British Outline 'HO' - what's the story?

[rue_d_etropal]

Far too much talk about track specifics. The important fact is that the gauge is near enough correct, and it is easier for someone to start in British HO using track such as Peco HO/OO. Anyone wanting even finer track, building their own track and models to run on it is far more likely to go for EM or P4, as there are so many accessories available, many fully made up such as road vehicles, and they can adapt newer better quality r2r locos and rolling stock.

For British HO to come out from the hadows of the hobby, it needs to appeal to what used to referred to as the 'average modeller' . Nothing to stop anyone going P87, but it should not be seen as only for fine scale modellers.

I enjoy a challenge, one thing that appeals to me about British HO, but I set my sights at a realistic level(sorry about double pun). For some that might not be realistic enough, but I often see on so called fine scale layouts some very big howlers , in particular with buildings, brick ones mainly, and with my British HO project try to only use model building kits with correct(or near correct) brickwork. Auhagen building kits have a very nice Flemmish bond. Many USA building kits use stetcher bond, so only really suitable for more modern buildings.

For track, the differences between types of track used in differnt locations is possibly more important than getting it exactly correct. Using heavier rail for mainline, and lighter weight rail for sidings, is far more effective. Most people don't notice that a specific rail is too big, but will notice when too sections of rail are different.

I model in far more scales and gauges than most people, even OO. For it is odd that older track made by GEM, Graham Farish and Hornby Dublo actually looks better, despite having an incorrect sleeper to gauge ratio. I am using a mixture of those tracks for one of my OO projects, but for the odd point I am still using Peco Setrack! Even if something does not quite look right(and it can be disguised ), I would rather have something that works well, rather than something that just looks pretty but does not work. I build working model railways,not static dioramas.

[Philou]

Careful in talking about wall bonds - there's Flemish, English and garden bond, plus your stretcher bond. Don't forget your Queen closures too. The biggest howler I have yet seen was a plastic engine shed reviewed in the Railway Modeller for one of the larger scales (possibly 0) where the bonding didn't match at the quoins (not corners, please) AND the slates were shown as grooves all round, whereas the coursing should have overlapped horizontally with the tiniest groove along each 'vertical' edge, as the gap between slates is of the order of 2/3mm which at 4mm scale is approximately 0.03/0.04mm and for 0 about double (0.05/0.07mm). At that scale there was absolutely no excuse!

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[rue_d_etropal]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

Careful in talking about wall bonds - there's Flemish, English and garden bond, plus your stretcher bond. Don't forget your Queen closures too. The biggest howler I have yet seen was a plastic engine shed reviewed in the Railway Modeller for one of the larger scales (possibly 0) where the bonding didn't match at the quoins (not corners, please) AND the slates were shown as grooves all round, whereas the coursing should have overlapped horizontally with the tiniest groove along each 'vertical' edge, as the gap between slates is of the order of 2/3mm which at 4mm scale is approximately 0.03/0.04mm and for 0 about double (0.05/0.07mm). At that scale there was absolutely no excuse!

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Also different names depending on country. Have seen English bond called Engineering bond. As I am living in Accrington(NORI brick country), I see quite a few less common bonds. Variations on Garden Wall Bond, with different number of rows of stretcher bond. Many USA/Canadian buildings use Colonial bond which is a 7 row repeat. Round here both 6(normal) and 5 row repeats are used. Sometimes the term French bond is used. Stretcher bond(modern style) was first used round here about 1904(date is on one row of houses), but for anything other than houses stretcher bond only came in much later.

Far too model kits use stretcher bond, and even new ones. Yet some old Triang buildings(1960s) use Flemish bond, when I would have expected stretcher bond.

 

Overall I prefer to see something that feels right. I also prefer 3d not printed, except for purely background.

Having said that one feature of French buildings I like is the 'smooth' cement rendering, but you have to be careful with variety of roof tiles. What I think of as a pantile is not same everywhere. I am sometimes not certain about French brickwork in drawings as it is often drawn as stretcher bond. That might be correct, but I am not certain, unless I see a photo of building. Often seen French models using what is in effect 4mm scale brickwork in places, and having to adjust number of rows.

[47137]

4 hours ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Far too much talk about track specifics. The important fact is that the gauge is near enough correct, and it is easier for someone to start in British HO using track such as Peco HO/OO. Anyone wanting even finer track, building their own track and models to run on it is far more likely to go for EM or P4, as there are so many accessories available, many fully made up such as road vehicles, and they can adapt newer better quality r2r locos and rolling stock.

For British HO to come out from the hadows of the hobby, it needs to appeal to what used to referred to as the 'average modeller' . Nothing to stop anyone going P87, but it should not be seen as only for fine scale modellers.

 

Absolute nonsense. There is no "facts" here at all - just your opinions. People are free to pursue the hobby any way they wish - and should be free to discuss their preferred approaches here.

 

Why do you butt in, and why do you choose a time of day when one contributor is at a time zone in the small hours?

 

- Richard.

 

[Andy Reichert]

All my US HO sleepers are scaled to 9" wide by 7" deep. Length varies from 8 ft, then 8-6, then 9 ft mostly due to era when laid. Longer ties support the heavier later trains. The rail in the picture is code 55 FB sitting on commercial moulded plastic tie base sections.  I personally find that the lower rail height tends to make the model gauge appear more naturally wider.  ymmv.

 

Andy

[rue_d_etropal]

yes it is just opinion. Anyone can pursue the hobby the way they want, but some feel they have to push the hobby in certain directions and then look down on those who don't follow them.

[Andy Reichert]

4 hours ago, rue_d_etropal said:

Far too much talk about track specifics. The important fact is that the gauge is near enough correct, and it is easier for someone to start in British HO using track such as Peco HO/OO. Anyone wanting even finer track, building their own track and models to run on it is far more likely to go for EM or P4, as there are so many accessories available, many fully made up such as road vehicles, and they can adapt newer better quality r2r locos and rolling stock.

For British HO to come out from the hadows of the hobby, it needs to appeal to what used to referred to as the 'average modeller' . Nothing to stop anyone going P87, but it should not be seen as only for fine scale modellers.

I enjoy a challenge, one thing that appeals to me about British HO, but I set my sights at a realistic level(sorry about double pun). For some that might not be realistic enough, but I often see on so called fine scale layouts some very big howlers , in particular with buildings, brick ones mainly, and with my British HO project try to only use model building kits with correct(or near correct) brickwork. Auhagen building kits have a very nice Flemmish bond. Many USA building kits use stetcher bond, so only really suitable for more modern buildings.

For track, the differences between types of track used in differnt locations is possibly more important than getting it exactly correct. Using heavier rail for mainline, and lighter weight rail for sidings, is far more effective. Most people don't notice that a specific rail is too big, but will notice when too sections of rail are different.

I model in far more scales and gauges than most people, even OO. For it is odd that older track made by GEM, Graham Farish and Hornby Dublo actually looks better, despite having an incorrect sleeper to gauge ratio. I am using a mixture of those tracks for one of my OO projects, but for the odd point I am still using Peco Setrack! Even if something does not quite look right(and it can be disguised ), I would rather have something that works well, rather than something that just looks pretty but does not work. I build working model railways,not static dioramas.

 

The only thing that separates model railways from every other form of scale or even just representational modelling is the necessity and inclusion of track.  And to be a working model railway, it has to have working model track. To be fussy about which brick bond to lay, while ignoring any similar level of detail/accuracy ( e.g. digital resolution) in the track seems to me personally to be missing the point.

 

Andy

[47137]

On my own layout (four baseboards now plus bridging sections) I have track and turnouts by Peco, SMP, Exactoscale, Tillig and Kato; and some hand-built.

 

This probably sounds like a real dog's dinner, and in the fiddle yard it rather is, but I am happy to use the things the trade offers where they are suitable, and build my own track when I feel I should. Also the Kato doesn't need ballasting!

 

At a purely personal level I am not wanting code 55 rail at the moment, because it would be too limiting for my own trains, but it is useful to know what is out there.

 

- Richard.

[rue_d_etropal]

Quote

Quote

At a purely personal level I am not wanting code 55 rail at the moment, because it would be too limiting for my own trains, but it is useful to know what is out there.

 

did not realise there was code 55, tend to associate it with N gauge , but whilst searching for some even smaller items I came across the T gauge website and they sell code 40 rail. Not that I would(or could) use either, but the finer rails might be ideal for ether narrow gauge or 3rd/4th rail.

When I was running shop, I used to get quite a bit of steel rail track in second hand and also stocked cheap flexi track as there were enough people who were happy with it to build larger layouts as it was cheap and otherwise they would not be ale to expand their layouts. Many use older cheap locos and stock for same reason( I do have some myself). Oddly our club layout(well we are custodians of it) was built in the 80s, featured in RM at the time, uses handbuilt fine scale track and we can run virtually anything. It is only obvious when looking closely that there are no chairs fitted, and some wheels happily run on sleepers!! But if anyone messes with the points in station nothing runs properly and they will have to make themselves scarce!.

[1ngram]

On 10/01/2020 at 10:38, rue_d_etropal said:

Have to disagree there. No reason why steam should not be possible, but easier with inside cylinder locos as Jack Nelson was doing in the 1940s.

As for chassis, the one I am thinking of is the new Bachmann J72 , as it is close enough tomost British 0-6-0 locos, especially tank locos. I know wheel size of some was slightly bigger, but in HO I don't believe most people can notice.

The thing with British HO, is that it is for everyone not just the pure scale people. It is the only scale/gauge combination that is pretty near spot on using r2r track and wheels. Anyone wanting to go finer , in effect P87 will build their own track etc. Nothing wrong in that, but the advantage HO has is that so much can be bought off the shelf. Anyone with a OO layout can convert it to HO, as track is almost certainly HO , and buildings etc are easier to replace than track . Main thing that holds people back is locos and rolling stock, and I am trying to address that, but I can do most of my designs in any scale. Although there are still a lot of people building kits, the trend in the hobby has been towards more detailed r2r, leaving a big gap between kit/scatchbuild and r2r, and it is that gap I am aiming at, and I think I am hitting the target pretty well, as business is growing.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by 1ngram
The 4mm model J72 driving wheel size and total wheelbase length is, I believe, the same as it would be for an HO version oh a GNSR Class D locomotive. Any chance of you making one of these?

[rue_d_etropal]

I tend toonly do a few locos, mainly interested in railcars and coaches, but if there are scale drawingsI can have a look.

The problem with the J72 model, both Bachmann and original Mainline is the side tank weights. The new Bachmann model has part of the boiler fixed to chassis under the motor which is a shame. For any tender loco I would probably use a motorized tender, but tricky for any tank loco.

[1ngram]

I will ask the GNSR Association forum about drawings of the D Class and get back to you.  There's a single profile drawing in our loco book in a weird scale of about 4.6mm to the foot but there may be more.

 

[47137]

If the drawings are promising - High Level Kits do a chassis kit for the J72. This will be a lot easier to incorporate into a new model than the Bachmann chassis with its "integral piece of lower boiler".

 

- Richard.

[1ngram]

I doubt if I am high level enough for any level chassis kit, alas.  But I'll certainly have a look. Thanks

[1ngram]

On 31/03/2021 at 16:56, rue_d_etropal said:

I tend toonly do a few locos, mainly interested in railcars and coaches, but if there are scale drawingsI can have a look.

The problem with the J72 model, both Bachmann and original Mainline is the side tank weights. The new Bachmann model has part of the boiler fixed to chassis under the motor which is a shame. For any tender loco I would probably use a motorized tender, but tricky for any tank loco.

Ive got a set of drawings of the loco (E type version) taken from a very old Railway Modeller and drawn up by a GNSRA member years ago.  How do I get it to you?  Is putting it here sufficient? Perhaps the best thing would be to determine whether there is any commercially available chassis which would suit before going further?

[rue_d_etropal]

that drawing is ok, scales up nicely/ will add it to list.

Looks pretty close to size of J72, I am sure I have seen the J72 converted into one.

 

redid that drawing to HO, and chassis is nearer to Terrier not the J72. I tried chassis up against drawing and it almost fits,- wheels OK, but motor not quite.

Edited April 4, 2021 by rue_d_etropal

[1ngram]

So an old Mainline etc J72 would make an HO GNSR D/E class with a 3D printed body?  Given that the new J72 can't be used and a kit would cost.

[Dava]

I recall the GNoSR locos built by Kitson (LNER J90/91) was a design also supplied to another mainline railway but I can’t find out which one, does not seem to be LNER group, possibly a South Wales line. Any ideas?

 

Dava

[1ngram]

Not heard that before.  Class V had some sold to LSCR in 1899 but never heard of Class D or E built for anyone else.

[1ngram]

1 hour ago, rue_d_etropal said:

that drawing is ok, scales up nicely/ will add it to list.

Looks pretty close to size of J72, I am sure I have seen the J72 converted into one.

 

redid that drawing to HO, and chassis is nearer to Terrier not the J72. I tried chassis up against drawing and it almost fits,- wheels OK, but motor not quite.

So no good?  Or can it be made to fit?

[Dava]

It turns out theLancashire Derbyshire & East Coast Railway  (LDECR) later LNER J60 was the loco, also built by Kitson, used in North Notts and later in Wrexham GCR lines.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j60.php

 

[1ngram]

So another option for the body if we can get a chassis to fit. 4foot 6 inch wheels, 6foot 10inch +6foot 10inch wheelbase?  Does the Terrier Model look like this?  And can it be made to fit?

[47137]

According to my own notes, and I promise I compiled these by measuring models and not taking stuff off the Web (plus some inputs from other folk here), the Hornby Terriers have a wheelbase of 24 + 24 mm and 16 mm wheels.

 

Equating to 2.09m and 1.39m. Which are pretty darned close to 6'10" and 4'6".

 

- Richard.

[rue_d_etropal]

I can only look at old Dapol chassis. it might be worth looking at the new Hornby or Raoils versions, but obviously they cost more.

Another loco might actually be a J72 in HO, as this could fit on Terrier chassis.

 

On the whole, tender locos are going to be far easier to motorize, with motor in tender. I am currently working on a design for an A4 , as someone wanted one in a big scale.

Edited April 4, 2021 by rue_d_etropal

[1ngram]

So realistically, given wheel sizes etc, I am looking at a Dapol/Hornby Terrier chassis under a 3D printed body.  Will they fit?  Off to bed.