Ravenser

What I want to know is whether the Massive Wagons were licenced by Ratio in Devon🤯

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't EFE a marketing brand whereby Bachmann release through their network models developed by others and produced in factories other than Kadar? There is clearly a tie-up with Kernow, and also with Heljan - models from both have re-appeared under the EFE brand. Similarly I think some of the items that originated through the DJM debacle eventually came to market under the EFE brand That doesn't preclude a new model being developed by someone else and released through EFE , rather than by themselves under their own banner. The LSWR 3 car sets apparently shared some tooling with a previous Kernow release and I recall a suggestion that the Kernow name had been found somewhere on the boxes. If these models were developed by Bachmann at Barwell but are under the EFE brand because they were produced outside the Kadar supply chain, that's a new development of the EFE brand I believe? And quite a noteworthy one . (The only alternative is that they were developed by AN Other using EFE as a route to market) Regardless of the ins and outs of origin , if THREE different manufacturers have managed independently to develop and announce models of the same specialist vehicles, of which only 14 were ever built, in a matter of months then the British RTR market is even more saturated than I thought. Someone, somewhere, is going to get their fingers burnt soon

Unfortunately the "going rate" for OO RTR coaches is now £65-£80 , not £52. Hornby railroad coaches are at about the price point but the whole point of those is that they are deliberately designed to minimise production and assembly costs on the Design Clever principle. These are fairly plain vehicles, and as far as I am aware there aren't variations, which simplifies the tooling . They still cost £70 - and that's the cheaper model of the two. Continental HO went down the "short-run /high unit price" road 15-20 years ago - and the HO RTR market imploded, with sales falling by 25%. (I assume that's by value - sales by units probably fell rather more than that). Nearly all the Continental manufacturers went into administration or were taken over as a result... We can argue that Rolls Royce and Bentley have a better business model than Ford and Nissan. But only a small proportion of us would be able to drive if the automotive industry went down that route

These are quite a niche prototype and it is difficult to see how the market can be large enough for both manufacturers to recover the cost of their project, never mind make a profit. For Bachmann this is less of an issue - as it is an EFE model the tooling and development cost do not lie with them. It all reinforces my sense that 4mm is nearly mined out in terms of new subjects with decent commercial prospects. The major manufacturers are working 2-3 years ahead, so they may well already be working on a fair few of the subjects we think are still "available" . If all you can do with your tooling investment is duplicate something that already exists as a decent modern model from someone else, then it gets a bit marginal. "Raising the bar" significantly is getting difficult, and the rising cost of production in an environment where real incomes are static or declining mans that "taking it to the next level" starts to get prohibitively expensive. If these end up in the bargain bin, no doubt a few modellers will cash in: but it's hard to see that as a way forward for the RTR business. I notice from another post that Sonic have announced these in N, and it is an obvious question whether they might be the source of this EFE model

None. But then I don't own any Pacifics or even any 4-6-0s. I don't have anything remotely like enough space to run big steam engines in anything even vaguely like a sensible manner. None of which is a reason why you shouldn't model the ECML. But it may be an explanation of why you can't.. Big Pacifics always were and will be "glamour" locos with a profile and a following way in excess of their numercial strength (Not that there aren't an awful lot of Bulleid Pacifics around.) My only comment is that strictly , prototypically, you need at least two A3s for every A4 . Now that's a comment that really might get me stoned...

I don't think I've ever done a product review on here before, but here goes.... A fortnight ago I went to Railex. Most of my purchase list was 4mm stuff, even though I don't seem to have done any 4mm for about a year because of the N gauge project (which is why my annual review and resolutions post for 2023 hasn't happened). But the previous weekenmd I went to a local show - only my second show this year - and picked up the body of a Kirk Gresley 61' full brake for a quid. Everything below the solebars had gone , but I bought a set of MJT Gresley bogie sideframes I didn't need at Warley, and with a few other bits sourced I reckon I can rebuild it and get a decent vehicle for the kettle-period on Blacklade for under £20. I digress. While wandering round the show I came upon a trader new to me , WWscenics. I was browsing their stand wuith a vague "this looks useful stuff for the hobby" benevolence, when I noticed some brown cardboard boxes labelled as N Gauge Loco Storage boxes. I've started to build one or two N gauge wagon kits, bought a few more , and the issue of how to store them was starting to raise its head. The storage drawer under the bed which contains the Boxfile and its stock also houses the N gauge stock, all of it in the original boxes. I'd pretty well run out of room in there, and I'd more or less decided that my purchases of N gauge rolling stock had reached a limit. Here was an N gauge storage box, at the price of one modestly-priced N gauge wagon. I don't have 10 N gauge locos, but 10 locos might perhaps equate to 20 wagons. At that point my interest moved rapidly from the vague "He seems to have a range of decent stuff" to the immediate "This could be useful". I asked if they had a made-up example: they did, and it was remarkably compact. I promptly bought a kit at the exhibition special price. (It now retails at £29.99) And the next afternoon, in an unwonted burst of energy and enthusiasm, I actually got on and built it. The product is here: WWScenics N gauge loco box and it took me a couple of hours to build. Here we have the key things: The material is laser-cut 3mm MDF , with chocolate burnt edge colouring and a pungent mildly acrid smell. The instructions are plain and well drawn, although to be honest what goes where is mostly obvious. Nevertheless what you think you know may not be quite the way it should go together so the instructions are useful. The fit of the parts was excellent. No fettling was required. I assembled the unit with aliphatic resin, not so much because this is the ideal glue for the job but because I have twice bought a bottle of the stuff from Rocket under the impression it would be useful . Having found no obvious need for aliphatic resin over a good many years I am now trying to use up the bottles on any job where they might be vaguely suitable, in order to preserve my stocks of PVA, a much more generally useful glue. Aliphatic resin leaves something of a stain despite intermittent attempts to be careful. But then PVA leaves a mark, too . The finished unit is small- about a hand span in length and width. This means it fits nicely into the limited space left in the storage drawer after the Box file, 4mm stock storage files, and controller are packed away in it. The cardboard boxes and plastic jewel boxes in which N gauge RTR is supplied are a lot smaller than the boxes we are used to in 4mm , but they still aren't a particularly effective use of space. This unit improves the packing density of the stock by 2x-3x. What that means in practice is that I now have a home for pretty well all the kits I've bought once I've built them - and the drawer is less crowded than it was. Since in a small flat the limit on your fleet is the point at which you run out of space to store it, this is very helpful. It has multiple internal partitions so it builds up into a pretty sturdy unit . Clearly it wouldn't take being stood on or sat on , but otherwise it's pretty solid and I can't see it coming apart easily. The tabs visible on the top surface are designed to interlock with a second box on top. I may or may not buy a second unit: on the whole I think I prefer to keep locos in their original padded boxes, and without the locos I doubt if I would do more than half fill a second box. So the saving in space probably isn't there. A bonus is that it will make taking models out to run the layout a lot quicker and easier. It also means less scattered debris in the living room. I have been trying to use the boxes to give an impression/mock-up of the backscene buildings but that's only a short term measure. The holes on the ends of the trays are just about big enough for the end of your little finger and there is a recess on one end which is presumably there to take a label. A loose intermediate divider is provided with a series of slots to allow it to be placed so as to stop the models moving about. It is just about possible to arrange the drawers to take two 4 wheel wagons , if one is shorter than the other: the divider always has to be a little more than half way down I find it a useful product at a moderate price

Try this: NSWGR Z19 Z19 Pictures with pictures:

I believe Accurascale have stated their wheelsets are to DOGA standards (I presume that means Intermediate - RP25/110) Since Gibson wheels are to the EM profile , they are compliant with the OO Finescale wheel standard. I am more interested in whether the product meets the spec on the relevant datasheet, rather than exactly how it is labelled on the box . "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" But there is and has been a real issue with vague, misleading, inconsistant and unspecified labelling of OO products over the years. I don't think C+L haven't bought gauges from DOGA , though I'm not directly involved with that. (They may have bought a few packs when one owner was a DOGA member). But certainly C+L were selling "OO gauges" for track and back to backs from the early 1990s which resulted in a 1.0mm flangeway and a 14.8mm or 14.7mm B2B . They did not mention the specs - or declare openly that their B2B gauges were different from say SMP gauges (which were 14.5mm, although I'm not sure that was explicitly stated) At some point C+L or whoever supplied their gauges, decided to change their B2B from 14.8mm to 14.7mm . I bought one in the mid 90s and lo and behold when I measured it , the thing was 14.7mm . Since - like Peco - they had never stated the spec, they were free to change it without telling anyone whenever they felt like so - again, just like Peco. (I have a feeling C+L were selling Gibson B2B gauges. L-shaped things) There was no question of these gauges and products being branded as DOGA anything, because the DOGA standards weren't published until 2000-1. But DOGA OO Finescale was simply a codification of the C+L/Gibson gauges/wheels/flangeways package that was being advocated by many in the 1990s as the way forward for "finescale OO" (Here's a little poser for you . What is the correct B2B for N gauge? Is it the same as for OO9? What is the actual measurement of any "N gauge" B2B gauge on sale? Does this comply with any known standard - and is this value actually used by any manufacturers? You will rapidly find that N gauge is a landscape shrouded in even thicker fogs than 1990s OO....) Apologies as we seem to be straying away from EM But because the EMGS has always published standards and by and large people stick to them and brand the products as such, folk know where they are in EM

I've no doubt that the sale of the common crossing to OO modellers was a commercial decision. But in the 1990s it was being sold as "buy our brill crossings and gauges and get modern OO finescale track!" C+L have made a very sensible decision to start offering products to match the most commonly used standard for handbuilt OO track. It might help people understand what they were getting if they branded them as Intermediate and the older 1.0mm gauges as Finescale One of the issues in OO has been that nobody was actually describing what they were selling. Except for a few very vague l;abels used in quite different ways by different traders. So - Branchlines used to advertise their loco chassis/completion packs in two specs "Universal" and "Finescale" Many people are under the delusion that Peco Code 75 is much finer than Code 100. It isn't : the flangeways are exactly the same (except that if certain Code 100 items have been recently retooled, they may be finer than Code 75 equivalents). Peco liked to brand Code 100 Streamline as "Universal" The unwary might think that the "Universal" spec from Branchlines was for Peco Code 100 and the Finescale for Peco Code 75.. In fact at Branchlines "Universal" meant that Romford wheels were in the pack, while "Finescale" meant Gibson wheels were included. I think we can both agree that Peco Code 100 is a bit too coarse to suit Romford wheels, and that there is no such thing as a universal wheel that fits all track whether coarse or fine....And since Code75 Streamline is no finer in terms of flangeways than Code 100 Streamline, I think we can agree that it really doesn't suit Gibson wheels.... We had 30 odd years when "OO finescale" simply meant handbuilt 16.5mm track - to an unspecified standard, and OO finescale products were generally marketed as "buy our OO wheels /track because they are better!" "Better" generally implied "finer" - but finer than what??? Actual numbers and specs were rarely supplied. "Buy our B2B gauge because it is the right one for OO" was common enough - but they didn't actually say what value B2B it gave.... This style of marketing seems to linger at DCC Concepts A set of datasheets setting out "Standard X " and "Standard Y" , allowing everyone to see which products conformed to which standard , and provided clear labels to use for each , was badly needed '(Markits have spent several decades claiming Romford wheels are "RP25" . But they are certainly not RP25/110 or RP25/88 - in OO terms, Intermediate , and equivalent to Finescale . They don't seem to match anything on the current NMRA datasheets for RP25) I was reacting against NSWGR1855's claim that nobody actually works to the DOGA OO Finescale standard and there is no (trade) support for it. Gibson and Ultrascale wheels, plus C+L's historic OO track gauges and common crossing amount to very substantial product support for it. But he wouldn't actually be aware of things like Alan Gibson's stand or C+L's stand at shows. He is a very long way from Railex....

Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate The DOGA OO Finescale standard has nothing to do with the NMRA. It is simply EM minus 1.7mm , using the finer OO wheels sold by Gibson /Ultrascale and derived from their EM gauge wheels . The flangeway is 1.0mm , same as EM The OO Fine track standard was effectively invented and promoted by C+L at the end of the 1980s , although they never actually explained /documented what they were supplying. The basis of the thing I believe was that C+L sell built up common crossings , with a 1.0mm flangeway. By promoting this as "modern OO finescale" they could sell the same stock of built up crossing units to both EM and OO modellers . Since there are many more OO modellers than EM modellers, this meant the potential market was greatly increased. Similar considerations applied to Gibson promoting his wheels as equally suitable for EM and finescale OO. You just had to reduce the B2B by the relevant amount The resulting package was championed and promoted by the late Iain Rice during the 1990s . Remember at that stage it was taken for granted that all OO stock would always have to be rewheeled as a matter of course . the only question seemed to be - do you rewheel with Romfords or Gibsons? There was much talk in the 1990s about how the old BRMSB standard was obsolete and flawed.. In fact , it rapidly became clear after 2000 that between 2/3rds and 3/4rs of "OO finecale" layouts were built to it. The "obsolete Luddites" were the vast majority of OO finescale. So trade support for DOGA OO Fine is readily available, and has been for 35 years. People do work to it, though it's been a minority interest in handbuilt OO. But the world has moved on. From 1993 DOGA was lobbying and campaigning for the RTR manufacturers to adopt a proper wheel standard - which a consensus of the membership said should be RP25/110 . From about 2000, the OO RTR makers basically fell in line with that. It then became apparent that "BRMSB OO" track built to 1.25mm flangeway is a more or less perfect fit for RP25/110 wheels. That "package" became DOGA OO Intermediate . (And no, Peco Code 75 does not comply with NEM standards (and I doubt with AMRA either) . It normally uses the same 1990s coarse flangeways as Code 100. Only the rail height differs. Except that apparently Peco have decided to tighten up the flangeways again as tooling wears out. Starting with some Code 100 items. So Code 75 may be coarser than code 100... Being Peco, they haven't told anyone what new values they are using, or whether they are using a variety of reduced values , or what items of pointwork have tighter flangeways ......) Therefore the OO Fine standard is a great deal less relevant than it seemed in the 1990s. These days the argument would be that the track should fit modern RTR wheels properly without rewheeling. But rhe standard exists, people work to it, it has nothing to do with the NMRA , trade support is readily available and it is entirely coherent I remain bemused by the determined proliferation of more and different wheel /track standards in every known gauge (EM-P4, anyone?) , the resolution to strip out working clearances wherever possible and thereby force up the minimum workable radius at a time when housing space has never been more restricted, and the bizarre practice of taking an underscale gauge and trying to persuade everyone to narrow it further But as this is, strictly speaking, an EM thread and as I don't really work in EM [I built a few wagon kits for a friend who does work in EM a few years ago] standards in EM are not really my concern, and I wouldn't comment further on what ought to happen in EM....

My first trainset contained a red and white Kelloggs version of this van , plus the orange/red wheel carrier without wheel loads, and an 0-4-0T Continental tank. That was Christmas 1974 - parents were I think a little cautious about whether this train set fad would last, and weren't throwing money at it. I still have the open wagon The same chassis went under the 21T steel mineral - Hornby's slightly burly rendering of a GW N32 "Felix Pole" steel mineral hired out to the S Wales coal trade, and various private builders 1930s close equivalents for large users. A Parkside 12' wb chassis will sort that one out - Stephenson Clarke seems to be an authentic livery (not sure about Bolsover, but it's not impossible) , and Norstand is an authentic l.ivery but... there's a 1930s builders pic of a steel 16T in that livery. I'm not sure they had any 20T wagons

Certainly I've never had any problems with buffer height on any of the specimens of this chassis I've used in my scale 4mm fleet. Yes, I replaced the plastic buffers with brass Oleos , but at the same locations

"Trainset models " like these , you mean?? I do quite like to make something rather better, instead of simply opening the latest expensive box The point is that the chassis in a reasonable and dimensionly ok representation of a late 1960s TTA underframe. No doubt more refined representations have been tooled up since - but it IS a TTA underframe, and various other bodies have been built on real TTA underframes The van body seems to be a wholly fictitous representation of nothing at all

The chassis is more use than the body . Various new bodies were built on TTA chassis: I've a feeling I've still got one of Jon Hall's resin POA Blackadder bodies in need of a TTA chassis If anyone can identify a credible prototype for the body, building a new chassis underneath it and reusing the original chassis elsewhere might make sense

Chelmsford MRC held a small exhibition yesterday As last year , this one seems to have gone under the radar , with no mention on here As last year, it was held at Chelmsford FC's premises. It was however a bit larger, with three layouts upstairs adjacent to the bar area and model engineer displays and the club second hand stand under gazebos outside. There were also visiting layouts - last last year was club only. Layouts were on display in 7mm, OO, OO9, and N. Jas Millham was flying the flag for the S Scale Society. Among those that caught my eye were a WW1 ROD/WD narrow gauge layout set in a shelled French village (OO9), the Tudor mouse layout in 7mm (if Tudor mice can be strictly to scale) and a layout based on Rolvenden during WW2 featuring a rail gun. There was also a nearly complete OO9 layout . Trade support was decent with 3 regular traders and the large club second hand stall Sorry, didn't take photos , confident that someone else would have done the job much better already...

The Radial tank seems a very good suggestion . Suitable for the BR (LMR) branch line modeller, not to mention the LMS version thereof. If the tooling suite allows for LNWR condition (as it should), sits well enough with Precedent, Coal Tank and Super D I've always been surprised how few of the Ratio LNWR coach kits we see built and running. We also now have generic LNWR 4 and 6 wheelers How late did LNWR brake vans last?

Do this as one of the 1976 Horwich rebuilds on Palvan chassis - for which no top flap is correct - and then go for the full on "standard" 16T wagon

I would also question the idea that containers of model ralway goods are low value. In my time I've seen a lot of freight rates professionally. The idea that contributions on Hornby and Bachmann containers are below things like waste paper, German chemicals, annual contracts for major automotive manufacturers , and the likes of IKEA and Tesco (to name a few horrors off the cuff) is mistaken. Mind you those kind of people can put 100 x 40' on a single vessel, several times a month. Hornby is a minnow,,,,

In two words - Design Clever. It's visible that Hornby are going for moulded details not seperately applied handrails. In a smaller scale , if done well , that's perfectly acceptable. Farish's highly detailed N gauge autoballasters are so expensive to assemble and produce that it's borderline whether further runs are commercially viable The other saving is shared design and research costs. Hence Hornby's declaration that they are only intending to do things in TT:120 if they already do them in 4mm (I am convinced Hornby must be working on a OO 57xx, otherwise they wouldn't be doing a TT:120 one) The other element is of course selling direct. I'm sure they are using some of the retailers' margin to keep the price down. But they are also working on a "no discounted prices" basis* I do share your view that selling through retailers would be problematic because of the need to add a retailer's markup on top. I don't see Hornby agreeing to increase website prices for TT by 25% just so the dealers can make some money. Equally I think the range needs to be stocked in depth to succeed , and I simply can't see most retailers wanting to do that (*I mean no remaindering/sales . The TT Club mirrors their Airfix club , a key part of their plastic kit marketing strategy. You now have to pay to join the TT club, so it's not exactly a straight discount. But with Airfix the exclusive plastic kit actually covers a good deal of the cost, and the discount can take you quickly into credit. You also get club discount on club renewal with Airfix)

Interesting comments which do perhaps go some way to explaining why we don't seem to see many small terminus/fiddle yard in N. Mind you you may have a posse after you for saying it, as I've found that any suggestion that there might weaknesses or limitations to the scale is unacceptable in a number of quarters, even though anty scale has its inherent limitations and practical issues. A common reaction to these kind of issues seems to be that you shouldn't want to shunt in N : "it's not what N is for". My own feeling is that such a situation IS a significant limitation in a scale , and saying it's bad form to raise the issue only means that nothing is done about models like this That fixes are possible is worth documenting . My own two diesel 0-6-0 shunters run a LOT better than you have described, but they are still not as good as we've come to expect in 4mm I get the impression that the limitations of Poole-era Farish may be casting a very long shadow , by having permanently depressed expectations for N gauge running

Pullman livery didn't change very much. Pullman trains ran on the ECML from the mid 20s into the 1960s , and the cars modelled did run in that condition, and they ran on the ECML The catch is that as I understand it from others, those particular Pullman cars ran on the ECML in the Twenties, in a slightly different condition - by the time they were as modelled, in the 1950s, they were used on the Southern Region Pullman services. The Southern Region painted its Mk1s green not maroon in the 1956-65 period, though maroon vehicles did drift into the Region So it's not actually spot on, but you need to be a bit of an expert to know how/why it's not right....

Many of the OO plans in CJF's 60 Plan for Small Locations are desperately cramped by modern standards . 15" radius curves abound But do them full-size in TT:120 and you should be cooking with gas. 15" radius in TT:120 is roughly equivalent to 2' radius in 4mm. Platforms drawn to take 2 short coaches and a tank engine should take any tank engine and 3 coaches with ease, 4 coaches at squeeze

Hornby are pioneering conduit electrification for model railways. Can a range of London trams be far behind?? (I assume that's the same pre-production GBRf 08 that was running at Warley)

That does demonstrate fairly vividly that even a "small" layout requires a fair bit of space to do it authentically. That would equate to around 10' long in 4mm : I don't have 10' length available at home , and I suspect a lot of people are in a similar situation. We've reached the point where even a modest "3 trains a day each way" branch terminus is too big to build at home in 4mm as far as most people are concerned. So there is a real opening for doing "small" layouts like this in a small scale Just out of interest - N gauge or 2mm finescale?

Departmental service extends that to 1985 Yeovil Junction was and is ex LSW (east /west route), Yeovil Pen Mill is ex GW (north/south route) , someone will tell us when the ex LSW lines in this area were transfered to the Western Region (who got busy closing them - the Yeovil Town branch being an example) . The connection from Yeovil Jnc to Pen Mill is there to allow diversionary routings from Castle Cary on the GW West of England route to Yeovil Junc on the Waterloo -Exeter route. So Western services could be diverted away from the GW route through Taunton via the LSW route through Yeovil and Exmouth Jnc ; equally Waterloo - Exeter trains could be diverted onto the GW main line and away from the Waterloo-Exeter route east of Yeovil GW vans at Yeovil should not a problem