BRMSB Standard Dimensions and Ammendments - Download

[goldfish]

In 1950 the BRMSB Standard Dimensions recommendations were published by META. However it seems that these recommendations were not set in stone, as an Amendment Sheet was  published in October 1951. Does anybody have a copy of this, or know what the Amendment Sheet contained? It must been several pages at least, because the original pamphlet cost 1/- and the Amendment Sheet cost 3d.

 

There does not seem to be much information on  the BRMSB on line, so I not sure if this was the only amendment, or if there were more. I would be most grateful for any further information about these standards.

 

Michael

[Il Grifone]

The only amendment of which I am aware is the EMGS change of EM gauge to 18.2mm.

 

All I could find online is this a (nice copy but seems overpriced to me - it sold for £5.97 +p&p after several relistings):

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/British-Railway-Modelling-Standards-Bureau-Standard-Dimensions-1950

 

No sign of any Amendments from 1951 however.

[goldfish]

56 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

The only amendment of which I am aware is the EMGS change of EM gauge to 18.2mm.

 

All I could find online is this a (nice copy but seems overpriced to me - it sold for £5.97 +p&p after several relistings):

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/British-Railway-Modelling-Standards-Bureau-Standard-Dimensions-1950

 

No sign of any Amendments from 1951 however.

 

The price of copies of the BRMSB Standard Dimensions is very varied, there was one on Amazon a few months ago for £49. If I could find somebody actually willing to pay that price I would sell my own copy. The link now leads another copy with a starting bid of £7.97 + p&p.

 

I have partially answered my own question. There is a paragraph in the October Model Railway Constructor about the 1951 amendment.

"In addition to various corrections to the earlier information published, the sheet also contains a complete set of dimensions for S gauge (3/16in. scale), as well as details of unified gauge O dimensions which are recommended for club and test tracks."

 

Which raises the obvious questions. What is unified gauge O, and what corrections?

 

Not an amendment as such, but in the September1952 Model Railway Constructor they published the BRMSB Standard Dimensions for Stud Contact Electrification in full. I suspect the 1951 amendment wasn't a best seller.

[Il Grifone]

The link is to the original listing. After multiple relisting, it finally sold for a couple of quid less.

 

IIRC the stud contact specification was for 1/16" above the sleepers on plain track, rising gradually  to 1/16" above the railhead at crossings to avoid short circuits between skate and rail.

[goldfish]

After an extensive search, the only reference I can find to a BRMSB Unified 0 Gauge Standard is in a Gauge 0 Guild document. It is Data Sheet D1.1.1.1, and it is so obviously wrong that I cannot resist posting a screen shot.

 

 

I find the idea that Guild Coarse needs narrower flangeways than Guild Fine, and ScaleSeven needs flangeways more than twice the width of Guild Coarse just hilarious. Obviously the Gauge 0 Guild were too busy counting rivets that day to be bothered to proof read their own documents.

 

Seriously though, does anybody know the details of Unified 0 Gauge?

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by goldfish

[Grovenor]

Just got the headings for Scale7 and Coarse exchanged!

Strange to have a standards table that omits the gauge?

I think Unified was an attempt to allow both fine and coarse stock to run.

[goldfish]

18 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Just got the headings for Scale7 and Coarse exchanged!

Strange to have a standards table that omits the gauge?

I think Unified was an attempt to allow both fine and coarse stock to run.

 

I did realise that the Guild columns were just swapped, my problem is that the flangeway for Unified is less than Fine.

The really strange thing is the inclusion of ScaleSeven, which is not 0 gauge and so obviously incompatible.

Edited August 9, 2021 by goldfish

[goldfish]

 

Doing a little more research, it seems that values for Unified in the table are correct for OC and CR.

 

The size of the flangeway for Unified apparently varied. At 3'3" radius it was 2mm minimum, and 5' radius and over it was 1.6mm minimum. If there were other values I don't know.

 

I have no reference for it, but in 1944 BRMSB set the flangeway at 2.5mm for straight track and 3mm for curved track, but if this was for Fine or Course, again I do not know.

Edited August 9, 2021 by goldfish

[goldfish]

 

More research has failed come up with anymore information, but I think I have got my head around the Unified 0 Gauge dimensions.

 

I am lacking the full details, but they seem to point to an alternative way of achieving universal points by tweeking the clearances.

 

The over check rails (OC) dimension is determined by the narrowest back to back that you want to accommodate, and so is fixed.

 

To get the required clearance, the check rail on the curved path of the point is set to give the minimum flangeway commensurate with the thickest flange and the radius of the curve. The width of flangeway required by a given flange decreases as the curve radius increases, and so the flangeway width is adjusted accordingly.

The width of the flangeway at the frog varies due to the need to maintain OC.

 

The check rail on the straight path of the point would be set to give  minimum flangeway width required by the thickest flange.

 

Presumably gauge widening would be advised to give maximum flexibility in setting the flangeway widths.

 

It sounds like an idea that could work, but if it does it obviously never caught on. You would certainly get massive wheel drop.

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by goldfish

[goldfish]

Of limited interest, but somebody might find this useful.

 

In September 1952 The Model Railway Constructor published the BRMSB Standard Dimensions for Stud Contact Electrification.

 

P1.pdf

Edited April 15, 2022 by goldfish

[goldfish]

There doesn't appear to be a copy of the BRMSB Standard Dimensions 1950 available on line, so I am posting a full text copy here for reference.

 

 

BR Standard Dimensions 1950.pdf

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by goldfish

[goldfish]

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

[Krusty]

Somewhere in my dissolute past I acquired a copy of Model Railways Handbook 7th Edition, compiled by the staff of Model Railway News and published by Percival Marshall & Co Ltd – original cover price 3/6.  It isn't dated, but contains an ad for the September 1963 MRN (and one for Cadets cigarettes). Among the contents is a 10-page chapter on standard dimensions, with the comment:

 

"As the 1950 edition of the B.R.M.S.B. Standard Dimensions booklet ran out of print in late 1957, it was decided that as this Handbook is to embrace all the smaller gauges, the standard dimensions should be included therein. In any case the original booklet of 1950 was due for revision so as to include the several amendments of July, 1951 (including dimensions for S-gauge) together with some minor 1953 modifications in Gauge-1, and dimensions for TT3-gauge .... The Council of the Model Engineering Trade Association has agreed to adopt the dimensions in all gauges as the standard for their Manufacturer Members to adhere to but it should be noted that because of this they are not to be regarded as M.E.T.A. standards but still remain the B.R.M.S.B. Standard Dimensions."

[goldfish]

22 hours ago, Krusty said:

Somewhere in my dissolute past I acquired a copy of Model Railways Handbook 7th Edition, compiled by the staff of Model Railway News and published by Percival Marshall & Co Ltd – original cover price 3/6.  It isn't dated, but contains an ad for the September 1963 MRN (and one for Cadets cigarettes). Among the contents is a 10-page chapter on standard dimensions,

 

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

[Il Grifone]

Quote:

The Council of the Model Engineering Trade Association has agreed to adopt the dimensions in all gauges as the standard for their Manufacturer Members to adhere to...

 

A pity they didn't!

[Michael Hodgson]

Does META still exist?

[goldfish]

On 17/04/2022 at 21:13, Michael Hodgson said:

Does META still exist?

 

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

Edited April 19, 2022 by goldfish
Corrected date.

[kevinlms]

On 17/04/2022 at 17:24, Il Grifone said:

Quote:

The Council of the Model Engineering Trade Association has agreed to adopt the dimensions in all gauges as the standard for their Manufacturer Members to adhere to...

 

A pity they didn't!

But who were the members of a voluntary organisation?

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, goldfish said:

 

No, META ceased to exist round about 1967, but did manage to outlive BRMSB by seven years.

I think it lasted longer than that. A magazine picked at random, MRC 1978 December revealed 4 ads with the META logo. I agree that it's not evidence, because the advertiser could have used the same template for years and why not continue using it, if you believed in the principles and no longer had to pay!

 

 

I have found evidence that META existed in 1976 January. There is a note from S.W. Stevens-Stratten (then editor of Model Railway Constructor - who would have known). It was in response to a question to the 'wasteful' practice of duplicating kits.

 

"The Model Engineering Trade Association (META) have offered to act as a 'Clearing House' where manufacturers could advise them of an interesting new product (at the moment whether a META member or not - for it all helps the hobby). Another manufacturer could then contact META and would be advised if his projected model was already in production. This would be done without giving the name of the firms concerned. It has already worked on a limited scale, but needs the co-operation of manufacturers and this unfortunately this is not always forthcoming."

 

There are several obvious problems with this, not least who was on the META organisation board or whatever it was called? Would businesses want to tell competitors their plans in advance and anyway, once someone 'claimed' the rights to a model, what stops them from never producing it, yet effectively blocking competitors?

[goldfish]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

I think it lasted longer than that. A magazine picked at random, MRC 1978 December revealed 4 ads with the META logo. I agree that it's not evidence, because the advertiser could have used the same template for years and why not continue using it, if you believed in the principles and no longer had to pay!

 

You are correct, I was working from memory and got the date wrong by ten years - META ceased to exist in around 1977.

 

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

I have found evidence that META existed in 1976 January. There is a note from S.W. Stevens-Stratten (then editor of Model Railway Constructor - who would have known). It was in response to a question to the 'wasteful' practice of duplicating kits.

 

"The Model Engineering Trade Association (META) have offered to act as a 'Clearing House' where manufacturers could advise them of an interesting new product (at the moment whether a META member or not - for it all helps the hobby). Another manufacturer could then contact META and would be advised if his projected model was already in production. This would be done without giving the name of the firms concerned. It has already worked on a limited scale, but needs the co-operation of manufacturers and this unfortunately this is not always forthcoming."

 

There are several obvious problems with this, not least who was on the META organisation board or whatever it was called? Would businesses want to tell competitors their plans in advance and anyway, once someone 'claimed' the rights to a model, what stops them from never producing it, yet effectively blocking competitors?

 

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.

[Pacific231G]

I also have a copy of the 1950 standards. FWIW and for comparison, here is the 1944 version as published in the June 1944 MRC.

Scale OO is of course what was renamed as EM (then changed I think by the EMGS) to 18.2mm

[kevinlms]

7 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I also have a copy of the 1950 standards. FWIW and for comparison, here is the 1944 version as published in the June 1944 MRC.

Scale OO is of course what was renamed as EM (then changed I think by the EMGS) to 18.2mm

Interesting that appears as 100% metric!

[kevinlms]

50 minutes ago, goldfish said:

 

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.

But no such restrictions in 1978! The assumption is that any 2 kits would be of similar standards and so a choice would be a waste. Of course no kits are ever exactly to the same standard.

[Pacific231G]

57 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Interesting that appears as 100% metric!

The model end of the scale has long been expressed in millimetres in Britain. It is about the only country where rulers were commonly marked in both inches and centimetres and that made it quite easy to convert prototype dimensions in feet into model dimensions in millimetres (one of the claimed advantages of using 4mm/ft scale) That is a dead giveaway as to where model railway scales were invented.

Britain definitely gave the world H0 3.5mm/ft scale (thanks to the Wimbledon MRC) and 7mm/ft scale as well as 4mm/ft scale though that didn't export much.  The Americans came up with quarter inch to the foot scale (American 1:48 O scale) and 1/10 inch to the foot (TT scale everywhere except Britain) while the Germans adopted 1:45 scale for O gauge .

 S scale 1:64 or 3/16 inch to the foot is the odd one out but imperial rulers were often marked with

a 1/16 inch scale. 

Elsewhere the Americans normally, and allmost uniquely, mainly use imperial measures only  so the NMRA standards are expressed in fractions of an inch (then translated into mm) and everyone else, apart from us, just use the metric system and convert our feet and  millimetre scales into rather odd ratios like 1:87 scale and 1:43.5 scale.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Pacific231G

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

The model end of the scale has long been expressed in millimetres in Britain. It is about the only country where rulers were commonly marked in both inches and centimetres and that made it quite easy to convert prototype dimensions in feet into model dimensions in millimetres (one of the claimed advantages of using 4mm/ft scale) That is a dead giveaway as to where model railway scales were invented.

Britain definitely gave the world H0 3.5mm/ft scale (thanks to the Wimbledon MRC) and 7mm/ft scale as well as 4mm/ft scale though that didn't export much.  The Americans came up with quarter inch to the foot scale (American 1:48 O scale) and 1/10 inch to the foot (TT scale everywhere except Britain) while the Germans adopted 1:45 scale for O gauge .

 S scale 1:64 or 3/16 inch to the foot is the odd one out but imperial rulers were often marked with

a 1/16 inch scale. 

Elsewhere the Americans normally, and allmost uniquely, mainly use imperial measures only  so the NMRA standards are expressed in fractions of an inch (then translated into mm) and everyone else, apart from us, just use the metric system and convert our feet and  millimetre scales into rather odd ratios like 1:87 scale and 1:43.5 scale.

It should be noted that the Americans don't actually use the Imperial system, although many measurements are the same.

Technically they use the Customary system, which is based on the British system, pre the Imperial standard of 1824, so the standard is rather old, with some modifications. There are many variations, particularly in weights and volumes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

 

Some are obviously intended as a simplification (like the US did with spelling), but unless you can convince it to become an agreed international standard, it only adds to the confusion.

 

FWIW, I have long worked in an industry that has for generations used exclusively the metric system - the electrical one, where internationally everyone uses Volts, Amps & Resistance - easy!

 

I've never quite understood the reasoning behind wanting to keep, old rather illogical standards.

 

Most rulers in Australia are marked in Imperial and metric. This came about in the 70s because there was a court case, about whether it was a restriction to business, for not being able to sell Imperial measuring devices. This was soon after we officially went metric.

 

Oddly enough, young people mostly use metric, except for when it comes to weight of new born babies - strange!