Bachmann models & hornby track
alchemyuk
wrote the following complaint letter.
Mr Graham Hubbard
Managing Director
Bachmann Industries Europe Ltd
Dear friends
Re: Bachmann 00 Turbo 3 car 166 DMU, 31-025
I am writing to complain about your above-mentioned product.
I recently bought the above product from your agent KS models of Stevenage
by mail order. At the time of placing the order I asked would there be any
problems running this model on Hornby track. I was told quote
authoritatively that other than the 1st (inner) radius curves there would be
no problem
Upon receiving the model I found it would constantly derail itself on our
model railway, when it travels over Hornby R8075 (right hand curved points).
KS models have kindly accepted the model back for a refund.
I have checked various Internet sites and have found other people have the
same problem. (See news group "uk.rec.models.rail")
What I object to is that this "exercise" has cost me £ 7.15 in postage [£2
for the model to be sent to me & £5.15 for it to be returned by recorded
post to KS models] over something, which has occurred to other people and
must surely already be known to your company! Quite frankly I believe you
should refund the £7.15 to me and advise all your sales agents of this
problem to stop others wasting their money.
Many thanks and best regards.
Yours truly.
A Westphal
I have today received a reply from Bachmann Industries Europe Ltd.
With reference to your e-mail of 7 Dec 99, I think that your comments are
totally unfounded.
It is unfortunate that on this occasion, these wheels, being of superior
quality, do present problems riding over Hornby points. This is more the
fact that the Hornby points are not to the desired quality.
Yours sincerely
Peter Edwards
Sales Manager
It seems they are unwilling to warn other potential purchases of their
models of this problem or return me my postage.
If you have suffered a similar problem please inform Bachmann at
sa...@bachmann.co.uk.
If you have Hornby track and are considering buying Bachmann models - be
warned.
Andrew Torry
<alch...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>Having bought a Bachmann model which constantly derailed on Hornby track I
>wrote the following complaint letter.
>
>
>Mr Graham Hubbard
>Managing Director
>Bachmann Industries Europe Ltd
>
>Dear friends
>
>Re: Bachmann 00 Turbo 3 car 166 DMU, 31-025
>
>I am writing to complain about your above-mentioned product.
>
>I recently bought the above product from your agent KS models of Stevenage
>by mail order. At the time of placing the order I asked would there be any
>problems running this model on Hornby track. I was told quote
>authoritatively that other than the 1st (inner) radius curves there would be
>no problem
>
>Upon receiving the model I found it would constantly derail itself on our
>model railway, when it travels over Hornby R8075 (right hand curved points).
YEP and you would get precisely the same problem with the old style
PECO curved settrack points.
The only Wheels guaranteed to run over these curved points are ones
that you can set the inside flang-flange separation with calipers to
precisely 14.6mm. HORNBY points only work with a FF distance of 13.9.
I DO WISH MANUFACTURERS WOULD STANDARDIZE.
Regards
Andrew
Mike Parkes
>At the time of placing the order I asked would there be any
>problems running this model on Hornby track. I was told quote
>authoritatively that other than the 1st (inner) radius curves there would be
>no problem
>
>Upon receiving the model I found it would constantly derail itself on our
>model railway, when it travels over Hornby R8075 (right hand curved points).
>
>should refund the £7.15 to me and advise all your sales agents of this
>problem to stop others wasting their money.
I suspect a Citizens Advice Bureau would advise that that it should
the retailer who is responsible for the refund as they appear to have
stated that product x would work with product y - the makers of
product x are not responsible for duff advice being given out by a
retailer.
Mike Parkes
mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Dave Smith
Unfortunate you didn't check the news group before you purchased.
You see, Bachmann have kindly given us some decent wheels at last but Horn
haven't given us decent track.
I see no problem with Bachmann, more a problem with the Retailer. He should
have known and it is he who owes you the postage as he was specific that the
model would negotiate your track.
Try writing to them and their Trading Standards officer if you want your
postage costs back.
Or why didn't you try the simple modification to the Hornby points that news
group posters suggested?????
Good luck
Dave
alchemyuk <alch...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38555...@plato.netscapeonline.co.uk...
> Having bought a Bachmann model which constantly derailed on Hornby track I
> wrote the following complaint letter.
>
>
> Mr Graham Hubbard
> Managing Director
> Bachmann Industries Europe Ltd
>
> Dear friends
>
> Re: Bachmann 00 Turbo 3 car 166 DMU, 31-025
>
> I am writing to complain about your above-mentioned product.
>
> I recently bought the above product from your agent KS models of Stevenage
> by mail order. At the time of placing the order I asked would there be any
> problems running this model on Hornby track. I was told quote
> authoritatively that other than the 1st (inner) radius curves there would
be
> no problem
>
> Upon receiving the model I found it would constantly derail itself on our
> model railway, when it travels over Hornby R8075 (right hand curved
points).
>
> KS models have kindly accepted the model back for a refund.
>
> I have checked various Internet sites and have found other people have the
> same problem. (See news group "uk.rec.models.rail")
>
> What I object to is that this "exercise" has cost me £ 7.15 in postage [£2
> for the model to be sent to me & £5.15 for it to be returned by recorded
> post to KS models] over something, which has occurred to other people and
> must surely already be known to your company! Quite frankly I believe you
> should refund the £7.15 to me and advise all your sales agents of this
> problem to stop others wasting their money.
>
David Charlesworth GRA
You should be thankful the shop made a refund at all. It is not their
fault you are running a scale model on toy track.
I run Bachmann and Hornby on finescale (some handmade and some Peco).
With mods to checkrails on the handmade track and the back-to-back on
the Hornby models all my stock runs. (Lima has no-chance on finescale
and needs new wheels or existing ones turning down.)
The latest Bachmann must be the best UK profile off-the-shelf models
around. I like to support Hornby whenever possible but hope they will
try and split their range between what would be described as toys and
scale models.
--
David Charlesworth GRA - Notions by Design Tel: 01246 237729
Graphic design, artwork, print and illustration.
Website: http://www.notions.co.uk
John Sullivan
Torry <apkt...@csm.ex.ac.uk>
>I DO WISH MANUFACTURERS WOULD STANDARDIZE.
Really? And Anthony New wishes that they wouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to
discuss this with him outside?
>
>Regards
>
>Andrew
--
John Sullivan
-------------
Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
Mike Parkes
>I like to support Hornby whenever possible but hope they will
>try and split their range between what would be described as toys and
>scale models.
And why don't they integrate the old Dapol/Airfix models better.
Judging from the calendar with the latest BRM Hornby are going to
release the Patriot with its cr*p tender, even though they now have
the Airfix Fowler tender tooling. Okay so it may need a bit of
fiddling re loco-tender connection given that the Airfix tender relies
on the loco for pick-ups, but that shouldn't be beyond the braincell
at Margate or is it all Chinese thinking now.
Mike Parkes
mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Harry Mantheakis
the latest Model Railway Collector magazine had the same problem. The
engine derailed on his Curved Hornby Points until (that is) he "reset"
his track...
The reviewer did not explain how he reset his Hornby track, but I think
the evidence is mounting that Bachmann stock and Curved Horny Points do
not mix.
My Bachmanns seem to work well on the standard (straight) Hornby points.
For what it is worth, I had exactly the same problem as you - same
stock, same curved points, same derailments.
See the following thread...
http://x28.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/viewthread.xp?AN=550577415&search=thread&
svcclass=dnold&ST=PS&CONTEXT=945260020.1125515277&HIT_CONTEXT=945260020.
1125515277&HIT_NUM=2&recnum=%3c813uom$t63$1...@nnrp1.deja.com%3e%231/1&grou
p=uk.rec.models.rail&frpage=getdoc.xp&back=clarinet
...or do a search for the following thread "Hornby Curved Points Derail
My Trains!" in PAST messages (not recent messages.)
Harry Mantheakis
London
In article <38555...@plato.netscapeonline.co.uk>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Howell
Has anyone noticed that Hornby are selling locos with wheels to two
standards....the old and also similar to Bachman...
I wonder how their fine scale wheels work on their old points...???
They have several models available in both wheel types...
The old Mainline and Bachman are as near to RP25 as makes no difference
other than tread width so we are nearly ar nrma standards ;-)) and with
the Hornby fine scale being in a similar situation one wonders if there
is something afoot..!!!!!! After all...all these locos come from the
same plant.
John
>
--
John Howell Chaka of Birdham MFAX-7
GM4ZQH
Edinburgh Scotland
_____________/)_____________/)______________/)______________
Anthony New
>
> Yn erthygl <38556cd1...@news.FreeNet.co.uk>, sgrifenodd Andrew
> Torry <apkt...@csm.ex.ac.uk>
> >I DO WISH MANUFACTURERS WOULD STANDARDIZE.
>
> Really? And Anthony New wishes that they wouldn't. Perhaps you'd like to
> discuss this with him outside?
>
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Andrew
>
No, I'd be happy to standardise. What I object to is manufacturers
altering their standards without consulting anyone. Hornby have been
around a lot longer than Bachmann, and their locos and track work
consistantly with each other.
> --
> John Sullivan
> -------------
> Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
> remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
--
Anthony
The biggest problem today is that people don't recognise
a reductio ad absurdam when they see one.
--------------------------------------------
Swap "no junk" with "co uk" for e-mail reply
Anthony New
> warned.
This superiority complex sounds typical of Bachman. If their wheels are
"superior" why do they de-rail? Perhaps because they decided to make
their own standard without consulting anyone else?
Mike Parkes
>This superiority complex sounds typical of Bachman. If their wheels are
>"superior" why do they de-rail? Perhaps because they decided to make
>their own standard without consulting anyone else?
>What I object to is manufacturers
>altering their standards without consulting anyone. Hornby have been
>around a lot longer than Bachmann, and their locos and track work
>consistantly with each other.
>
Historically Hornby is Triang is a toy. Now why anyone producing a
scale model would want to make it compatible with toy track?
It seems that Bachmann are being abused for improving the standards
of UK RTR models. Have you tried fitting Jackson or Gibson or Romford
wheels to your stock - they will also object to Hornby points and have
been around for years. Maybe you are happy with traction engine wheels
on your stock and 15 inch radius curves but this anti-Bachmann thread
is getting beyond a joke.
Mike Parkes
mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Christopher Vernell
> Interestingly enough the reviewer of the new Bachmann Pannier Tank in
> the latest Model Railway Collector magazine had the same problem. The
> engine derailed on his Curved Hornby Points until (that is) he "reset"
> his track...
>
I had trouble with Hornby 0-6-0s (the ones with the flexible [i.e. sloppy]
chassis) on Peco Setrack curved points: they refused to take the inside
curve. The trouble was cured when I got rid of the useless traction tires.
Can't say I have much use for Hornby; didn't like 'em when they were
Tri-ang, either. They could easily have done much better than they do, and
still kept the "toy train" market. See Athearn, the better Lifelike, Atlas.
I find it mildly amusing that Bachmann is regarded as a pretty good thing in
the UK, and a thoroughly bad thing in North America. There's a moral in
there somewhere.
Churnet Valley Model Railway Dept
re-released the model that the Dapol Class 56 always refused Hornby points
with the non-powered bogie?
I remember regauging five in one year once cause they came off at points and
curves!
http://www.cvmrd.freeserve.co.uk
ps we have a new extension to out site due for launch this weekend on the
Leek & Manifold. More details to follow
Bill Bedford
>
> This superiority complex sounds typical of Bachman. If their wheels are
> "superior" why do they de-rail? Perhaps because they decided to make
> their own standard without consulting anyone else?
Rubbish -- they (or their suppliers) are doing what they have always
done -- using the tools they have to hand, i.e. the same machines that
produce wheels for the US market are also producing wheels for the UK
market.
As far as they are concerned, if this redefines the UK market well so be
it. Customers still have a choice as to which produces they buy.
--
SQUEAK.
Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Nottingham Rob
Anthony New wrote in message <3857C8...@wsi.no.junk>...
<SNIP>
>No, I'd be happy to standardise. What I object to is manufacturers
>altering their standards without consulting anyone. Hornby have been
>around a lot longer than Bachmann, and their locos and track work
>consistantly with each other.
</SNIP>
In my experience it is very rare to find anything from Hornby that 'works
consistently'!
ROB
Chris White
...
> "superior" why do they de-rail? Perhaps because they decided to make
> their own standard without consulting anyone else?
Isn't this at the heart of the debate on wheel standards you, Anthony,
yourself started, i.e. there is no recognised (N.B. I'd like to emphasise the
use of 'recognised' as against 'existant') standards body, equivalent to the
NRMA, in the UK to consult?
--
Chris White
Harry Mantheakis
Christopher Vernell <cver...@home.com> wrote:
> I had trouble with Hornby 0-6-0s (the ones with the flexible
> [i.e. sloppy] chassis) on Peco Setrack curved points: they
> refused to take the inside curve. The trouble was cured when
> I got rid of the useless traction tires. (snip)
Christopher, any idea how (or why) the traction tires were affecting the
Hornby 0-6-0's when taking the inside curves on Peco points?
Just thirsting for technical clarification. (Knowledge is freedom, and
all that...)
TIA and kind regards
Harry Mantheakis
London, UK
---
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>
> >
> > This superiority complex sounds typical of Bachman. If their wheels are
> > their own standard without consulting anyone else?
>
> done -- using the tools they have to hand, i.e. the same machines that
> produce wheels for the US market are also producing wheels for the UK
> market.
>
> As far as they are concerned, if this redefines the UK market well so be
> it. Customers still have a choice as to which produces they buy.
>
> --
> SQUEAK.
>
> Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Bill I'm surprised and shocked! <g>
How is this behaviour compatible with standardistation? Making what is
cheap and convenient because you sell it in another market is NOT the
way to maintain standardisation in the UK market. Or does
standardisation simply mean "making what you want and expecting everyone
else to copy you"?.
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>Making what is
>cheap and convenient because you sell it in another market is NOT the
>way to maintain standardisation in the UK market.
That's assuming that there's some semblance of standardisation in the
UK market to conform to - and I think that's where we all came in :-)
Jim.
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New wrote:
> ...
> > "superior" why do they de-rail? Perhaps because they decided to make
> > their own standard without consulting anyone else?
>
> yourself started, i.e. there is no recognised (N.B. I'd like to emphasise the
> use of 'recognised' as against 'existant') standards body, equivalent to the
> NRMA, in the UK to consult?
>
> --
> Chris White
Absoultely, Chris. There was a "de facto" standard observed by most
manufacturers from sometime in the 1960's, which was (I agree) a very
coarse standard, but one which allowed virtually all models to run on
everyone's track. I don't think I ever had repeated problems of
compatibility in the 1960's or 1970's.
What happened was that several manufacturers each decided to "improve"
their models with finer wheels. Yes, that improved appearance. Yes, it
helped the hobby to move from toys to proper models, and yes, it is
desirable (I'm not a complete luddite, you know). However with no formal
standards body the resulting variations have disrupted the informal
standardisation and caused problems of compatibility that did not exist
before, or at least have greatly increased the problems.
The question is, what can be done about it?
My own personal view is that the models are the important things which I
want to run (so far as possible) in their original condition, and I
don't much care what make of track they run on, since the only practical
rtr track at the moment is Peco (which is HO not 00) and Hornby (which
has ridiculously sharp radii on the points). I exclude SMP only because
they don't make rtr points - otherwise I like their track.
Therefore I propose either an agreement between manufacturers or an
individual manufacturer to manufacture a proper "00" track in two
versions, coarse and fine scale:-
Coarse scale is to cater for all existing rtr stock made after 1960 with
the proviso that a minimum back-to-back of (say) 13.5mm and a maximum
flange depth of (say) 2.5mm may require_a_few_of the earliest models
(and some of Bachmann's) to be modified; once fixed, the coarse scale is
to be held for all time to permit running of "heritage" models into the
distant future.
Fine scale is to be made to some suitable standard which either accepts
current Bachmann and (I would argue) other recent makes (say Airfix,
Mainline, and Dapol) or alternatively (some people would argue) matches
NMRA "HO" standards and might require *any* rtr stock to me modified. My
own view is that something like the SMP track is ideal here - I just
wish they would manufacture points as well as point kits!
Once such a standard has been agreed by all the UK rtr manufacturers,
each would be expected to indicate on each item of rolling stock on
which standard track that model would run (and to guarantee that), and
to which standard any track they make meets.
BTW I'm not proposing to set the coarse standard myself - just insisting
that for it to have any value and utility it should accept classic
models which won't run on finescale track. I believe that there are a
great many people who desire to run rtr models of various ages without
modification on a proper scenic layout; I cannot accept the implication
that anyone expecting to run Triang, Hornby, Hornby Dublo, or Wren
locomotives (for example) should be content to run them on period track
from that manufacturer, or to search through boxes of jumble for old
Peco track from the pre-finescale period.
Comments anyone?
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>
> >This superiority complex sounds typical of Bachman. If their wheels are
> >their own standard without consulting anyone else?
>
> >altering their standards without consulting anyone. Hornby have been
> >around a lot longer than Bachmann, and their locos and track work
> >consistantly with each other.
> >
> scale model would want to make it compatible with toy track?
Anyone who feels so supercillious as you do about it already has several
finescales to choose from, including P4 and "00" on SMP track with
hand-made points. Please don't ignore the very large number of people
who have cherished models (even if you consider them to be toys - I'm
not going to argue over semantics) and both wish and expect them to run
properly on track they can buy over the counter.
> It seems that Bachmann are being abused for improving the standards
> of UK RTR models.
No, for abusing their position and altering de-facto standards without
telling anyone.
Have you tried fitting Jackson or Gibson or Romford
> wheels to your stock - they will also object to Hornby points and have
> been around for years.
Why would I want to fit Jackson, Gibson, or Romford wheels unless I
alread had finescale track for them to run on? Don't forget in passing
that some of the Romford wheels were dire things that were best left in
the packet or thrown in the bin. I've never had a model yet than ran
properly on Romford wheels - the swapmeets are full of them and nobody
wants them.
Maybe you are happy with traction engine wheels
> on your stock and 15 inch radius curves but this anti-Bachmann thread
> is getting beyond a joke.
I expect compatibility amongst rtr "00" gauge items, or at the very
least an indication by the manufacturer of which areas its models fail
to be compatible. Is this so silly?
>
> Mike Parkes
> mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New wrote in message <3857C8...@wsi.no.junk>...
> <SNIP>
> >altering their standards without consulting anyone. Hornby have been
> >around a lot longer than Bachmann, and their locos and track work
> >consistantly with each other.
>
>
> In my experience it is very rare to find anything from Hornby that 'works
> consistently'!
>
> ROB
Well, in my experience it is much rarer still to find anything on scale
wheels and track that works consistantly. The country is full of model
railways - and toy layouts too - on which Hornby trains run for actual
miles without ever falling off or breaking down.
Anthony New
>
> Did anyone ever notice about ten years ago, and up till when Hornby
> re-released the model that the Dapol Class 56 always refused Hornby points
> with the non-powered bogie?
>
> I remember regauging five in one year once cause they came off at points and
> curves!
>
What did you re-gauge them to, and what were they before?
Martin
Never had a problem with Streamline
Martin
seem old)
Beltaine
Anthony New wrote in message <3858EB...@wsi.no.junk>...
>
>Well, in my experience it is much rarer still to find anything on scale
>wheels and track that works consistantly.
Then you have very limited experience, or an exceptional sense of crusade
blinkering.
Graham Evans
Len Smith
also saying that these are crap.
I don't disagree, I just want to point out that it's not only Hornby.
In my opinion, with the exception of Peco streamline, ALL curved points are
'crap' no matter what make they are and their use should be avoided.
--
Len Smith
Anthony New
I don't think so. I visit a lot of model railway exhibitions (about 30
this year so far) and am continually struck by the differences between
layouts in different scales and gauges. For example, most "N"-gauge
layouts have trains running continuously, reliably, with derailments
happening extremely rarely. I don't personally like N-gauge at all, but
I observe them running nevertheless. The same is roughly true of
"0"-gauge and 7-mm layouts, though many are of the shunting kind, and
again the giant hand is quite rarely seen.
In 3.5 and 4mm scales, though, the Giant Hand is not merely seen
occasionally, but regularly; look at almost any fine-scale layout and
the giant hand *will* appear often several times in a few minutes (yes,
there are a few where this is unusual). The only layouts in this scale
where the giant hand doesn't appear so often are those running rtr stock
on rtr track, including US and EU outline stock. I readily accept that
these are often less interesting to look at and (often) less well built
- I accept that many of the finescale layouts are superbly crafted in
every detail. But nevertheless derailments do occur with irritating
regularity at exhbitions. At the Wells finescale exhibition for example
it was actually extremely irritating - in half an hour watching four
particular layouts I only saw two train journeys completed normally, and
for the rest of the few hours I spent there derailments and stalls
occurred on occasions.
I'm sorry if you find this difficult to accept, but IMHO these
observations are indisputable, and quite evidently uncoloured by
prejudice on my part since those layouts that run best are often those
which appeal to me least; I can only think either you haven't visited
many exhibitions or are perhaps exhibiting yourself and have a
predjudiced view (it is easy for an operator to forget the times he has
had to assist locos when it may be obvious to onlookers).
Anyway, I feel this subject has been done to death and I've nothing
further to say on it. The only reason I've persisted with it so far is
to try and counter the in-built superiority complex of those on this ng
who continually imply that finer standards (meaning theirs) are the
solution to every running problem, despite mounting evidence to the
contrary.
--
Roy Langridge
Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote in message
news:385918...@wsi.no.junk...
<snip - significant story about locos falling of track>
>
> I'm sorry if you find this difficult to accept, but IMHO these
> observations are indisputable, and quite evidently uncoloured by
> prejudice on my part since those layouts that run best are often those
> which appeal to me least; I can only think either you haven't visited
> many exhibitions or are perhaps exhibiting yourself and have a
> predjudiced view (it is easy for an operator to forget the times he
has
> had to assist locos when it may be obvious to onlookers).
>
I have attended several exhibitions this year and would not say that the
trains have been falling off the track with anywhere near the frequency
you have obviously experienced. What does this say? Possibly a number of
things:
1) Your observations are indisputable - whether or not they are common
is disputable.
2) You may (and I am not saying this is the case) be attending shows
with a low standard of modelling.
3 ) You have bad luck.
What I am trying to say is that your experience differs to that which
others, myself included, have experienced. That does not say that either
of us is wrong/lying - just that statistics (for want of a better word)
can prove almost any point of view!
Roy
Chris White
around the curve. Remove the traction tyres and the leading wheels are more
likely to 'follow' the curve. Of course that's just a guess :-)
--
Chris White
Mike Parkes
>In my opinion, with the exception of Peco streamline, ALL curved points are
>'crap' no matter what make they are and their use should be avoided.
>
I've used a Tillig curved point without any problems. Its probably the
distances between the check rails and the running rails that cause the
derailments with too wide a space allowing for any non-coarse wheels
to not be checked around the curve. Peco used to provide a leaflet
with the Streamline points when they were in a coarser form
explaininmg how the gaps could be filled up slightly if neccessary.
Probably the same action is neccessary with setrack points of whatever
brand.
Mike Parkes
mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Mike Parkes
>Mike Parkes wrote:
>>
>> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> Historically Hornby is Triang is a toy. Now why anyone producing a
>> scale model would want to make it compatible with toy track?
>
>Anyone who feels so supercillious as you do about it already has several
>finescales to choose from, including P4 and "00" on SMP track with
>hand-made points. Please don't ignore the very large number of people
>who have cherished models (even if you consider them to be toys - I'm
>not going to argue over semantics) and both wish and expect them to run
>properly on track they can buy over the counter.
Very big assumption you make - I've never used anything other than OO
track bought over the counter ready-made, but like a lot of other
posters I realized how cr*p Hornby track many years ago.
>
>> It seems that Bachmann are being abused for improving the standards
>> of UK RTR models.
>
>No, for abusing their position and altering de-facto standards without
>telling anyone.
How have they altered a standard when the british RTR market has never
had a standard. Go back to the mid 70s when Airfix and Mainline were
praised for upping the standards of the UK market. Hornby slowly
responded but never fully got up that standard. Bachmann are just
continuing a trend that is decades years old at least and are to be
praised, the N and WD are light years ahead of anything that has
appeared out of Margate. If the UK rtr standards where to stay
constant as you wish we would all be using Hornby-Dublo 3-rail or
Triang Series 3 track and arguing over which one was the way forward.
>
>Have you tried fitting Jackson or Gibson or Romford
>> wheels to your stock - they will also object to Hornby points and have
>> been around for years.
>
>Why would I want to fit Jackson, Gibson, or Romford wheels unless I
>alread had finescale track for them to run on?
The odd kit built wagon, or wheels of the correct size as opposed to
whatever Hornby had to hand.
>
>I expect compatibility amongst rtr "00" gauge items, or at the very
>least an indication by the manufacturer of which areas its models fail
>to be compatible.
(
Compatible with what - Hornby don't set a standard thankfully and why
should brand x advertise the fact that one of its products does not
work with one of its rivals products. Doesn't normally happen in any
other industry.
In another posting you referred to the poor running of layouts at
model railway exhibitions. Obviously (?) you have never exhibited a
layout or been involved in running one at an exhibition. Its safe to
say that the vast majority of problems are do either to in transit
damage to a show or operator fatigue - running the same train around
for the nth time or that shunting move again eventually results in
forgetting something critical.
Mike Parkes
mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Chris Ellicott
>Bill Bedford wrote:
>>
>> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > This superiority complex sounds typical of Bachman. If their wheels are
>> > "superior" why do they de-rail? Perhaps because they decided to make
>> > their own standard without consulting anyone else?
>>
>> Rubbish -- they (or their suppliers) are doing what they have always
>> done -- using the tools they have to hand, i.e. the same machines that
>> produce wheels for the US market are also producing wheels for the UK
>> market.
>>
>> As far as they are concerned, if this redefines the UK market well so be
>> it. Customers still have a choice as to which produces they buy.
>>
>> --
>> SQUEAK.
>>
>> Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
>
>Bill I'm surprised and shocked! <g>
>How is this behaviour compatible with standardistation? Making what is
>cheap and convenient because you sell it in another market is NOT the
>way to maintain standardisation in the UK market. Or does
>standardisation simply mean "making what you want and expecting everyone
>else to copy you"?.
>
But for the 99th time, as lots of people keep saying, there is no standard, not
even a de-facto one. In which case Bachmann can do what the hell they like.
--
Regards,
Chris Ellicott
Harrow, UK.
Christopher Vernell
> In article <385825B9...@home.com>,
> Christopher Vernell <cver...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > I had trouble with Hornby 0-6-0s (the ones with the flexible
> > [i.e. sloppy] chassis) on Peco Setrack curved points: they
> > refused to take the inside curve. The trouble was cured when
> > I got rid of the useless traction tires. (snip)
>
> Christopher, any idea how (or why) the traction tires were affecting the
> Hornby 0-6-0's when taking the inside curves on Peco points?
>
To tell the truth, I didn't make a deep study of the matter. The locos would
not take the inner curve in the facing direction; they ran OK through the
inner curve in a trailing direction. They ran OK though the outer curve. I
discovered the solution when I purchased a second-hand 0-6-0 that was
missing one traction tire: it ran so much better through both legs of the
points that I removed all the other tires, et voila! I can only speculate
that somehow the traction tires were forcing the loco "straight on" over the
frog.
I do not run trains heavy enough to require any traction assistance (I doubt
that any train of prototypical size for an 0-6-0 would need such aid), so
the tires were no loss.
I had no problem with a older, rigid-framed Hornby 0-6-0 even though it has
coarser wheels, but it never had traction tires; it has the old, flangeless
centre drivers that don't really touch the rail, making it a long 0-4-0 with
jackshaft drive 8-)
I haven't run any of my Hornby stuff for two or three years, so all this is
from memory.
Incidentally, I was quite surprised to find, after a particularly unpleasant
hobby show at which we were downwind of a sawdust-spewing power-tool display
that filled my locos (and lungs) with gunk, that the flex-chassis Hornby
0-6-0s, costing Cdn$90+ apiece, have a cheapie motor costing about $5 (you
don't replace the brushes, you replace the motor). No wonder they don't
shunt worth a damn, unless you like shunting at warp speed -- but that's
another newsgroup. Me, I beamed into North American N-scale years ago, where
$90 buys you a *good* loco.
Christopher Vernell
More or less what I concluded. Anyway, no traction tires, no problem.
Martin
Harry Mantheakis
"Len Smith" <lens...@rmrailways.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> As Hornby points are NOW almost identical to Peco settrack, then you
> are also saying that these are crap.
> I don't disagree, I just want to point out that it's not only Hornby.
> points are 'crap' no matter what make they are and their use should
> be avoided.
Len, how do Peco streamline curved points differ from the others, and
why does that make them better?
BTW that is an innocent question. I am still learning...
Kind regards
Graeme Hearn
Hornby Track, in the same Austrian factory.
I think the selection of track that you use on your layout is your
choice. I do not think anyone has the right to tell someone that does not
use what you use is using Crap.
Most Bachmann locos I have ran are of various standards of Quality
from pure Crap to not so bad. But the one thing that Hornby has over Most
Brands is the Availability of Spare Parts. You can still get most Spares for
locos made back in the 50's.
I believe that the new 9f and Flying Scotsman have been completely
changed and improved. Has anyone seen them yet or is it a case of its Hornby
so it must be Crap. Is the Modellers version of Snobbery.
I believe that if you want to run a 1950's Jinty on Triang series 3
track, that is your business and should be allowed to enjoy your hobby and
have fun, and not have snobs tell them that they are not Fair Dinkum because
they are not running what you think they should run. You have a choice what
you run why don't you let others have a choice.
Graeme Hearn
"Martin" <mar...@jotika.com> wrote in message
news:83ar1r$9ek$3...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Harry Mantheakis
a...@wsi.no.junk wrote:
(snip)
> What happened was that several manufacturers each decided to "improve"
> their models with finer wheels. Yes, that improved appearance. Yes, it
> helped the hobby to move from toys to proper models, and yes, it is
> desirable (I'm not a complete luddite, you know). However with no
formal
> standards body the resulting variations have disrupted the informal
> standardisation and caused problems of compatibility that did not
exist
> before, or at least have greatly increased the problems.
As a newcomer I see incompatibility between currently manufactured
products as an vital issue, which will undermine the hobby if it
continues.
(snip, snip)
> BTW I'm not proposing to set the coarse standard myself - just
insisting
> that for it to have any value and utility it should accept classic
> models which won't run on finescale track. I believe that there are a
> great many people who desire to run rtr models of various ages without
> modification on a proper scenic layout;
(snip)
As a newcomer I see the need for classic models (Triang, Hornby, Hornby
Dublo, Wren) to run on new track as less important. (I have no old
stock.)
The market more than likely cannot afford to maintain the two standards
that Anthony is suggesting. I think it is safe to assume that we can
only have one standard.
So where do we compromise?
Do we stop enhancing new models to allow classic models to run on new
layouts, or do we exclude classic models from new layouts, and allow new
models to become more sophisticated, and refined?
As a newcomer I like the improvements that Bachmann is making, and I
would not expect to mix new models with classic models.
As a newcomer I would also venture to suggest that those with classic
models more than likely possess (or have access to) older/existing
tracks and layouts which will accommodate their stock for some time to
come.
> (Anthony continued) I cannot accept the implication that
> anyone expecting to run Triang, Hornby, Hornby Dublo, or Wren
> locomotives (for example) should be content to run them on period
track
> from that manufacturer, or to search through boxes of jumble for old
> Peco track from the pre-finescale period.
And that is the nub of it. Is it really such a big deal to agree to
adopt finescale standards knowing that classic models will be left to
run on period track?
Now let me just go and duck under that table... :-)
Harry Mantheak
Christopher Vernell
> In another posting you referred to the poor running of layouts at
> model railway exhibitions. Obviously (?) you have never exhibited a
> layout or been involved in running one at an exhibition. Its safe to
> say that the vast majority of problems are do either to in transit
> damage to a show or operator fatigue - running the same train around
> for the nth time or that shunting move again eventually results in
> forgetting something critical.
>
Not to mention what happens when wooden modules that have spent hours in a
trailer at -20C and almost no humidity are assembled into a layout in an
overheated hall humidified by the exhalations of many people. That 40+C
temperature change plays merry hell with line, level and expansion gaps.
I agree about operator fatigue 8-)
Bill Bedford
>
> Absoultely, Chris. There was a "de facto" standard observed by most
> manufacturers from sometime in the 1960's, which was (I agree) a very
> coarse standard, but one which allowed virtually all models to run on
> everyone's track. I don't think I ever had repeated problems of
> compatibility in the 1960's or 1970's.
>
> What happened was that several manufacturers each decided to "improve"
> their models with finer wheels. Yes, that improved appearance. Yes, it
> helped the hobby to move from toys to proper models, and yes, it is
> desirable (I'm not a complete luddite, you know). However with no formal
> standards body the resulting variations have disrupted the informal
> standardisation and caused problems of compatibility that did not exist
> before, or at least have greatly increased the problems.
>
> The question is, what can be done about it?
>
> My own personal view is that the models are the important things which I
> want to run (so far as possible) in their original condition, and I
> don't much care what make of track they run on, since the only practical
> rtr track at the moment is Peco (which is HO not 00) and Hornby (which
> has ridiculously sharp radii on the points). I exclude SMP only because
> they don't make rtr points - otherwise I like their track.
>
> Therefore I propose either an agreement between manufacturers or an
> individual manufacturer to manufacture a proper "00" track in two
> versions, coarse and fine scale:-
> Comments anyone?
Are you also willing to underwrite the tooling cost & production costs
of these "new" product?
PS What other consumer products do you still regulary use that were
bought in the 1960s or 1970s?
--
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things you know
nothing about.
Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Bill Foote
"C", work beautifully
Bill Foote
have been "Our Tumble Dryer", but I replaced it, after >23 years
continuous use with the only servicing ever needed being one
replacement drive belt, yesterday afternoon, the timer unit having
eventually failed!
Bill Foote
in the tools and switch between Steel & Nickel-Silver rail section
- bar these details current Hornby and Peco Set Track are
identical - when the Austrian contract started the two suppliers
(Peco & Rovex) took some pains to make a marketing point out of
this compatibility
Just for once Peco (and Rovex) were behaving with foresight, and
were actually doing what all the committees (or internet whingers)
in the U.K. will never achieve - THEY CREATED A (de facto) U.K.
STANDARD
END OF THREAD
Jim Guthrie
<manth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Harry,
>Len, how do Peco streamline curved points differ from the others, and
>why does that make them better?
>
>BTW that is an innocent question. I am still learning...
It could be down to the basic geometry of a curved turnout. Unless
you have very widely different radii for both legs, a curved turnout
tends to be longer than the average "normal" turnout and the crossing
angle becomes much less (in degrees). The smaller the angle of the
crossing, the longer the gap at the crossing nose. With coarser
track standards like the Hornby ones, this gap could be quite large,
giving your stock wheels plenty of room to deviate, when the
back-to-back dimensions are not truly compatible.
If the track manufacturer has tried to shorten the length of their
curved turnout by making the inner radius very tight then the crossing
angle will become bigger and the gap be decreased. But you will then
have the situation of wheels trying to find their way round a tight
curve with, effectively, a rail break in the outer rail. Once
again, the check rail will have its work cut out to prevent the wheel
going through the crossing going "wrong side", and the outer rail
wheel flanges will probably be in constant contact with the rail head,
just looking for any irregularity which will cause them to derail.
So in either case, if your wheels and track are not compatible, your
likely to have problems. Peco pointwork probably works better since
its standards are more compatible with a wider range of wheel
standards.
Jim.
Chris White
...
> replacement drive belt, yesterday afternoon, the timer unit having
> eventually failed!
That could easily be replaced or repaired :-)
--
Chris White
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true." Robert Wilensky, University of Califronia
Chris White
...
> trailer at -20C and almost no humidity are assembled into a layout in an
> overheated hall humidified by the exhalations of many people. That 40+C
Remind me not to attend one of your exhibitions :-)
Chris White
>
> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>
> > Therefore I propose either an agreement between manufacturers or an
> > individual manufacturer to manufacture a proper "00" track in two
> > versions, coarse and fine scale:-
>
> > Comments anyone?
>
> Are you also willing to underwrite the tooling cost & production costs
> of these "new" product?
I'd suggest Peco are already halfway there with 'Setrack' and 'Streamline'.
All that's needed is for 'Streamline' to be aligned with an acceptable
standard. Assuming Peco have an interest in the large US market it would seem
reasonable, in fact it's odd they haven't already, for them to adopt the NMRA HO
standard and obtain conformance certification.
Martin
track.
Only mods are _some_ Triang had back to back eased, (31 - inserted small
plastic washers in split axle.
BTW we normally forget about Peco Settrack, to us Peco IS Peco Streamline.
Basically we don't care about Settrack and Hornby being the same as we were
discussing Peco Streamline.
Sounds like Settrack is crap as well.
I moved over when I found the reason for my Mainline Peaks _ALWAYS_
derailing.
Anthony New
> What I am trying to say is that your experience differs to that which
> others, myself included, have experienced. That does not say that either
> of us is wrong/lying - just that statistics (for want of a better word)
> can prove almost any point of view!
>
> Roy
ok, fairy nuff. Lets turn to more interesting things!
Anthony New
(snip)
> So in either case, if your wheels and track are not compatible, your
> likely to have problems. Peco pointwork probably works better since
> its standards are more compatible with a wider range of wheel
> standards.
>
> Jim.
I'd agree with that, with a few reservations. As I've commented
elsewhere Peco have altered their points many times over the past three
decades or so, and for much of the time have also been selling fine and
coarse standard points (predating the code-70 introduction ISTR).
Looking back through my collection of Peco points last night I found a
wide variation in the back-to-back measurements in the frog-check rail
area; variations from 12.9 to 13.9mm, in fact. Some of the coarser
Hornby wheelsets would not run through some of the points, but would do
so easily on others. The few Bachmann vehicles I tried actually ran all
right through all of them, but I guess there may possibly be a problem
in some circumstances.
Paradoxically there is little correlation between running and appearance
of the track, since both the flangeway clearance and the check-rail
clearance have varied and it is the former which tends to make the point
look finer scale. This does mean, however, that it is very easy to have
a couple of problem points on your layout and not to realise why.
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
Bachman don't sell "00" track in the UK. If they expect their rolling
stock to run on other people's, they have a duty both to ensure
compatibility and to state clearly any lack of compatibility.
>
> In another posting you referred to the poor running of layouts at
> model railway exhibitions. Obviously (?) you have never exhibited a
> layout or been involved in running one at an exhibition. Its safe to
> say that the vast majority of problems are do either to in transit
> damage to a show or operator fatigue - running the same train around
> for the nth time or that shunting move again eventually results in
> forgetting something critical.
>
Wrong on all counts.
> Mike Parkes
> mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Anthony New
>
> Not to mention what happens when wooden modules that have spent hours in a
> trailer at -20C and almost no humidity are assembled into a layout in an
> overheated hall humidified by the exhalations of many people. That 40+C
> temperature change plays merry hell with line, level and expansion gaps.
> I agree about operator fatigue 8-)
Excuse me, are you offering reasons why derailments occur or denying
they do?
Anthony New
> But for the 99th time, as lots of people keep saying, there is no standard, not
> even a de-facto one. In which case Bachmann can do what the hell they like.
>
> --
No, IMHO you are quite wrong. The problem is not that there are *no*
standards, but no *agreed* standards which is quite different. Hornby
have their own standard, which works extremely well. Virtually all their
rtr stock (and almost everyone elses too, for that matter) runs properly
on Hornby track - all versions of their track from 1960-something to
date run most post-war "00" rolling stock. That is an important and
significant fact.
Other manufacturers of rolling stock have appeared and made what they
choose without (a) making track suitable for it, (b) stating who's track
they expect their stock to run on, or (c) agreeing to use an existing
standard of (for example) Hornby.
Another manufacturer (Peco) of track who has virtually no rtr rolling
stock on sale has made track for several decades for use by other
manufacturers, but appears to alter its specification frequently with no
consideration of UK manufacturers (perhaps because of foreign HO
sales?).
Note I am not offering any comment on the quality or desirability of
these items, merely their compatibility. It is very easy for someone
concerned only with a particular aspect of the hobby to ignore the
compatibility issues which affect other people.
These are (IMHO) the problems - what are the solutions?
Anthony New
>
> Excuse an input from an Aussie. But don't they make the Peco Settrack and
> Hornby Track, in the same Austrian factory.
Yes, but the problem is that "settrack" points look even worse to some
eyes (eg mine) due to their very sharp radii.
> I think the selection of track that you use on your layout is your
> choice. I do not think anyone has the right to tell someone that does not
> use what you use is using Crap.
> Most Bachmann locos I have ran are of various standards of Quality
> from pure Crap to not so bad. But the one thing that Hornby has over Most
> Brands is the Availability of Spare Parts. You can still get most Spares for
> locos made back in the 50's.
Good point.
> I believe that the new 9f and Flying Scotsman have been completely
> changed and improved. Has anyone seen them yet or is it a case of its Hornby
> so it must be Crap. Is the Modellers version of Snobbery.
Interestingly I bought a new Bachmann "A4" after reading rave reviews in
the press. I haven't run it very much yet, but it is very, very good and
I am well pleased. But I also have a slightly older Hornby A4 which
looks as good and runs very nearly as well (better than much of their
older stuff). Do they get credit for that?
> I believe that if you want to run a 1950's Jinty on Triang series 3
> track, that is your business and should be allowed to enjoy your hobby and
> have fun, and not have snobs tell them that they are not Fair Dinkum because
> they are not running what you think they should run. You have a choice what
> you run why don't you let others have a choice.
> Graeme Hearn
Well said.
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>
> >
> > manufacturers from sometime in the 1960's, which was (I agree) a very
> > coarse standard, but one which allowed virtually all models to run on
> > everyone's track. I don't think I ever had repeated problems of
> > compatibility in the 1960's or 1970's.
> >
> > What happened was that several manufacturers each decided to "improve"
> > their models with finer wheels. Yes, that improved appearance. Yes, it
> > helped the hobby to move from toys to proper models, and yes, it is
> > desirable (I'm not a complete luddite, you know). However with no formal
> > standards body the resulting variations have disrupted the informal
> > standardisation and caused problems of compatibility that did not exist
> > before, or at least have greatly increased the problems.
> >
> > The question is, what can be done about it?
> >
> > My own personal view is that the models are the important things which I
> > want to run (so far as possible) in their original condition, and I
> > don't much care what make of track they run on, since the only practical
> > rtr track at the moment is Peco (which is HO not 00) and Hornby (which
> > has ridiculously sharp radii on the points). I exclude SMP only because
> > they don't make rtr points - otherwise I like their track.
> >
> > individual manufacturer to manufacture a proper "00" track in two
> > versions, coarse and fine scale:-
>
> > Comments anyone?
>
> Are you also willing to underwrite the tooling cost & production costs
> of these "new" product?
>
> bought in the 1960s or 1970s?
A car, several cameras of optical and mechanical quality which surpasses
most things made today, some hi-fi items, and (until recently) a washing
machine.
>
> --
> There has been an alarming increase in the number of things you know
> nothing about.
Yes, but I'm getting better at filtering out the unimportant,
irrelevant, and ephemeral ones to concentrate my remaining brain cells
on those that concern me <g>.
>
> Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
--
Anthony New
> > (Anthony continued) I cannot accept the implication that
> > anyone expecting to run Triang, Hornby, Hornby Dublo, or Wren
> > locomotives (for example) should be content to run them on period
> track
> > from that manufacturer, or to search through boxes of jumble for old
> > Peco track from the pre-finescale period.
>
> And that is the nub of it. Is it really such a big deal to agree to
> adopt finescale standards knowing that classic models will be left to
> run on period track?
>
> Now let me just go and duck under that table... :-)
>
Let me ask you a question in return: If a fine scale standard is agreed
(by whom?) which doesn't suit one or more of the manufacturers, then
what do they do - stop selling products? No they continue making what
they have done. There may not be an agreed coarse-scale standard, but
there will still be coarse-scale products.
> Harry Mantheak
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Churnet Valley Model Railway Dept
on the axles till we had success? Didn't take any measurements. Sorry
Andy
>What did you re-gauge them to, and what were they before?
Harry Mantheakis
> Let me ask you a question in return: If a fine scale standard
> is agreed (by whom?) which doesn't suit one or more of the
> manufacturers, then what do they do - stop selling products?
> No they continue making what they have done. There may not be
> an agreed coarse-scale standard, but there will still be
> coarse-scale products.
Anthony, this hypothetical discussion presupposes that if a standard
were to be agreed it would be agreed by all the big players, namely
Hornby, Bachmann and Peco. Lima would be obliged to follow.
There is no point in imagining that a society would set the standards
without the support of at least two of the big manufacturers.
I would also suggest that Hornby would have to be first and foremost in
any process of consultation.
With Hornby's commitment and support I think it would be quite easy to
win the rest of the battle.
Hornby may be disinclined to change standards, but one would hope they
could be persuaded to consider the matter. After all, objective of any
change would be to improve the products and make the hobby even more
attractive.
Anthony, are you implying that Hornby want to adhere to a coarse-scale
standard for all future products?
Harry Mantheakis
London
Jonathan Hall
>
> Harry Mantheakis wrote:
>
> > > (Anthony continued) I cannot accept the implication that
> > > anyone expecting to run Triang, Hornby, Hornby Dublo, or Wren
> > > locomotives (for example) should be content to run them on period
> > track
> > > from that manufacturer, or to search through boxes of jumble for old
> > > Peco track from the pre-finescale period.
> >
> > And that is the nub of it. Is it really such a big deal to agree to
> > adopt finescale standards knowing that classic models will be left to
> > run on period track?
> >
> > Now let me just go and duck under that table... :-)
> >
> (by whom?) which doesn't suit one or more of the manufacturers, then
> what do they do - stop selling products? No they continue making what
> they have done. There may not be an agreed coarse-scale standard, but
> there will still be coarse-scale products.
No, with a bit of luck nobody buys their product and they go under, or
the magazines/model shops tell the world ' product x is not standard' or
they find that one day the mould/tools to make the course scale wears
out and its better for them to produce new standard wheels. Or their
marketing department suddenly realise that NMRA standards is what the
serious modeller wants and that if they want to remain in the scale
model market they will HAVE to play the game.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Hall
Thames Ditton
My railway website is at http://www.jonhall.mcmail.com/Railways.htm
Jonathan Hall
>
> Harry Mantheakis wrote:
>
> > > (Anthony continued) I cannot accept the implication that
> > > anyone expecting to run Triang, Hornby, Hornby Dublo, or Wren
> > > locomotives (for example) should be content to run them on period
> > track
> > > from that manufacturer, or to search through boxes of jumble for old
> > > Peco track from the pre-finescale period.
> >
> > And that is the nub of it. Is it really such a big deal to agree to
> > adopt finescale standards knowing that classic models will be left to
> > run on period track?
> >
> > Now let me just go and duck under that table... :-)
> >
> Let me ask you a question in return: If a fine scale standard is agreed
> (by whom?) which doesn't suit one or more of the manufacturers, then
> what do they do - stop selling products? No they continue making what
> they have done. There may not be an agreed coarse-scale standard, but
> there will still be coarse-scale products.
With the Hornby move to Chinese production the 'continue what they have
been doing' is no longer relevent, the idea of cost saving through
standardisation will win through, and if they can buy the same wheels as
Bachman more cheaply then so be it.
Jonathan Hall
>
> Did anyone ever notice about ten years ago, and up till when Hornby
> re-released the model that the Dapol Class 56 always refused Hornby points
> with the non-powered bogie?
>
> I remember regauging five in one year once cause they came off at points and
> curves!
I don't know about Hornby points but the 56 mechanism is one of the
worst around, I have never come across a quiet one, which wouldn't be
quite as bad if they ran well.
Jon
Jonathan Hall
>
> Mike Parkes wrote:
>
> >
> > In another posting you referred to the poor running of layouts at
> > model railway exhibitions. Obviously (?) you have never exhibited a
> > layout or been involved in running one at an exhibition. Its safe to
> > say that the vast majority of problems are do either to in transit
> > damage to a show or operator fatigue - running the same train around
> > for the nth time or that shunting move again eventually results in
> > forgetting something critical.
> >
> Wrong on all counts.
So you are saying that the majority of problems that do occur on
exhibition layouts are not down to human error or the trials of moving
the layout to an exhibition but are down to finescale standards being
fundamentally floored? RUBBISH.
Christopher Vernell
> Christopher Vernell wrote:
> ...
> > trailer at -20C and almost no humidity are assembled into a layout in an
> > overheated hall humidified by the exhalations of many people. That 40+C
>
> Remind me not to attend one of your exhibitions :-)
>
> --
> Chris White
>
Standard Canadian winter weather, old son 8-)
Christopher Vernell
> Christopher Vernell wrote:
>
> >
> > Not to mention what happens when wooden modules that have spent hours in a
> > trailer at -20C and almost no humidity are assembled into a layout in an
> > overheated hall humidified by the exhalations of many people. That 40+C
> > temperature change plays merry hell with line, level and expansion gaps.
> > I agree about operator fatigue 8-)
>
> Excuse me, are you offering reasons why derailments occur or denying
> they do?
>
They don't on our N-Trak layouts ;-) but you should see those expansion
gaps at the module connections close up. We have had to change to shorter
connector tracks midway through some shows.
Mike Parkes
>
>Bachman don't sell "00" track in the UK. If they expect their rolling
>stock to run on other people's, they have a duty both to ensure
>compatibility and to state clearly any lack of compatibility.
Peco advertise their Streamline Code 100 track as being "universal" as
far as makes of models goes - Hornby don't.Following your logic why
don't Hornby state what will fall off their track, although it would
be a very very long list.
>> In another posting you referred to the poor running of layouts at
>> model railway exhibitions. Obviously (?) you have never exhibited a
>> layout or been involved in running one at an exhibition. Its safe to
>> say that the vast majority of problems are do either to in transit
>> damage to a show or operator fatigue - running the same train around
>> for the nth time or that shunting move again eventually results in
>> forgetting something critical.
>>
>Wrong on all counts.
>
So I didn't cause that pile-up on Brackley Central during a show at
Harrogate in the early 90s, or route a train down the wrong line on an
American N layout at Skipton 1999 then. Must tell those who found it
very funny at the time. And the lifted track on an O gauge layout
wasn't caused because the board got dropped while unloading.
Mike Parkes
mi...@mphgate.demon.co.uk
Andrew Torry
dimensions that I was getting at. I have a very high regard for PECO
track and BACHMANN rolling stock but HORNBY kinda have the edge on
PRICE. Hornby stuff runs beautifully once re-wheeled or at the very
least opening up the gauge a bit.
I guess you get what you pay for in this world.
Andrew
Bill Foote
When push comes to shove, the mainstream manufacturers will
concentrate on the mainstream market, which, like it or not, is
the TOY market - "serious modellers" are a negligible minority
which is far too small to keep any mainstream manufacturer in
business
Frankly, if any current mainstream outfit is likely to fall by the
wayside, it will be Bachmann UK, whose products do not like
running on the track systems used by the other mass manufacturers
(remember the mother of the awkward squaddie - "that's my Johnny,
the only one in step"?)
Having been around rather more years than most of the other people
posting here, I have heard all the arguments for "a nice new
agreed, finer, standard" several times before, and I know what the
outcome will be - just the same as every time before
BTW if you look around industry in general, you will discover that
standards set by committee often (usually?) fall by the wayside -
standards that become the accepted and established are usually
those that happen due to market force, not those designed by a
bunch of "experts"
Bill Foote
Bill Foote
(Triang, now Hornby) and Märklin have steadily refined their
standards, doing so carefully so that their existing customers did
not suddenly find their slightly older ("last Christmas's
present") models incompatible with current production
In fact, very early examples of both Rovex and Märklin Locos and
stock do not run particularly well on their very latest track - I
am talking here of 30+ year old models in the case of Hornby and
45+ in the case of Märklin - as these products were primarily
intended as toys, their life expectancy was never thought of in
such large numbers
Harry Mantheakis
> (snip) ... Having been around rather more years than most of
> the other people posting here ... (snip)
Bill, you have not posted a reply to the "What is the average age of
folks on this newsgroup" over at "rec.models.railroad" :-)
Chris White
...
> >> say that the vast majority of problems are do either to in transit
> So I didn't cause that pile-up on Brackley Central during a show at
> Harrogate in the early 90s, or route a train down the wrong line on an
> American N layout at Skipton 1999 then. Must tell those who found it
To be fair to Anthony I'd point out that the post says '... vast majority
...'. From anecdotal recollection most of the problems when running Pengwynn
Crossing at shows can be attributed to a Lima 08 chassis that always stall
exiting one point because of a slight dip in the running rails, an even rail
where I added an electrical break entering the fiddle yard (I really must fix
that one day), twin bogie diesels stalling when straddling the frogs on
crossovers and buffer locking due to three or screw link couplings installed
without springs and /or siezed up with paint. Conversely Pengwynn using Peco 00
Streamline and a mixture of Hornby and Lima RTR locomotives so it's nothing to
do with finescale standards.
Chris White
...
> Anthony, this hypothetical discussion presupposes that if a standard
> were to be agreed it would be agreed by all the big players, namely
> Hornby, Bachmann and Peco. Lima would be obliged to follow.
>
> There is no point in imagining that a society would set the standards
> without the support of at least two of the big manufacturers.
At the risk of sounding like some zealous accolyte I'd again refer to the
NMRA here. Regardless of what your attitude to their standards it is undeniable
that they have defined a set of standards and, every bit as importantly, a
certification process for conformance to those standrds. Hence it is,
reasonably, safe to assume if an item carries the NRMA conformance mark it will
be compatible with other items carrying the same mark. I believe it is equally
true to say that this didn't happen overnight.
One of the arguments for adopting the NMRA standards is that you are also
buying into this process and most model products of interest to UK modellers are
likely to have a stake in the US market, and hence an interest in NMRA
conformance. Lastly if we're talking about wheel and track standards then all
you're asking is that RTR rolling stock has a standards conformant wheelset
available, this doesn't have to be factory fitted nor even from the original
manaufacturer of the model (if your using modern image Hornby or Lima you should
seriously check out Ultrascale).
--
Chris White
http://www.bigfoot.com/~bentleymrg
Christopher Vernell
>
> "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
> eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> Internet, we know this is not true." Robert Wilensky, University of Califronia
Note, however, that the original reference was to a million monkeys, not to those
*descended* from them.
As to NMRA standards, I'm in favor of them. They are not "fine" scale in the sense
of P4/S4, but they are workable and better than H*rnby's "slightly better than the
stuff they made 40 years ago but still 20 years behind the times" offerings. At
least North American manufacturers were intelligent enough to realize (eventually)
that a common standard makes sense, and there's no point in re-inventing the wheel
-- especially when much "British" manufacturing is now coming out of the same
Chinese plants that produce "American" models.
Jonathan Hall
>
> Utter nonsense
>
> When push comes to shove, the mainstream manufacturers will
> concentrate on the mainstream market, which, like it or not, is
> the TOY market - "serious modellers" are a negligible minority
> which is far too small to keep any mainstream manufacturer in
> business
Hornby go through phases, they are currently on a 'lets focus on our
core market' phase ie Hornby trains and Scalelectrix (sp?) cars.
Following the move of porduction to china and the absorbing of the dapol
range into their own, there are a number of opertunities to change to a
finer (not finescale) standard. Remember the 'new' Hornby ex
Dapol/mainline/airfix models are to a different set of standards to the
ex margate products.
> Frankly, if any current mainstream outfit is likely to fall by the
> wayside, it will be Bachmann UK, whose products do not like
> running on the track systems used by the other mass manufacturers
> (remember the mother of the awkward squaddie - "that's my Johnny,
> the only one in step"?)
But from what I have seen Bachman are doing very nicely, every new model
release is compared against either the N class for steam or the
Warship/158 for diesel, and products that don't measure up to that
standard are being slated.
> Having been around rather more years than most of the other people
> posting here, I have heard all the arguments for "a nice new
> agreed, finer, standard" several times before, and I know what the
> outcome will be - just the same as every time before
When was the last major change in oo track? I suspect that was the
introduction of code 75 from Peco that was 5-10 years ago now before
that what was the previous change? People were not satisfied with the
appearance of 3 rail and there were a number of changes in standards
before the peco code 100 that we are all now familiar with appeared.
Just because it has come up before does not mean that it cannot be
changed, it just needs the right set of circumstances to make it happen.
> BTW if you look around industry in general, you will discover that
> standards set by committee often (usually?) fall by the wayside -
> standards that become the accepted and established are usually
> those that happen due to market force, not those designed by a
> bunch of "experts"
I couldn't agree more - perhaps that's why most of the suggestions to
move to an existing American standard, one that a significant number of
manufacturers are already able to follow, and that is proven.
I wonder if the reason for the majority not being in favour of a
European standard is that we have all seen what happens when you ask a
group of Europeans to set a mutually compatible standard - would we have
headlines - EU forces Hornby to go to HO?
Jonathan
Jim Guthrie
<cver...@home.com> wrote:
Christopher,
>At
>least North American manufacturers were intelligent enough to realize (eventually)
>that a common standard makes sense, and there's no point in re-inventing the wheel
As has been said earlier in this thread, a major factor in the
implementation of the NMRA standards was the drum beating by the US
model railroad press - particularly by the editor of the Model
Railroader.
We've never had the same situation in the UK regarding 00 gauge
standards and rtr manufacturers have been allowed to maintain their
blinkered policy of manufacturing to their own standards and to hell
with anyone else. We need someone to persuade them (the
manufacturers) to bite the bullet and conform to a set of track and
wheel (and coupler!!) standards. Long threads on the Usenet probably
won't achieve that, but biased editorial in the UK magazines might
just do it.
There's bound to be a period of pain in the transition when, and if,
it happens. Supporters of the "old" standards may protest loudly,
but if their protests are genuine, then there could be an opening for
someone to produce wheels and track to the old standards to meet their
needs. They could also win out when the second hand market becomes
full of cheap track and stock.
And now is not a bad time to attempt to do it, when so much of the
manufacturing for the worldwide rtr market is centred on the Far East
and manufacturers might see the commercial sense of producing
everything on 16.5mm gauge to the same track and wheel standards.
We're probably now waiting on Nigel Harris to come out of "lurk" mode
to give his views on the subject :-)
Jim.
--
Jim Guthrie
S7 Dabbling at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Dick Ganderton
chosen is that what is probably the most popular track system used for
RTR models in the UK - and the USA - is Peco Streamline, and that
already conforms to NMRA standards. (At least to all practical
purposes).
Dick Ganderton
de-facto standard coupler - Kaydee, but this is not an NMRA standard.
Christopher Vernell
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:51:43 GMT, Christopher Vernell
> <cver...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> >At
> >least North American manufacturers were intelligent enough to realize (eventually)
> >that a common standard makes sense, and there's no point in re-inventing the wheel
>
> As has been said earlier in this thread, a major factor in the
> implementation of the NMRA standards was the drum beating by the US
> model railroad press - particularly by the editor of the Model
> Railroader.
>
I know.
>
> There's bound to be a period of pain in the transition when, and if,
> it happens.
As there was undoubtedly in N America, but they got over it.
> And now is not a bad time to attempt to do it, when so much of the
> manufacturing for the worldwide rtr market is centred on the Far East
> and manufacturers might see the commercial sense of producing
> everything on 16.5mm gauge to the same track and wheel standards.
>
Precisely my point.
For what it's worth, my first memories of model (toy) trains are Lionel in the late
'40s, and a bit of Hornby (real Hornby) clockwork. My own first set was Trix Twin in
the early '50s (still have the loco and wagons somewhere). My first serious efforts
were Maerklin later in the '50s. when Fleischmann was still using two or three scales
in any given item, let alone for different items.
I have run Hornby trains in a Thomas layout I built to keep kids happy at exhibitions,
but I long ago went to N. American N-scale for my own enjoyment. At least the N-scale
wheels are generally round and properly centred on their axles, which cannot be said
for the Hornby stuff I own, and whatever might be said about the Rapido coupler, it
looks and works far better than Tri-ang's rubbish design. And for $90 I can get a
really good Kato or Atlas loco, or one of Hornby's ... 'nuff said.
Roger L. Traviss
Dick Ganderton wrote:
> AFAIK the NMRA has never ratified a coupler standard! There is a
> de-facto standard coupler - Kaydee, but this is not an NMRA standard.
>
True. There is no such thing as an "NMRA" coupler. Kadee, and now the clones, are the
defacto standard.
You guys in the UK have no idea what it's like to take any of the "scale" manufacturers
rtr models from the box, drop in a pair of Kadees or equivalent, and run them all
together with no extra work required.
--
Cheers,
Roger T
Cloudy,
Victoria, BC
C eh n eh d eh.
Jim Guthrie
<cver...@home.com> wrote:
Christopher,
>My own first set was Trix Twin in
>the early '50s (still have the loco and wagons somewhere).
Likewise, but my stock has long gone as a result of a maternal clear
out when I left home :-)
However, that's when I first came face to face with the standards
problem, when I bought some Graham Farish and Peco wagons to run on
my layout and found out that I had wasted my hard earned pocket money
- and that probably scarred me for life :-). Apart from one brief
sorte into 00 gauge in the 60's, I've modelled in other scales where
standards are accepted and implemented.
Jim.
--
Jim Guthrie
Progressing (maybe) in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Bill Foote
for a standard
The U.K. is in EUROPE, where there IS a standard for couplers -
NEM whatever, which came about by the documenting a de facto
standard (basically a derivative of the Märklin 1939 H0 coupler)
rather than by committee
Also, Europe already has a de facto standard for wheels, observed
by the likes of Trix, Roco, et al (the Märklin AC, H0 wheel
standard is not quite the same, but it is not the dimensional
aspect that stops it being used on DC layouts - in my experience
DC standard wheels work fine on both Märklin and Hornby-Dublo
track)
Chris White
...
> As has been said earlier in this thread, a major factor in the
> implementation of the NMRA standards was the drum beating by the US
> model railroad press - particularly by the editor of the Model
> Railroader.
If Peco 'Streamline' is manaufactured to a published standard, be it NMRA (I
don't recall having ever seen evidence of conformance certification) NEM or DC,
then would it not be sensible for them to openly state this and, by virtue of
the business connection, would it not be reasonable for RM to begin advocating
the adoption of a corresponding wheel standard?
--
Chris White
http://www.bigfoot.com/~bentleymrg
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
Chris White
...
> The U.K. is in EUROPE, where there IS a standard for couplers -
> NEM whatever, which came about by the documenting a de facto
> Also, Europe already has a de facto standard for wheels, observed
> by the likes of Trix, Roco, et al (the Märklin AC, H0 wheel
Is the de facto wheel standard anything like the NMRA standard? If so
couldn't they be harmonised? If they could then we just need a representative
UK group to publicly advocate adoption of the NEM coupler and NMRA wheel / track
standard, I'll sign up to that.
By way of a slight deviation. I know where to find NMRA information, does
anyone have details of where to find the same for NEM and such like. Also can
anyone define, or propose, a definitive group that might be considered the UK
equivalent of the NMRA (and, yes, I know there's a UK branch of the NMRA)? I
ask this last question because having a single voice is as important as having a
single standard.
--
Chris White
Anthony New
>
> Anthony wrote...
>
> > Let me ask you a question in return: If a fine scale standard
> > is agreed (by whom?) which doesn't suit one or more of the
> > manufacturers, then what do they do - stop selling products?
> > No they continue making what they have done. There may not be
> > an agreed coarse-scale standard, but there will still be
> > coarse-scale products.
>
> were to be agreed it would be agreed by all the big players, namely
> Hornby, Bachmann and Peco. Lima would be obliged to follow.
>
> There is no point in imagining that a society would set the standards
> without the support of at least two of the big manufacturers.
>
> any process of consultation.
>
> With Hornby's commitment and support I think it would be quite easy to
> win the rest of the battle.
>
> Hornby may be disinclined to change standards, but one would hope they
> could be persuaded to consider the matter. After all, objective of any
> change would be to improve the products and make the hobby even more
> attractive.
>
> Anthony, are you implying that Hornby want to adhere to a coarse-scale
> standard for all future products?
>
Not at all. I sincerely hope they will alter their wheel standards to a
"finer" level. What I was trying to get across to those of the ng who
appear not to understand it, is that Hornby sell to an awful lot of
people who don't particularly know or care about wheel standards but do
expect all their Hornby stock to be compatible, in couplings and
wheels/track. Therefore although you may persuade Hornby to improve
their wheels and/or make their track look different, you haven't a cat
in hell's chance of making them adhere to a finescale standard like the
NMRA on which most of their previous products won't run reliably.
It therefore follows that an rtr "coarse-scale" track will continue to
be available whether or not it meets any comittee-approved national
standards.
My suggestion (for which I have been continually pilloried, I may add)
is that it would be better for a coarse-scale standard to be agreed
which would satisfy Hornby, Lima and others than for the present state
of affairs to continue. If as it appears this view is shared by very
few, then continued discussion may be pretty academic - a finescale
standard may be "agreed" but the manufacturers will continue to make
just what they have done heretofor.
Anthony
The biggest problem today is that people don't recognise
a reductio ad absurdam when they see one.
--------------------------------------------
Swap "no junk" with "co uk" for e-mail reply
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>What I was trying to get across to those of the ng who
>appear not to understand it, is that Hornby sell to an awful lot of
>people who don't particularly know or care about wheel standards but do
>expect all their Hornby stock to be compatible, in couplings and
>wheels/track.
As a matter of interest, does anyone know the statistics of how many
Christmas train sets are discarded through lack of interest by their
recipients against the number which are developed further because of
the recipient's interest. I reckon that a lot of Christmas presents
are forgotten about by the following February and that will go for
train sets too.
The parents and children who develop a train set through a genuine
long term interest might just be well informed on the state of their
hobby and an intelligent PR effort on the part of Hornby might do a
lot to offset any worries they have.
The children who lose interest quickly won't really care about any
future incompatibilities.
Christopher Vernell
> AFAIK the NMRA has never ratified a coupler standard!
Correct.
> There is a
> de-facto standard coupler - Kaydee, but this is not an NMRA standard.
>
The coupler commonly, and erroneously, called NMRA is the horn-hook (X2F?), which is
almost as much despised as the Tri-ang thing.
Kadee is the real standard, along with recent spinoffs after the patent ran out. That it
also resembles the real (N. American) thing is a nice bonus.
NMRA's standards apply to wheels, track and clearances.
Christopher Vernell
> By way of a slight deviation. I know where to find NMRA information, does
> anyone have details of where to find the same for NEM and such like. Also can
> anyone define, or propose, a definitive group that might be considered the UK
> equivalent of the NMRA
And that, once again, is the whole trouble. The UK never managed to organize a group
like the NMRA, or even NEM -- neither of which, once again, pretends to be "fine
scale". If Hornby et al would adhere to either, it would be a vast improvement.
John Howell
Is this just the reason why Hornby are currently marketing models in
both course and fine scale.......Testing the market....
As I said earlier...you can now get several models in both the old
course scale and also with similar wheels tp Bachman and rp25 .
Go and look at the prairie tank...the latest 9F and several others.
It would be interesting to see how the fine scale versions run on the
standard Hornby track??????
John
> "finer" level. What I was trying to get across to those of the ng who
> appear not to understand it, is that Hornby sell to an awful lot of
> people who don't particularly know or care about wheel standards but do
> expect all their Hornby stock to be compatible, in couplings and
> wheels/track. Therefore although you may persuade Hornby to improve
> their wheels and/or make their track look different, you haven't a cat
> in hell's chance of making them adhere to a finescale standard like the
> NMRA on which most of their previous products won't run reliably.
>
> It therefore follows that an rtr "coarse-scale" track will continue to
> be available whether or not it meets any comittee-approved national
> standards.
>
> My suggestion (for which I have been continually pilloried, I may add)
> is that it would be better for a coarse-scale standard to be agreed
> which would satisfy Hornby, Lima and others than for the present state
> of affairs to continue. If as it appears this view is shared by very
> few, then continued discussion may be pretty academic - a finescale
> standard may be "agreed" but the manufacturers will continue to make
> just what they have done heretofor.
>
> Anthony
> The biggest problem today is that people don't recognise
> a reductio ad absurdam when they see one.
> --------------------------------------------
> Swap "no junk" with "co uk" for e-mail reply
--
John Howell Chaka of Birdham MFAX-7
GM4ZQH
Edinburgh Scotland
_____________/)_____________/)______________/)______________
Harry Mantheakis
jho...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote...
> As I said earlier...you can now get several models in both the old
> course scale and also with similar wheels tp Bachman and rp25 .
John, how can this be? And how does it work? Or are you just saying that
Hornby recently changed their wheelsets, and therefore one can still
find both types on the market?
Harry Mantheakis
London
...
David Breeze
>As a matter of interest, does anyone know the statistics of how many
>Christmas train sets are discarded through lack of interest by their
>recipients against the number which are developed further because of
>the recipient's interest. I reckon that a lot of Christmas presents
>are forgotten about by the following February and that will go for
>train sets too.
And lets face it, how many kids get train sets for Christmas instead of
Action Man, Playstation, etc etc. Not many I reckon. I was in John Lewis
in Glasgow yesterday Christmas shopping, in their whole toy department
there are just a couple of trainsets for sale, a very simple Hornby
0-4-0 tank set and the same company's Virgin HST.
I can't help thinking that the toy market which Bill Foote reckons is so
important to the likes of Hornby barely exists.
--
Dave Breeze
Glasgow,
Scotland
Chris Brown
<da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> writes
>And lets face it, how many kids get train sets for Christmas instead of
>Action Man, Playstation, etc etc. Not many I reckon. I was in John Lewis
>in Glasgow yesterday Christmas shopping, in their whole toy department
>there are just a couple of trainsets for sale, a very simple Hornby
>0-4-0 tank set and the same company's Virgin HST.
Same goes for Index and Argos catalogues. From there, they are just as
likely to get an introduction to large-scale via the Playmobil sets!
>
>I can't help thinking that the toy market which Bill Foote reckons is so
>important to the likes of Hornby barely exists.
It has got to be going that way. Up until the 1960's perhaps, a toy
that moved which you could control was an exciting novelty. Technology
has moved past this, with a 10-year old now able to build empires or fly
jet fighters on his computer, or competitively race radio control cars.
So where does the appeal still lie? There are the nostalgic, the
enthusiasts of the modern railway and perhaps a few like me who are
modellers first and train enthusiasts second.
On finer scale, I cannot see that OO will survive. Anyone wanting
decidedly better standards (as opposed to infinitesimal creep) is surely
going to have trouble sooner or later with the basic problem of that
horrible 16.5 mm, and the bodies will go to HO or the track wider.
In the early days, for some reason the tender used to be sold separately
from the locomotive. Perhaps the time has come to sell the body
separate from the chassis (or at least wheel set/motion)
--
CB
Dick Ganderton
though! I enjoy both!
Roger L. Traviss wrote:
>
snip
>
> You guys in the UK have no idea what it's like to take any of the "scale" manufacturers
> rtr models from the box, drop in a pair of Kadees or equivalent, and run them all
> together with no extra work required.
>
Dick Ganderton
then the likes of Anthony wouldn't buy it, neither would the Continental
modellers. If they stated that it was to NEM standards then they would
loose the US market. The UK market doen't know what it wants, anyway!
By not decribing it accurately, Peco get the best of all worlds.
Chris White wrote:
>
snip
A Bridgeman-Sutton
American rails. Now though they have standards there's no clout behind them,
other than the refusal of the individual members to buy product that doesn't
conform.
Generally the mfrs abide by those standards in spirit if not to the letter,
but there are a number of models that don't conform to things like RP25
wheels.
There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't form a society to lobby for
these standards to be adopted, but their adoption will come down to
economics *as seen by the makers* and not through simply writing the
standards. if they see that they will sell more product at better margin
through taking the standarsds on board they'll do it. Ohterwise retooling to
suit is just a cost with little or no benefit in return
Cheers
Aidrian
(Address spamtrapped)
Christopher Vernell <cver...@home.com> wrote in message
news:385F846B...@home.com...
John Howell
You go look in your local emporium and you ll see a Fying Scotsman in
coarse scale and the same loco in fine scale....the same with the 9F and
various other models...and its not just the pony wheeels are to a finer
scale but the drivers too...
Yep that was my question......do they both run on Hornby track in view
of what has been said here....I m really surprised none of our other
vociferous friends has noticed this oddity...
The Hornby fine scale seems to be using the same wheels as Bachman which
are as near as makes no difference RP 25
Is this a marketing test by Hornby....or the thin end of the wedge?????
Our local shop seems to feel that the folk buying the fine scale
wheeeled stock will be the enthusiasts using Peco streamline...but what
happens if wee Johny wants a GWR large prairie from Santa...will it run
on last years track????
John
--
Chris White
>
> If Peco stated on the packaging that their track was to NMRA standards,
> then the likes of Anthony wouldn't buy it, neither would the Continental
> modellers. If they stated that it was to NEM standards then they would
Given the closeness of the two standards if Peco have managed to satisfy both
why not go for certification by both bodies? If nothing else mention of these
standards on their packaging would raise awareness of their existance within the
hobby, and possibly help extend this debate beyond the electronic confines of
this newsgroup.
Anthony New
>
> Bill Foote wrote:
> ...
> > The U.K. is in EUROPE, where there IS a standard for couplers -
> > NEM whatever, which came about by the documenting a de facto
> ...
> > Also, Europe already has a de facto standard for wheels, observed
> > by the likes of Trix, Roco, et al (the Märklin AC, H0 wheel
>
> Is the de facto wheel standard anything like the NMRA standard? If so
> couldn't they be harmonised?
You mean persuade the Europeans (many of whom loath the Yanks) to change
their standards for American ones?
Or expect the provincial Americans (many of whom are hardly aware where
Europe is) to drop their standards for European ones?
Dream on . . .
Besides which, what virtue would there be in that since the prototypes
are quite different anyway?
Anthony New
>
> In article <5IDlwbAQ...@sdscom.demon.co.uk>, David Breeze
> <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >And lets face it, how many kids get train sets for Christmas instead of
> >Action Man, Playstation, etc etc. Not many I reckon. I was in John Lewis
> >in Glasgow yesterday Christmas shopping, in their whole toy department
> >there are just a couple of trainsets for sale, a very simple Hornby
> >0-4-0 tank set and the same company's Virgin HST.
>
> Same goes for Index and Argos catalogues. From there, they are just as
> likely to get an introduction to large-scale via the Playmobil sets!
> >
> >I can't help thinking that the toy market which Bill Foote reckons is so
> >important to the likes of Hornby barely exists.
>
> It has got to be going that way. Up until the 1960's perhaps, a toy
> that moved which you could control was an exciting novelty. Technology
> has moved past this, with a 10-year old now able to build empires or fly
> jet fighters on his computer, or competitively race radio control cars.
> So where does the appeal still lie? There are the nostalgic, the
> enthusiasts of the modern railway and perhaps a few like me who are
> modellers first and train enthusiasts second.
>
> On finer scale, I cannot see that OO will survive. Anyone wanting
> decidedly better standards (as opposed to infinitesimal creep) is surely
> going to have trouble sooner or later with the basic problem of that
> horrible 16.5 mm, and the bodies will go to HO or the track wider.
>
Are you suggesting that finescale "00" has no future, and that only
coarse-scale "toys" will survive? I hope you have your flame-proof suit
on - I wouldn't dare to suggest that <g>!
> In the early days, for some reason the tender used to be sold separately
> from the locomotive. Perhaps the time has come to sell the body
> separate from the chassis (or at least wheel set/motion)
> --
> CB
Bachmann do - the snag is that (a) body and chassis are so closely
integrated that swapping is not easy, and (b) most of the cost and
profit are in the chassis, so it wouldn't be in Hornby's interest to
make their bodies suit Bachmann chassis, even if anyone was mad enough
to want to do it . . .
--