that were generally to 4mm
>>scale width, but 3.5mm scale height. The worst possible combination IMHO
>>;-) Yet they seemed to be disappointed it never took off, I wonder why?
>
>
> The point was irrelevant.
>
I give up, all British HO has always been very poor, the fact that that
it *was* so bad, being the overriding reason why any existing modellers
would not consider changing to HO.
Why would any one in their right mind change from a model which looks
narrow gauge, but is the right height (OO), to a model which looks right
gauge width, but is too low height wise (HO). Both wrong, but the
perceived advantage in changing, absolutely zero. Put them in the same
train - yuck.
An example
The best ever HO offerings were the Rivarossi Royal Scot & LMS coaches
which look squat. They came out around the same time as the Airfix
varieties which at least were all to a consistent scale. As a result no
comparison.
The sole reason Athearn was not RTR was for US tax reasons, a kit had a
lower tax rate than a complete model. But they were made as simple as
possible - all you had to do was clip fit handrails to locos & bogies to
box cars, 10 minutes for the totally unskilled. Even Tri-ang's CKD
models were harder than Athearn's.
Christopher A. Lee
<kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>
>>>You and others have still not addressed the point I made that *no
>>>manufacturer has EVER produced half decent British HO models* .
>>>By half decent I mean to the standards of Athearn of the US or
>>>Fleischmann of Europe. Instead all that was ever offered to the British
>>>market in HO were wildly distorted efforts that were generally to 4mm
>>>scale width, but 3.5mm scale height. The worst possible combination IMHO
>>>;-) Yet they seemed to be disappointed it never took off, I wonder why?
>>
>>
>> The point was irrelevant.
>>
>
>I give up, all British HO has always been very poor, the fact that that
>it *was* so bad, being the overriding reason why any existing modellers
>would not consider changing to HO.
Except for the fact that existing modellers were already in OO.
You complained about the lack of quality of British OO mechanisms.
If those same manufacturers had switched to HO they would still have
had the same shoddy mechanisms etc.
But that would not have been the reason it wouldn't sell. Have you
ever seen how ridiculous a OO train including an HO wagon, looks?
Kevin Martin
>
> But that would not have been the reason it wouldn't sell. Have you
> ever seen how ridiculous a OO train including an HO wagon, looks?
>
Of course, in fact this is why I wrote
> Put them in the same train - yuck.
But since your misquoting almost everything I'm writing, don't worry
about it.
kim
news:e7sd32$ola$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
So how many _new_ items were added to the 0-gauge range once 00 had become
established?
(kim)
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> So how many _new_ items were added to the 0-gauge range once 00 had become
> established?
I've no idea, probably very few, but there's a difference between dropping
the range and not developing it further.
However, there was at least one significant 'late addition' or development
to the O-gauge range, but I can't quote a specific date, and that was the
inclusion of a plastic bodied (?) representation of 'Percy' from the
Thomas-the-Tank Engine books. No doubt someone can tell more about this.
John.
David Costigan
"Jim Guthrie" <j...@sprok01.plus.com> wrote in message
news:3k03a21l1p9ab64u3...@4ax.com...
One has to ask whether, after six years of war and in a country that was -
in many respects - bankrupt, Meccano/Hornby (or anybody else for that
matter) could have afforded the cost of dumping all their pre-war machinery
and tools and re-equipping to different standards. I have always suspected
that the main aim of what can loosely be called "leisure industries" was to
actually get some production started and some cash - little though there
was - trickling back into the tills.
Just a thought!
David Costigan
Waldviertler
John Turner wrote:
However, there was at least one significant 'late addition' or
development
to the O-gauge range, but I can't quote a specific date, and that was
the
inclusion of a plastic bodied (?) representation of 'Percy' from the
Thomas-the-Tank Engine books. No doubt someone can tell more about
this.
John.
Funny you should mention that John. My parents bought me a clockwork
Percy in around 1966 / 67 or 68. Obviously it is long gone and I always
wondered which manufacturer it was made by. Guess now I know !
Cheers
Phil
John Turner
"Waldviertler" wrote
> Funny you should mention that John. My parents bought me a clockwork
> Percy in around 1966 / 67 or 68. Obviously it is long gone and I always
> wondered which manufacturer it was made by. Guess now I know !
Not sure whether the Hornby O-gauge 'Percy' was clockwork or electric (or
produced in both variations) but I suppose I'm now going to have to dig of
Chris Graebe's book and check it out. :-)
I don't think they were produced as late as 1966-8 as Hornby ceased to
operate as part of the Mecanno company in 1963-4 and became part of the
Lines Bros empire. Certainly the former Tri-ange range was rebranded
Tri-ang/Hornby from c. 1964.
John.
Jim Guthrie
<dcos...@ic24.net> wrote:
David,
>One has to ask whether, after six years of war and in a country that was -
>in many respects - bankrupt, Meccano/Hornby (or anybody else for that
>matter) could have afforded the cost of dumping all their pre-war machinery
>and tools and re-equipping to different standards. I have always suspected
>that the main aim of what can loosely be called "leisure industries" was to
>actually get some production started and some cash - little though there
>was - trickling back into the tills.
As far as I recall, two of the post war manufacturers - Graham Farish
and Rovex(Triang) were new product lines, but I can't remember when
they started. I think Rovex started in the early 1950s, but I get
the feeling that GF started a bit earlier.
I suspect that if the BRMSB had been more persuasive, they might have
managed to persuade Meccano/Hornby to spend some time and money on
re-vampling their products. It seems that the BRMSB was always a bit
toothless and could never sustain an argument against anyone.
However, my impression on reading about the situation at the time was
that Hornby had waved two fingers in the air and started production.
Jim.
kim
Which part of "didn't have any money" did you not understand?
Like every other company in Britain, Meccano Ltd was paid only for the
labour and materials they used for war production. There was no compensation
for wear & tear on machinery let alone any margin for new investment. The
same was true for the Big Four railway companies which is why they were
nationalised.
(kim)
Jim Guthrie
Kim,
>Which part of "didn't have any money" did you not understand?
>
You have the knack of pissing people off down to a fine art.
The previous poster suggested that Meccano might have been short of
cash. They might well have been short of money, or they might not.
And I doubt if you know enough to state categorically one way or the
otherl. What I have read of what went on suggested that there was
more to Hornby's decision than lack of cash.
Hornby had several other successful product lines which would have
generated cash - Meccano, Dinky Toys and the clockwork 0 gauge line.
It might be interesting to know what the sales returns were for the
individual lines. I suspect that the Dinky line was the biggest
seller since I remember everyone in the late40s/early 50s having
Dinkies, but no where near as many having Meccano, etc. Dinkies
were toys which you tended to get at any time in the year because of
their lower unit cost - Meccano sets and model railway sets were
Christmas or birthday presents. So a persuasive BRMSB might have
been able to persuade Hornby to look again at their 00 scale line with
a view to adopting different standards.
Jim.
Kevin Martin
>
> I suspect that if the BRMSB had been more persuasive, they might have
> managed to persuade Meccano/Hornby to spend some time and money on
> re-vampling their products. It seems that the BRMSB was always a bit
> toothless and could never sustain an argument against anyone.
> However, my impression on reading about the situation at the time was
> that Hornby had waved two fingers in the air and started production.
It sounds about right to me. The business plan (using a modern term - I
know) was for manufacturers to sell *thier* system. In other words you
had Hornby Dublo trains or Tri-ang trains or whatever... and basically
pretended the others didn't exist, certainly the manufacturers did so.
It was only when Tri-ang took over the Hornby Dublo range that a
converter wagon or horsebox became available.
BRMSB certainly seemed to accept anything, quite different to the NRMA
where they patiently persuaded almost every one to using a common, but
not finescale set of standards.
Christopher A. Lee
<kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Jim Guthrie wrote:
>
>>
>> I suspect that if the BRMSB had been more persuasive, they might have
>> managed to persuade Meccano/Hornby to spend some time and money on
>> re-vampling their products. It seems that the BRMSB was always a bit
>> toothless and could never sustain an argument against anyone.
>> However, my impression on reading about the situation at the time was
>> that Hornby had waved two fingers in the air and started production.
>
>It sounds about right to me. The business plan (using a modern term - I
>know) was for manufacturers to sell *thier* system. In other words you
>had Hornby Dublo trains or Tri-ang trains or whatever... and basically
>pretended the others didn't exist, certainly the manufacturers did so.
>It was only when Tri-ang took over the Hornby Dublo range that a
>converter wagon or horsebox became available.
Everybody seems to forget that these started as toys, and as long as
things weren't too obviously wrong they were acceptable.
Peco did conversions - Triang to Peco/Hornby couplers and vice versa,
three-rail to two rail wheels etc.
I remember converting the Triang Green suburban coaches to go behind
my Brother's Hornby Southern 0-6-0 tank engine.
A lot of people mixed and matched this way. Hornby locomotives were
generally better than Triang, with the Triang rolling stock better.
We also put Peco couplings on Airfix's two-bob wagons.
Paul Stevenson
Jim,
I think you are right.
The situation as I see it just after the war, say before 1950 was :-
Trix producing in a bastard scale
Hornby Dublo in 4mm scale on HO track
Rovex and GF not started.
So if HD, who had only three loco castings in production or developed ie A4,
N2 and Duchess, had said OK we will from here on in go for HO rather than OO
it would not have been much of a problem. Much of the rest of the system was
tinplate bodies on cast chassis. How hard is it to make the next run of
tinplate sheets slightly smaller and replace the moulding tools when they
wore out?
Trouble is Meccano Ltd were rather set in their ways even then; there is the
Meccano way or the wrong way.
If they had taken the plunge then the others would most likely followed on.
Trackmaster, the precursor of Rovex and Triang, owed much of their market to
the HD influence, so if HD had gone HO so would Rovex and Triang who
followed on having bought the Trackmaster tools.. After all Triang used
that totally meaningless OO/HO scale slogan so they were not unaware.
What of the scratch builders I hear you cry! They would do their own thing
but those who were into modifying would have taken their lead from
commercial offerings.
I suspect that a great deal of the attraction with 4mm scale is that it
allows measurements across the metric/imperial system with apparent ease
whereas HO seems harder.
Trouble is that all this did not happen because of the investment in three
locos by a company that were by that point not very forward looking. It
also meant that Meccano Limited sowed the seeds of their own destruction, it
might have taken twenty years but that decision killed the company.
John Turner
"Jim Guthrie" wrote
> Hornby had several other successful product lines which would have
> generated cash - Meccano, Dinky Toys and the clockwork 0 gauge line.
But there had been no production of any of these since 1939-40 due to WW2.
There was a basis of models in OO-gauge which were of acceptable quality and
the tooling for which would not even have covered its costs since the range
was introduced only in 1938. It would have been foolhardy to contemplate
changing scales in the aftermath of the War, especially as production was
aimed at the toy market, there being no established model railway market to
aim at.
Anyway what point would there have been in changing at that time? Remember
we're talking TOYS not models.
John.
Jim Guthrie
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
John,
>But there had been no production of any of these since 1939-40 due to WW2.
>There was a basis of models in OO-gauge which were of acceptable quality and
>the tooling for which would not even have covered its costs since the range
>was introduced only in 1938. It would have been foolhardy to contemplate
>changing scales in the aftermath of the War, especially as production was
>aimed at the toy market, there being no established model railway market to
>aim at.
>
>Anyway what point would there have been in changing at that time? Remember
>we're talking TOYS not models.
I'll try and locate the magazine articles I read about the immeduiate
post war period.
At that time there was sufficient interest in the model railway hobby
to form the BRMSB and there were two (or three - can't remember when
the Modeller started) well established magazines. The Model Railway
Club in London seemed to be the leading centre of ideas, but the
Manchester club was in the forefront of cevelopments like EM.
And British modellers seemed to be well aware of what was going on in
the USA and the Continent. I know that the S Scale Society in the UK
(formed in 1946) decided to adopt the US 3/16" scale and track
standards instead if H1 (Half One) at 5mm scale which was being
developed prewar in the UK
And I've just had a dig around the web and found this about the war
time period.
http://www.doubleogauge.com/history/History2.htm
There's not a lot of real information about the post-war period, but
it is an interesting read about the discussions about standards and
the formation of the BRMSB.
Jim.
John Turner
"Jim Guthrie" wrote
> At that time there was sufficient interest in the model railway hobby
> to form the BRMSB and there were two (or three - can't remember when
> the Modeller started) well established magazines.
And what was the membership of the BRMSB? A couple of dozen at most I'd
guess.
I'd have thought that only Model Railway News was published in the post-War
late 1940s, with Railway Modeller (originally owned by Ian Allan) following
in the early 50s and Model Railway Constructor (owned by Ian Allan) a little
later.
Ian Allan didn't think there was any future in model railways which is why
it sold Railway Modeller to Peco, only to realise that there was indeed a
future and had to launch a new publication.
John.
John Turner
"John Turner" wrote
> I don't think they were produced as late as 1966-8
Which just shows how wrong you can be - the undernoted information from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hornby/ :-
< quote >
a) from Alan Esplen:
Percy Play Train was introduced 1965 in 1969 became Play Train
without the face. These were were plastic, no electric, push along
& wind up with a key. No idea when production ended. Info from Hornby
Companion series.
b) from Nicholas Oddy:-
The Percy trains were always clockwork with an interesting over-ride on the
gears that allowed the loco to be pushed along the track without damaging
the spring. This was achieved by having the second gear spindle end mounted
in a slot, when the spring drove the physics of the arrangement forced the
spindle to the bottom of the slot and the gear was engaged, however when the
gear train was driven from the wheels the reverse happened and the gear
bounced harmlessly out of engagement with its pinion. Percy mechs were
always key wound as a consequence, and used the standard diecast key
supplied with the types 40 and 50, but with the 'Hornby' lettering deleted.
The mech cases were adapted from the M1, and I think that some of the gears
might be the same size, but the arrangement in the mech is entirely
different with braking from the side and no reverse, let alone the override
system. The mechs were available from Hattons for many years, with massive
discounts for quantity purchase (either £2 or £4 for twenty I seem to
remember!) A (now deceased) friend of mine who built small production runs
of toy/model locos used to use them in push-pull couples of 0-4-0 North
British tank locos, one with the mech reversed. One loco could safely pull
the other about, and the same in reverse! Heavens knows how many he turned
out but I have pair, complete with 'Granton' over-smokebox destination plate
on the smokebox of the forward loco and 'Edinburgh' on the bunker of the
rear in true NB style. Quite delightful.
< /quote >
John.
kim
>
> "John Turner" wrote
>
> > I don't think they were produced as late as 1966-8
>
> Which just shows how wrong you can be
Takes a man to admit he was wrong! ;-)
(kim)
kim
news:44a3e9ac$0$9876$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Jim,
>
> I think you are right.
>
> The situation as I see it just after the war, say before 1950 was :-
>
> Trix producing in a bastard scale
> Hornby Dublo in 4mm scale on HO track
> Rovex and GF not started.
>
> So if HD, who had only three loco castings in production or developed ie
A4,
> N2 and Duchess, had said OK we will from here on in go for HO rather than
OO
> it would not have been much of a problem.
So the dealers and customers who had waited patiently six years for the
00-scale products they had been faithfully promised were suddenly going to
accept H0 substitutes instead?
(kim)
kim
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:48:07 +0100, "kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Kim,
>
> >Which part of "didn't have any money" did you not understand?
> >
> You have the knack of pissing people off down to a fine art.
If there's anyone in this group I haven't yet managed to offend, please be
patient. I will get around to you eventually.
(kim)
NSWGR
> Jim Guthrie wrote:
>
> >
> > I suspect that if the BRMSB had been more persuasive, they might have
> > managed to persuade Meccano/Hornby to spend some time and money on
> > re-vampling their products. It seems that the BRMSB was always a bit
> > toothless and could never sustain an argument against anyone.
> > However, my impression on reading about the situation at the time was
> > that Hornby had waved two fingers in the air and started production.
>
>From what is on the 00 gauge history site the BRMSB was nothing more
than a small group of modellers, no organisation, just an impressive
title. Analysis shows their standards are flawed and should be avoided
if you want reliable running. Another reason successful RTR
manufacturers did not embrace the standard.
> BRMSB certainly seemed to accept anything, quite different to the NRMA
> where they patiently persuaded almost every one to using a common, but
> not finescale set of standards.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Kevin Martin
The NMRA has not persuaded everyone to use their standards. Like the
BRMSB standard wheel profiles and widths are often followed, but RTR
track is not to either standard. Both the NMRA and BRMSB standards
should be avoided, if you want reliable running with RTR 00 equipment.
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet
MartinS
> "Jim Guthrie" <j...@sprok01.plus.com> wrote...
>> "David Costigan" <dcos...@ic24.net> wrote:
>>
>> >One has to ask whether, after six years of war and in a country that
>> >was - in many respects - bankrupt, Meccano/Hornby (or anybody else
>> >for that matter) could have afforded the cost of dumping all their
>> >pre-war machinery and tools and re-equipping to different standards.
>> > I have always suspected that the main aim of what can loosely be
>> >called "leisure industries" was to actually get some production
>> >started and some cash - little though there was - trickling back
>> >into the tills.
>>
>> As far as I recall, two of the post war manufacturers - Graham
>> Farish and Rovex(Triang) were new product lines, but I can't remember
>> when they started. I think Rovex started in the early 1950s, but I
>> get the feeling that GF started a bit earlier.
>>
>> I suspect that if the BRMSB had been more persuasive, they might
>> have managed to persuade Meccano/Hornby to spend some time and money
>> on re-vampling their products. It seems that the BRMSB was always a
>> bit toothless and could never sustain an argument against anyone.
>> However, my impression on reading about the situation at the time
>> was that Hornby had waved two fingers in the air and started
>> production.
>
It's amazing how much debate one little passing comment can generate.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:07:27 -0400
"Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!"
--
Martin S.
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> If there's anyone in this group I haven't yet managed to offend, please be
> patient. I will get around to you eventually.
LOL - I feel quite left out!
Sits back and waits for the attack!!! ;-)
John.
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> Takes a man to admit he was wrong! ;-)
Touché !
John.
John Nuttall
Model Railway News started in January 1925, Model Railway Constructor in
March 1934 and Railway Modeller in October/November 1949.
AS you rightly say John, Ian Allan started the RM then sold it to Peco
(after only 12 bi-monthly issues) in 1951, but the first issue of MRC under
Ian Allan ownership was January 1960, after Ian Allan bought out Railway
World Ltd.
--
Regards
John
John Turner
"John Nuttall" wrote
> Model Railway News started in January 1925, Model Railway Constructor in
> March 1934 and Railway Modeller in October/November 1949.
Didn't realise that MRC was that old! Thanks for enlightening me.
John.
John Nuttall
No problem John. For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't there at the time :-)
--
Regards
John
kim
news:44a4a123$0$201$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> It's amazing how much debate one little passing comment can generate.
>
> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:07:27 -0400
>
> "Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!"
Hardly, this is a UK newsgroup and it is an emotive subject. It's a bit like
telling muslims they should worship Jesus instead of Allah.
(kim)
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> Hardly, this is a UK newsgroup and it is an emotive subject. It's a bit
> like
> telling muslims they should worship Jesus instead of Allah.
Nah, the latter would be a capital offence, slagging off British HO is only
good sport. ;-)
John.
Paul Stevenson
"kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pqqdncuvebnH9DnZ...@giganews.com...
But this point in time represented the best chance of change and as the only
mass producer of OO the chance was in their hands. It didn't change for the
reasons I have stated; a pity I feel.
Paul Stevenson
I think you are missing the point.
And if you are being flipant, then shame on you.
kim
>
> "kim" <ntsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:HMudnRUiRYG...@giganews.com...
> > "MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote in message
> > news:44a4a123$0$201$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> > > It's amazing how much debate one little passing comment can generate.
> > >
> > > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:07:27 -0400
> > >
> > > "Perhaps the real pity is that Hornby didn't go for HO!"
> >
> > Hardly, this is a UK newsgroup and it is an emotive subject. It's a bit
> like
> > telling muslims they should worship Jesus instead of Allah.
> >
> > (kim)
> >
> Kim,
>
> I think you are missing the point.
>
> And if you are being flipant, then shame on you.
I'm not the one posting anti-4mm scale sentiments in a UK model railway
group, you are. Most of us are perfectly happy with 4mm and have no reason
to wish it was 3.5mm instead.
(kim)
kim
The only 'pity' that they didn't scrap 3-rail and start all over again with
2-rail. Hornby would probably still be here today if they had.
(kim)
kim
>
> "kim" wrote
>
> > You only notice the "narrow gauge" of British models when viewing
head-on
> > whereas the pastry cutter flanges on foreign toys are prominent from
every
> > angle.
>
> Got to agree with the latter comment - even the latest Fleischmann stuff
has
> overstated flanges, but I can live with that and also the under-scale
gauge
> of OO so I guess it's horses for courses.
And the flanges would look even sillier on British H0 models because of the
generally smaller prototype.
(kim)
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> The only 'pity' that they didn't scrap 3-rail and start all over again
> with
> 2-rail. Hornby would probably still be here today if they had.
They did of course, but not until the mid-50s, and then chose a particularly
complex form of point wiring which might account for their eventual demise.
Interesting though that the Hornby Dublo product was much superior to that
produced by Tri-ang, and yet the latter out sold Hornby and eventually
absorbed them. The only logical reason for this is that the Liverpool made
range was too expensive, and rather negates the argument that others have
used that price is not an issue, but that it is the quality that counts.
John.
kim
>
> "kim" wrote
>
> > The only 'pity' that they didn't scrap 3-rail and start all over again
> > with
> > 2-rail. Hornby would probably still be here today if they had.
>
> They did of course, but not until the mid-50s, and then chose a
particularly
> complex form of point wiring which might account for their eventual
demise.
By that time it was counter-productive and merely antagonised their own
3-rail customers, including me. 3-rail sucked but abandoning it such a late
stage sucked even more.
(kim)
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> By that time it was counter-productive and merely antagonised their own
> 3-rail customers, including me. 3-rail sucked but abandoning it such a
> late
> stage sucked even more.
I didn't think they abandoned it until the demise of Mecanno in 1963-4.
John.
Paul Stevenson
You have missed the point!
I'm not posting anti 4mm scale comments I'm simply wondering why an
alternative course of action did not happen. The chance was there and it
was not taken. Much complexity has come from that decision, it does no harm
to wonder what would have happened.
Kevin Martin
>>>
>>>Kim,
>>>
>>>I think you are missing the point.
>>>
>>>And if you are being flipant, then shame on you.
>>
>>I'm not the one posting anti-4mm scale sentiments in a UK model railway
>>group, you are. Most of us are perfectly happy with 4mm and have no reason
>>to wish it was 3.5mm instead.
>>
>>(kim)
Like Paul, I have not posted anti 4mm comments either, they have been
anti poor mechanisms comments whether HO or OO. Still, I suspect Kim
will misread something else into it.
>>
>
> Kim,
>
> You have missed the point!
> I'm not posting anti 4mm scale comments I'm simply wondering why an
> alternative course of action did not happen. The chance was there and it
> was not taken. Much complexity has come from that decision, it does no harm
> to wonder what would have happened.
>
Kim, right from the start has ignored my suggestion that British HO has
never taken off, because frankly it has never been on the market as such.
All there has ever been offered is distorted models maskerading as HO,
always the various offerings have been to HO height & OO width. All of
these have plainly failed and rightly so, not because they *were HO* but
simply because they weren't. As you realise Paul, there is a difference.
My main comments were about in the 1970s when Airfix & Mainline started
out, here was another missed opportunity for respectable HO models to be
made. Both their OO models were streets ahead of Tri-ang Hornby (as it
was a that time). Also much of the detailing kits (particularly partly
etched ones) really came into being during the same period to further
improve the Airfix & Mainline ranges.
The problem with is not with 4mm scale but with OO scale which is an
oxymoron, however anyone looks at it. Any finescale arguments, or over
size flanges etc are relevant to both HO & OO for exactly the same
reasons & are not part of the HO vs OO argument.
--
Regards
Kevin Martin
To reply - delete what is "not required" (Abbrev) from my address.
Paul Stevenson
"Kevin Martin" <kevinr...@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44a64f7e$0$20057$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Kim, right from the start has ignored my suggestion that British HO has
> never taken off, because frankly it has never been on the market as such.
> All there has ever been offered is distorted models maskerading as HO,
> always the various offerings have been to HO height & OO width. All of
> these have plainly failed and rightly so, not because they *were HO* but
> simply because they weren't. As you realise Paul, there is a difference.
>
> My main comments were about in the 1970s when Airfix & Mainline started
> out, here was another missed opportunity for respectable HO models to be
> made. Both their OO models were streets ahead of Tri-ang Hornby (as it
> was a that time). Also much of the detailing kits (particularly partly
> etched ones) really came into being during the same period to further
> improve the Airfix & Mainline ranges.
>
>
> The problem with is not with 4mm scale but with OO scale which is an
> oxymoron, however anyone looks at it. Any finescale arguments, or over
> size flanges etc are relevant to both HO & OO for exactly the same
> reasons & are not part of the HO vs OO argument.
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Kevin Martin
Kevin,
I think you have had the last word there! or as this is usenet probably
not!
As you say OO scale is nothing of the sort! Why oh why have we steered
clear of using ratios to denote scales in this country?
Jane Sullivan
<pa...@pdsteveo.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>> The problem with is not with 4mm scale but with OO scale which is an
>> oxymoron, however anyone looks at it. Any finescale arguments, or over
>> size flanges etc are relevant to both HO & OO for exactly the same
>> reasons & are not part of the HO vs OO argument.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Kevin Martin
>
>
>Kevin,
>
>I think you have had the last word there! or as this is usenet probably
>not!
>
>As you say OO scale is nothing of the sort! Why oh why have we steered
>clear of using ratios to denote scales in this country?
Why don't we just call it "OO" and leave out "scale", "gauge" or
what-have-you? Surely everybody knows that OO is 4 mm. scale running on
16.5 mm. gauge track, whether they like it or not?
--
Jane
OO and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
kim
"Abandoned" as in switching their focus to 2-rail which mightily annoyed
their existing customers. Most 3-rail fans felt immediately betrayed. The
mere presence of 2-rail in their catalogue was an affront to most of us. I
know one fan in Herts who stuck with 3-rail Hornby right through to his
death a few years ago, never considered anything else.
(kim)
kim
You said it was a "pity", which implies that 4mm is somehow inferior to
3.5mm and then questioned my sincerity in posting otherwise.
(kim)
kim
news:44a64f7e$0$20057$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
For any given gauge the oversize flanges on a larger scale model are less
noticable than those in a smaller scale. 00-scale flanges are less noticable
than H0 scale flanges. This is especially important for UK outline due to
its generally smaller loading gauge. It was the argument used by George E.
Mellor in RM to support the adoption of 00 over H0 or 19mm. So, had the UK
adopted "true" H0 as you suggest it would look even siller than continental
H0.
(kim)
John Turner
"kim" wrote
> "Abandoned" as in switching their focus to 2-rail which mightily annoyed
> their existing customers. Most 3-rail fans felt immediately betrayed.
I didn't feel betrayed, even though I stuck with 3-rail until the late 60s
when I disappeared into higher education. It just seemed like a natural
progression to me, and in some respects it pleased me that Hornby were
looking to the future.
I regularly got pissed off by a school mate who claimed that 3-rail was
unprototypical, even though his grotty Tri-ang Princess was severely under
scale. The fact that Hornby were willing to rectify the major anomoly of
3-rail track was something I could throw back at him. Just a shame that
Tri-ang won in the end! :-(
John.
Kevin Martin
>
> For any given gauge the oversize flanges on a larger scale model are less
> noticable than those in a smaller scale. 00-scale flanges are less noticable
> than H0 scale flanges. This is especially important for UK outline due to
> its generally smaller loading gauge. It was the argument used by George E.
> Mellor in RM to support the adoption of 00 over H0 or 19mm. So, had the UK
> adopted "true" H0 as you suggest it would look even siller than continental
> H0.
WTF do flanges have to do with the fact that bodies are 1/8th over size
compared to the track gauge?
Some of the GEM kits were crap, I have one here where the holes through
the chassis for axles are at approx 85 degrees.
Kevin Martin
>
>
> For any given gauge the oversize flanges on a larger scale model are less
> noticable than those in a smaller scale. 00-scale flanges are less noticable
> than H0 scale flanges. This is especially important for UK outline due to
> its generally smaller loading gauge. It was the argument used by George E.
> Mellor in RM to support the adoption of 00 over H0 or 19mm. So, had the UK
> adopted "true" H0 as you suggest it would look even siller than continental
> H0.
>
The obvious flaw in your argument that flanges are somehow related to
the model trackgauge, is that using your logic european HO models would
have needed a narrower gauge than 16.5mm. Perhaps 15.5mm?
Martin Wynne
> The obvious flaw in your argument that flanges are
> somehow related to the model trackgauge, is that
> using your logic European H0 models would have
> needed a narrower gauge than 16.5mm. Perhaps 15.5mm?
That's exactly right. IF you want a scale-width model, i.e. wheels
fitting within scale size splashers, behind scale size bogie sides,
behind scale size outside cylinders and slidebars, etc. All H0
models with r-t-r wheels are over scale width in the running gear.
The only way you can have a scale-width model AND an accurate
track gauge is to use dead scale wheel standards, i.e. proto87 for H0,
which is totally impractical for an r-t-r toy train.
If you want a scale-width model and r-t-r wheels, the sensible thing
would be to reduce the track gauge to fit. 15.5mm would have been
about right for 3.5mm/ft scale.
Question: why is the track gauge regarded as sacrosanct when
compromises are happily accepted in so many other dimensions?
Curve radii, length of platforms, thickness of cab side sheets, etc.,
the list is endless and in most cases the % error is far greater than
that required in the track gauge.
If you must have an exact track gauge then the consequence is that
you must choose exact scale wheels to go with it -- proto87, P4, S7,
etc.
Which is fine for skilled modellers but not practical for r-t-r.
00 may look wrong, but it makes it possible to fit toy mechanisms in
a scale-width model -- with the happy result that they can then be
converted to fine scale for EM, P4 etc.
regards,
Martin.
----------------------------------
email : mar...@templot.com
web : http://www.templot.com
Erik Olsen
> If you want a scale-width model and r-t-r wheels, the sensible thing
> would be to reduce the track gauge to fit. 15.5mm would have been
> about right for 3.5mm/ft scale.
Martin,
Continental modellers using 1:87 scale / 16.5mm gauge or 1:45 scale /
32mm gauge also manage to make decent models. The compromises are
different, of course, than when using narrow gauge, but it is no less
sensible.
--
Best regards
Erik Olsen
http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/