goldfish

The same group of people who instigated the BRMSB and META also attempted to start a British version of the NMRA, the idea founded in a sea of apathy. The Model Railway Constructor December 1947 Resuming our general survey of the model railway world, we are this month bringing forward a suggestion which is not new to our pages, but which has never so far been fully investigated. We refer to the possible formation of - A BRITISH MODEL RAILWAY ASSOCIATION. The formation of a British body, equivalent to the American N.M.R.A. is a subject which been touched upon several times in our pages but which never seems to have beyond the stage of suggestion. The object of this editorial, therefore, is partly to gauge the amount of real interest in such a project and partly to give the necessary lead in the formation of such an organisation. The Model Railway Constructor January 1948 A BRITISH MODEL RAILWAY ASSOCIATION. We apparently wasted one of our limited pages in pour December issue. Three readers only wrote to tell us they would welcome and support such a body. To say that we were surprised would be an understatement. However, there the matter rests. Yet we are sure there must be many modellers who would like to see such a body inaugurated. To these people we would mention that nothing can ever start without an effort on the part of the would-be participants, even if this is limited to writing a letter or postcard expressing interest and support. It seemed we left it to the "other chap" to do something about it once to often. The Model Railway Constructor March 1948 British Model Railway Association For those who are curious as to the final outcome of our suggestion, we would mention that we eventually struggled up to twenty would-be supporters.

I have secured a copy of Model Railways Handbook 7th Edition, which I never came across at the time, but is a very nostalgic read. Although it implies that the contents of the 1951 Amendments are included in the tables, there is no mention of Unified Gauge O which was supposedly introduced with that amendment. Presumably it had sunk without trace by 1963. it seems I'll have to continue searching for a copy of the 1951 Amendment to discover details of what was proposed.

My apologies for being behind the curve on this, but I have heard that there was a forerunner to the BRMSB founded by the Model Railway Constructor in the days when E.F. Carter was still the editor? Did it achieve anything? A little more information would interesting, if anybody has any.

From the Railway Modeller February 1963; "REVIVING THE B.R.M.S.B. The British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau has not met since 1954, since which time two new commercial gauges have come into being, and several fundamental changes have overtaken our hobby. Steps are therefore being taken to revive the bureau as an active body, and we hope in the near future to be able to announce further details. In the meantime we should be interested to receive readers' views for consideration at the bureau's meetings." The idea obviously fell on stony ground then, I doubt it would fair any better today.

According to the April 1951 MRC the composition of the original Bureau was J.N. Maskeleyne (Chairman), R.J. Raymond , F.W, Chubb, and G.H. Lake (Secretary). F.W. Chubb was the proprietor of MRC, and a strong advocate of 18mm gauge. They later invited G.H. Platt onto the Bureau to represent the Manchester MRC, and M. Longridge to represent the London MRC. Eventually C.W.A. Mitchell was brought on to look after 2mm, F. Kaye to represent the Gauge 1 Association, and W.F. Nicholas of the Merseyside Model Club to look after 18mm gauge. There were also trade representatives and technical advisors. One name that I have never seen linked to either the BRMSB or META is Hornby, which is an interesting omission.

You are correct, I was working from memory and got the date wrong by ten years - META ceased to exist in around 1977. One of the original motivations for the formation of META was to form a body that could lobby the Ministry of Production to allocate materials to the industry. After WWii there were severe shortages and it would have been sensible to avoid necessary duplication.

Sadly, yes.

No, META ceased to exist round about 1977, but did manage to outlive BRMSB by about fifteen years.

Very useful to know, I will seek out a copy.

I would suggest that is more a question of what is sensible. Short, fixed wheelbase rolling stock and shunter type locomotives are reasonable choices. All but the smallest diesels, HSTs etc., and full length coaches are none starters. Anything below 3' radius can only be sensibly used on something like a shunting plank, so that automatically limits the choice. To show what is possible on 2'reverse curves through points I have refitted Dapol couplings to a couple of my Dapol 7-plank wagons. These two wagons have well matched buffer springs, which is important. Dapol 3-link coupling with wagons being propelled through points. Both wagons are on the same curve, note that he couplings are in tension despite being propelled. The point of possible buffer lock as the first wagon passes onto the reverse curve. To illustrate the advantages of having longer couplings I fitted one wagon with Dapol Screw-link Couplings. The longer coupling means that there is no buffer contact when the wagons are pulled through the points, and the couplings are not under tension when being propelled through the points. Another view of the position of possible buffer lock as the wagons are propelled through the reverse curve. If there is a significant difference in the strength of the buffer springs the buffer heads just slip past one another and you get buffer lock.

From a model engineering point of view there is little difference between finescale and S7, it is all a question of getting the necessary clearances. If you set the B-B on S7 wheels to 29mm they run perfectly fine on 2' radius curves. The wheel drop over points is terrible of course. A conversion from fine scale to S7 increases the B-B from 29mm to 31.2mm so there is plenty of room for extra play on the axles. Somehow I do not think the S7 brigade would approve.

There are two aspects to making any working model. Building a reasonably accurate representation of whatever you are modelling, and model engineering to make the model function in the environment for which it is designed to work in. The only real difference between 'Coarse Scale' and Fine Scale' is the wheels, there is no physical reason why fine scale cannot be engineered to work on tight curves, it just needs a different approach. It also depends on what you mean by finescale. The ETS Austerity runs through Peco Streamline and Setrack points without a problem, an argument could be made that it is finescale.

For anybody with access to the HMRS Library, they hold a copy of the BRMSB Standard Dimensions, 1950, with the 1951 Amendments. The library details are SKU LIBRARY_132

For six-wheel locos the best way to get them around tight curves is to give the centre axle the normal amount of play, and to give the outer axles a greater degree of freedom. 2-2.5mm play on the outer axles seems about right for most 0-6-0 locos on 2' radius. If the clearances are correct all flanged wheels are perfectly possible. ETS Austerity 2-8-0 on a 2' curve. It is not very pretty, but it does work. It will also go through the reverse curves on my shunting plank with ease.

I understand your sentiment, but failing eyesight and reduced manual dexterity make 3-link couplings a complete nightmare for me. One thing I did find useful with the Dapol wagons was to replace the 3-link couplings with Dapol Screw Link Couplers. They are a tad longer and give more clearance. If you mobilise the joints with a couple of drops of glue you essentially create a drop link which is much easier to couple and uncouple.

The track is ETS, with code 175 steel rail, and hence not compatible with Peco. The coaches are cobbled together by me from resin coach parts by 422ModelMaking on an ETS coach chassis. They are pretty much the limit for rigid vehicles on 2' curves, but manage 2' reverse curves quite happily. The couplings are a direct replacement for 3-link couplings, and while not commercially available can be obtained by special order from Walsall Model Industries.

The original question was asked by someone in North America where small radius curves are more the norm than in UK. Buffer lock is easily overcome by changing the couplings, this Walsworth Sentinel and Dapol wagons fitted with drop link couplings are perfectly at home on my shunting plank with 2' points. They will even go through 18" reverse curves. Longer wheelbases are possible, but if there is contact between buffers they need to be solid buffers, as on these 4-wheel coaches.

It might be possible to run a Dapol Sentinel on 2ft curves, I haven't tried it but I have a fine scale Walsworth Models Sentinel Shunter that runs faultlessly though 2ft curves and points. The other alternative are ETS loco that are designed for 2ft radius curves, even their Austerity 2-8-0 copes with 2ft curves. They even do a range of 2ftb curved setrack. As a bonus their 1.5mm flanged wheels will run through Peco points with no problem and without wheel drop. I should emphasise that the 2mm and 2.5mm flanged wheels fitted to 2 - 3 rail switchable locos are not compatible with ETS or Peco points. The big problem you face is couplings. While it is possible to pull finescale stock through 2ft curves, propelling them is a different matter. The best solution that I have come up with is to replace the 3-link Couplings with Sprung Drawbar Drop Link Couplings. While it is possible, it requires a great deal of compromise, but if are more interested in operation rather than authenticity it is an option.

MOROP have produced a standard for Receptacle for Replaceable Coupling Heads in O Gauge, but it is only used by Lenz, and is highly unlikely to catch on. nem362_en_2004.pdf

Thank for the closeup Fred. The Gils trains look to be something out of the ordinary, and quite unique. Regards, Michael

Thank you Fred, another excellent video. The automatic couplers look interesting, any chance of a closer look? Regards, Michael

It wasn't only in children's books that toy trains made an appearance, sometimes serious artists used them as reference.

If you would like a longer rake of wagons you might be interested in this : -https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/304213989175?hash=item46d4911737:g:o2QAAOSwpd1hgB2A No connection, just joining the dots. Regards, Michael

I would would always recommend the simple change when it achieves the desired effect. The reduction in length is such that a rake of 11 private owner wagons with the Leeds/LMC pattern couplings is the same length as a rake of 10 with the original couplings.

I didn't realise that the 16T mineral wagons had actually been released. There seems to a lot in the pipeline, but very little actually surfacing. That said, ETS is a small company reliant on their own suppliers, the fact that they have produced anything under the circumstances is quite an achievement.