Return to UK Modelling ?

[SamThomas]

A little background.

Quite a number of decades ago my model railway interests were OO Southern based. I became keen to add extra detail such as fully flanged driving wheels, brake rigging & lights. After a number of attemps with Wills & K's kits to build locomotives which did not turn out very well I became disallusioned. However, this was mostly due to my lack of skills in locomotive construction.

The cost of kits were high too, by the time you had bought a basic kit, motor/gears & wheels.

 

I discussed my delimar with the guys at my local model shop (long gone & now an "Adult" shop) & I was shown a Fleischmann Locomotive - A DB BR01 4-6-2, fully flanged wheels, brake rigging, lights & loads of plumbing on ther outside. That was it, I was hooked, it was around £25 & a Hornby (or Triang or Triang/Hornby) Brittania was around £8/9, so around three time the price.

Soon, I found from other European manufactures close couplers, an early for of NEM coupling pockets, clip in lighting units fort coaches & so on.

 

The Return.

Now, I find myself hankering a retun to home turf, again Southern based (with a huge amount of Rule i) & have been seriously looking at what is on offer & using RMW for information.

What I find does not make good reading & most of the issues seems to be spawned from one manufacturer.

 

APT - would love one but at the price it should be comparable with European Models & certainly not with all the issues RMW members have reported.

W1 - would not want one but with all the damaged Locomotives being delivered & those missing flanges - unacceptable.

Other large steam - missing flanges & lack of close coupling between Locomotive & Tenders - unacceptable.

 

Also, the business model of one manufacture making it diffecult to obtain some models unless purchasing direct does not sit well with me at all.

 

There are some really nice UK models out there but at the moment I am reluctant to jump ship.

 

Apologies if I've posted this in the wrong section.

[Danemouth]

14 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I discussed my delimar with the guys at my local model shop (long gone & now an "Adult" shop)
 

"The Model Shop" in Mill Lane Cardiff?

 

Dave

[SamThomas]

1 hour ago, Danemouth said:

"The Model Shop" in Mill Lane Cardiff?

 

Dave

No, maybe it's a sign of males going from one type of model to another .

[melmerby]

It's a sign of the times that an internet search for one type of model or another always includes several listings for ladies who can't afford clothing........

[SR71]

23 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

No, maybe it's a sign of males going from one type of model to another .

Inside the M25 South of the river to the East?

 

Understand previously they were adjacent and the proprietor did rather well selling kits etc to those who'd had a late change of heart as they approached the door.

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, SamThomas said:

W1 - would not want one but with all the damaged Locomotives being delivered & those missing flanges - unacceptable.

 

What would you do to rectify the "problem"

 

We know that with the correct width rear framing, which the loco has, flanged wheels cannot be used due to the overthrow caused by the loco's length.

If you want the wheels to go around trainset curves (or indeed my 3' curves) you need to compromise.

DJH, on their kit, have widened the frames considerably (and noticeably) to allow a standard 4 wheel truck enough room to move.

Personally I don't like either way.

I was wondering what having the whole frame swivel with it's wheels would look like? Obviously fine on a straight but silly on a bend, probably.

 

Maybe a double solution of swivelling wheels and a swivelling frame, the wheels move until they reach their limit of sideplay within the frame and then the frame swivels for the rest of the movement. Probably too complcated by far.

 

 

[SamThomas]

8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

What would you do to rectify the "problem"

 

We know that with the correct width rear framing, which the loco has, flanged wheels cannot be used due to the overthrow caused by the loco's length.

If you want the wheels to go around trainset curves (or indeed my 3' curves) you need to compromise.

DJH, on their kit, have widened the frames considerably (and noticeably) to allow a standard 4 wheel truck enough room to move.

Personally I don't like either way.

I was wondering what having the whole frame swivel with it's wheels would look like? Obviously fine on a straight but silly on a bend, probably.

 

Maybe a double solution of swivelling wheels and a swivelling frame, the wheels move until they reach their limit of sideplay within the frame and then the frame swivels for the rest of the movement. Probably too complcated by far.

 

 

There is the same sort of issue with other Locomotives.

However, your suggestion in the last paragraph seems, to me at least a possible solution.

[Steamport Southport]

16 hours ago, SamThomas said:

A little background.

Quite a number of decades ago my model railway interests were OO Southern based. I became keen to add extra detail such as fully flanged driving wheels, brake rigging & lights. After a number of attemps with Wills & K's kits to build locomotives which did not turn out very well I became disallusioned. However, this was mostly due to my lack of skills in locomotive construction.

The cost of kits were high too, by the time you had bought a basic kit, motor/gears & wheels.

 

I discussed my delimar with the guys at my local model shop (long gone & now an "Adult" shop) & I was shown a Fleischmann Locomotive - A DB BR01 4-6-2, fully flanged wheels, brake rigging, lights & loads of plumbing on ther outside. That was it, I was hooked, it was around £25 & a Hornby (or Triang or Triang/Hornby) Brittania was around £8/9, so around three time the price.

Soon, I found from other European manufactures close couplers, an early for of NEM coupling pockets, clip in lighting units fort coaches & so on.

 

The Return.

Now, I find myself hankering a retun to home turf, again Southern based (with a huge amount of Rule i) & have been seriously looking at what is on offer & using RMW for information.

What I find does not make good reading & most of the issues seems to be spawned from one manufacturer.

 

APT - would love one but at the price it should be comparable with European Models & certainly not with all the issues RMW members have reported.

W1 - would not want one but with all the damaged Locomotives being delivered & those missing flanges - unacceptable.

Other large steam - missing flanges & lack of close coupling between Locomotive & Tenders - unacceptable.

 

Also, the business model of one manufacture making it diffecult to obtain some models unless purchasing direct does not sit well with me at all.

 

There are some really nice UK models out there but at the moment I am reluctant to jump ship.

 

Apologies if I've posted this in the wrong section.

 

What missing flanges?

 

I assume you are referring to the Hornby Pacifics and W1. They're in the box where they have been for the last few years. At least fifteen.

 

Most RTR locomotives also have adjustable close coupling systems. Have had for decades.

 

 

Are you really looking at modern models or just looking at pictures of the model out of the box, and listening to people who haven't got a clue such as Sam Trains? 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Most RTR locomotives also have adjustable close coupling systems. Have had for decades.

Jason

Some versions of the W1 with the two position coupling bar can only be used in the long position if the two rings are rearwards due to the placement of the electrical socket in one version of the tender that is supplied.

The casting for the loco's rear trailing wheels means it cannot be used with the two fixing rings forwards in the short position.

So the distance on this particular version is non adjustable.

 

I would point out that on the diagram supplied with the loco a kinetic CCU is shown but is not fitted on the models as delivered.

 

N.B. I have two different W1s with two different length coupling bars!

Edited January 31, 2022 by melmerby

[SamThomas]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

What missing flanges?

 

I assume you are referring to the Hornby Pacifics and W1. They're in the box where they have been for the last few years. At least fifteen.

 

Most RTR locomotives also have adjustable close coupling systems. Have had for decades.

 

 

Are you really looking at modern models or just looking at pictures of the model out of the box, and listening to people who haven't got a clue such as Sam Trains? 

 

 

 

 

Jason

OK, in true RMW form I'll have to be a little more specific.

 

The "missing" flanged wheels that cannot be used on a working Locomotive on a layout with less than protypical curves.

 

The close couplings (kinetic) between the Locomotive & the Tender - not the ones supplied for showcase queens.

 

FWIW I only watch Sams Trains in case I miss the one that ends where all you see is a smouldering pair of trainers.

 

Most of my comments are based on what I see on this corner of the internet.

[SamThomas]

52 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Some versions of the W1 with the two position coupling bar can only be used in the long position if the two rings are rearwards due to the placement of the electrical socket in one version of the tender that is supplied.

The casting for the loco's rear trailing wheels means it cannot be used with the two fixing rings forwards in the short position.

So the distance on this particular version is non adjustable.

 

I would point out that on the diagram supplied with the loco a kinetic CCU is shown but is not fitted on the models as delivered.

 

N.B. I have two different W1s with two different length coupling bars!

I only quoted the W1 as an example - I would not have one as a gift as I really, really do not like it.

 

Such as shame for those who spent so much of their hard earned to end up disappointed for various reasons - this really should have been a Steam flagship model.

[Jeff Smith]

5 hours ago, SamThomas said:

OK, in true RMW form I'll have to be a little more specific.

 

The "missing" flanged wheels that cannot be used on a working Locomotive on a layout with less than protypical curves.

 

Therein is the conundrum - long wheelbase locomotives can only run on train set curves with some considerable compromises......  Even some prototype locos (9F) had flangeless centre drivers!

Edited January 31, 2022 by Jeff Smith

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, SamThomas said:

OK, in true RMW form I'll have to be a little more specific.

 

The "missing" flanged wheels that cannot be used on a working Locomotive on a layout with less than protypical curves.

 

The close couplings (kinetic) between the Locomotive & the Tender - not the ones supplied for showcase queens.

 

FWIW I only watch Sams Trains in case I miss the one that ends where all you see is a smouldering pair of trainers.

 

Most of my comments are based on what I see on this corner of the internet.

 

Nope. Mine can all go round fairly normal curves of about 30 to 36 inches. Hardly extreme in radius and the size you would have in a medium to large room or loft layout. That's less than a six foot circle.

 

Probably about the same as the equivalent kit built models can go around. DJH kits can all go around 30 inches that includes Big Bertha and the LNER Garratt.

 

https://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/prodpage.asp?productid=3060

 

https://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/prodpage.asp?productid=3009

 

 

FWIW they can all pull prototypical length trains as well. Why these myths perpetuate is baffling. If people continually state them as fact they become seen as fact.

 

 

But reading your reply you have already made your mind up that these things are rubbish and unacceptable (to use your words) so why bother starting a thread and then disagreeing with the comments with people who actually have experience of these models?

 

 

 

Jason

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nope. Mine can all go round fairly normal curves of about 30 to 36 inches. Hardly extreme in radius and the size you would have in a medium to large room or loft layout. That's less than a six foot circle.

 

Jason

Are you saying your Hornby W1 will go  round 30-36" curves with the flanged wheels fitted?

 

[The Johnster]

The use of large locomotoves on 00 setrack layouts will always require a compromise, even on no.4 radius.  It is impossible to build scale models that will negotiate such 'unscale' radii, because, to quote Scotty, 'ye canna change the laws o' physics laws o' physics laws o' physics, canna change the laws o' physics laws o' physics, Jim'.  So, an RTR manufacturer that has identified a market demand for such a locomotive as a W1 must, in order to satisfy it and make an wee bobee, design the model so that it will traverse it's own setrack curvature, as it is considered anathema to try to sell locomotives that won't run on your own track, irrespective of the effect on the scale appearance.  How much of this compromise you are indivdiually prepared to accept is down to you, but it seems an inconsitent approach IMHO to accept unfeasibly sharp setrack radius track geometry and then insist on scale accuracy for big engines.  You've already accepted scale inaccuracy in the track geometry.

 

I cannot see that this issue is any different for US, European, Japanese, etc manufacturers working in H0, though the different scale gives them a little more leeway and the American use of Janney buffer/couplings on the prototype does mean that the stock has no side buffers to lock and can hence be used on even sharper radius curves.  As the OP seems to be comparing British 00 RTR unfavourably to H0 RTR, this is I contend unfair and not the case.

 

Certainly there was a time when H0 RTR was superior in detail and performance to British, but we've caught up and the majority of models retooled since the turn of the century are as good as one can reasonably expect for the price, even when the price increases are taken into consideration. 

 

There may be valid reasons for the use of setrack and setrack geometry by 'modellers', an open-ended word that we all know the meaning of but is actually hard to pin down; let us for the sake of this discussion say that it means 'someone who builds and operates a model railway layout to the best standard of realism and scale he can within the limitations of the space available and his skillset comfort zone'.  But the co-existence of setrack geometry and scale British outline models is not a happy one; even after the acceptance of the gauge  compromise of 16.5mm track, 4'1" scaled up.  Setrack may be used as space saver in order to allow a desired track plan to be be build on a confined site, in which case the compromises must be either lived with or big engines avoided, or on industrial/docks layouts where very sharp curvature is prototypical and better represented by setrack because flexi is not designed to go that sharp and the rails may well pull out of the plastic chairs and distort out of gauge if you try it!

 

We have all been through this thought process; 'what sort of model railway do I want', before even the planning stage.  If the answer is 'main line steam era operation with big engines and long trains at scale speeds', your next thought is 'how much space will I need for it', and at this point reality hits with a sickening thud.  To make a decent fist of such a model and at the same time pay due respect to scale, you need a clear run of straight or very gently curved track at least twice the length of your longest train, and we are talking trains of a dozen + coaches, 11 feet or so long including a big locomotive.  By the time you add curves of suitable radius at each end to get the trains around to the fiddle yard, you are looking at 30' minimum.  Look at Tony Wright's 'Little Bytham'.

 

So, the usual response is to shorten the trains and sharpen the curves to fit the layout in to the space available.  The ultimate extension of this philosophy is a 6'x4' train set layout that is 'seriously' modelled.  This is why many of us prefer branch termini, industrial, shunting puzzle, engine sheds and so on; we can achieve a higher level of scale realism in smaller household spaces.  The prototype trains are shorter with smaller engines, and the speeds are often lower so sharper curves can be 'gotten away' with.  My own approach is to base the trackplan on Peco Streamline medium radius (30 inch) turnouts and a minimum curve of 24", and that in the hidden fiddle yard area.  2-coach trains are acceptable with this prototype, but I have to compromise on coal trains which should be twice as long as the 12 wagon and a van that I can manage; such is life and I am content enough with the situation, at least until I win the lottery. 

 

When I win the lottery (!), the layout will be rebuilt to much the same trackplan, but with capacity for longer trains and more 'open country' run.  I like the operation and will keep it.  This is a very opposite philosophy to the big American basement layouts you see on Pinterest, scale thousand foot mountains floor to ceiling, several scale miles of H0 on several levels, trestle bridges everywhere you look, all often boiling down to a single track continuous run with loops.  Or the European style of multi-level folded figure 8s, trains appearing out of tunnel mouths everywhere except where you expected them to, and hidden spirals.  These are ingeniously designed and skilfully built, but not IMHO in any way realistic; where in America are these canyons with lines on 3 or 4 levels looping around baseboard peninsulas with unfeasibly sharp curvature?  Canyons mean mountainous terrain, which means sparse populations, and either a single through route or a 'shortline' (branch) to a ramshackle mine.  Coal in the Alleghenies but silver or gold in the Rockies, and the precious metals do not require railroads to carry the relatively small amounts of ore.  It just doesn't look right to me, though it it floats your boat it's doing it's job!

 

On pinterest, one sees bare trackbed baseboards of incredibly convoluted twists and sprirals, folded 8s, return loops, unfeasibly sharp curves, which are works of art in their own right, but whether they are practical or possible as model railways on which trains can run often looks a dubious propostition to my jaded eyes.  Same goes for Hornby trackplans, dating back to Rovex days, station termini that you have to set back into, short trains, awkward and unrealistic operation in which the main running lines are blocked by shunting goods trains; real railways couldn't have run like that, and never did, and while you might be able to find odd locations where this sort of thing did take place, they were very unusual.  My philosophy is that good modelling represents the usual, normal, scene of the prototype even, in fact especially, with a fictitious location; other philosphies are available!  Mine is very much tailored to the space and budget I have available and that I am a lone wolf operator, so basically one movement at a time is fine for me!

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

I echo most of your comments.  I am a modeller not an operator so building a modest diorama type layout is fine, it must work but I don't spend hours playing with it.

 

If your interest is large engines but no space to run a 12 coach train then an MPD might be the answer.  No tight curves but operation limited to coaling, watering, turning and going into the shed.....

[Happy Hippo]

If you wish to return to British Outline and are expressing dissatisfaction with, I presume, 4 mm scale, then don't do it, as nobody if forcing you down that road.

 

Since you're effectively starting from scratch, so you could opt for 7 mm scale if you want detail, or N gauge if you want to run big trains in the countryside.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

I echo most of your comments.  I am a modeller not an operator so building a modest diorama type layout is fine, it must work but I don't spend hours playing with it.

 

If your interest is large engines but no space to run a 12 coach train then an MPD might be the answer.  No tight curves but operation limited to coaling, watering, turning and going into the shed.....

 

Not my cup of tea, but I can see how it might appeal to a modeller with a fertile imagination, taking on the role of shed foreman.  He has to instruct arriving crews where to berth the locos, and then, depending on the duty and using the shedmen, get it turned, coaled, and watered for the return job if it's a visitor, or all of the above plus dropping the fire over the ashpit and stabling the loco, now in light steam, until the time comes to lay the new fire for the next turn of duty. 

 

If that gets dull, you can mix things up a bit with boiler washouts, which took place about every 10 working days and took about 48 hours.  After the fire is dropped, the loco must be allowed to cool down, then all the water is drained from the  boiler and the boilersmiths are  allowed to play with it, cleaning and clearing the tubes and inspecting the boiler.  Once this is done, a new fire is lit and the loco has to raise steam from cold, a delicate process that takes time because rapid expansion will damage joints and welds.   That's at least one and sometimes more of the shed's allocation out of use, and substitutes have to be found to supply the traffic department with motive power to run the timetable.  Welcome to the stress-free and relaxed world of the running shed foreman...

[Mike 84C]

Last night I watched a Hornby Hush Hush pulling 10 Hornby Gresley coaches gliding around our club test track. All very impressive, I could see the flangeless trailing wheels not going round but I did know where to look. 

[w124bob]

Have you considered joining a model railway club, obviously this could depend on your location.  You can at least judge some models close up and talk to owners, if you actually want to build a layout, start small, don't weather or tinker with stock. That way it can still be sold off if you decided UK OO is not for you.

[Allegheny1600]

If it were me, I’d buy a couple of the items I would need for the projected layout and see how much I liked them.

I would take it slowly.

Don’t go rushing in and trade everything you already have, for one thing if you purchased most of your current stock when the prices were around £25 per loco, they will be quite old and not actually worth that much.

Few people want “old” models and they may continue to give you good service if you still enjoy them.

 

FWIW, I do still have some British 00 stock that’s relatively modern and while they’re quite nice, I find the running quality is not up to quality of modern H0 standards. Other pundits will disagree I’m sure!

[SamThomas]

On 01/02/2022 at 13:23, Steamport Southport said:

But reading your reply you have already made your mind up that these things are rubbish and unacceptable (to use your words) so why bother starting a thread and then disagreeing with the comments with people who actually have experience of these models?

Jason

No Jason, I have not already made up my mind & have been looking at what is to offer & I find that the UK market has in a lot of ways still some distance to go to catch up with the European market.

Unflanged wheels & close couplings are probably the most important to me. Of secondary importance are lights on locomotives & in carriages.

Then, I look at the issues with the APT & the W1, not exactly encouraging.

[SamThomas]

On 31/01/2022 at 22:03, Jeff Smith said:

Therein is the conundrum - long wheelbase locomotives can only run on train set curves with some considerable compromises......  Even some prototype locos (9F) had flangeless centre drivers!

Not a problem with European - they seem to manage without too much in the way of compromises. The models of 9f's are quite correct with their flangeless centre drivers. Models of DB Class 50's (also 2-10-0's) will manage 1st radious although I must admit they look a little silly.

[Jeff Smith]

Does the DB Class 50 have flangeless centre drivers?  Or are you saying that it hasn't but the model still goes round tight curves?

[D9020 Nimbus]

There are or have been a fair number of decent Southern-based locos — Bachmann 'C' class, 'N' and 'E4'; Hornby 'M7' and 'H', plus the Kernow/EFE 'O2' and Beattie well tank, plus others I'm not familiar with I'm sure.

 

I think the big continental locos — like the 01 you refer to — rely on a lot of sideways slop on the axles. Perhaps the larger flanges  used, and the extra clearance on the real locos, help.