Jump to content
Steve K

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

Recommended Posts

Yes I thought it resembled a MSJ&A [Altrincham] driving car!

 

Must be unique in H0

 

Dava

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GEC units were based on the standard LMS compartment stock, with motor cars 59ft and other units 57ft. The Altrincham stock was 58ft long. My model is 3D printed(still need to finish this one off).

Interesting that any tramway modellers have to look to HO to have moden trams, even the Croydon one here

http://extra.southernelectric.org.uk/modelling/reviews/mod4rev_hallingtramlink.html

 

Just been reading some comments concerning problems with Dapol's latest A4 in OO. I am sure there would not be these types of problems had it been done by a continental manufacturer, in HO scale! I know there have been problems with Heljan, but they are still relatively new to r2r locos. I would hope there are no problems at Roco, http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=RC72151&style=&strType=&Mcode=Roco+72151

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernard -

 

Regarding the REE/ESU models of the Class 66 . . . 

 

I had a suspicion that they hadn't done a correct for UK version. There's little chance of a model of another UK only loco if the very minor alterations to the Cl.66 are considered uneconomic. A conversion kit form the British H0 Society would seem a worthwhile exercise though.

 

I now have a model of '66 072' by REE/ESU, which is in the rebranded EWS livery as Euro Cargo Rail. Now - I don't know about the minutiae, but I've done an Internet image search for 'class 66 Euro Cargo Rail in Britain' and there are many examples of other members of the class working in Britain in the same condition as the REE model except that the buffer heads are different.

 

The REE model has buffer heads which are roughly rectangular, with one long side curved and one long side straight. Three are fitted with the straight edge on the top, and one inverted. The engines pictured online have a buffer head which I'll call a 'rounded rectangle'. But, the REE headlamp clusters and the other external details including livery and lettering look spot-on for running in Britain. So, the REE model is closer than the Mehano one for use on a British layout, but not quite "correct for UK". (For completeness: the REE model is an early batch, my Mehano model is the later 5-door/low emission version).

 

If there is a source of 1:87 buffers of the correct pattern, I think it would be sensible for the British 1:87 Society to publicise how to get hold of them, but the level of demand might be too small to make it worthwhile to hold parts like this as a kit.

 

Hope this helps.

 

- Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed - at £420 a pop, you'd hope that the model wouldn't be too terrible...!

assume you mean Roco. At least they are not reliant on Chinese factories,although I have never been happy with the track they first did for Hornby,and then Bachmann.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roco seemed to lose a lot of ground following their financial problems and take overs of a few years ago. At one time I considered them to be pretty much the "gold standard" for HO. Now their models are still clearly very good but companies like REE, ACME, LS Models, Jagendorfer etc seem to have stolen their thunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just recalled from my days of entertaining my sons with 'Thomas & Friends' back in the 90's that there was a realistic 'Toby the tram engine' model which ran on 00 track but was much closer to H0 scale. Die cast & made by Ertl, looks like it was available on the 'Shining Track' brand as well. Can't find mine so must have been donated a few years back.

 

H0 model for a few quid? There was a 'Henrietta' coach as well. From your local toy fair no doubt.

 

I have an 0 scale one to build, been enjoying the Peter Paye book on the line.

 

Dava

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had one of the Ertl models, yes probably close to HO. A difficult model to modify, as metal is tough. I used one to represent a miniature loco on one layout back in the 90s. For coaches, problem is that toy coaches are built to withstand children playing with them, so fine lattice metal work is not possible. Even in 3D printing it is slightly over scale in thickness. Etched metal might be better.

O gauge gets pricey for 3D printing, which is one reason I have gone HO, and compared to OO it works out about 20% cheaper. If anyone asked I could upsize any model I have done. O scale is pricey, but if you compare with an etched kit you have to build, adding in your own time to the cost, then it is better value, and not everyone can, or wants to build a kit. I don't do the chassis(might in the future), as everyone has their own preferences. I would also rather provide a basic model for people to finish, that way they feel they have built the model, and that is definitely te feedback I have had with my original narrow gauge models. Maybe they are better at adapting.

 

I think the Roco models are good enough for anyone who wants to run trains, not just collect them. The latest 2-8-0 looks pretty impressive. Also probably easier to get hold of in the UK than some other makes. Then again, I don't think you can beat some of the American loco chassis, in particular locos such as the GE70, which are not expensive, and can run slower than the average snail, on imperfect track.(If  runs well on mine then it is a good runner!). I am currently working on a Ford Dagenham diesel electric to ft the Bachmann chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernard -

 

Regarding the REE/ESU models of the Class 66 . . . 

 

 

I now have a model of '66 072' by REE/ESU, which is in the rebranded EWS livery as Euro Cargo Rail. Now - I don't know about the minutiae, but I've done an Internet image search for 'class 66 Euro Cargo Rail in Britain' and there are many examples of other members of the class working in Britain in the same condition as the REE model except that the buffer heads are different.

 

The REE model has buffer heads which are roughly rectangular, with one long side curved and one long side straight. Three are fitted with the straight edge on the top, and one inverted. The engines pictured online have a buffer head which I'll call a 'rounded rectangle'. But, the REE headlamp clusters and the other external details including livery and lettering look spot-on for running in Britain. So, the REE model is closer than the Mehano one for use on a British layout, but not quite "correct for UK". (For completeness: the REE model is an early batch, my Mehano model is the later 5-door/low emission version).

 

If there is a source of 1:87 buffers of the correct pattern, I think it would be sensible for the British 1:87 Society to publicise how to get hold of them, but the level of demand might be too small to make it worthwhile to hold parts like this as a kit.

Yep looking at images of the model on the web, that looks correct in terms of lighting to me.

 

If you wanted to get very picky - the real 66001 is literally a unique loco, being the first built (66002 is also unique!) - with differences on the front that prevented the addition of the (modelled) buckeye lights - so I don't think the model of that number will be 100%, if they had picked almost any different DB repaint they would have been very, very close though. The only other difference I can see that hasn't been mentioned is the DBS model has the ECR style plow pilot and the domestic UK machines don't have that mod. That shouldn't be too hard to change if you needed to though.

 

(And the ECR machines do occasionally work revenue trains over here if you needed the excuse...)

 

66218_Peterborough_08062012%20%28106%29-

 

On a wider class 66 note - GBRF does also have some 'import' machines with continental style lights and buffers - 66750/1 are two examples.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very intersting reading!

So it looked that it was the trade and manufacturers that wanted OO 4mm so you could run locomotives round sharp curve for train sets by having wider splashers and spaced cylinders!

And then the average modeller was forced to accept such offerings!

This is what I understand from the articles.

Is that so?  Have I understood correctly?

Edited by FNM600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it sounds like that.  Most layouts(?) at that time were circular, basically following on from classic trainset. Even the big layouts were like this. There were those like Walkley who built end to end branchline, but that did not really start to be poplar till after the war, possibly the 50s when Peter Denny was building and writing about his layout., and instead of dropping down to HO, he went for EM. I suppose he would have had to build his own track, which ever scale and gauge he went for.

The advances in OO models actually make it easier to model British HO now. When the new Bachmann J72 eventually comes out, assuming it is similar to the open chassis used in other new locos, then it can be used for many 060 locos. This is now N ad TT wre kickstarted into models rather than r2r toys. OO9 also started this way. It is then just a case of finding what locos could be done using existing r2r chassis, and publishing the info. As long as I can find good scale drawings, I should be able to design loco bodies for 3D printing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before getting too negative about OO it's worth reiterating that the world of HO makes its own compromises with scale and dimensions in order to provide models suitable for set track curves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are always compromises, but I think the new Roco USA loco can get round Setrack curves. The Hornby/Rivarossi USATC loco looks OK, but probably has some compromises. Inside cylinder locos and bogied diesels/electrics are easier. I think the compromises having to be made for OO are just more and we are now in the position to produce more British HO models. Some offer alternative wheels for setrack or scale. Dapol did it with their big LMS restaurent car, but Hornby dropped that alternative part.

 

Most railway modellers don't limit themselves to how many wagons , coaches or locos they can fit on their layout, but some might or be perceived to do so, and being able to sell 25% more items might look good to the marketing department, even if in practice it might not quite work out that way.

For some people, the slightly shorter length of coaches might make them look better, and far easier than ripping up the track and starting again.

There has been suggestions that British TT might come back, as the manufacturers need some way to ontinue selling models of the same loco, and the space saving might temot some, but getting people to rip up the track and start again will put most off. HO offers a small space saving, but also enables existing track to be used.

It does puzzle me why Bachmann chose OO for their Thomas range, although it did mean they could use existing OO models, but they are not allowed to adapt their locos for other OO . Probably hope they will eventualy get UK licence, but I am also thinking that marketing see models/toys for children being a certain size, and if they look smaller than other HO models, some might not like it. The Underground Ernie models were an even bigger scale(?) , but again toy size was more important. The original Hornby Bill/Ben models were for their junior clockwork range, not for OO, so were made bigger scale. Even the Bachmann version is overscale for Oo, having cut one down for a OO project. All these are toys, but modellers use them as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Hornby's Toby is positively enormous. You could probably adapt it for 0-16.5 fairly easily. Surprisingly nice chassis though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HO scale compromises also affect diesel and electric models, the HO manufacturers have often accepted compromises in width in order to get a very convincing body - bogie interface. I tend to agree that a really good body - bogie interface is worth a dimensional compromise. The HO manufacturers seem to have a different approach and it is more about capturing the look of the prototype and they are very adept at mixing seperately fitted details with moulded detail. British modellers now seem obsessed with seperately fitted parts yet well done moulded detail can be very effective, I remember when Arnold released their Brighton Belle (yes, I know it was N) many British modellers complained about use of moulded details yet in Europe this is perfectly acceptable (as is the use of traction tyres, another big no-no here).

That said, looking at the new Rails dynanometer car, HO now looks almost bargain basement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been pondering this thread from time to time during the last year. I think it is easy for a person who has never tried British H0 to identify the various shortcomings of the scale, but rather more difficult for such a person to describe its merits. Of course, such a person might not want to acknowledge such merits, but from a personal point of view I find it to be the most satisfying size in which to work.

 

At the root of this I can see a few drivers:

 

1) a personal dislike of kits (too many failures), and a preference to build build my own models by modifying others, sometimes quite heavily;

 

2) a desire to build my own model railway, and not one populated out of the catalogues of Hornby and Bachmann;

 

3) the ability to use RTR wheels and mechanisms and run them over "train set" style curves, especially in yards and on hidden tracks, letting me get quite a lot of railway into a compact space;

 

4) and - if "finescale" means a model where reliability, complexity, interoperability or physical robustness are sacrificed for the benefit of an improved appearance - and in 4mm scale, this implies EM or P4 - then the facility to build a decent-looking layout without going down the finescale route.

 

The photo shows a corner of my own layout, which is starting to take shape. There is no sensible crusade for British H0, but the scale is worth accepting on the strength of its merits to the individual modeller. The scale ought to let other modellers do the same, for my reasons here or more likely for some of their own.

 

- Richard.

 

post-14389-0-84772900-1527530269_thumb.jpg

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no sensible crusade for British H0, but the scale is worth accepting on the strength of its merits to the individual modeller. The scale ought to let other modellers do the same, for my reasons here or more likely for some of their own.

 

- Richard.

 

Hi Richard,

Hear, hear! I've just spent some time enjoying a read through of this entire thread (recuperating from injury!) and it is so nice to see that you are pressing ahead with what makes you happy. Your GBrf 66 looks stunning btw.

My own reasons for modelling in H0 scale are similar to yours with the addition of;

I have a lot of Euro and US models and any '00' model I had always looked completely wrong to me when placed within view of each other. Not many British locos get placed adjacent to Euro or US locos in real life but when they do, the size difference is quite dramatic see this Flickr photo by David Smith;

https://flic.kr/p/cpGsq7

I must add that I'm not trying to 'convert' or 'preach' to anyone, just explaining why I model in H0 - mainly because I like it.

Just going back to the class 66, seeing how the first, what? 400 of these were built for use in Britain and then exported for use in Europe, when and how were they changed, please?

Cheers,

John.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just going back to the class 66, seeing how the first, what? 400 of these were built for use in Britain and then exported for use in Europe, when and how were they changed, please?

 

I am probably one of the worst possible people to ask about diesels because I often see past differences in grills and so on and indeed I had to have the differences between classes 24 and 25 spelt out because after growing up with these around me the only difference I really saw was the headcode boxes.

 

For my purposes there are two sorts of class 66 in Britain. The early design with 4 doors (two on each side) and the later design, known as the "low emissions" type, with five doors (an extra door on one side). In Europe, many of the engines have a huge air conditioner on top of the driver's cab (this is outside the British loading gauge) but some, like the engines sold to HGK, do not. Mehano made a model of an HGK engine, one of the five-door types. Similar engines worked with the Dutch railways, and GBRf acquired three of these from NS. The engines received new headlamp clusters and buffers when they arrived here, but I accepted the European patterns because the new paint job seems sufficient to me. More details on another topic and some photos on my blog.

 

How I wish one of the European manufacturers would tackle a class 37, it would be ideal for so many periods ...

 

- Richard.

 

Edit: and thanks for the link to the pic of 86 232 - this used to go past my window every day with Anglia trains.

Edited by 47137

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I think it is easy for a person who has never tried British H0 to identify the various shortcomings of the scale, but rather more difficult for such a person to describe its merits...

 Really? The merit of a true scale/gauge relationship is obvious, and if it is practical to create working models to run on acceptable track radii should find easy acceptance. HO is more practical for UK post-steam traction and rolling stock, and automatically looks superior to OO, given equivalent modelling attention. (I have never tried HO for UK subjects, but am rather familiar with HO thanks to model railway enthusiasm among my continental family.)

 

The OO compromise was made at a time when steam traction dominated. The imposibility of fitting commercial mechanism parts (specifically the wheels inside close fitting splashers that were a common feature, and outside cylinder rods and valve gear) into constant scale HO steam models of UK prototype that could also negotiate radii well under 2 feet made such a compromise inevitable for the commercially manufactured product. There wasn't going to be much trade if the sole traction offerings were inside cylinder locos with either of no splashers over the wheels, or very wide splashers and/or side tanks over the wheels. It is a miniscule pool of mostly small UK steam loco subjects that meet these criteria. No way of producing the eye candy in the way of pacifics, and note that the 'atlantic problem' has only recently been tackled successfully in RTR OO!

 

...The advances in OO models actually make it easier to model British HO now. When the new Bachmann J72 eventually comes out, assuming it is similar to the open chassis used in other new locos, then it can be used for many 060 locos. This is now N ad TT wre kickstarted into models rather than r2r toys. OO9 also started this way. It is then just a case of finding what locos could be done using existing r2r chassis, and publishing the info. As long as I can find good scale drawings, I should be able to design loco bodies for 3D printing.

No new J72 mechanism yet, but the Adams Radial tank model mechanisms must suit some HO 4-4-0 subjects , and the Bachmann Coal tank and Hattons P mechanisms some 0-6-0s?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Really?

 

...

 

No way of producing the eye candy in the way of pacifics, and note that the 'atlantic problem' has only recently been tackled successfully in RTR OO!

 

Yes, very much so. The mini-essay says it all.

 

Then again, perhaps probably. Not so much difficult as impossible.

 

Some people enjoy their hobby - get over it.

 

- Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The OO compromise was made at a time when steam traction dominated. The imposibility of fitting commercial mechanism parts (specifically the wheels inside close fitting splashers that were a common feature, and outside cylinder rods and valve gear) into constant scale HO steam models of UK prototype that could also negotiate radii well under 2 feet made such a compromise inevitable for the commercially manufactured product. There wasn't going to be much trade if the sole traction offerings were inside cylinder locos with either of no splashers over the wheels, or very wide splashers and/or side tanks over the wheels. It is a miniscule pool of mostly small UK steam loco subjects that meet these criteria. No way of producing the eye candy in the way of pacifics, and note that the 'atlantic problem' has only recently been tackled successfully in RTR OO!

 

I think I've already said this in this thread but HO models are associated with various compromises of their own in some ways. Most notably showing some flexibility on body width to get a good body - bogie interface. Some of the steamers play with dimensions to get balance looks and operability on set track too. If you make something to a scale of 1/87 (or similar) and expect it to work on the sort of curves necessary on most layouts (and not just set track) then compromise is essential (despite what certain marketing hype might claim).

 

Probably the ultimate examples of HO model making were the fine brass pieces made by manufacturers like Ajin, Boo Rim, Tenshodo, Micro Cast Mizuno, Fujiyama etc and yet despite sacrificing operability on tiht curves in some cases and accepting some very tight clearances even these models made certain dimensional compromises, steamers especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to make a 37, you could start from the old Lima Deltic or 50. They had 00 bodies on HO bogies.

 

If we could prove significant demand for an HO, Class 37, VItrains would probably be the people to do it, as a commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.