Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[MarkSG]

1 minute ago, newbryford said:

 

It may have a tension lock, but what's the point if it doesn't easily couple to another tension lock from another manufacturer. There are even some manufacturers that can't standardise within their own products 

Not helped either by having NEM pockets that are mounted at positions that don't even comply with the NEM/MOROP spec?

 

NEM is a standard. If manufacturers don't adhere to it then more standards isn't going to help.

 

1 minute ago, newbryford said:

 

Whilst I accept that DOGA have wheel standards, do they have a coupling standard(s)?

Or is the T/L (which has to be the majority coupling for 00 practitioners even though it is despised by some) beyond the realms of standardising?

 

Recent tension locks are much of a muchness anyway. We've moved away from the wide, intrusive Tri-Ang version to a more streamlined, narrow version that's a lot less visually intrusive.  I've just lined up three recent wagon purchases from Oxford, Bachmann and Rapido, and the couplings are practically identical. Hornby and Dapol are still selling products with older style couplings, but only on their older toolings. Published standards aren't going to change that.

[PMP]

45 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Those should go through these Peco points, though I think Peco would be well-advised to ease out the flangeways to 1.25mm when they produce the promised bullhead small radius points otherwise we may find WD and ROD 2-8-0s are uncomfortable . Similar comments apply to the forthcoming bullhead OO double slips

 

Yet if you read the post  I linked you’ll find that Bachmann WD 2-8-0’s work through the points with no trouble whatsoever.

It’s rather odd that if you’re advocating potential problems with these points that you or the DOGA society haven’t even done a cursory test to check your theory with simple practical tests.

[PMP]

6 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

NEM is a standard. If manufacturers don't adhere to it then more standards isn't going to help.

 

 

Recent tension locks are much of a muchness anyway. We've moved away from the wide, intrusive Tri-Ang version to a more streamlined, narrow version that's a lot less visually intrusive.  I've just lined up three recent wagon purchases from Oxford, Bachmann and Rapido, and the couplings are practically identical. Hornby and Dapol are still selling products with older style couplings, but only on their older toolings. Published standards aren't going to change that.

There is no standard for a T/L coupling design. There is no standard for a T/L mounting height/length etc etc.

 

If you read the products section you’ll find examples in the past 18 months of new releases with coupling compatability issues, including at least one of the manufacturers you mention.

[Ravenser]

1 minute ago, PMP said:

If you bothered to read the attached link you’ll see I tested 74 types of RTR motive power through those points, including HJ 01 and other types. The layout and previous test configurations  have used RTR and kit built stock with no problems.

 

So to make it easy the only HJ types (otoh), I’ve not tested through these points are

Met BoBo,

13xx,

76, 86 

dp2, lion

garrett

cl47

 

I tried all the above as there were concerns raised that some types shorted out on the points.  I found no examples. 
Now which models have you tried which have given problems? I’m guessing you have done nothing like the number of tests or amount of practical ‘everyday useage’ running I have with these products. 
 

I look forward to your list of ‘problem’ models with interest.

 

 

 

 

Having read through your list, the key issues are:

 

- The actual B2B. You stated that all models were either 14.5mm B 2B to start with or had been rectified to be so. If that has been done then there should be no issues with a large radius point. The problems would arise with models with B2B down at 14.2mm or lower , especially where long rigid wheelbases are involved. You've "rectified" those out of existance

 

- The "demanding"  cases are the O1 2-8-0 from Heljan (which you state now definitely has 14.5mm B2B),  the  Bachmann WD and 9F, and to a lesser extent the Hornby Britannia, Clan and Bachmann K3. Possibly a 40. That's 3 or 6-7 locos out of 74. everything else has fairly short rigid wheelbase. Again, if the B2B is at 14.4mm or 14.5mm these should be compatible with these large radius points - I think the substitution radius for the curved road is about 5'?

 

The issues with narrow flangeways where the clearances have been stripped out would kick in at tighter radii. I think the substition radii for the curved roads on small and medium radius Peco points are about 2' and 3'. The curved roads on a double slip are I think even tighter, and of course a crossover intyroduces reverse curves.

 

If Peco maintain these very narrow flangways on the forthcoming pointwork with tighter radii, then you will see problems with any stock with reduced b2bs.

 

As a matter of simple maths, if the reported dimensions are correct , then the span across check rails  cannot be less than 14.2mm on  these points. (16.2mm - (2 x 1.0mm)). Any wheelset with a B2B of 14.2mm or less cannot pass through that. There are plenty of credible reports of HJ locos with B2B down at 14.2mm.Certainly Hornby rolling stock wheels are down at that figure or even 14.1mm

 

If you have adjusted your HJ l.ocos out to 14.5mm B2B then you've removed the issue

 

For clarity's sake, in all my exchanges with the OO-SF people I've always accepted that wheelsets set to 14.5mm B2B will go through their reduced clearance pointwork at large radii.

 

Mt  questions are - what about the significant number of RTR items around with B2Bs below 14.3mm as they come out of the box??

 

And won't the larger wheelbazse items start binding in the narrow flangeways once you get down to tighter radii in the 2' to 3' radius? Remembering that a lot of people are in OO precisely because the only way they can build a reasonable layout is to use some fairly sharp curves

 

Commercial RTR items need to work down to 2nd radius , and through a crossover made up of small raius points. That means for everything , including Pacifics, P2s and 2-8-0s.  I'm sceptical that these very narrow flangeways will permit that, and gauge narrowing on tight curves is not a good idea at all

 

I notice in one post from the earlier thread relating to comments on the Peco stand at Warley in 2019:

Quote

The person on the stand to whom I spoke said that these had proved a "nightmare" to tool, but that they would be worth it when they arrived.

 

 

 

I wonder if the reason they had been a nightmare to tool is that the narrow flangway issue started to kick in???  As I said , Peco would be well=advised to move to a 1.25mm flangway on the sharper radius items

 

There is also the matter of Petethe Elaner's report of 1.0mm flangeways all round with 16.4mm gauge min on Pecos Code 75 concrete sleeper points. That implies a check span of 14.4mm 😲😱 - desperately tight  even at 14.5mm B2B. I appreciate it's not what you tested, but it is probably a more relevant product to me. On those figures, I'm not sure I dare buy any.

 

The biggest grip seems to be marginal shorts on DCC , not stock jamming on the checkrails in the traditional way. 

 

Is Shelfie DC or DCC ? If the former, you have again designed out the issue

[Ravenser]

45 minutes ago, PMP said:

Yet if you read the post  I linked you’ll find that Bachmann WD 2-8-0’s work through the points with no trouble whatsoever.

It’s rather odd that if you’re advocating potential problems with these points that you or the DOGA society haven’t even done a cursory test to check your theory with simple practical tests.

 

 

You've tested the large radius points. 

 

my comment was that it may work at 5' radius, but is it still going to work at 3' or 2 radius?

[PMP]

37 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Having read through your list, the key issues are:

 

- The actual B2B. You stated that all models were either 14.5mm B 2B to start with or had been rectified to be so. If that has been done then there should be no issues with a large radius point. The problems would arise with models with B2B down at 14.2mm or lower , especially where long rigid wheelbases are involved. You've "rectified" those out of existance

 

- The "demanding"  cases are the O1 2-8-0 from Heljan (which you state now definitely has 14.5mm B2B),  the  Bachmann WD and 9F, and to a lesser extent the Hornby Britannia, Clan and Bachmann K3. Possibly a 40. That's 3 or 6-7 locos out of 74. everything else has fairly short rigid wheelbase. Again, if the B2B is at 14.4mm or 14.5mm these should be compatible with these large radius points - I think the substitution radius for the curved road is about 5'?

 

 

 

The biggest grip seems to be marginal shorts on DCC , not stock jamming on the checkrails in the traditional way. 

 

Is Shelfie DC or DCC ? If the former, you have again designed out the issue

Why haven’t other modellers reported problems? Is it because the problems don’t exist?

 

Shelfie layouts (four so far),  are either DC/DCC. They can be operated with either system by swapping the controller. Neither configuration has caused any problem.

Edited April 20, 2022 by PMP

[Ravenser]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

Why haven’t other modellers reported problems? Is it because the problems don’t exist?

 

Shelfie is either DC/DCC. It can be operated with either system by swapping the controller. Neither configuration has caused any problem.

 

The other thread is full of modellers reporting electrical problems .....

 

Were your tests with these points conducted in DC mode or in DCC? If in DC mode, the shorting issue would not be apparent

[PMP]

9 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

The other thread is full of modellers reporting electrical problems .....

 

Were your tests with these points conducted in DC mode or in DCC? If in DC mode, the shorting issue would not be apparent

Is it? I recall about five reports covering Hornby L1/31 and another I can’t recall. 
 

My points are powered by 12v DC (mobile phone charger) input to tortoise motors with the frog switched by the motor. I’ve had no problems with them out of the packet unpowered, or powered.

I actually have about three years practical experience of these points, perhaps you should try the same rather than just throwing theory at the subject.

Edited April 20, 2022 by PMP
Correction to power

[newbryford]

4 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

The other thread is full of modellers reporting electrical problems .....

 

Were your tests with these points conducted in DC mode or in DCC? If in DC mode, the shorting issue would not be apparent

 

I've experienced shorting issues such as those across insulfrogs (or electrofrogs with blades live to the frog and narrow b2b)) with DC controllers as well as DCC controllers - particularly with slow running.

Yes - DCC systems are a bit more sensitive and it is masked a little by the slow response of DC overload protection, but DC is not immune to shorting.

 

So the DC/DCC thing is a red herring in my book.

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Bachmann declared from the start c1990  that their wheels were RP25 . Whether Kadar's interpretation of RP25/110 is exactly spot on is another matter ,

Whether or not their interpretation of the profile of RP25/110 is correct or not, Bachmann wagon wheels are from 0.5mm to 0.7mm oversized diameter wise, somewhat defeats the object of RP25.

Which then returns us back to standards committee argument!

 

Mike.

[spamcan61]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Whether or not their interpretation of the profile of RP25/110 is correct or not, Bachmann wagon wheels are from 0.5mm to 0.7mm oversized diameter wise, somewhat defeats the object of RP25.

Which then returns us back to standards committee argument!

 

Mike.

Surely the point of the standard would be to ensure reliable running by defining the wheel - track interface though, I don't see any relevance in whether the wheel diameter itself is prototypically accurate or not.

[Enterprisingwestern]

19 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Surely the point of the standard would be to ensure reliable running by defining the wheel - track interface though, I don't see any relevance in whether the wheel diameter itself is prototypically accurate or not.

 

Quite true, but my inference is, relevant to the BRMSB discussion, that if manufacturers can't even get the basics of wheel diameters right what's the point of worrying about profiles, as has been said, Lima pizza cutters run and they are about as far away from realism as you can get, or does realism not come into it, I thought that was the whole point of the exercise?

 

Mike.

[spamcan61]

15 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Quite true, but my inference is, relevant to the BRMSB discussion, that if manufacturers can't even get the basics of wheel diameters right what's the point of worrying about profiles, as has been said, Lima pizza cutters run and they are about as far away from realism as you can get, or does realism not come into it, I thought that was the whole point of the exercise?

 

Mike.

Personally, a less than 1mm error in wheel diameter would be a long way down my list of inaccuracies that bug me, but obviously YMMV.

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Basically Peco could have made their new points compatible wirth Airfix/Mainline/Replica/Dapol and still have fully matched RP25/110 wheels by moving to a 1.25mm flangway. I really don't understand what they gain by going quite a bit tighter than that

 

 

I think the simple answer you are looking for is better looks !!

 

However this clearly shows making slight changes to the standards can have unplanned results

 

Modern stock has much finer wheels than those available when the standards were set in stone, then you have the issue with modern kits using wheels that are made to be used in two (or more) differing gauges, example is when you buy a set of Gibson drivers they are clearly marked 00/EM. The plain truth is the wheel standards for EM gauge is different to 00 gauge, some makes of 00 gauge wagon and coach wheels again are made for both 00 & EM gauge. 

 

With EM gauge the track is designed for much finer wheels. 00 gauge requires wheels which are slightly coarser. The issue for track makers simply is in 00 gauge they need to be able to accept a wide verity of wheels mainly dictated by the date of manufacture, plus where kits are concerned finer scale wheels

 

Simply modellers should understand the relationship between their track and wheelsets on their stock.

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

59 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Personally, a less than 1mm error in wheel diameter would be a long way down my list of inaccuracies that bug me, but obviously YMMV.

 

It's got nothing to do with what bugs me, I use widened Bachmanns along Gibsons etc so that's irrelevant, the point I'm trying to make, somewhat unsuccessfully it would seem, is that if manufacturers can't get a dimension right which is a known fact of the prototype, what chance is there of getting a (necessarily) fudged dimension agreed between competing manufacturers?

 

Mike.

[RichardT]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

or does realism not come into it, I thought that was the whole point of the exercise?

No, but an understandable opinion given the variety of meanings of the word “standards”.  What’s being talked about here in a “BRMSB” context are interoperability standards, not standards of accuracy.  So long as X’s wheels work through Y’s switches & crossings, whether the wheels have only two spokes or are 5mm undersized is irrelevant.  And on standards of accuracy, if I may shoehorn in one of my many pet bugbears, it’s often said “it’s as easy to make it right as to make it wrong”.  Nonsense.  There’s usually only one way to make it right, and an infinite number of ways to make it wrong. Making it “wrong” is *much* easier! 😉😂

[Pete the Elaner]

11 hours ago, PMP said:

Is it? I recall about five reports covering Hornby L1/31 and another I can’t recall. 
 

My points are powered by 12v DC (mobile phone charger) input to tortoise motors with the frog switched by the motor. I’ve had no problems with them out of the packet unpowered, or powered.

I actually have about three years practical experience of these points, perhaps you should try the same rather than just throwing theory at the subject.

 

FYI, Ravenser was invited to contribute on this thread by an admin because of his knowledge of track & wheel dimensions, so it is unfair to accuse him of just throwing theory.

 

There are so many different items of rolling stock & track available that it is virtually impossible for anybody to have tested everything with each other. Some models are more forgiving than others, even those you suspect are complex.

There may even be a variation between models which should be identical, so there is always the possibility that while person A has not observed a problem with models they feel should be problematic, person B may encounter an issue with something which should be more forgiving.

[JohnR]

It seems to me from reading this thread that there is really only two issues that need resolving.

 

Firstly, manufacturers need to standardise on a 14.5mm B2B out of the box. Users shouldn't need to alter the B2B to get a particular item to work (I accept that some adjustments may need to be made from time to time). This should mean that all rolling stock can work on all types of OO trackwork - regardless.

 

Secondly, while there is an accepted NEM standard for coupling pockets, these are often mounted at different heights/locations, partly because of the nature of British outline rolling stock and the requirements to go round 2nd Radius curves. What needs to happen is for an agreed height and position of the coupling bar to be standardised, and T/L couplings provided with suitable "cranks" to allow this height/position to be achieved.

 

There is a height gauge for Kadee couplings (which from my limited understanding will not work together if they are not at the right height, hence the different types) - so why not a similar height gauge for T/L which sets the standard?

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

It's got nothing to do with what bugs me, I use widened Bachmanns along Gibsons etc so that's irrelevant, the point I'm trying to make, somewhat unsuccessfully it would seem, is that if manufacturers can't get a dimension right which is a known fact of the prototype, what chance is there of getting a (necessarily) fudged dimension agreed between competing manufacturers?

 

Mike.

It does strike me as odd that a dimension, such as a wagon wheel can be out in diameter.

 

Fact is the vast majority of prototype wagon wheels are either 3ft 6in for pre-modern era and 3ft 0in for modern wagons. These can be churned by the tens of thousands.

 

Yes, I do know that some wagons used other dimensions (usually smaller) and occasionally larger (wagons such as horse boxes that often were included passenger services).

 

Do some manufacturers sometimes include larger wheels, because they have made a mistake in the axle box or floor height?

[JohnR]

3 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Do some manufacturers sometimes include larger wheels, because they have made a mistake in the axle box or floor height?

 

Pretty sure some of the old Triang models used that trick

[spamcan61]

9 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

 

Do some manufacturers sometimes include larger wheels, because they have made a mistake in the axle box or floor height?

Possibly, or maybe they have 'stock' sizes available to them (either from a subcontractor or from their own production lines)  which are easier and cheaper to use than an exact (obviously with a finite manufacturing tolerance)  diameter part. Would seem a fair strategy as I don't see many complaints about their current wheel diameter(s).

[fulton]

On 19/04/2022 at 22:03, Ravenser said:

May I suggest that what the hobby  doesn't need is a current day BRMSB ? 

 

That is because the BRMSB was a qualified failure. To be specific, it proved quite unable to get its standards generally adopted and adhered to. As the famous quotation attributed to Einstein puts it, "Insanity is keeping doing something you know doesn't work."

 

I remember Cyril Freezer's comment when I mentioned the subject to him once: "The BRMSB was a cabal!" CJF would know, because he was actually a member of the BRMSB in its latter stages. And that - the fact that it was a cabal - is the main reason why it failed.

To be specific, the BRMSB as set up during the Blitz comprised 3 people: the editors of MRN, MRC, and Trains (later Trains Illustrated) . They rapidly co-opted the proprietor of the Constructor, one FW Chubb, and a well-known finescale modeller of the time  "in the smaller gauges", Micheal Longridge, who pre-war modelled in HO and belonged to Wimbledon MRC along with AR Walkley and A Stewart-Reidpath, and post-war modelled in EM and was a member of the MRC along with FW Chubb and Peter Denny . (If you look at Peter Denny's books on Buckingham you'll find the photos of Buckingham Mk1 and its stock in the late 40s are credited to Messrs Chubb and Longridge...)

 

The BRMSB was set up in response to a high-powered letter calling for clear, coherent and consistant standards for OO goods made by the specialist trade so that they were actually compatible. When the BRMSB actually convened (possibly in an air-raid shelter - this was the winter of 1940-41) they decided firstly to broaden their remit to cover Gauge O , and secondly that they would not draw up standards for 4mm scale /16.5mm gauge at all - and would instead recommend that post war modellers work in either a new gauge of 4mm scale/18mm gauge or in HO, for both of which they would provide standards .

 

This was not at all what they had been called in existance to do, and it is possible to detect the muffled echos of a loud explosion in the hobby in the pages of the Constructor when people found out what they were intending to do. The backlash was evidently strong enough to force them to concoct  OO standards after all.

 

This wasn't an accident . A "compromise gauge" of 18mm as the solution to the HO/OO gauge war was the pet idea of Mr Chubb, the proprietor of the Constructor - and no doubt his employee the Editor, fell quietly into line. Meanwhile JN Maselyne of MRN was very impressed by the work of WS Norris in 7mm and seems to have made that the basis for the Gauge O Finescale standard.

 

Effectively the BRMSB as a cabal meant that a couple of eminent people were able to hijack a standards project and try to railroad the entire hobby into their own personal visions of finer standards. They failed.

 

And the idea of magazine editors as "the unacknowledged legislators of the model railway world" was tested to destruction in the 1950s. The BRMSB had no means of ensuring anyone complied with its standards, and they assumed that commercial RTR - "the toy trade" - had little or nothing to do with railway modelling. In fact it turned out to be the core of 4mm modelling - and the BRMSB had precisely nil influence on any of the RTR manufacturers when it came to standards.

 

(In fairness the BRMSB did produce a O Gauge Coarse standard aimed at the specialist RTR trade like Leeds and Bonds - and the postwar demise of anything other than very basic Hornby Gauge O cleared the field of tinplate)

 

The  1960s saw another handful of modellers form a cabal and try to set the hobby to rights with a finescale agenda. This time they gave themselves the fine name of the Model Railway Study Group . They weren't very impressed with Mr Chubb's "compromise gauge" of EM so they  decided to replace it in the spirit of "this time we'll get it right" - the result was P4. What isn't generally remembered is that they also decided to issue new exact scale standards for S gauge, 3mm (they wanted to change the scale to 1:100 I think) and probably also 2mm and 7mm. Needless to say nobody gave them a mandate for any of this...

 

The MRSG had a plan for enforcement and compliance . Unfortunately it blew up in everyone's face. The 4 or 5 of them set up a group called the Protofour Society, which they, the MRSG members, owned. They also set up a company called Studiolith to make approved components to the official standards (there may have been an IP angle here). Studiolith would only sell to members of the Protofour Society, and members of the Protofour Society had to undertake to use only components from the approved supplier (Studiolith)

 

The whole thin g blew up when Studiolith proved unable to meet the needs of a single large exhibition layout, The N London Group's Heckmondwike. The layout leaders stepped outside the approved supply chain in desperation to meet an exhibition deadline, the Management Committee of the Protofour Society (=MRSG) found out, expelled the Group - en mass, and barred them from Studiolith supplies , and in the resulting bust-up the entire senior membership of the Protofour Society resigned or was expelled.

 

It got ugly. The original RM article of Heckmondwike is the only modelling article I have ever seen prefixed by a formal legal disclaimer - because the MRSG sent a solicitors' letter to Cyril Freezer and Sydney Pritchard threatening legal action if the layout was described in print as Protofour.  (That put me off P4 for life). The refugees formed the Scalefour Society. Studiolith I think became Exactoscale in the end - certainly for some years afterwards they required you to sign a formal disclaimer that you were not a member of S4Soc otherwise they would not supply you.

 

In my view almost the last thing we need is another self-appointed little clique of 4-5 people to generate their own lofty vision for the future of the hobby and try to impose it on the hobby at large.

 

We've been there before. It does not work.

Yes, experienced all the above, almost left the hobby, never did get some items from Studiolith which I had paid for.

[goldfish]

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.

[The Johnster]

23 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

The phrase  "members of the Protofour Society had to undertake to use only components from the approved supplier (Studiolith)" sums up perfectly why such self-appointed rule -setters are best avoided

 

Of course, the people concerned were almost certainly behaving like this because they genuinely thought it was for the best, for both the hobby and for 4mm scale modellers.  Self appointed rule setters always do this, and their well intentioned tryanny always fails to take account of methods of achieving the desired end that are not canon to the cabal, but before we criticise them we should take into account that we owe them much.  They could and should have managed things better, but humans are imperfect, and it is arguably a reaction against them that has produced the very good RTR models of the current time, a response to a market demand for better scale and detail without having to accept the iron rule of the cabal. 

 

Of course, it's faulted; 00 scale was a fractured compromise from the outset, but it has become like it or not the established standard for UK outline RTR in 4mm scale.  LIma attempted to introduce a range of H0 RTR when they first began selling UK outline models , and had the detail and scale been better, or at least on a par with what Airfix and Mainline were turning, things might have been different and the main scale have been H0 at 3.5mm/ft and a close enough for jazz track gauge.  The opportunity, if there really was one, was lost and we must live with the resultant compromise; it won't come again and those who developed EM, P4, S4, &c don't care, as they've ploughed their own furrow regardless.  I've no problem with that except that I can't model to that standard, which is my problem not theirs.

 

Our RTR firms are still quite firmly wedded to the train set, by which I mean a layout based on setrack geometry of overall small enough size to be erected in a room in an average British home, and capable of a multitrack layout with sidings on a dining room table.  This is unacceptable to me and many other 'proper' modellers whatever they are when they're at home because of the unfeasible curves, gaps between the buffers, and other compromises involved; I want something I can convince myself is a small version of the real thing, and 64' coaches bendind at 30 degrees between each other on curves does not fit in with that. 

 

Nevertheless, my curves (Peco Streamline medium radius 30" turnouts) are insanely and unfeasibly sharp for even a South Wales colliery branch, and I use tension lock couplings because I cannot manage scale.  I live with these anomalies because I don't have the space to build the layout that I want in terms of the shunting movements I wish to represent and perform (the operational aspect that is the fundamental core of why I built the layout in the first place) to any sort of scale dimensions, and will not until my lottery money is avaialble.  I'm resonably happy with the imperfect layout I've created, but aware that RTR could be even better than it is if the requirement to negotiate setrack radii could be abandoned.  It'll never happen because sales for setrack layouts are higher than for 'our' attempts at reasonable looking 4mm in 00 using mostly RTR and some kits...

[Galagars]

I would like to add a few comments regarding the early history of EM gauge and BRMSB standards.

 

Ravenser suggests that A "compromise gauge" of 18mm was the pet idea of Mr Chubb, but it was actually proposed some years earlier and was taken up by at least one modeller.

 

In its May 1926 issue, the Model Railway News published a Paper which had been read before the Manchester and District Model Railway Club by Theodore Horn, M. A., entitled “Scales and Standards in the Smaller Gauges”. The author expressed surprise that no one had objected to the use of an under scale gauge for 4mm scale and suggested a gauge of 18mm. This pre-dated the well-known proposal for the slightly over scale gauge of 19mm which appeared in the July 1926 issue.

 

Stan Garlick, better known in later years for his “S” gauge models, built three 18mm gauge model locomotives during the 1930’s: a 3F 0-6-0, a 2-6-2T and a Stanier 2-6-0. .

 

 Mr Chubb’s contribution was contained in an article entitled “Scales and Gauges”, which appeared in the July 1936 issue of the Model Railway Constructor. This followed the formation of the British Model Railway Standards Bureau (not to be confused with the 1941 organisation) by the MRC in April, which proposed fine scale standards for 16.5mm and 19mm gauges. Mr Chubb noted that increased clearance was necessary to allow for the swing of bogies on coaches and outside cylindered locomotives on sharper-than-scale curves, and recommended 18mm gauge using similar standards. Back-to-back was to be 16.5mm and wheel width 2.25mm, almost identical to the current EM standard.

 

By WWII, 18mm gauge was becoming established. Some exhibition reports published in the Model Railway News include descriptions of 18mm (and 19mm) gauge models on static display.

 

In the February 1937 issue of the MRN, S F Sewell placed an advertisement entitled: “Pointwork to Measure”. It was for “OO” pointwork, and included the statement: “The above can be had in 19 mm or 18 mm Gauge at a Slight Extra Cost.”

 

The City Model Company had 18mm gauge track on display at the 1939 Model Railway Club exhibition.

 

 In the June 1939 issue of MRN, Multi-Models Ltd advertised 4mm scale Southern Railway bogie and 4-wheel utility vans. These were available ready-to-run for 16.5, 18 or 19mm gauge tracks.

 

Unfortunately the BRMSB failed to work out the required construction and setting tolerances correctly, which created a conflict between the wheel and track dimensions. This was tolerable in “OO” where clearances were more generous but led to a situation where 18.0mm gauge was virtually unworkable with commercially available wheels. The BRMSB also failed to specify gauge widening on curves. Peter Denny had advocated 0.5mm gauge widening on curves in his 1950 article in the MRC on track building. When I built my first six-coupled chassis I was unaware of Peter Denny’s article with the result that my chassis refused to enter a curve without derailing. The EMGS later resolved the situation by increasing the track gauge to 18.2mm and the check gauge to 17.2mm, but failed to specify tolerances. In practice, the dimensions allow a tolerance of 0.1mm, i.e. the check gauge can be up to 17.3mm without brisk of wheelsets binding on check rails. DOGA has resolved a similar, but less critical, situation in “OO” by adding a plus tolerance of 0.1mm to the BRMSB nominal check gauge of 15.25mm in its intermediate standard. I find it curious that DOGA ignores the BRMSB wheel standard which is well suited to the intermediate track standard and not entirely obsolete. The Hornby Maunsell coach wheel is closer to the BRMSB profile than the wheels available back in the day, or would be if quality control of the back-to-back measurement was better!

 

Galagars