Jump to content
 

Hornby Prototypes/Unproduced Models


Trainmaster64
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quite a lot of the postwar versions are about on Ebay, with double chimney...   not much affected by chassis rot so far as I know.

 

I just bought a complete set and Atholl has a horseshoe magnet motor, very attractive, and many of these models run well after 70 years.

 

atholl2_hornby_s-l1600b.gif.4a6962f4a8845f0785bd114a63f8d5e9.gif

 

not strictly on-thread, I know...  apologies

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On ‎21‎/‎05‎/‎2012 at 19:21, Dogmatix said:

Slightly off-topic but on the same theme: Fleischmann planned at one point to produce a Merchant Navy or Battle of Britain in H0 to keep their Warship and Bulleids company. It never came to pass, of course - but I heard that a prototype does exist, and is owned by someone in the UK.

The problem with Fleischmann's British outline "HO" was that it was neither HO or OO but some sort of half-way house in which the scale varied depending on whether one measured the length, the width or the height of the models.

 

One of the great missed opportunities for both Fleischmann and the development of UK-outline r-t-r, IMHO.

 

John

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The problem with Fleischmann's British outline "HO" was that it was neither HO or OO but some sort of half-way house in which the scale varied depending on whether one measured the length, the width or the height of the models.

 

One of the great missed opportunities for both Fleischmann and the development of UK-outline r-t-r, IMHO.

 

John

A really high quality HO range of British outline could have swung things to a correct scale/gauge ratio, that would have been great. Guess 4mm was too entrenched. 

I believe Heljan were planning an HO class 37 before their OO range came out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

A really high quality HO range of British outline could have swung things to a correct scale/gauge ratio, that would have been great. Guess 4mm was too entrenched. 

I believe Heljan were planning an HO class 37 before their OO range came out.

Mainline and Airfix/GMR started the ball rolling which led to the high detail models we have today.

As they were then new to the market, it's a pity they did not take the opportunity to start afresh

with correct gauge track. Then today everything would be accurate.

 

I can see why they stuck to 00, but it's a shame none the less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

What Trevor said.  Back in those days, it was still considered that to break into the market you had to produce a basic range of train sets, and these had to be compatible in terms of ride height and buffer position, not to mention couplings and a standard flangeways for standard running with the other manufacturers, which at that time was effectively Triang Hornby and maybe Peco.  Hornby Dublo had paid the price of resisting this and the market was unforgiving, and the newcomers must have been well aware of this.

 

The only people who made a significant attempt to bring HO to the UK market were Lima, who were castigated for their efforts.  They were very much orientated to the train set market, and might have made more impact had they gone a bit more 'scale', but the modeller business was less important to the manufacturers.  An opportunity was certainly missed, attention being perhaps unintentionally diverted by EM and P4 and the hope that somebody would someday produce track, turnouts, and RTR stock or at least retrofit chassis for this.  The 00 compromise affected splashers and other measurements too much for this to ever happen, but I believe, and I was there at the time, that lack of RTP track and especially turnouts was and still is the main barrier to the adoption of EM or P4 standards.  Please, don't use this as an excuse to re-open the gauge debate...

 

I am guessing that the Fleischmann models referred to would have been at the same 3.8mm to the foot scale that Trix produced UK outline models in.  I had a Trix Western CKD in this scale, which was a fine runner though the bogies were a bit wierd, but it had incompatible couplings and looked very obviously too small, which of course it was, against my Triang scale length coaches.

 

It's too late now; the trade is absolutely committed to the 00 compromise, and does, IMHO, very well in providing us with realistic, accurate, well detailed models within it's frustrating limitations.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

.................. lack of RTP track and especially turnouts was and still is the main barrier to the adoption of EM or P4 standards.  Please, don't use this as an excuse to re-open the gauge debate...

 

......................

No debate - plain EM/P4 track has been available from several manufacturers for a number of years and Peco-made EM turnouts will be on the ( EM Gauge Society ) shelves very shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Turnouts are the vital point (sorry, there really was no excuse for that!).  I reckon I am capable of building plain chaired track in P4, having done it in 00, but not a turnout, having tried and failed in 00.  And, sadly, I think the stable door closed after the horse bolted about 30 years ago, both in terms of scale gauge 4mm track or scale H0 British outline stock.  The trade is very firmly committed to current 00 standards, which ensure compatible running and at least a nod to compatible couplings; it would, I suspect be very difficult (read, pretty much impossible) to get a stock exchange floated manufacturer to back anything other than the current 00 setup.  The Hornby Dublo lesson of not toeing the line and going under while deluding themselves that the customers would still buy higher quality but more expensive models (that weren't actually higher quality but could be argued to have been better engineered) still lurks in the minds of their managements and the better informed of their investors.  Wrenn never made much money off them.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Turnouts are the vital point (sorry, there really was no excuse for that!).  I reckon I am capable of building plain chaired track in P4, having done it in 00, but not a turnout, having tried and failed in 00.  And, sadly, I think the stable door closed after the horse bolted about 30 years ago, both in terms of scale gauge 4mm track or scale H0 British outline stock.  The trade is very firmly committed to current 00 standards, which ensure compatible running and at least a nod to compatible couplings; it would, I suspect be very difficult (read, pretty much impossible) to get a stock exchange floated manufacturer to back anything other than the current 00 setup.  The Hornby Dublo lesson of not toeing the line and going under while deluding themselves that the customers would still buy higher quality but more expensive models (that weren't actually higher quality but could be argued to have been better engineered) still lurks in the minds of their managements and the better informed of their investors.  Wrenn never made much money off them.

 

Hornby Dublo went the way of the British motorcycle industry, and for the same reasons. A lack of serious post-war investment in R&D or modern production facilities and failing to accept that they couldn't keep on selling what were still basically 1930s products forever.

 

Fleischmann's UK outline stock was, unfortunately, neither one thing nor the other - not OO, not HO and not even 3.8mm to the foot in every respect. One only needs to look at them to realise they are to different scales in different places. Not just between the gauge and upperworks like OO but the width and height of the bodywork aren't in proportion one to the other. Park one of their Bulleids next to a Bachmann example (by no means perfect in itself) and cringe....

 

Anyone wanting to break out of the OO "straitjacket" in UK r-t-r would have needed to launch a full system. Mixing it with existing OO models would have just looked daft. Neither Airfix or Mainline had the resources to do that. Fleischmann didn't have the inclination to do more than dip a toe in the water and Tri-ang had already abandoned TT, so why would HO, with much less of a space advantage, do any better?

 

The problem with any putative r-t-r EM or P4 has more to do with geometry. If one wishes to run steam-outline locos of any size, the slop that allows them to negotiate 18" radius curves in OO rapidly disappears as one increases the gauge nearer to scale.  Pacifics generally need over 3' in EM and around 6' in P4, which drastically limits the appeal to those of us who want to run trains from one place to another rather than being restricted to a "shunting plank", small BLT or MPD layout. The simple truth is that OO has survived and continues to thrive, because of rather than  despite, the aspects of it that attract the most opprobrium. The compromises are what actually makes an operationally worthwhile model railway achievable in the limited space most people can spare for their hobby.  

 

ISTR that when Dapol first introduced their J94/Austerity (nowadays in the Hornby range), there was an optional set of EM wheels that could be dropped in. Didn't seem to catch on.....

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Very salient points, John.  But this is really because both EM and P4 are attempts to combine respectively a closer to and to a more or less accurate track gauge in 4mm/foot scale, with corresponding flange and flangeway dimensions, with finer scale modelling.  It is, in a sense, the opposite side of the track gauge coin.  00 track is the wrong gauge for the scale, H0 is correct, but no real attempt at fine scale is made in H0; commercial flangeways and 'slop' allow big locos to negotiate sharp curves.  There is no 4mm modelling at the correct track gauge comparable to commercial H0 at it's correct track gauge

 

A more 'like for like' comparison would be 'coarse' scale 4mm RTR similar in standard to the current 00 models, but with 18.83mm gauge track, something which to my knowledge has never been attempted, as in UK modelling, scale gauge always means fine scale modelling.  But a coarse scale pacific for 18.83mm track would probably be able to manage no.4 and possibly even no.3 radius curves, with the tension lock couplings preventing buffer lock.  The overall look would be an improvement on 00; some of the coarse scale compromises would still be there of course, but the proportions of track gauge to stock of the correct width would make the appearance much more acceptable, especially in a front or rear view, and splashers and brake detail would fall naturally into the correct places.  More room would be available between frames, perhaps for working inside motion.  And the sort of layours that we are used to in 00 4mm would still be capable of being fitted into spaces only a little bigger.

 

My own railway would not be possible in EM or P4 despite being 'only a small BLT' because of exactly the curvature issues you have pointed out; it wouldn't fit in the room.  Like (I suspect) the majority of our layouts, it exploits the space available for it to the maximum and gets away with it because of the leeway granted it by sloppy sideplay and overscale flanges, i.e. commercial 00 scale standards.  Interestingly, when I commenced building it, I intended to use scale couplings and a minimum 30" radius curve to prevent buffer locking, because that is what my stock was fitted with from previous layouts.  I rapidly came to realise that my eyesight and steadiness of hand had deteriorated in the decades since I last had a railway, and I had to revert to tension locks because I couldn't manage the scale couplings.  Once I had accepted this compromise and decided to live with it, the sharper curvature I was able to deploy at the fiddle yard entrance enabled an increase in length of my coal trains from 7 to 11 wagons and a van, and I was able to convert a 4 road fiddle yard to a 7 roader; it has transformed the operating and the timetable I am able to run to.  This very succinctly summarises the points you were making!  

 

The 30" minimum still applies on the scenic section of the layout, except for 24" loco release crossover, and the gentle curvature of the formation, intended to evoke a railway built on a ledge on a hillside, a very typical South Wales valleys situation, looks well (well, it does to me, anyway!).  I have achieved the overall appearance I was trying to achieve, running standards are good, and operation very satisfying, though this sort of thing isn't for everyone.  It is not a model railway, it is a real railway that serves an imaginary mining village, it's colliery, it's populace, and it's local businesses in the 1950s, but small.  It is operated to the 1955 BR Rule Book and General Appendix with some imagined Sectional Appendix instructions.  I'm happy with it, and as much as I would love to portray it in in P4, I would be unable to because of lack of space even before considering my lack of modelling skill and ability to build models of that sort.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm sure there was/is an American 4mm scale standard with 19mm track and coarser track standards. The problem with using a wider guage is that it leaves less room for cylinders and outside motion especially if you want to use sharper curves; some HO models have these set futher out than to scale for that reason. Not too much of a problem with low platforms but a none starter for British stock needing to clear our higher platforms. Pragmatically, 00 works it these situations.

Less trouble if you model diesels or electrics if course!

Should also say, not going into guages again! It's interesting to hear about missed opportunities for models that weren't produced. The other problem with Triang/Hornby was the increased buffer height, again a compromise to allow room for motors. I can't remember when they decided to adopt correct buffer height, but it was noticeable when Mainline & Airfix came along .

Edited by Ramblin Rich
added last paragraph
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

No debate - plain EM/P4 track has been available from several manufacturers for a number of years and Peco-made EM turnouts will be on the ( EM Gauge Society ) shelves very shortly.

while the thought of EM is made more attractive by available track and turnouts, the conversion of RTR stock is no less daunting 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Tarnish1 said:

Eighty years between the two!!

 

The 1938 prototype was impressive for it's time. Note the coupling type had not been decided on.

Duchess_of_Atholl_6231,_Hornby_Dublo_loco_EDLT2_(HBoT_1939).jpg

Hornby Screen_Shot_2018-04-27_at_08.37.41__69123.1524814707.1280.1280.png

I actually think the front pony wheels, with their tyre thickness looks better on the 1948 model.

Edited by adb968008
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

I'm sure there was/is an American 4mm scale standard with 19mm track and coarser track standards. The problem with using a wider guage is that it leaves less room for cylinders and outside motion especially if you want to use sharper curves; some HO models have these set futher out than to scale for that reason. Not too much of a problem with low platforms but a none starter for British stock needing to clear our higher platforms. .................

I think 19mm gauge is an American interpretation of EM gauge.

The other problem with wider gauges is that our good ol' British locomotive designers insisted in putting pretty splashers on their machines - with absolutely no consideration for the model manufacturers who followed and tried to squeeze 'steamroller' wheels in ( Hence my battered old Triang L1 is more or less the same width over splashers as my Crownline one on EM wheelsets.) ........ not a problem allowing for wider wheels & extra sideplay beneath a raised running plate as was normal overseas !

 

Veering back to topic - did Triang and/or Hornby ever intend to do a Southern L1 in a correct BR livery ? ( i.e. black )

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/05/2019 at 06:09, Dunsignalling said:

The problem with Fleischmann's British outline "HO" was that it was neither HO or OO but some sort of half-way house in which the scale varied depending on whether one measured the length, the width or the height of the models.

 

One of the great missed opportunities for both Fleischmann and the development of UK-outline r-t-r, IMHO.

 

John

Hi John,

You are quite correct that this was a missed opportunity!

I had it from the British importer of the time (not you was it!?!) that Fleischmann were rather banking on Lima continuing their British H0 outline range until they could build up their own full range, only the Lima importer persuaded the Italian company to switch to 00 for rapidly increased sales.#

Fleischmann were indeed planning a West Country pacific, hence the Bulleid coaches!

As to the Warship, that was Herr Fleischmann himself as he saw the real thing at OOC and said "that's our diesel"! 

As far as I know, the British H0 scale society are sufficiently happy with it to describe it as "H0", which they don't do for any of the 3.8mm/ft models! 

Cheers,

John

 

# Therefore, you can blame the former Lima importers for the remaining 4mm bodies on 3.5mm track fiasco!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood the clamour for British H0. 

 

It's always seemed like an in-between scale to me. Not one thing or another. Good you've got track, but not much else. If you can't live with a couple of millimetres being out, then go finescale 4mm scale.

 

Personally if I was going to a resurrect a gauge/scale it would be British TT. But would there be much call for that seeing as you now have N Gauge at quite a high level of detail?

 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
7 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Personally if I was going to a resurrect a gauge/scale it would be British TT. But would there be much call for that seeing as you now have N Gauge at quite a high level of detail?

 

But would that be traditional British TT (1:101.6) running on 12mm track, or something scale running on 14.2mm track? Or perhaps continental TT (1:120) on 12mm track?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some logic to 3mm scale as the happy medium between 4mm and 2mm, whereas I suspect that British HO suffers from being too close to 4mm.

 

It is an attractive scale and you can fit a lot in. and It has a pleasing solidity.

 

As TT died as a mainstream commercial proposition, it has left an opportunity to produce a proprietary range with a better scale-gauge marriage than other UK commercial scales, so I'd see 14.2mm gauge as the way forward.  

 

Whether it would gain traction is another matter; nowadays I see pictures of 2FS layouts that I mistake for 4mm layouts, suggesting that going down to 2mm no longer means a loss of detail or scale proportions. 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

But would that be traditional British TT (1:101.6) running on 12mm track, or something scale running on 14.2mm track? Or perhaps continental TT (1:120) on 12mm track?

 

14.2 would be the way to go as I believe that's the standard now. I'm not advocating resurrecting Triang TT, I think that boat has gone.

 

Seems to be quite a few bits and pieces available to a high standard. It's whether there is the demand for RTR that is debatable.

 

https://sites.google.com/site/3mmpublic/a-3

 

Personally I'm too wedded to 4mm after dabbling with both N and O over the years.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I think 14.2 would be too technically demanding to produce RTR. Anything with 6 wheels needs compensation or springing to stay on the track, and you have very little space for valve gear. When I worked in it, I consider 14.2 to be like P4 but much, much, much harder as it was considerably smaller. 

 

There is a compromise of 13.5 which might be more practical and look very little different.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
53 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I've never understood the clamour for British H0. 

 

It's always seemed like an in-between scale to me. Not one thing or another. Good you've got track, but not much else. If you can't live with a couple of millimetres being out, then go finescale 4mm scale.

 

Personally if I was going to a resurrect a gauge/scale it would be British TT. But would there be much call for that seeing as you now have N Gauge at quite a high level of detail?

 

 

Jason

 

If anything is an "in-between" scale it is 4mm/OO. Does not correspond to anything at all. HO is not that much better being half of an already compromised scale.

 

If we wanted something of OO size, it should have been 1:72 (1/6th of an inch/ft). For no good reason at all, that gives an easy track gauge of 20mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The fundamental problem is the same as it’s always been; model railways are impractically large in the sort of homes the majority of us live in, anything short of a mansion or castle in fact, and it is often impractically expensive to provide other accommodation for them that is climatically suitable for the models or the operators, unless compromises to scale are included so that the models can negotiate curves which are much sharper than scale.  

 

If if this is not done, the models can be made much closer to scale, but space-devouring scale curvature must be used and the models must be sprung/compensated unless track and baseboards are billiard table level.  These are very big asks in domestic situations. 

 

This is is true irrespective of the scale, the gauge, or whether the gauge is correct for the scale.  Like Jason, I’m thoroughly wedded, even permanently welded, to commercial standard RTR 00!  

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The fundamental problem is the same as it’s always been; model railways are impractically large in the sort of homes the majority of us live in

 

So why hasn't the hobby died out?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

So why hasn't the hobby died out?

I live in a small, modern detached house, none of the rooms are large enough for a half decent

OO gauge model railway, but fortunately there is an ideal strip of land behind a retaining wall

for a long, fairly narrow garden railway. Otherwise the hobby would have died out ( not even

started in my case ). I do know a couple of people for whom a model railway is not possible

eg. house size, room occupancy, loft converted for another bedroom, no spare time or money.

Another point to consider is the very high price of present day RTR. Fortunately for manufacturers

some can afford those prices, much more could put off newcomers to the hobby.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by trevor7598
Spelling mistake.
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...