Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Pacific231G

Members
  • Posts

    5,135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pacific231G

  1. Back in 2016, WhitehouseFilms of this parish built a layout based on Rev. Awdry's Ffarquahar https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/110663-the-ffarquhar-branch/ He also has a topic, last updaed in November, about the North Western Region layout, based on the line from Tidworth to Knapford, he and others are currently building https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/150073-the-north-western-region-the-nwr/#comment-4641001 It's based on a plan drawn for Awdry by Peter R. Wikham, a wartime Spitfire pilot who became a professional modelmaker and was comissioned by the publishers to buid 7mm scale models of the Sodor engines. If you're planning to use the Sodor engines you'll probably find this article by Wickham useful https://trlottte.com/mm_prw.htm That site also has a good number of other articles about Sodor and Awdry's model railways based on it including a reproduction, with permission, of the original Railway of the Month article on Ffarquahar mk1 in the December 1959 Railway Modeller. There's quite a lot on that site that I didnt know, though no doubt everyone else who's followed W. Awdry does. This includes the role of his brother Geroge who, as a librarian, supplied Wilbert with many of the stories he incorporaed in The Railway Series. I also didn't know that BBC TV had broadcast a story from The Three Railway Engines live on 14th June 1953 from Lime Grove Studios. It seems to have used Hornby Dublo track along with three possibly modifed Duchess of Athol locomotives and a tank engine chassis. From all accounts it was a bit of a disaster as the models were very jerky and a miss-set point caused one to derail and to be put back on the track by a very obvious human hand. As usual, the popular press lambasted the BBC and the other two planned broadcasts were abandoned.
  2. No, it's a Drummond Highland Railway Castle Class loco- or rather one of fifty machines built for the CF de l'Etat by North British in 1911 to the same 1900 design (which was based on a Jones design). They were ordered for immadiate delivery in a motive power crisis. This particular loco was North British works no, 19515. They were withdrawn between 1932-1938 though three (not including 329) were reinstated in 1941 and may have lasted until 1945. The Etat had quite a lot of NBR built locos not least the Consolidations that became SNCF 140C. It must be galling for anyone Scottish that the French referred to these Glasgow built machines as Les Anglais. I've no idea about the second wago but
  3. Yes. I had it for about nine days at the beginning of the month and it was very nasty. I was convinced it was Covid but three tests (of two flavours) were negative and mostly it was confined to the throat and back of the roof of my mouth. My tongue is still a bit furred up from it. I strongly suspect that avoiding contact with everyone else for two years may have left us with lower immunity to the usual suspects our immune systems normally meet and swat all the time. I feel as if I'm sickenig for another cold today which I might have picked up at ExpoEM. UPDATE After my non Covid sore throat, the second wasn't another cold it is Covid! First time I've had it. I tested strongly positive on Thursday morning and, given the timing and where else I've been or haven't been, ExpoEM is the probable source- though of course I'll never really know. so far it's been far less nasty than the throat infection and, with any luck, it'll stay that way.
  4. I somehow missed seeing you yesterday Tony and I had a very good demo of resin moulding from Chris Hewiitt so couldn't have been that far away. That'll learn me to actually read the guide! I use H0 and H0m so ExpoEM ought not to be relevant to me but it's one of my very favourite events and, as usual, I really enjoyed it (the drive home was rather less enjoyable) I've missed it these past years. It was good to see Plumpton Green again and I also particularly enjoyed Westcliff where Richard Butler gave me some good insights into using long cassettes while Andrew Cundick with Locthy had a good idea for a simple turntable traverser. I always seem to come away from expoEM with plenty of good ideas. One good thing is that, 18.2 and 18.83 being all wrong for me and not modelling the UK, I generally don't spend much though this time I did get a new modelling tray for just over £20 from the 2nd hand stall upstairs. The good thing about ExpoEM is that people can stop and talk and, on the smaller layouts, don't have to "keep something running" all the time. It's always a very friendly event- something that generally seems truer of the specialist events than general MREs. A big thankyou and congratuations are defiintely owed to Tony Sullivan and the other organisers.
  5. Evening all It was a joy today to attend the first ExpoEM in three years. I model in H0 and H0m so this show ought to be completely irrelevant to me but it's actually one of my favourites. It's a very friendly welcoming event and, with layout owners not under the usual pressure to offer continuous "entertainment" for the paying public, there's time to talk and discuss and, as usual, I came away with more useful ideas than from any other show I know. I also had a good intro. to resin moulding from one of the demonstrators. Congratulations to the organisers.
  6. And it's also worth remembering that the rolling resistance of a steel wheel on a steel rail is as much as ten times less than a tyre on a road. The Musée des Arts et Métiers in Paris used to have a very nice exhibit to demonstrate this. Basically, you cranked a handle to wind in an axle fitted with three sets of wheels, wooden tyre, pneumatic and railway and in the display case were models of three types of terrain, a rough country lane, a metalled road, and a section of railway track. The difference in effort required was astonishing. (The museum also had an internal railway laid in the floor of its galleries but that's another story.) The difference is even more pronounced with water. A horse could pull forty times as much weight in the form of a canal boat than in a cart.
  7. Is that near where Buckingham Cathedral also isn't? The Cornish vicar's Buckingham certainly grew into a very different place from the one in our universe (I never did figure out why so many of the cathedral city's residents needed to get to Leighton Buzzard, the joke being that he called it Leighton Buzzard (Linslade) which is exactly where the actual Leighton Buzzard station is located.)
  8. I used to love Flanders and Swann but my Auntie Nell (not an actual aunt but one of the cousins) was married to a London bus driver and he got absolutely furious when he heard it at our house. Mind you, they had a budgie so I didn't take them too seriously. Thanks for posting this. It led me to a few others I'd all but forgotten, a few I'd never heard such as the still alarming "twenty tons of TNT" and of course "The Slow Train" that brings a tear to the eye even now, almost sixty years after Beeching, I did like this line in a monologue abotu flying that I assume preceded it. "If God had meant us to fly he wouldn''t have given us the railway"
  9. Good find Martin. This one is even more fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1d3tyQgYxE I can't see those flanges lasting too long if loaded wagos are running on their rims over frogs. His wheels reminded of some of the older Jouef pizza cutters I replaced long ago. What's rather fun with these videos is that you can amost imagine the original eigheenth century evolution of "edge-rail" railways going through these stages.
  10. Interesting. Looking at an old catalogue Most of the locos and stock on the Tombstone and Crocket's Creek were Rivarossi (sold in the US as AHM) most of which were lettered for the Virginia and Truckee. I don't know who produced the 4-6-0 Aztec nor the 2-6-0 Jim Bowie but probably Mantua/Tyco along with the 4-2-4T CP Huntingdon. The clerestory passenger cars certainly look like those that Rivarossi had in a set with their 4-4-0 Genoa though there are others that may have come from American manufacturers. The freight cars look to be almost all those offered by Rivarossi including the four wheel caboose. He did have a Tri-ang Davy Crockett but if that was OO rather than HO it would have stuck out like a sore thumb (I once had a Rivarossi SNCF 231E, a lovely model but it was 1:80 scale so just looked wrong against my H0 stock) I did wonder if the 4-4-0 "General" that appears in the article might have been the Kitmaster model motorised and that may have been 1:76 scale, but I think it was more likely the Tyco version. I can't make out from the photos in RM what the couplers were but probably the European hinged loop type that Rivarossi fitted to all their stock. This is probably a bit of a diversion from 1/76 scale non British but it's interesting to know where Tri-ang fitted into all this.
  11. Yes the T&CCRR was an HO scale layout but it was the answer to your question about a "Wild West" themed layout. I actually wonder what scale the Tri-ang Davy Crocket and coaches and the rest of the Transcontinental range were. The catalogue current at that time referred to OO/HO and, though I've seen them desctibed elsewhere as OO. I suspect they probably were to something closer to 3.5mm scale. In 4mm scale the far larger North American loading gauge would surely have made them foul on platforms etc. and the typical Tri-ang customer would certainly have run them alongside British outline stock. It would be interesting to know though and one source does say that the US outline models were notably oversize when put against American modesl. They may have gone for the1:80 scale that Rivaorssi once used for its European outline models . Lines Brothers did try to sell the whole Tri-ang range in N. America and actually described it there as H0 but without much success. Looking at this clip I'm not seeing the apparent narrow gauge I associate with OO but see what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx47M2hwaWE
  12. Charlie Insley's layouts are indeed an example of this representing a 600mm gauge prototype. 9mm gauge is still not quite right for 600mm/2ft gauge in 1:76 scale but it's a lot less wrong than using H0e to represent that gauge. H0i (or H0f in German) using 6.5mm Z gauge track is better - though its actually a bit narrow- but very few people seem to use it except for things like quarry sidings alongside standard gauge. I think the Wild West layout you're thinking of was Peter Morris' HO scale Tombstone and Crockett's Creek. RM's Railway of the month in March 1969 It was interesting because, although at first sight it seemed like a "fun" cowboys and indians layout, it was actually very well though through with a convincing "legend" connecting The Viginia & Truckee RR (and hence the Central Pacific) with the Southern Pacific down the easter side of the Sierra Nevada in California and freight traffic through its three stations operated using the same card order system that Cliff Young used for his D&RGW layout. I think the locos and cars were Rivarossi and Airfix (RTR not kit) and the typically "wild west" buildings were scale kits by Suydam of actual contemporary buildings still preserved. It was a dumb bell layout occupying a 12' x 10' room with a combined fiddle yard representing both ends of the line so with an optional continuous run but normally point to point operation. The old Eggerbahn Western loco always seemed ideal for reproducing scenes from a Spaghetti or German western shot in Almeira Spain. Very much the "wlld west" as legend.
  13. It's tedious but entirely possible to respace the plain track sleepers with Peco track. Since the sleepers are actually very close to scale for 3.5mm/ft but spaced at 600mm centres which is much closer than most British track (HS1 apart) I'd maybe suggest setting them at 2'6" centres in 3.5mm/ft scale to avoid them looking too spindly. The track itself should then look right on its own though still underscale when something is running on it. It's fairly easy to make up a spacing jig to help with that and you obviously need to make sure the now loose sleepers remain square. I notice that the sort of discerning modellers in France who want to use double champignon (BH more or less) rather than vignoles (FB) track for those regions (about half the country before SNCF) that had it seem perfectly happy with Peco bullhead even though it is to 4mm/ft scale in terms of sleeper width and separation (They were/are also perfectly happy with SMP bullhead) so the sleeper width doesn't seem to be a problem and the widder sleeper spacing is about right for lines other than fast main lines . The Peco Simplex coupling, also used by HD who paid to do so, was patented by Sidney Pritchard so couldn't have been adopted as a standard coupling. That was why Tri-ang adopted a rather coarse version of the LaNal coupling which wasn't. The continental hinged loop coupling is an NEM standard but its still a wretched thing that should have been strangled at birth.
  14. I've yet to see a set of model standards that wasn't thorougly ciriticised at the time and since. I do wonder though how the arguments have run in the UIC and the AAR. It was a lot longer than ten years ago and more like twenty. I was replacing old Jouef pizza cutter wheels with Romford and couldn't understand why, with the BtoB apparently correct, these far higher quality wheelsets were dropping into the crossings as they passed over Peco points. Your fixture would have been useful. Fortunately a friend (who also modelled in P87) knew a lot more about the track/wheel relationship than I'm ever likely to OT but I have seen this in 1:1 scale. In I think about 2006 one of the visiting vehicles at the Baie de Somme's festival of steam was a metre gauge SNCV petrol tramcar. It ran up and down the quayside but had to traverse a set of mixed gauge points and dropped quite alarmingly into the crossing everytime it passed over them. As a tramway vehicle It had a much "finer" wheel profile than that of the other metre gauge railway stock there though not as pronounced a difference as with urban tramways.
  15. Does that not depend on the wheel profile of the wheelsets you're using? I got caught by this having been told by everyone I'd heard or read that the BtoB was the crucial dimension . What none of them mentioned was the significance of wheel profile. I duly thought that much of my stock stock (the older part but not that old) had the wrong BtoB because it was different from that of more recent stock. It wasn't until a friend explained that it was the wheel check gauge that was the important dimension and that older stock had different flange widths so required a different BtoB. (FWIW the current MOROP standard (NEM 310) gives for 16.5mm gauge, a BtoB if 14.4-14.6 mm, a wheel check gaue of 15.1-15.3 mm and flange width and depth 0.9-1.2 and 0.6-1.2mm.)
  16. In what sense were Peco being "obdurate"? What is it that you, or DOGA, thought they should have done that they didn't. If it was not making track designed specifically for RP25/110 wheelsets without the compromises that would allow other wheelsets to also run then that was a commercial decision. (I found this comment on a US forum, "If you want a good compromise trackwork system that accepts stock from anywhere around the world (from the last 30 years) then PECO code 100 STREAMLINE is the track for you." )
  17. Back to back measurements specified by whom? If it was say a Hornby or Bachmann loco and worked perfectly well on the track they supply that's really end of story. That's what they test them on as we all saw in the recent TV series about Hornby . If it derails or binds on Peco, Roco, Tillig or hand or kit made track to MOROP, BRMSB, DOGA or NMRA dimensions that's not actually their problem. Because there are no accepted specifications for British 00 there are no standards against which a product could be judged to fail. If Hornby say that a particular loco will negotiate Hornby and second radius curves then so it probably will and if it doesn't you can take it back. If it only derails on Peco large radius turnouts then tough . That's always been the dilemma facing mass produced track makers. Peco or GF could have made points to the current BRMSB standards (which Peco actually did pre-Streamline) but, if the manufacturers weren't following those standards, their customers wouldn't have complained to them but would simply have decided that "Peco (or whatever) track is no good" when their favourite loco went dans le sable (derailed) and they'd have gone bust. What they did instead was to compromise on the published standards enough that the main manufacturers' rolling stock would all negotiate their pointwork, though not as smoothly as wheels and track designed to work together, and with the occasional derailment. When Peco introduced their 83 Line range and, AFAIK their H0n3 range, they simply made it to NMRA specs. and it sells very well in the American market (where it seems to be regarded as a premium product among RTL track) Actually, having an established standard to work to probably came with a great sigh of relief to Peco's designers and they were just as happy to use the EMGS standards for the track they made for them. I'm pretty sure that the reason Peco don't publish the specs for their track and Hornby etc. don't declare what wheel standards they're using is that it would just become a stick to beat them with and it would have been harder to quietly change either as manufacturer's wheel profiles started to converge (on something close to RP25/110? ) .
  18. I've heard that too and, in their early articles (MRC Jan 1967), the MSRG were totally dismissive of the BRMSB* but in reality people seem to have simply got as close as they could to the given dimensions and if they were close enough then things just worked. Those who built their own track in 00 seem to have followed BRMSB standards (or at least thought they did) and suppliers of non RTL track (including Peco with Pecoway and Individualy) worked to them too. I think that most people who model using a less common scale/gauge will generally join the relative scale society and adopt its standards simply because that's the main fount of knowledge. If I modelled in EM, 3mm scale or S scale or possibly in 0 scale I'd definitely join the relevant society but that's far less likely in a majority scale like 00 or (non British) H0. BTW I've found only one article on building points that even mentioned the check gauge (but not by name) That was by E.G. White in the May 1954 MRN and he just says that the check rails should be "soldered in position so that the face of each check rail is exactly 15mm away from the point of the frog" but the steel track gauge he gives a dimensioned diagram for doesn't include this. Everyone else, including Peter Denny (Permanent Way on the Buckingham Branch MRC Oct 1950) seemed to just rely on the check rail clearance to get everything else into the right relative places. I have a couple of SMP copper clad point kits and one of check rail gauges that came with them (essentially a shim) According to my digital calliper this sets the check rail 1.29mm from the stock rail. I also have a couple of their plastic based three foot radius point kits but these just rely on the moulded chairs to get everything into the correct relative positions. The BRMSB was an ad hoc committee rather than an actual organisation and seem to have followed Henry Greenly's example of determining standards "for once and for all" that didn't need to be re-examined. * This was actually on very dubious premises. For example, they stated that the BRMSB failed to specify a wheel or rail profile, whereas in fact they did, and their grasp of model railway development was also very shaky. They stated that H0 had been developed in the States while 00 was being developed in the UK.when in fact it had been developed by members of the Wimbledon MRC from about 1925, years before small scale railway modelling was exported to N.America.
  19. Nope. though it is true that only the dimensions were quoted in the 1943 version in MRC . I've got the 1950 publicaton in front of me and it does include tolerances (or limits as it calls them) , On the track page, F (the flangeway) is a minimum dimension (for all gauges) For H0, 00, EM and EMF the back to backs have a tolerance of + 0.005 (elephants? as my mech. eng. lecturer would have said but I assume it's five thou. as only the dimensions in inches are to three decimal places) so it is a minimum with a lattitude of +0.005inch. So, for 00 the back to back was 14.5mm with a tolerance of +0.127mm (i.e. 0.005 inches) so the H0 back to back of 15.00mm wouldn't have been compliant with a 2.5mm wide (tyre plus flange) wheel to BRMSB 00 standard. A 2.00mm wide wheel to BRMSB H0 standard with a BtoB of 15.00mm was intended for a wider minimum check gauge of 15.50mm rather than the 00 15.00mm. I strongly suspect that between 1943 and 1950 a lot more real expertise on wheels and track was applied than the original BRMSB committee collectively posessed. I think that what impressed me about working with the then NMRA standards in the 1980s was the lack of slop. I was even more ignorant in those days than now but it did seem that track and wheelsets simply fitted one another. When I turned to Euopean H0 in the late 1990s the slop was back with a lot of inconsistency in flange widths and therefore back to backs.
  20. Hi Andy A year on have you had more experience of the Modeltech rail aligners in practice? By the way, for aligning boards I've used the MKD plastic blocks (nylon I think and much the same material that Peco use for their track) that are about tuppence a ton in B&Q. You do have to drill extra holes in them as they're designed to join corners rather than for linear joins. They were a quick solution about fifteen years ago and are still going strong- they're also good for joining backscenes.
  21. Thanks Martin that's very clear. There are no stupid questions so Mr. Reichert has nothing to gripe about It's interesting that the oft criticised BRMSB standards- at least in the 1950 published version- seem to do more or less what you're suggesting with four dimensions for track. minimum gauge (16.5mm for both H0 and 00), maximum distance over check and wing rails (14.5 for H0 and 14 for 00) , minimum check rail clearance (1mm for H0 and 1.25 for 00) and minimum check gauge (15.5 for H0 and 15 for 00) (I've not quoted the dimensions for EM and EMF because the gauge changed to 18.2mm and, with the standards taken over by the EMGS, the BRMSB version is probably irrelevant) They clearly perceived H0 as a fine scale so, for wheels, the BtoB was 15mm for H0 and 14.5 for 00 and the tyre width 1.5mm for H0 and 2mm for 00. There's no other obvious reason for these being different as, in terms of the rail/wheel relationship the scale is surely irrelevant. The H0 dimensions are only relevant because they're also for 16.5mm gauge. The 1950 published standards were far more developed than the original BRMSB 3.5 & 4mm scale dimensions quoted in the MRC in 1943 or 1944. This only gave gauge and check rail clearances for "scale H0" and "scale OO (i.e. EM) didn't give any such dimension for "standard" 00 and no check gauge or check span for any of them. I actually wonder if more than one modeller in a hundred has ever even known what a check gauge dimension is and why it matters (for most of my life I certainly didn't) though there is a clear explanation in the 1950 publication of BRMSB standard dimensions. When I was using them in the early 1980s, the published NMRA standards seemed to be based on the engineering manufacturing practice of quoting dimensions for individual compoents with a plus and minus tolerance (which could be zero for one or the other) rather than the relationship between those dimensons - though one assumed they had all been properly worked out. Why they hould have had a problem converting inches to mm is curious. The one conversion factor I know by heart is 25.4 mm/inch and it's not an aproximation. They did though also get themselves into awkward maths by using one too many decimal places to convert the British 3.5mm/ft into a scale ratio and ending up with 1:87.1 rather than simply rounding it to 1:87 as MOROP did- at least it's not 1:87.086.
  22. Martin mentioned yesterday that the NMRA standards are now a mess and I've heard similar comments from American sources. Can anyone tell me though what actually has gone wrong with them? I used the then current NMRA standards in the 1970s-80s and even scratchbuilt a couple of turnouts that all my RP25* wheeled stock negotiated quite happily (a miracle for me) so I'm genuinely curious. This is a request for actual information and I'm not trying to make a point (and that really isn't a pun) *I presume that was what is now RP25/110
  23. I've seen a few layouts with baseboards based on foam core and have use it quite a lot myself. A few years ago Christian Fornereau, the current proprietor of Loco-Revue came up with a new concept to try to get more new blood into the hobby. It's called Train in'Box and basically absolutely everything needed to buld a small fully scenic layout comes in a single large (but not ginormous) box. In this the baseboards are entirely made of interlocking pieces of thick die cut card with thinner card for the track and roadbeds and the bases for the buildings. I think his idea was that the person, possibly a family, building it as a first layout would acquire the full range of skills and above all the confidence to go on to other layout projects. The pictures in this link should give the general idea. https://trains.lrpresse.com/A-19297-train-in-box-voie-etroite-sans-materiel-roulant.aspx They were demonstrating it at the big TrainsMania show in Lille a few years ago and invited a couple of members of local clubs to build the layout using only what was in the box (apart from water and paper cups for mixing scenic materials) including tools. They easily completed it over the two and a half day show and the materials were all of high quality with, for example, Peco track. I've also seen a number of dioramas in France built entirely from card. The card used for 3L wine boxes seemed to be particularly popular.
  24. Yes it is and French themed 009 layouts appear quite regularly in Voie Libre (Loco-Revue's NG offshoot), This is mainly due to the availability of appropriate models from Britain of, for example WD stock that was sold off as war surplus and used very widely in France after WW1 as well as locos such as Baldwins and Alcos. H0e is more common there because it's easy to get hold of but it represents 750-760 mm gauge which, with one fairly obscure exception (Roquefort-Lencouag in Landes), was never used for light railways in France. 1:76th scale makes 9mm gauge track closer to 600mm and the sort of modellers who care enough to use it are generally perfectly capable of scratchbuildng structures and buildings in the same scale. In reality there were only a few hundred kilometres of public 600mm gauge "light" railways in France (most of them promoted by Paul Decauville), compared with about 16000 kms of metre gauge. Despite that, H0e and 0e are far more popular modelling choices in France than H0m or 0m probably because 9mm gauge stuff is more widely available than 12mm and 16.5mm is far more widely available than S gauge stuff. In principle H0i (known as H0f in Germany) using z gauge 6.5mm gauge track would be the "correct" commercially available gauge for 600mm in 1:87 scale but in practice not many modellers use 9mm gauge track to represent both 600mm gauge and metre gauge
  25. Peco makes what it can sell profitably into its market. It's just as happy to sell code 75 as code 100 but I don't actually know what "true 4mm scale 00 gauge track" could possibly be as 00 is inherently not to scale (unless you're modelling a 4ft 1 1/2 in. gauge railway) I suppose it could refer to sleeper size and separaton but, if you look at the BRMSB standards they actually gave the same sleeper witdh for H0, 00, and EM (which can't all be correct) and the same 32mm length for H0 and 00 sleepers. I assume it means using scale sleeper spacing (30" ?) for typical British track but that wasn't even in the 1950 version of the BRMSB standards (and is the easiest thing to change even on RTL track) The length of sleepers, given the narrrow gauge of 00 , is always going to be a debatable compromise as scale length sleepers only emphasise the narrow gauge. (GF used to get round this problem by advertising "all sleepers correct to BRMSB measurements" which probably fooled many into thinking that they were following BRMSB standards in general whereas nothing else, apart from the gauge was. Check clearances were, so far as I can tell from the couple of late examples I have, even more of a compromise than Peco's. When tooling costs meant that it was only economic to produce one type of 16.5 mm gauge track, Peco (and the other RTR manufacturers) simply made just one. Peco (and Wrenn) then opted to make their track to scale for H0 and sold it worldwide. Nowadays, modern tooling methods make it possible for them to offer a far wider range in shorter runs that now includes H0 and H0n3 to NMRA specs, H0m, N, H0e-009, O, Z, 1, O16.5 and of course bullhead in 00 with typical British sleeper spacing. The fact that this list doesn't include 00 FB with a wider "British" sleeper spacing simply suggests that there isn't a large enough market for it. When there is I'm sure they'll make it but it won't replace the current code 75 offer. We've debated all this on RMW umpteen times but in this context I simply can't see a new standards body for British modelling getting anything like a general agreement for anything. Even if they could, if it was different from the standards that manufacturers who are now very international are using, they would simply ignore it. Hornby and Bachmann aren't going to adopt a different wheel standard from the one I suspect they are now using for both 00 and H0 just because some group of modellers or even model railway clubs have set up a BMRA or a new BRMSB.
×
×
  • Create New...