Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1

[GRASinBothell]

Thanks for the explanation, Brian. Like Kevin, I've wondered why the National Coal Board had milk floats...

I have a cream NCB one in a similar state to Kevin's. If I ever get to repaint it, I'll go for the Job's Dairy transfers, as my grandmother in Twickenham got her milk from them.

Regarding Models of Yesteryear, the table of scales doesn't include some recent ones, including YSH1 Gypsy Caravan from 1993 and YSH2 London Omnibus (also horse-drawn) from 1995. Based on the figures on them, they appear to be 1/43-ish, though the gypsy caravan is possibly a little larger.

Gordon

[Mark Carne]

I would suggest speaking to Bruce Palmer if you want a carriage truck Kevin, he does a body for a repro Milbro example, just add axleguards, wheels, couplings, buffers, paint and transfers to taste! Would certainly look very effective.

 

Mark.

[Nearholmer]

Hello mark

 

That I didn’t know, and it’s a very good suggestion, because it would be good to stay in the old style.

 

Thanks, Kevin

[GRASinBothell]

It depends how "old style" you're looking for. Derek Strickland (Progress Products) offers a vehicle carrier wagon, in the style of a Hornby wagon.

He has his own website, though his eBay page seems to be more up to date.

 

Gordon

[Nearholmer]

Thanks Gordon, yes, I’ve got one, with a tractor on it, which looks good in a Hornby rake.

 

I think to look right with Ace six-wheelers needs something a bit older in style. The ideal would be to copy the Carette one (a real one is out of reach!), but I have a feeling that would be virtually impossible without a fly press and tooling, because I think it gets its strength and shape from having the tin pressed and pierced simultaneously. Lost art!

 

While on the topic of Carette, I can’t resist posting this, which I pirated from an ebay ad. Isn’t this a masterpiece of tinplate commercial modelling? Above the sole-bar, it wouldn’t look at all out of place on a modern finescale layout. There are a few of these Carette coaches on display in the GWR ‘Steam’ museum at Swindon, and they truly deserve to be in among the real things.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

While Castle Aching is rediscovering it’s pre-grouping roots, a pre-grouping contribution from Paltry Circus.

 

A wise man recently warned me that there was a lot of overpriced old tat on eBay, and this certainly falls into that bracket.

 

Carette for Bassett Lowke, made in 1913, so genuinely pre-grouping. The GN one is a Leeds item from the 1930s, which, was dirt cheap, so the average price of old tat is OK.

 

Truth is, I’ve been aware of the LBSCR wagon since I was knee high to a flea, but the are very difficult to find, even in highly questionable condition.

 

The great thing about coarseness is that this century old wagon will happily inter-run with the latest products.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Simond]

that's standardisation for you!

[Nearholmer]

Up to a point(!).

 

The trouble is that the standard changed, not in one go, but over about 15 years spanning WW2, from ‘Greenly 1909’ to BRSMB/G0G coarse. The minimum b-t-b increased very slightly, and the flangeways were slightly reduced, so things that were at the very minimum on the old standard won’t run smoothly through ‘proper’ points set to the ‘new’ standard. Luckily this one isn’t at the minimum, but I’ve got some early-1930s wagons that are, and they leap about all over the place on my pointwork.

 

[EDIT: anyone daft enough to be following this in detail, please see post 613 below, noting that commercial makers didn’t necessarily follow the published standards, they often “knew better”.]

Edited February 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[F-UnitMad]

that's standardisation for you!

Agree! I do find that quite incredible, & to think that it really is a genuinely Pre-Grouping model - fascinating!!

[Nearholmer]

Having, I hope, provoked a bit of interest in pre-grouping ready-to-run, made when it was still modern image, here is a bit more.

 

Review photo from 1909 magazine. I would post more of these, but, as you can see, I’m having problems with my phone camera again.

 

The big picture is pirated from the Train Collectors Society website, and shows part of The Collection of Carette material. When this was displayed, it attracted sooooo much interest. It is just mind-blowing to see what could be done with tin-printing and a fly-press when the art was at its highest.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[brianusa]

The biggest problem IMHO, is that O being one of the oldest sizes means that most every manufacturer of toy trains made the track on which to run them.  With all the various makes basically the same but with subtle differences, there would bound to be problems in wheel size, F/B distance, etc.  While this might not be a problem on ordinary track, it might show up on points, crossovers, etc, even tight curvature.  Over the years, things got a little better although Hornby wheels don't like Lionel points although they clatter over OK making a satisfying sound.  Other Lionel track even crossovers fractionally lower than Hornby, presents no problem.

 

Brian.

[Nearholmer]

To illustrate the confusion to which you allude, Brian, here are a few figures culled from things on my shelf.

 

These are ‘railway modelling’ standards, not commercial supplier standards.

 

First, Greenly in 1909, the very first attempt to codify a standard for 0, and a very clever one, as it allowed for a wheelset that was compatible with tinplate and ‘scale’ track.

 

Second, Greenly again, but in the 1920s, with a diagram and table that give ‘ordinary’ and ‘special’ standards for 0.

 

Then an extract from a 1950s magazine that gives the BRMSB ‘coarse’ and ‘fine’, upon which G0G standards were based (but they aren’t absolutely identical).

 

The only way to get total compatibility with every wheel, is to have points with no ‘frog’, like tinplate ones or the old Wrenn Universal in 00.

 

For the benefit of true obsessives, the current (I think) G0G standards are here http://www.gauge0guild.com/manual/01_1_standards.pdf

Edited February 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[brianusa]

Thanks Kevin, most informative.  What would you say Hornby tinplate most resembles?  Old standard coarse, considering the vintage as its was supposed to be descendent from  German O or is it 0, as another post queries?  Also with Hornby wheels free to move up and down their axles, we hope loco wheels are within tolerance.

I was intrigued to find on the Greenly table it being described as tin-plate which should put to rest any questions on its description!

 

Brian.

[Donw]

It is gauge nought  the gauges being numbered 1,2 etc. so going smaller than 1 the new gauge was nought. However gauge O  slips of the tongue easier than gauge 0. The only person I knew who always referred to it as Gauge nought was the late David Jenkinson, although I have gheard others using it. The Germans who probably invented it called their organisation Spur Null  and the French theirs Circle du zero.

 

Don

[St Enodoc]

It is gauge nought  the gauges being numbered 1,2 etc. so going smaller than 1 the new gauge was nought. However gauge O  slips of the tongue easier than gauge 0. The only person I knew who always referred to it as Gauge nought was the late David Jenkinson, although I have gheard others using it. The Germans who probably invented it called their organisation Spur Null  and the French theirs Circle du zero.

 

Don

I never heard anyone other than DJ say Gauge Nought (or Nought Gauge).

[Annie]

Thank you Kevin for posting the old standards tables (and the highly distracting Carette rolling stock picture).  It's timely as I'm slowly getting things together to finally build my much dreamed about 'Foxwater Light Railway' and things like track and wheel standards are very much on my mind at the moment.  I'm at the stage of gradually clearing loads of junk out of the designated railway area of my bedroom that somehow accumulated while I wasn't well.  Once the space is cleared I should have something like a 15ft X 8ft space in which to build my layout.  While I have some mostly clockwork Hornby , NZ made 'Lawrence Lines' and Lionel track with the deeper rail section I'm strongly considering using 0-27 track made by both Marx and Lionel which I've got a considerable amount of.  I'm a woman of slender means so what I already have wins out by miles over what might be available to buy in the shops.  I've got some older frogless Marx and Lionel points which are my first choice for my layout as the later ones are a bit plasticy, bulky and look to be problematic with their frogs.  The geometry of these points isn't very useful though as they are designed for making trainset ovals and not much in the way of anything else so I'm going to cut them down.  The tight radius shouldn't be a problem as I'm only going to be running smaller tank engines and 4 wheel coaches and wagons, but no doubt I'm going to be learning a lot about wheel standards since I have a variety of makes of wheels in use on my treasures ranging from 'modern' Hornby plastic right back into the early 1920's and possibly older.  

Edited February 7, 2018 by Annie

[Simond]

Kevin,

 

Comprehensive post, thanks.

 

The GOG standards have just been revised, and I will post a link when I can, for some reason to do with something to do with computers, it’s not currently accessible.

 

There is also the orphan child, 0-MF, which features conventional “standard” 0-Fine wheelsets, but running on 31.5mm track, with 1.5mm flangeways. The advantage, for those of us who like such things, is that the track looks more realistic, despite being further from true scale, as you can see the 30% difference in the flangeways, but 5% in gauge is pretty much invisible, and this is coupled with far better running as the tyre actually rolls off the crossing nose and onto the wingrail, or vice versa, without the dreaded “clunk” as it falls in the gap, or bits of stuff jammed in the frog for the flange to roll on. And all my toys run on my pal’s layout, and vice versa too!

 

I’ll pop these on here too, though I know it’s a different church

 

The trouble is, it’s all Mr G’s fault. I must find the paragraph, but he remarked when designing the RHDR, that he PREFERRED models where the gauge was smaller than scale, or the bodies were larger, not sure which. IIRC, the RHDR locos are built to 1/3 scale, running on 1/4 scale track...

 

 

Best

Simon

[Nearholmer]

Simon

 

You’ll notice nothing about scale in all the standards I reproduced.

 

Much of the early, pre-WW1, material, including drawings by Greenly, is to 1/4” scale, but locos were horses of a different colour, in all sorts of scales, to accommodate mechanisms. I was looking at a LNWR 4-6-0, made by Maerklin c1912, the other day and it is huge. Not Gauge 1 proportions, at least I don’t think so, but way over scale for the gauge.

 

It took a while to settle down around 7mm/ft.

[Donw]

To be fair to Mr Greenly. I think he found the small sizes lacked the massive feel of a full sized locos and felt that beefing them up a bit improved the look. In fact when coupled with fat wheels with big flanges it can make a loco look unbalanced. When you look at a  finscale 7mm loco (especially a scale 7 one) the big loco on somewhat spindly wheels does give a better impression of the bulk of a loco than one with coarse scale wheels. Just my opinion and it does cause issues with tight radii etc. so you have to compromise somewhere. Having a loco somewhat overscale particularly when it is to squeeze a mechanism in is not so great a transgression.

BTW while my tastes may be more towards the finescale end I am thoroughly enjoying your efforts.

 

Don 

[Nearholmer]

When discussing the RHDR, nothing makes more sense that to ‘narrow gauge’ a bit. If you see a scale 15” gauge loco, it is delicate compared with the chunky machines in use there, and has far less tractive effort.

[Simond]

Well, it’s my opinion, of course, but I doubt it would have cost a great deal more to have built it to something like 20” Gauge, and maintained the proportions of the full size (I suppose 5” on every sleeper might have cost a bit!) but I do think it would have looked better.

 

I know the mechanism argument was very pertinent back in Greenly’s day, but Double-O is daft - if you could get a mechanism into an 00 loco, it would surely fit a P4 one, and having the right gauge /scale relationship is surely appealing to a significant section of the market.

 

Anyway, the RHDR, finescale, P4 and 00 have no place at Paltry Circus, please forgive the digression, and continue to have fun!

 

Best

Simon

[Nearholmer]

I think you’re missing the important point that an electrically powered loco on 32mm track was still a ‘miracle’ in 1910, just as one on 16.5mm was in the 1930s. It was the ‘miracle’ that captured the market, not some footling differences over fractions of millimetres. Such matters were the province of specialists, while the market was boys from seven to seventy.

 

But, by heck did the specialists argue about it all, right from the start.

 

The RHDR is very welcome here, Dublo too, because they’re old-fashioned. Even P4, if we can overlook 0.16mm (I can, because I can barely see it, let alone work to it), because one of the early attempts at finescale 4mm, in the late 1920s, was 19mm Gauge. More popular in the US than here, but it did have a few adherents.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Simond]

Kevin,

 

You’re right, my focus was certainly one, and possibly two world wars late!

 

Living, as I do, only a few miles from Hythe, I’m rather fond on the RHDR, and have had many a happy day wandering down to the weird wilds of Dungeness on it. It’s a delight to take an unsuspecting visitor to another world!

 

I do recall horror stories of some rather high voltage attempts in the early days of electric models, which must have scared more than the cat...

 

Best

Simon

[Ian Kirk]

Not sure if the "mechanism argument" in the reason for 00 is the right one. It is possible that someone considered the "front to front". (a little used measurement) As model wheels are generally thicker than absolute scale ones would be the fronts of the wheels, crank pins and coupling/connecting rods are not far off where they should be even on 16.5 gauge track.

A much younger me found this out to my cost when trying to convert my scratchbuilt  narrow Scottish 4-4-0  from 00 to EM gauge.

Sorry to be a bit off topic.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[Graham456]

Ian years ago I made a lot of friends! Not at a exabition I was involved in, by running a 00 triang B12 (reduced flanges only black steam roller wheels) on a point free bit of a EM layout

Sure pleased a lot of people that day, had to work at the other end of the hall the next day!

 

P S edited to point out I am not saying EM is a waist of time only that as the Rev Awdry said in one of his books about steam roller wheels

Edited February 7, 2018 by Graham456