goldfish

Doing a little more research it seems Linien is the plural form and Line or Line is the singular. What ever the correct grammar, 16 Linie(n) = 34.874111mm and 22 Linie(n) = 47.951902mm. So it would appear that model railway gauges have their roots in historical Prussian units of measure.

This is interesting. It appears that the Zoll is part of an obsolete system of units that also included the Linien and the Fuss. Where 12 Linien = 1 Zoll, and 12 Zoll = 1 Fuss. It so happens that 1 Zoll + 4 Linien = 34.87mm, so perhaps that is where the 35mm came from. It appears that 0 Gauge was defined somewhere between 1891 and 1895, and the Zoll became obsolete in 1872, so the Zoll must have lingered on in the clockwork makers trade. I have a couple of early Hornby clockwork motors which are 0.8 and 0.9 Zoll thick, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that clockwork motors were nominally 1 Zoll thick.

The story goes that 0 Gauge has its origins in continental tinplate toy trains that had track with the rails at 35mm centres, giving a distance between the rails of 32mm. What is never explained is why the rails were at 35mm centres. If we go back to basics, and look at creating an accurate scale rendering of the prototype Standard Gauge of four foot eight and a half inches, a rather plausible explanation for the choice of 35mm centres presents itself. Four foot eight and a half inches, or 56.5inches, is 113 Half Inches. 113 is prime so there is no convenient factor that can be used as the scale. But, four foot eight and a half inches is also 1435mm (1435.1mm if you want to be pedantic), and 1435 is not prime. The prime factors of 1435 are {5, 7, 41}. If you take the scale to be 1:41, then the gauge becomes 35mm exactly. It isn't a major leap to suggest that the German toy makers were fully aware of this relationship, but decided to measure the gauge at the rail centres because they were working with tinplate and that was the easiest dimension to control. On the other hand it might just be pure coincidence. It isn't the only coincidence. In the days when steamroller wheels were in vogue it was accepted practice to make wagon bodies oversize to accommodate the wheels. The usual width for a wagon being 60mm. A standard RCH wagon is 8' wide and 16' 6" long. Which means that width of the wagon is to a scale of 1:40.64, which is pretty close to 1:41. I don't know how usual the practice was, but some tinplate wagons were made oversize in length as well, so that the body had the correct proportions. I have a Bassett Lowke LMS open wagons which has a body 59mm wide and 123mm long, giving it a length to width ratio of 2.08 compared to the actual length to width relationship of a RCH wagon of 2.06. The body of this wagon is basically made to a scale of 1.41. Another pure coincidence perhaps? Coarse scale wagons of that era also had over height buffers, I cannot find a definitive reference anywhere, but it would appear that the generally accepted value was that the height of the centre of the buffer above rail height was 1". According to the RCH drawings the actual height of the centre of the buffer above rail height was 3' 5.25", or 41.25". Need I go on? It would seem that some coarse scale rolling stock was modelled at a scale of 1:41. Although this may have been quite inadvertent, and was purely down to the fortuitous choice of body width to accommodate the steamroller wheels. It is an interesting thought that if these 1:41 scale bodies were fitted with wheels to run on 35mm track, they would have a better claim to accuracy than ScaleSeven, because the track gauge would actually be exactly true to scale. My Bassett Lowke 1:41 scale 0 Gauge wagon.

Having converted a No.0 Tender Locomotive I obviously need a Tank Loco to go with it. The clockwork motor that came with it could best be described as "complete - some assembly required". I don't think that motor is original. Did these ever come with 2.25" wheelbase motors? I find these early Hornby offerings to have a charm all of their own. It is odd that the same company came up with the No.1 Special Tank just a few years later. I appreciate the need to accommodate a large spring, but the earlier Tanks are more convincing as models.

I would have thought there would be more interest in a LBSCR Atlantic than a GNR Atlantic, but I have nothing to base that on. Isn't there a project to built a new H1, or did that idea fold? That would be a useful tie-in.

It is a prototype, Paul has yet to make an announcement, But Colin Toten has posted details on raylo.co.uk.

Coming to a NAROGG near you soon... https://www.raylo.co.uk/ivatt-class-c1-4-4-2-atlantic-locomotive-4131-p.asp

Anybody fancy a bargain basement Hornby 2710... Actually a Hornby No. 0 Locomotive fitted with an ETS drive unit. The body is showing signs of its age, as you expect for a toy train of this age. The original clockwork motor technically works, but one gear wheel is loose on its shaft, and the connecting rod and piston assy are missing from one side. I am rather pleased with this conversion, and find the lines of these older locomotives more convincing than some of Hornby's later offerings. The body was not modified in any way to do the conversion, which is completely reversible. The tender is not original to the body, and came minus a coupling and needed bending back into shape.

The couplings look pre-prod as well. Good thing it is sold, I could have been tempted.

I have yet to find an original hook to go with the loops of these couplings, but I am now in a position to offer view of the two types of Bassett Lowke auto-couplers side by side. It is easy to see why neither of these proved a success.

You missed stray loops of wire and the sleeve of your jumper, but you are on the right lines:-)

Although these Basset Lowke couplers were seemingly not a commercial success the design was novel and innovative. With the ramp in the centre of the track for 2-rail the operating arm swings backwards and forwards as you would expect, but with the ramp outside the track for 3-rail the operating arm "rotates". Or rather one end lifts up and it pivots on the mounting bracket. For it to work properly the ramp needs to be smooth metal or things jam up. Properly set-up though they seem very reliable. The long bar is 3.5 inches long, and having all your stock fitted with them would end up being a complete pain. The loop is firmly mounted in locating holes, but the operating arm is loose and just sits on the bracket and can easily be knocked out of position. Bassett-Lowke's other design of automatic coupler, as illustrated by ed nantes above, look much more practical, but in the short bar version these couplers are possibly less intrusive. I have never seen the short bar version so this is just a guess.

Even a short acquaintance with these couplings is enough to realise that they are impractical and unwieldy, at least in the long bar form. I very much doubt that B-L covered their tooling costs. Definitely a "seriously over-elaborate novelty".

A little late, but yes. This is presumably the 3-rail version with the long bar. I have not been able to locate an original hook, but they work well with Hornby automatic couplings with the loop removed. From my first experiments with an improvised ramp it seems that the 3-rail version might need a ramp on either side of the track, but with the ramp in the middle of the track the loop lifts and falls with no problem. They are compatible with drop link couplings, but will only automatically uncouple. An interesting toy for lock-down.

The usual solution to that was a sharp blow on the open end of the chuck with a soft faced hammer. Or, if fitted to a pillar drill, bringing the chuck down firmly against the vice of work-piece. Taking the chuck off the threaded spindle and banging the closed end on the bench also works. These chucks survive a surprising amount of misuse.

Tightened the chick closed in hot weather, and then leaving it to cold soak in the shed would cause the chuck to contract and tighten further. Bringing it into the warmth of the house would cause the chuck to expand and loosen? A variation on putting a coil-bound clockwork motor in the oven or a pan of hot water?

I am not a member of the G0G, so I do not have direct access to their documents, but I understand that the frequently repeated manta "The G0G minimum recommended radius is 6ft", is in fact an over simplification of the actual recommendations. The recommended minimum radii are given in Part 2, Section 1 of the Guild Manual. I have added multiples of gauge (G) for comparison with the NEM recommendations. Table 1 is accompanied by the following note: "Note: The above figures are based on stock being pulled. Where stock has to be propelled through curves into sidings or station areas the type of coupling employed is important. With loose couplings where the thrust is carried by buffers of scale diameter, (tighter curves need bigger buffers - up to 12mm diameter depending on wheelbase) it is recommended that the minimum be increased by at least 30% to limit the possibility of buffer locking."

From personal experience I concur whole heartedly. I would only add that if you do take an ETS Drive unit apart, try to keep the bearings in the frame. If they come out, getting them and the contacts back in place is, shall we say interesting.

Looking again at the Hornby No. 1 Special Tank's cab, it would be easier to fit a piece of glazing in the opening with a vertical bar painted on it, than trying to fit an upright. A quick attempt with some packaging and a marker pen... The conspicuous object under the cab might be of interest. It is Meccano part no. 63C, which has a hole to accept a Meccano axle in one end, and a 5/32 BSW tapped hole in the other. Very useful when temporarily fitting a motor, as there is no fiddling with awkward nuts in tight spaces.

Not with this combination of chassis, connecting link and piston. With a longer connecting link it would be possible to connect to the rear wheel, but I would have to manufacture one. I was wondering if a Dock Shunter chassis might be a possibility, the wheelbase is only 10mm greater than the 0-6-0. Unfortunately ETS do not supply dimensions of their drive units, so the distance between the mounting points is a matter of guesswork.

The ETS 272 0-8-0 Drive Unit with 25.5mm wheels and a 90mm wheelbase would probably fit The No. 1 Special Tank. It might even be possible to retain the outside cylinders. Interesting...

An outside cylinder 0-6-0 is a possibility..

i have tried an 0-6-0 drive unit but keeping the outside cylinders then becomes a problem. Smaller wheels with less white space may be the answer.

I've always thought the Hornby No. 1 Special Tank to be rather awkward looking, never the less when an example in the form of a very grubby, battered body came my way I though it a suitable lock-down conversion project. It actually cleaned up rather well, and straightened out surprisingly easily. The wheels on the original look too large to my eye, and so I borrowed the drive units from a couple of other conversions to try them. Not a true comparison because one is 3-rail with 25.5 mm wheels and 2.5mm flanges, and the other is 2-rail with 29.5mm wheels and 1.5mm flanges. I might end up putting the body to one side in case a suitable clockwork mechanism comes my way, but here 's what it looks like in modern electrical mode... I'm still undecided which way to go, but to me a shunter should have relatively small wheels. Hornby were very low key in their launch of this locomotive in the November 1929 Meccano Magazine, but they did emphasize that it was a shunter in the brief introduction... "The corresponding No. 1 Special Tank Locomotive has the same mechanism and general characteristics. It is an ideal engine for shunting purposes." The general characteristics shared with the Tender Locomotive where... "In its superstructure it conforms to modern ideas in the way of reduced boiler mountings made necessary by the larger boiler, outside steam pipes, Ross 'Pop' safety valves, etc." Not exactly an over enthusiastic launch. The thing that always jars the most to me is the design of the cab, it just doesn't look right. I think I have found a way to improve this by putting in an upright to frame the opening in front of the door. It actually looks much more effective than the images suggest. At the moment it is just held temporarily in place, I need to come up with a neat way to secure it permanently.

One advantage of the Roundhouse locos is that you can save money by getting them as a kit. The kits come as separate packages for the chassis, boiler, etc. so you can spread the cost of buying one further. I particularly like the ones with simplified Walschaerts valve gear. If you do consider a portable layout, have a look at the 16mm Society's Modular Group. They have some useful resources.