Hornby Prototypes/Unproduced Models

[Steamport Southport]

29 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

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.

 

Only if you use antiquated measurements such as fractions of inches....

 

 

 

Jason

[Legend]

There could well be scope for TT , but it would take a brave manufacturer to introduce it . I think it would need to be a reasonably comprehensive range straight from the off, a bit like Mainline introduced in OO back in 1976/77 with regular updates .  Quite a hefty investment I think , so I cant really see it happening . However if OO gets saturated like I think it is , then maybe.........    The reason TT failed or was withdrawn by Tri-ang was that dealers didn't want to be stocking two ranges.  I'm wondering if a direct selling proposition from a manufacturer might get round this (and they get to keep a larger proportion of profit , which might help justify the investment)  But still a long shot I think.

 

Ref Hornby Dublo , downfall was for many reasons .  Late abandonment of 3 rail and transfer to 2 rail, too complicated a 2 rail system. However they had invested in new plastic injection molding machines for super detailed wagons .  But I think basically compared to Tri-ang they were just too expensive and the market just gradually slipped away from them.

[Allegheny1600]

4 hours 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?

I really hope that IF British TT were to ever rise again (Simon Kohler did once point out the possibility) any manufacturer venturing into such a place would choose the established 1:120 scale on 12mm track, it's the only option that makes any real sense now.

Engineering tolerances must be able to deal with any wheel/cylinder/platform interfaces as necessary, please note that modern German platforms are largely high level just like ours and yet their models somehow still manage to work.

[The Johnster]

The hobby hasn’t died out because many of us are prepared, even if unwillingly, to accept the compromises of a coarser scale approach in order to have any sort of railway at all, and are in any case incapable of a) building fine scale models of stock that can run even when we can manage exquisite buildings or scenery, and/or b) obtaining a level of income sufficient to afford the dedicated space a fine scale layout demands. 

 

Thus, I am prepared to live with the anomalies inherent in coarse scale RTR 00, but would be happy to have a finescale bespoke railway and it’s stock professionally built for me to my specifications if I win the Euro.  I am sure this is a more or less typical attitude which I am not unique in holding, and I prefer to have a compromise coarse scale railway than none at all.  I have to live in a not large flat with a partner whose opinions and needs must be accommodated; luckily she’s supportive!

 

She’s probably (I haven’t asked) be less amenable to sleeping in a tent on the patio so that I could have a scale curve on the entrance to my fiddle yard...

Edited May 22, 2019 by The Johnster

[Big James]

The age old argument over space and compromise. I’ve managed to fit a respectable 00 gauge layout of 11ftx1ft along one wall of the living room. We’ve only got a small one bedroom flat. But by making sure I use 3 coach sets and the largest engine I can use is an N class means that it doesn’t overpower the layout I’ve managed to fit in a station, goods yard and an engine shed. So it’s got decent operating potential. I had to leave my largish seaside terminus layout at my parents house. My partner was very accommodating although I had to give up decorating rights and buy her a Nintendo switch but I think got a good deal out of it. 

 

Big James

Edited May 22, 2019 by Big James
I forgot to add gauge

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

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...

 

It can hardly be said loudly enough: oh no it wouldn't! Our current OO pacific models, if inspected with care, reveal that the designers have already indulged in little 'nibbles' to get them round the sub 2 chain scale radius of the substitution second radius set track horror points. Measure over the outside extremities of cylinders and valve gear, and overall widths exceeding 36mm are frequently present. (Not just on pacifics, large 4-6-0 and 2-8-0 are likewise afflicted.)

 

Now add the 2.33mm extra width required of a commercial standard construction 18.83mm gauge model required to negotiate set track radii. Width over splasher faces must be bumped out by this addition. Do we also increase the width of the footplating to compensate, so the walkway remains correct width? Well probably, because the width over the cylinders has likewise necessarily increased. Now there's a disproportion between boiler diameter and overall width over footplating and what to do about the cab side position, and so it goes on.

 

This is how RTR HO steam is done. When measured for width around the extremities of the mechanism anything up to 4mm/ft is used - visible flexiscale! I prefer the OO compromise which results in far less necessity to do this, and thereby a final appearance very acceptable to the eye: you have to measure to find the scale deviations.

 

Few such problems attend D+E traction and rolling stock. UK HO 'modern image' would be no trouble. Had Lima and Fleischmann stuck to HO, or Bachmann decided that the 1991Channel tunnel opening marked a suitable point to make all models of contemporary subjects in HO, our UK model railway world might be very different.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I really hope that IF British TT were to ever rise again (Simon Kohler did once point out the possibility) any manufacturer venturing into such a place would choose the established 1:120 scale on 12mm track, it's the only option that makes any real sense now.

Engineering tolerances must be able to deal with any wheel/cylinder/platform interfaces as necessary, please note that modern German platforms are largely high level just like ours and yet their models somehow still manage to work.

You would need to get measuring to see how it is done. If the designers have been clever and stuck to HO minimum  radius, instead of falling into the trap of offering yet smaller curve radii, then that would buy a lot of wiggle room.

[Tarnish1]

Going back to the 1938 Duchess of Atholl the original model got zinc rot in the chassis and drivers. There is a more detailed description of this rare model (it still exists) in a book on the history of Hornby trains - cannot remember the precise details I'm afraid - can anybody help?

 

Most models from Binns Road were free of zinc rot post WW2 as the quality control in casting materials was improved.

[Dunsignalling]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

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.

The only way anything built to 18.83mm gauge could be made to go round anything remotely approaching the curves you suggest would be by incorporating a colossal amount of side-play. So much that the chassis of such a loco would, in all probability, have to be made narrower than its OO equivalent.

 

Moreover, coarse scale wheels set to 18.83mm gauge would be so wide over the faces that outside cylinders would have to be kicked outwards by a significant amount to provide clearance. It would also lead to massively over-wide splashers which would make any such loco look far worse than anything in OO. Then you need to move your platforms further away from the track to prevent your over-wide locos getting jammed against them.....

 

That same cylinder issue traditionally arises with continental HO r-t-r steam locos - "correct" HO (P87) requires proportionately the same sort of generous curves that P4 demands. Sorry, but adopting any "correct" scale/gauge relationship has unavoidable consequences for layout dimensions and the only practical way to avoid them is not to have steam locos with outside cylinders or any larger than 0-6-0s or on ones layout. That or accept that. for most of us, choosing EM or P4 will inevitably restrict the kind of layout we can have to one of the "straight-line" configurations.

 

None of those handicaps apply to our traditional "flawed" OO arrangements, which is why I, and many others, long ago decided to put up with them.  It's not actually that much of a sacrifice if one arranges scenery and buildings so that observers cannot easily view the layout along the track. As an example, it was quite common for Captain Kernow of this parish to be asked if his much-admired Engine Wood was built to EM or P4 - it was neither (though he does go in for P4 these days).

 

John

 

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

You are right of course, but I rather like a front on view of a train approaching around a curve that I on the outside of, and the incorrect track gauge shows up horribly in this scenario!  We already have oversized splashers to cope with the coarse scale wheels in 00, but the discrepancy is on the inside of the splasher where it is less visible, not the outside.  

 

We have gone OT a bit from putative or neverwazza Hornby products, not that I've minded the diversion and I've learned a bit about the practical difficulties of a coarse scale approach using correct gauge track, and that H0 models suffer in this respect as well,  I am reminded of some of the early N gauge UK abominations with tiny pony wheels and inappropriate cylinders, 9Fs on coarse scale Kriegslok mechs, and so on.

 

Coarse standard 4mm scale 18.83 or 19mm might be doable with inside cylinder locos or modern image, and I see no problem with it for multiple units, but it's never going to happen!

Edited May 22, 2019 by The Johnster

[Joseph_Pestell]

17 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Only if you use antiquated measurements such as fractions of inches....

 

 

 

Jason

 

Fractions of inches are no more "antiquated" than feet and inches themselves: Just part of the same system. So OO/EM/P4 as 4mm:1ft fails on all scores. 1:76.2 is not very convenient either.

 

Just a pity that when HO was invented, the electric motors of the day made 1:100 models impracticable. I think that all of Europe, including the UK, could have united around a sensible metric-based scale.

[Steamport Southport]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Fractions of inches are no more "antiquated" than feet and inches themselves: Just part of the same system. So OO/EM/P4 as 4mm:1ft fails on all scores. 1:76.2 is not very convenient either.

 

Just a pity that when HO was invented, the electric motors of the day made 1:100 models impracticable. I think that all of Europe, including the UK, could have united around a sensible metric-based scale.

 

Ask a youngster today what an eighth of an inch is and ask the same one what 8mm is.

 

I don't even think they teach fractions anymore. They stopped that when I was a kid. You don't have them on computer keyboards whilst you did on some typewriters and word processors. As I said they are obsolete.

 

 

Jason

[Wickham Green]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Fractions of inches are no more "antiquated" than feet and inches themselves: Just part of the same system. So OO/EM/P4 as 4mm:1ft fails on all scores. 1:76.2 is not very convenient either.

 

Just a pity that when HO was invented, the electric motors of the day made 1:100 models impracticable. I think that all of Europe, including the UK, could have united around a sensible metric-based scale.

Of course HO - and OO - use a track gauge that ( though subsequently tweaked a little ) started out as Half O gauge - or half of one and a quarter INCHES ................................. and if anyone thinks there's the slightest bit of logic in a scale of 1:87 they need their heads examined I'd have to disagree.

[D9020 Nimbus]

HO and OO could only be invented in Britain — nobody else mixes Imperial and metric measurements. Scales invented in America are ratios like 1:120 (TT) — a tenth of an inch to a foot — and 1:64 (S). US 'O' is 1:48 (a quarter of an inch to a foot). Europe has given us 'N' (1:160, 9mm) and 'Z' (1:220, 6.5mm)., and also 1:93 or 1:100 length coaches in HO!

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Ask a youngster today what an eighth of an inch is and ask the same one what 8mm is.

 

I don't even think they teach fractions anymore. They stopped that when I was a kid. You don't have them on computer keyboards whilst you did on some typewriters and word processors. As I said they are obsolete.

 

 

Jason

Kids terday, don' know they're born...  They can't tell the time on an analogue clock face either; why should they?  My Mac keyboard will deliver ¾ as ¾ unless I specificallly ask it not to, but my iPhone one won't.

 

There is no reason why decimals cannot be used with imperial measurements, 2.5 inches, there, fixed that for you...

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

HO and OO could only be invented in Britain — nobody else mixes Imperial and metric measurements. Scales invented in America are ratios like 1:120 (TT) — a tenth of an inch to a foot — and 1:64 (S). US 'O' is 1:48 (a quarter of an inch to a foot). Europe has given us 'N' (1:160, 9mm) and 'Z' (1:220, 6.5mm)., and also 1:93 or 1:100 length coaches in HO!

Wasn't H0 invented in the US?  

 

Some Ordnance Survey maps in the first edition of the 'metric' 1:50,000 series back in the 70s, using the old 1:63,360 contour lines, had the note 'contour values are given to the nearest metre.  The contour interval is, however, 50 feet'.  Only in Britain.

[Wickham Green]

12 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

...............  Only in Britain.

Ain't it great to be different !

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green said:

Of course HO - and OO - use a track gauge that ( though subsequently tweaked a little ) started out as Half O gauge - or half of one and a quarter INCHES ................................. and if anyone thinks there's the slightest bit of logic in a scale of 1:87 they need their heads examined I'd have to disagree.

 

Absolutely. 1:87 only has any validity as half of O. But O at an already compromised 1:43.5 not the 1:48 it should be.

 

The traditional imperial scales are all at least consistent with each other and use a single measurement system: 1:32, 1:48, 1:64.

 

There is no consistency at all with the various continental scales, although, oddly, 12mm track and 1:120 scale gives 144cm track spacing which is a gross of centimetres.

[laurenceb]

On 22/05/2019 at 14:34, Steamport Southport said:

 

Only if you use antiquated measurements such as fractions of inches....

 

 

 

Jason

The most common modelling scale in the world is 1/72nd

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, laurenceb said:

The most common modelling scale in the world is 1/72nd

 

And, of course, that leads on to another common modelling scale 1:144 (1/12"/1ft). If N gauge had been set at this, it would have had 10mm track and been called T gauge.

[Tarnish1]

1 hour ago, jf2682 said:

Getting back on topic, my favourite loco that never was is the original R753 E3047 AL2 electric in electric blue.  The loco appeared in the 1963 catalogue if I recall, but was made into a hybrid AL1 E3001 using the Dublo E3002 body shell with the Tri-Ang AL2 bogies which had actually been developed.  Perhaps we will one day see an RTR model, especially in electric blue.

Didn't TRIX make this as well? Again in electric blue with white cab ends. Was a nice model.

[Tarnish1]

Further to my comment above see:

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, laurenceb said:

The most common modelling scale in the world is 1/72nd

1/72nd is a very sensible size for models of more or less everything except ships; reasonably compact but you can still get a good bit of detail in. 1/32nd or 1/43rd is probably better for cars. 

 

Airfix’s construction kit 1/72nd aircraft, military vehicles, and figures were stated in Airfix Magazine articles of the 1960s to be suitable for use with (I don’t think the word ‘compatible’ was used) ‘00/H0’ scale model railways, and their various railway kits, Kitmaster derived and others and the ‘lineside’ range of buildings and accessories (at 1/76th) were labelled as ‘00/H0’ scale.  

 

00/H0 was a fairly common term at this period.  I seem to recall Peco and Merit using it as well, and for track it seems reasonably suitable.  But Airfix 1/72nd figures or aircraft might have looked a bit bulky alongside H0 trains!

 

OTOH, when I built a ‘scale’ 4mm model of Clarence Road, a Cardiff dockland terminus, in the 80s, with 00 track, I scaled the buildings, which included some fairly large factories, and the platforms and so on, at 3.5mm.  Nobody ever questioned this and beyond myself and the club members that built and exhibited it, nobody knew; I ‘got away’ with it!

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, laurenceb said:

The most common modelling scale in the world is 1/72nd

 

That's a ratio though...

 

And should strictly be 1:72.

 

 

 

Jason

[Ben Alder]

On 22/05/2019 at 14:34, Steamport Southport said:

 

Only if you use antiquated measurements such as fractions of inches....

 

 

 

Jason

Measure it in thous.

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, Tarnish1 said:

Further to my comment above see:

The Trix model is excellant, even the wheels include the embosed outlines, windows are flush glazed. Only the motor wasnt the best. I’m putting a Bachmann 85 chassis under mine, its an almost perfect fit.

The Triang 81 isnt a patch on it.