Great British Locomotives

[Butler Henderson]

One in Sainsburys Harrogate this morning.

[PhilJ W]

I managed to find one in one of the local Asda stores. It really looks tiny compared to the rest of the range. I have checked it against some 1/76 scale drawings of the prototype and it appears to be about HO scale, I will have to remove it from the packaging to measure it properly.

[paulshaw]

hi all

 

locomotion is oo scale it says so on the card and is a nice model to finish the collection as issue 41 came with a note witch says

 

dear customer thank you for collecting great british locomotive collection. we hope you enjoyed both the magazine and the models during this series. issue 41 will be the final part in the collection kind regards amercom

 

regards

 

paul

[WD0-6-0]

hi all

 

locomotion is oo scale it says so on the card

paul

Even if it says so, the fact these models are basically stolen, as discussed earlier in the thread, the card isn't particularly trustworthy. It's been proven so far it isn't big enough to be 4mm scale.

I apologise if this comes across a little harsh, I'm not very good at wording things.

[Il Grifone]

I have still to pass the vernier caliper over her, but the model's wheels seem spaced rather too far apart for H0 scale. the drivers are around 12mm in diameter which suggests somewhere in the region of 1:100.

 

With rreference to earlier mention of Kinder eggs, i have a couple of examples of their model of 'Adler'. Scale is obviously only approximate, but they are a passable representaion and similar in size to GBL's 'Locomotion'.

 

The ones I have are similar to this, but appear to be a different (larger?) series - I have a van with brake cabin but not these coaches or the tender.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/19th-Century-HISTORIC-TRAIN-Engine-LOCOMOTIVE-CARS-Plastic-Kinder-Egg-N-Scale-/251996000831?hash=item3aac21d23f

[Ruffnut Thorston]

I got one from Romford, via a friend.  It's even smaller than I thought, the wagon doesn't look out of place on a N gauge railway.

As I also have the Bachmann model a comparison had to happen.

LL_2.JPG

 

And then this happened.

LL_1.JPG

Small.......far away.

 

Is it just a coincidence that the rods, etc. are in exactly the same positions on the two models?

[Ruffnut Thorston]

Hi All....

 

Today I spotted my first obviously GBL models in the photos in a national model railway magazine!

 

Although not credited as GBL,  the "Winston Churchill", "Stowe" and a black painted "Evening Star" are clearly visible in the works area on the "Forleigh" preserved railway in the current Railway Modeller.

 

Have any more been spotted?

 

It still remains "funny" that not one magazine ever mentioned the range, doesn't it!

 

Edited to change "Hornby Magazine" (an error!) to "Railway Modeller", the actual magazine in question! OOPs...

Edited September 13, 2015 by Sarahagain

[Brit70053]

Hi All....

 

 

It still remains "funny" that not one magazine ever mentioned the range, doesn't it!

I think I recall reading way back (in this thread ?) that other model railway magazines were unlikely to give publicity to a rival publication in normal circumstances, notwithstanding consideration of the ethics behind the production of the models. The latter aspect has been discussed many times here.

[Paul Cram]

Firstly OO is not a scale but a gauge and it claerly is OO gauge. What scale it is may be a different matter.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Paul Cram

[Smiffy2]

Actually it's a gauge.

[Paul Cram]

Actually it's a gauge.

Thanks duly amended

[Nile]

You got clearly wrong as well.

And I measure it as 16mm gauge, it has trouble staying on OO /HO track.

[Horsetan]

....It still remains "funny" that not one magazine ever mentioned the range, doesn't it!

It's the elephant in the room, the love that dares not speak its name.

 

So how about a challenge: to get these models to photobomb as many magazine photos as possible.

[RJS1977]

Firstly OO is not a scale but a gauge and it claerly is OO gauge. What scale it is may be a different matter.

 

Surely 00 is the combination of both scale and gauge (i.e. 4mm/ft on 16.5mm track), just as H0 is the scale/gauge combination of 3.5mm/ft on 16.5mm track and 009 is the scale/gauge combination of 4mm/ft on 9mm track....

 

Any item built to 4mm/ft can be said to be to "00 scale" as it is the same scale as 00, and anything designed to run on 16.5mm track is to "00 gauge" as it is the same gauge as 00.

[darrel]

I don't see how the magazine is in competition with any of the model magazines. The magazine itself has nothing to do with modelling, just the history of the locomotives. And name one other model railway magazine that comes with a model locomotive.

I made a suggestion to one of the magazine's that they could print a template for scratch building a wagon or a building. But no response, it would not cost much to do you could cut it out stick it to styrene sheet cut it to size and glue it together. I remember in the old days when a certain magazine was a supplement they did printed sheets to make buildings with, so it can be done.

If you can make a loco for £8.99 plus a magazine and presumably make a profit how much would a ready to run wagon cost? If one of the magazine's was to take a chance on including a wagon would it boost sales with people buying multiple copies to build up a rake of wagons. We have seen it with the Hachette mk1 coaches. It could be a wagon that is not available ready to run. It does not have to be every issue.

[Coryton]

Surely 00 is the combination of both scale and gauge (i.e. 4mm/ft on 16.5mm track), just as H0 is the scale/gauge combination of 3.5mm/ft on 16.5mm track and 009 is the scale/gauge combination of 4mm/ft on 9mm track....

 

Any item built to 4mm/ft can be said to be to "00 scale" as it is the same scale as 00, and anything designed to run on 16.5mm track is to "00 gauge" as it is the same gauge as 00.

 

This is - to me - the only logical way of looking at it.

 

But a lot of people don't seem to see it this way.

 

If 00 just means the gauge, then what is 009?

[Hroth]

In't good owd days, before we scrutinised wagons to see if they had roundhead or squarehead bolts inside the wagon, you used to get printed sheets of paper with all sorts of private owner wagon sides printed on them, in OO and N.  Glued to a simple cardboard box and popped on a cheap wagon chassis, they made perfectly adequate rake fodder.  It might not work nowadays, there's be complaints about lack of detail, and even wagon chassis are expensive!

 

Hornby Magazine often includes printed building kits for glueing onto card and making up.  The current issue has a bus garage to add interest to a present day layout.  BRM has a DVD with varied material relevant to the issue it comes with, and sometimes includes a printable building kit in the "extras" section on the disk. It would be interesting to see if these mags would print wagon or coach kits for making up and then see how many made it into the wild!

 

An inexpensive model glued to the cover might be an interesting treat, especially for a Christmas issue but we might end up paying a premium based on if the mag had a model or not.

 

Perhaps a mag could do a deal with Dapol for one of their unpainted wagons (not the kits but the RTR ones) which sell for about six quid.  You'd probably end up paying partwork prices for that particular issue, but if it were a one-off or infrequent offer, then the takeup might be quite good. They could then also have a "Paint Your Wagon" competition.....

[Hilux5972]

This is - to me - the only logical way of looking at it.

 

But a lot of people don't seem to see it this way.

 

If 00 just means the gauge, then what is 009?

As said above, OO9 is to OO scale but they are narrow gauge items that run on 9mm track.

[Coryton]

As said above, OO9 is to OO scale but they are narrow gauge items that run on 9mm track.

 

Quite.

 

I wasn't very clear above.

 

The point I was trying (and failing) to make is that descriptions such as 00 and 009 must describe both gauge and scale, otherwise 009 would mean the same as N gauge.

 

A better example would have been that if 00 just means gauge, then 00 and HO must be the same thing.

 

This is why I don't understand the view that 00 is just a gauge. But maybe I'm missing something.

[Hroth]

Quite.

 

I wasn't very clear above.

 

The point I was trying (and failing) to make is that descriptions such as 00 and 009 must describe both gauge and scale, otherwise 009 would mean the same as N gauge.

 

A better example would have been that if 00 just means gauge, then 00 and HO must be the same thing.

 

This is why I don't understand the view that 00 is just a gauge. But maybe I'm missing something.

The problem is that HO and OO are two scales that share the same gauge.

 

HO came first, but was impractical as far as British outline was concerned - the motors then existing wouldn't fit in a typical British loco body, so breathing room was introduced by adding that extra 0.5 mm, but to save having to introduce another track standard (ie bump the gauge up to at least 18mm), the 16.5 mm of HO was retained.

 

A pragmatic compromise, which we're now stuck with after nearly a century of OO.

 

THAT puts things in perspective, eh?

[Il Grifone]

Firstly OO is not a scale but a gauge and it claerly is OO gauge. What scale it is may be a different matter.

 

I interpret '00' as meaning 4mm/foot on 16.5mm gauge, thus defining both scale and gauge.* The widely used term 00/H0 is meaningless, of course.

 

For the Americans, it's a scale - 4mm/foot on 19mm gauge.  (Listed on the N.M.R.A. website with their usual precise tolerances.)

 

The gauge of the GBL models is actually 15mm something to fit their plinths. I've found that some correctly gauged 16.5mm wheels are decidedly unhappy on them. 'Locomotion' is not an exception - the driving wheels appear bereft of flanges. (Must get around to checking dimensions.......).

 

* Now obsolete, but the intermediate scale of 1/80 has been claimed as both 00 and H0 (depending on manufacturer). Obviously it is neither. I did see a specific term for the Continental version in an Italian magazine once, but I can't either remember or find it again.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Il Grifone

[Coryton]

The problem is that HO and OO are two scales that share the same gauge.

 

 

That's not how I see it (other views are available).

 

To me, descriptions such as 00, H0, 009, EM describe a scale AND a gauge.

 

The scale part of 00 and HO is different, the gauge part is the same.

 

The gauge part of 009 and N is the same, the scale part is different.

 

If we regard them as just defining a scale, then 00, EM and P4 would all be the same.

If we regard them as gauges, then HO and 00 would be the same.

 

Clearly HO and 00 share the same gauge, but if we call them (just) scales then they have no gauge to share, surely?

 

I think the problem is that we have no handy word for "scale and gauge combination" so we end up saying either 00 gauge or 00 scale and causing confusion and discourse on internet forums on whether to say scale or gauge.

[Brit70053]

I don't see how the magazine is in competition with any of the model magazines. The magazine itself has nothing to do with modelling, just the history of the locomotives. And name one other model railway magazine that comes with a model locomotive.

I made a suggestion to one of the magazine's that they could print a template for scratch building a wagon or a building. But no response, it would not cost much to do you could cut it out stick it to styrene sheet cut it to size and glue it together. I remember in the old days when a certain magazine was a supplement they did printed sheets to make buildings with, so it can be done.

If you can make a loco for £8.99 plus a magazine and presumably make a profit how much would a ready to run wagon cost? If one of the magazine's was to take a chance on including a wagon would it boost sales with people buying multiple copies to build up a rake of wagons. We have seen it with the Hachette mk1 coaches. It could be a wagon that is not available ready to run. It does not have to be every issue.

In a way the models may be the problem so far as publishers of the model railway magazines are concerned; see posts 271 and 274 early in this thread. Dibber25, Chris Leigh, the very respected Assistant Editor of Model Rail wrote these posts.

The majority of the GBL models appear to have been copied with detail differences, from the commercial products of mainstream RTR manufacturers and it can be envisaged that magazines might need to be careful not to jeopardise their relationship with the RTR companies

by appearing to endorse perceived dubious manufacturing practices.

Of course there will be other complex considerations for the magazines, let alone the personal opinions of editorial staff, so clearly illustrated in the above mentioned posts.

 

Edit to complete the text.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Brit70053

[Coryton]

I interpret '00' as meaning 4mm/foot on 16.5mm gauge, thus defining both scale and gauge.* The widely used term 00/H0 is meaningless, of course.

 

 

Really? For gauge, it seems like a pretty good way of describing track that is the right gauge for 00 and HO, and is indeed how Peco describe their track.

 

And for scale, there are plenty of objects such as trees where the same item could quite reasonably be used as both 00 and HO.

[PhilJ W]

Getting back on topic. I have removed 'Locomotion' from the backing card and on the back it makes it quite clear that the driving wheels are 4' in diameter. I then measured the wheels of the model and they are 14 mm in diameter so the scale is HO.