 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / April 2008Garden railways
I am thinking of building a simple garden railway, and have in mind either Gauge 1 or G scale. I understand that the gauge of track for both is the same, but the rail heights differ. Will engines built to either scale run on either type of track? If not, which has the better availability of engines and stock? > I am thinking of building a simple garden railway, and have in mind > either Gauge 1 or G scale. I understand that the gauge of track for > both is the same, but the rail heights differ. Will engines built to > either scale run on either type of track? If not, which has the > better availability of engines and stock? I dont know much but G Scale is rather commercial and Gauge 1 is your starter at Model Engineering  SignatureTrev You can always tell a Yorkshire man, But you can't tell him much. >> I am thinking of building a simple garden railway, and have in mind >> either Gauge 1 or G scale. I understand that the gauge of track for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know much but G Scale is rather commercial and Gauge 1 is your > starter at Model Engineering G gauge is a mishmash of scales running on 45mm gauge track. Most of the equipment is based on narrow gauge prototypes (European metre gauge and US 3 ft gauge). Depending on the narrow gauge, the scales range from 1:20.3 on down. There is a huge range of equipment available, of generally good to excellent quality. There is also an increasing amount of detail and other parts for scratch building. Most garden railway modellers use 1:24 for buildings, as that is one of the two widely used a doll house scales, so there is an enormous amount of stuff available. No. 1 scale is 1:32, as 45mm gauge in that scale represents 4' 8-1/2" gauge about as exactly as model gauges do. There is not as much equipment available for it, and it is pricey. It is a dying scale for operating layouts, but still quite viable as a model builder's scale. 1:32 standard gauge trains are actually smaller than 1:20.3 3ft-gauge ones, so they will look wrong next to each other. Don't mix these scales. You can mix the narrow gauge scales because there was no universal standard clearance diagram for narrow gauges. This means that narrow gauge equipment varied a lot in size, the result being that 3ft gauge models at 1:20.3 scale and metre gauge models at 1:22. 2 look just fine next to each other. Unless you are fussy about exact scale, go with G gauge, and buy what you like, in the best quality you can afford. Do not compromise on track or fixed structures such as bridges that must suffer the indignities of weather and wildlife. Use best practices to protect wiring and control element from the weather. You can go with cheaper rolling stock and buildings, since they can be brought indoors for protection. But if you spread out your purchases, the garden railway will cost you less than smoking. If you smoke, that's a good reason to quit. If you don't, it's a good argument if your other half objects to "wasting money." ;-) The only area in which wheel standards of #1 scale conflict with commercial G gauge track is at turnouts (points). That is, 1:32 rolling stock built to NMRA or similar standards will not play nicely with commercial G gauge turnouts. Googling on "G gauge" and "garden railways" will bring you lots of hits, and many hours of enjoyable surfing. HTH Signaturewolf k. > >> I am thinking of building a simple garden railway, and have in mind > >> either Gauge 1 or G scale. �I understand that the gauge of track for [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > HTH Thanks very much. I am not the least bit fussy about exact scale - I am intending only to build a simple, fun garden railway. Looks like G scale is the way forward. In message <79c618e3-09b1-439a-b86a-cab68aed7975@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Brian Whitehead <brianwhitehead@hotmail.com> writes >Thanks very much. I am not the least bit fussy about exact scale - I >am intending only to build a simple, fun garden railway. Looks like G >scale is the way forward. Have you tried OO/HO in the garden? That's fun, too. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html On 15 Apr, 22:03, Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <79c618e3-09b1-439a-b86a-cab68aed7...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Have you tried OO/HO in the garden? That's fun, too. I feared that it might be a little fragile for my garden, given that I share it with a toddler, a dog and a cat. On 15 Apr, 22:03, Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <79c618e3-09b1-439a-b86a-cab68aed7...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Have you tried OO/HO in the garden? That's fun, too. I feared that it might be a little fragile for my garden, given that I share it with a toddler, a dog and a cat. Send a live steam loco around every so often. The cat and dog will soon learn to leave them alone. cheers, Simon > > >> I am thinking of building a simple garden railway, and have in mind > > >> either Gauge 1 or G scale. �I understand that the gauge of track for [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > am intending only to build a simple, fun garden railway. Looks like G > scale is the way forward. There really isn't any such thing as "G Scale". There is "G Gauge", which happens to be the same as "I gauge" but the wheel standards are different in only marginally compatible. Yes, I know lots of people and manufacturers talk about "G Scale", but that's just ignorance of the difference between scale and gauge. Regards, Greg.P. (PS I know "G Scale" is claimed to be 1:22.5 on 45mm gauge track representing metre gauge, but LGB began with "Stainz" which is 760mm gauge which gives a scale of about 1:17) Wolf, >No. 1 scale is 1:32, as 45mm gauge in that scale represents 4' 8-1/2" >gauge about as exactly as model gauges do. There is not as much >equipment available for it, and it is pricey. It is a dying scale for >operating layouts, but still quite viable as a model builder's scale. That might be the case across the pond, but in the UK, 10mm or 3/8" scale (Gauge 1) is still popular for garden layout operation, usually with live steam locomotives. Jim. > Wolf, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jim. And, rather bizarrely, Gauge I ready-to-run is often cheaper than O - if a little limited in range as yet. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb Richard, >> That might be the case across the pond, but in the UK, 10mm or 3/8" >> scale (Gauge 1) is still popular for garden layout operation, usually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And, rather bizarrely, Gauge I ready-to-run is often cheaper than O - >if a little limited in range as yet. When I was in the G1MRA some years ago, the membership then always adopted a pragmatic approach to the values of rolling stock and refused to consider "Antiques Roadshow" prices. So I suspect that that attitude still holds firm and new, as well as second hand, prices are set to suit. Jim. > In message <v0cb04hec2dm35udi298vg7h5757o28...@4ax.com> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And, rather bizarrely, Gauge I ready-to-run is often cheaper than O - > if a little limited in range as yet. That is the reason I ruled out O gauge - the incredible price of rtr locos. > Wolf, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jim. True enough, but I didn't want to to confuse OP further. Anyhow, 10mm is a builder's scale, not AFAIK a ready-to-run one. (And 3/8" scale isn't the same as 10mm scale, either. Sigh.) Signaturewolf k. > > Wolf, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a builder's scale, not AFAIK a ready-to-run one. (And 3/8" scale isn't > the same as 10mm scale, either. Sigh.) Apparently 10mm has become the "standard" over here now (I nearly went for gauge 1, but chickened out at the last minute) hence the likes of Tenmille Products - those that do UK outline 3/8 have or are converting their kits to 10mm, or offering both. Aster don't actually say which they do on their UK site, but they do associate themseleves with the Gauge One Model Railway Association - who don't make it clear which standard to use.......! Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb <snip> > Apparently 10mm has become the "standard" over here now (I nearly > went for gauge 1, but chickened out at the last minute) hence [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > themseleves with the Gauge One Model Railway Association - who don't > make it clear which standard to use.......! From what I've seen/experienced of Gauge One, the interest in in the individual models/train formations, not building a scale 'train set', so if one set of stock (train formation) is built to 10mm scale and another is built to 3/8" scale no one really cares! > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > so if one set of stock (train formation) is built to 10mm scale and > another is built to 3/8" scale no one really cares! I thnk that may well have been true until quite recently, but I remember reading a forum somewhere where the debate was getting a little heated! Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb <snip> >> From what I've seen/experienced of Gauge One, the interest in in >> the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reading a forum somewhere where the debate was getting a little > heated! I hope that G1 is not going down the arguments that lead to much 4mm 18mm vs. 18.83 track gauge and P4 vs. S4 nasties, it would be a real shame.... :~( Richard, >> From what I've seen/experienced of Gauge One, the interest in in the >> individual models/train formations, not building a scale 'train set', [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I thnk that may well have been true until quite recently, but I remember >reading a forum somewhere where the debate was getting a little heated! I can remember debates on 3/8" scale in the G1MRA newsletter getting heated in the 1970s, requiring the editor to apply some heavy moderating. :-) At that time the general feeling was that there should be one scale in Gauge One, and that should be 10mm. However, I believe that 3/8" scale is becoming more popular since its more accurate scale/gauge ratio attracts people who want to model to finer standards. Jim. > Richard, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jim. Also, that's the international standard of 1:32 (cp. 1:30.4 for 10mm). FWIW, Aristo Craft offer 1:29 models for G gauge. This scale was chosen so that standard gauge models would look suitably bulky next to narrow gauge. See http://members.aol.com/metzbahn/scaleguide.htm for more information. HTH Signaturewolf k. > > Richard, > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Also, that's the international standard of 1:32 (cp. 1:30.4 for 10mm). ISO or UN? > FWIW, Aristo Craft offer 1:29 models for G gauge. This scale was chosen > so that standard gauge models would look suitably bulky next to narrow > gauge. See http://members.aol.com/metzbahn/scaleguide.htm for more > information. > > HTH Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >>> Richard, >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Cheers > Richard "International" here means "outside the UK". Heh heh. Signaturewolf k. > >>> Richard, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Heh heh. 99% of the world is outside the UK. (on a population basis) Any scale that relates two dimensions in different measuring systems (feet and mm) is going to lack appeal to most of the world's population. Regards, Greg.P. > > >>> Richard, > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Any scale that relates two dimensions in different measuring systems > (feet and mm) is going to lack appeal to most of the world's population. But since British outline models are 99% sold in the UK, who cares - as long they all stick to 10mm (which, for "indoor" models, they all do). Plus, of course, the Gauge One Model Railway Association set the real standards back in 1947 ;-) > Regards, > Greg.P. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > > >>> Richard, > > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > do). Plus, of course, the Gauge One Model Railway Association set the > real standards back in 1947 ;-) Of course 99% of British outline models are sold in the UK, they are the wrong scale to go with the collections of the rest of the world! European modellers in particular like to buy models of a variety of nations' prototypes, but there is almost nothing on the market from Britain. Real standards - "You're going to model 4'6" gauge or nothing in I scale." "You're going to model 4'6 1/2" gauge in O Scale." "You're going to model 4'1 1/2" gauge in OO Scale!" "You're going to model 4' gauge in TT3 Scale!" etc Greg.P. > > > > >>> Richard, > > > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > "You're going to model 4'6" gauge or nothing in I scale." > "You're going to model 4'6 1/2" gauge in O Scale." Tell that to the S7 boys! (and girls, of course). Or select from about 20 "standards", plus manufacturers whims..... > "You're going to model 4'1 1/2" gauge in OO Scale!" Tell that to the P4 boys! (and girls, of course) > "You're going to model 4' gauge in TT3 Scale!" Ditton the TT brigade.... 2mm Group etc etc > etc The trouble is, none of these "standards" *are* standards, they are just specifications made up by various groups without consultation with other groups and/or manuafctuers. Like it or not, if ones choice is ready-to-run UK outline models then your choice of "standard" is effectively defined by Peco, and if you wish to be really accurate then P4, S7 etc set the standard, with points in between - EM, GOG-C, GOG-F, 0-FS etc etc. Some body setting itself up as a self-appointed standards authority is utterly pointless, and just confuses things even further, unless they have everybody on board. As no one has, then de facto standards rule the day. As a punter modeling in 0, I just want to buy stuff that will work, and while I make my own track etc I don't want to go S7 for practical reasons (availablilty of kits with wheels included mostly), so I've gone for 0-FS, the next best thing. And that is effectively defined by Slaters, as their wheels have become the benchmark! When I was looking at Gauge 1, I'd have had to go 10mm as that's what's available for UK outline. Were I wanting to model European, US or Japanese practice, I'd select other "standards" as appropriate - the Japanese having own flavour of HO, for example. > Greg.P. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb [...] >> Real standards - >> "You're going to model 4'6" gauge or nothing in I scale." [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > everybody on board. As no one has, then de facto standards rule the > day. [...] > Cheers > Richard It was just such a mess of standards that prompted the formation of the NMRA just prior to WW2 (1936 IIRC). Many of the 30-some people who organised the NMRA gave up their standards in order to achieve two goals: a) interoperability (called "interchange" by the NMRA), so that people could bring their NMRA-standard models to each other's layouts and operate them together; and b) common manufacturing standards so that parts from different manufacturers could be combined with a minimum of fuss. They have achieved both, and continue to do so: the most widely used DCC standard is the one set by the NMRA. In fact, the de facto DCC standard includes NMRA recommended practices, too. Manufacturers have learned that the solid base of their business is the serious model railroader, not the trainset buyer. The latter have of course benefitted, since they can use all or most of a trainset when the bug bites. The problem in Britain as I see it that there is an unwillingness by too many people to give up their "correct" specifications, coupled with an unwillingness to "waste all that good work", in order to change to some common standard. The result is a fragmented, fractured model railway scene, with the majority of _operators_ using thje de facto commercial standards, and a majority of _model builders_ using one or another of the oddball varieties. BTW, the NMRA is reworking its standards in light of manufacturers' misreading of some of the specs, and is developing fine scale standards, too. Also, the DCC standard is being enlarged to accommodate the increased functionality of decoders. Signaturewolf k. > [...] > >> Real standards - [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > too. Also, the DCC standard is being enlarged to accommodate the > increased functionality of decoders. Everyone, manufacturers and users, have far too much invested over the years to change - it's never going to happen. The NMRA never consulted outside the US as far as I can see, and as such is pretty much irrelevant to us over here (except DCC). Why on earth are they developing new standards for fine scale? That's been well and truly covered already - more standards will just create even more problems! With P4 being as near prototype as possible, and S7 being exactly prototype they can hardy be improved upon[1]. I would imagine the 2mm and 3mm boys (and girls) have got those scales pretty well covered too. Cheers Richard [1] obvisouly we're talking UK prototype here. Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb [...] >> BTW, the NMRA is reworking its standards in light of manufacturers' >> misreading of some of the specs, and is developing fine scale standards, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Everyone, manufacturers and users, have far too much invested over > the years to change - it's never going to happen. That was the argument back in 1936, too.... > The NMRA never > consulted outside the US as far as I can see, and as such is pretty > much irrelevant to us over here (except DCC). Of course they didn't consult outside the USA. Why should they? But what they did shows what can be done when people get together to solve a problem, instead of arguing endlessly about whose specs are purer. > Why on earth are they developing new standards for fine scale? Because the finescale modellers want one. IOW, there are people who model finescale and want to be sure that they will be able to operate their scratchbuilt locos etc on their friends' layouts, and vice versa. Anyhow, the standards won't be new, they will be based on existing practice, and will be put to a vote. If adopted, then any product that describes itself as "finescale" will be expected to conform to those standards. If it doesn't, it won't gain much if any acceptance. I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation of modellers. What it does is membership driven. The effort to extend DCC standards (and RPs) has come about because the membership wants it. The fact that NMRA DCC standards and RPs have become a de facto worldwide standard is the result of early adoption by the US market. Manufacturers naturally saw no point in changing the specs when they added DCC in other markets. > That's > been well and truly covered already - more standards will just create > even more problems! With P4 being as near prototype as possible, > and S7 being exactly prototype they can hardy be improved upon[1]. I > would imagine the 2mm and 3mm boys (and girls) have got those scales > pretty well covered too. These UK specs/standards did inspire the finescale movement here. I expect that the NMRA standard will be essentially the same, allowing for differences in scale. Cheers. Signaturewolf k. > [...] > >> BTW, the NMRA is reworking its standards in light of manufacturers' [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That was the argument back in 1936, too.... So? Does that make it any less valid? Perhaps the NRMA should change? Obviouskly thet won't, for exactly the same reasons. > > The NMRA never > > consulted outside the US as far as I can see, and as such is pretty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they did shows what can be done when people get together to solve a > problem, instead of arguing endlessly about whose specs are purer. It was done here too - looking at the huge range of "standards" on US it hasn't execlty resolved much - e.g. Aster havingtheir own private scale! > > Why on earth are they developing new standards for fine scale? > > Because the finescale modellers want one. IOW, there are people who > model finescale and want to be sure that they will be able to operate > their scratchbuilt locos etc on their friends' layouts, and vice versa. So just adopt existing standards. There's no point in re-inventing the wheel! > Anyhow, the standards won't be new, they will be based on existing > practice, and will be put to a vote. If adopted, then any product that > describes itself as "finescale" will be expected to conform to those > standards. If it doesn't, it won't gain much if any acceptance. Calling any new standard "finescale" is not a good idea - there are already "finsecale" for all gauges under Gauge 1 (amd sometimes more than one, thought the are differentiated, e.g. 0-FS and GOG-Fine). > I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation of > modellers. What it does is membership driven. The effort to extend DCC [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > naturally saw no point in changing the specs when they added DCC in > other markets. I'm fully aware of what it is, and the DCC status. However, you do keep assuming on posts to this groyp that all NMRA standards are applicable world-wide, and that is simply not true. Their standards ignore other world-wide de facto standards (e.g. Peco, Hornby). While all may be wonderful for in the US for manufactuers, UK outline models world-wide have their own very long established standards for both coarse and fine scale, ignoring those standards is not sensible, and would be commercial suicide for any UK outline manufactuer (as Jouef, Trix and Lima found out when they tried to push HO UK outline models here in the 70/80's). > > That's > > been well and truly covered already - more standards will just create [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Cheers. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb <snip> > Calling any new standard "finescale" is not a good idea - there are > already "finsecale" for all gauges under Gauge 1 (amd sometimes more > than one, thought the are differentiated, e.g. 0-FS and GOG-Fine). There are also 'finescale' standards in gauges *above* Gauge 1, up to 12 inch gauge, above that one is into 'real railways'. <snip> > and would be commercial suicide for any UK outline manufactuer (as > Jouef, Trix and Lima found out when they tried to push HO UK outline > models here in the 70/80's). Or in the case of Trix, who tried to push their own new standard that sat halfway between HO and OO, IIRC something like 3.7mm = 12 inches. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Or in the case of Trix, who tried to push their own new standard that > sat halfway between HO and OO, IIRC something like 3.7mm = 12 inches. Before that time there were the following wheel standards: - Hornby Dublo 3 rail. } - Hornby Dublo 2 rail. } One wheel standard but two systems. - Trix Twin. Incompatible with anything. - Trix Fine. Vaguely compatible with BRMSA/HD. - Tri-ang. Compatible with Tri-ang. - BMRSA. Three totally different standards designed to keep customers away from buying the other brands. The last one was an attempt by smaller _manufacturers_ to bring the three together. Scales: - HD: 4mm/ft. - Trix Twin: 1:90 (if you could call anything scale) - Trix: 3.8mm/ft. - Tri-ang: sort of 4mm:1ft/compatible size with current production. - Playcraft: HO. (toy market) - Rivarossi: 3.8mm/ft. (one try) - Lima: 1:87. (abandoned) - Fleischmann: 1:87. (not extended) Trix tried to find a scale between their old products and 4mm to both retain their existing customer base while gaining HD and Tri-ang customers - rather like a Ford Edsel! Peco made HO track, finding the right combination of appearance and standards to sell within and outside Britain. Fast forward 40 years and the British market manufacturers have finally figured that compatible, if not agreed or written wheel/track and coupler standards give them a better share of the market. Perhaps in another 40 years they will figure that the International scale will get more sales. Regards, Greg.P. [...] >> I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation of >> modellers. What it does is membership driven. The effort to extend DCC [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > keep assuming on posts to this group that all NMRA standards are > applicable world-wide, and that is simply not true. Erm, I don't. Sorry if you get that impression. I just offer the NMRA process as a model. IOW, if consumer-driven standardisation worked in N. America, it should work in the UK. So why don't you have industry-wide standards in the UK? I've indicated that I think it's mostly psychological, not technical. I could go on, but I won't. I think this horse is dead enough, poor thing. ;-) [...] Signaturewolf k. > [...] >>> I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > it's mostly psychological, not technical. I could go on, but I > won't. I think this horse is dead enough, poor thing. ;-) But we DO have standards in the UK, indeed some are even drawn from the NMRA, the only problem that has not been solved is the unsolvable one - under-scale (width) RTR "00" track - any solution would actually cause *many more* problems than the *one* it solves! I really don't understand were this myth about the UK not having "industry-wide standards" is coming from, unless you are still reading Railway magazines from the 1960s - much work has been done, 'finescale' 00 track has been available since the 1980s whilst models have run on various manufactures track since the early 1970s - IIRC (Tring-)Hornby were the last to adopt the then standard 'code 100' track in 1970/71, in fact, in the early 1970s I was running a mix of Triang-Hornby, Hornby-Doubo and Trix stock on a layout laid with Peco streamline track in late 1971. :Jerry: wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > one - under-scale (width) RTR "00" track - any solution would actually > cause *many more* problems than the *one* it solves! Personally, I don't have a problem with 4mm on 16.5mm gauge track. [...] Signaturewolf k. > IOW, if consumer-driven standardisation worked in N. > America, it should work in the UK. No. This is an argument I have with lots of people. Firstly it ignores the size of the market - yes that does make a difference - work the percentages out, look at the distributions etc. etc. - statistics in action. Secondly it assumes that the culture in NA is the same as anywhere else - in Europe it patently isn't. Thirdly it assumes that market driven is the best. That's the sort of problem that gives us MS Windows because the market was manipulated whilst there are infinitely better OS'es around (in the IT business 30+ years, know what I'm talking about). Fourthly it's a generalisation - you *know* that you can't generalise, just as you can't apply the principles of one market to another where the demographics aren't the same. Fifthly, the market doesn't always come up with the right answer... ah, I'm not going there... someone will start waffling on about market defined forces always being right by definition and then we're into the sort of stupid arguments that have stultified progress in the computing industry and others for the last umpteen years. Sorry Wolf, nothing personal, just a bit fed up at the moment. -- Rod [...] > Sorry Wolf, nothing personal, just a bit fed up at > the moment. Have a beer. Cheers! Signaturewolf k. > [...] > >> I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > wolf k. The horse may be dead, but we keep tripping over it! ;-) Greg.P. > [...] >>> BTW, the NMRA is reworking its standards in light of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That was the argument back in 1936, too.... ...and is even more relevant today than it was back then! >> The NMRA never >> consulted outside the US as far as I can see, and as such is pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > solve a problem, instead of arguing endlessly about whose specs are > purer. Unless one consults in *all* the markets were such goods are made and sold how does one obtain international agreements and standards - or are you implying that because the US based NMRA decided to unilaterally draw up some standards all other countries around the world should do as they say, how frecking arrogant! >> Why on earth are they developing new standards for fine scale? > > Because the finescale modellers want one. They have them... IOW, there are people who > model finescale and want to be sure that they will be able to > operate their scratchbuilt locos etc on their friends' layouts, and > vice versa. They can if they abide by the current standards! > Anyhow, the standards won't be new, they will be based on existing > practice, They WILL me new is they are new standards, if they are going to use old standards why bother drawing up existing standards again?! Duh... and will be put to a vote. If adopted, then any product that > describes itself as "finescale" will be expected to conform to those > standards. If it doesn't, it won't gain much if any acceptance. They already are FFS, how many times have you go to be told this? > I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation of > modellers. What it does is membership driven. The effort to extend [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Manufacturers naturally saw no point in changing the specs when they > added DCC in other markets. <snip even more repetition> But that was a wholly new product, meaning one world wide standard could be adopted and it would have been stupid not to use the research that had already been done. The same is not true for existing technologies. :Jerry: wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > unilaterally draw up some standards all other countries around the > world should do as they say, how frecking arrogant! Erm, I don't say, nor does the NMRA, that its standards should apply worldwide. Why should they? But the consumer-driven process of developing standards worked very well in the USA/Canada. We can be sure that any product from any manufacturer will work on our layouts, which is/was not the case when you buy/bought Hornby, or Maerklin, or any other proprietary "system." IMO, the assumption that the customer should buy from you and you alone is f**king arrogant. Successful standards are in general directly or indirectly consumer/user driven. If Hornby was a standard in the UK in the past, that's because they made a good product that satisfied their customers. (My brother and I inherited Hornby clockwork trains from my uncles in 1945. Wonderful! Wish i still had them....) The fact that Hornby have had to adapt to other people's standards has come about because the customers wanted both better and more compatible products. >>> Why on earth are they developing new standards for fine scale? >> Because the finescale modellers want one. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They can if they abide by the current standards! Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough: . The NMRA is developing FS standards because NMRA members want one. Why aren't they just adopting FS standards? Firstly, because the standards are almost entirely British, and therefore don't apply to most of the scales and gauges used here; and secondly, because there are some differences in the specs actually used by FS modellers. The most common one for HO is P87, which AFAIK is based on the same principles as P4, may even be a direct translation. >> Anyhow, the standards won't be new, they will be based on existing >> practice, > > They WILL be new is they are new standards, if they are going to use > old standards why bother drawing up existing standards again?! Duh... See above. NMRA looks for overlap in specs, so that any future standard will be written so as to accommodate as many existing practices as possible. > and will be put to a vote. If adopted, then any product that >> describes itself as "finescale" will be expected to conform to those >> standards. If it doesn't, it won't gain much if any acceptance. > > They already are FFS, how many times have you go to be told this? Oh I know there are FS standards. How many times do I have to repeat that? Most of them are British, and so don't apply to most of the scale/gauge combinations not used here. And whatever standards are in use, until the membership votes on them, they aren't NMRA standards. That's all. That doesn't mean you should or shouldn't use them. It's your hobby - enjoy it! >> I don't think you fully realise that the NMRA is an organisation of >> modellers. What it does is membership driven. The effort to extend [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that had already been done. The same is not true for existing > technologies. There are two "old technology" electrical standards that are nearly universal now (major exceptions are Maerklin, and O gauge "tinplate, as sold by Lionel, etc.): -- 12V DC as propulsion current; -- right hand rail positive from loco driver's POV produces forward motion. As it happens, these were among the first standards adopted by the NMRA. 6V DC for HO, and 12-18V AC for O, were widely used at the time, but it was realised that a common standard for all scales would benefit everybody. NB that NMRA adopted one existing standard. The same standard was also in use in other parts of the world. The fact that the large US model railroad market adopted it helped make it the worldwide standard - even Hornby came around, eventually. Maerklin did to, in its Hamo and Trix lines, but never really believed in it - which is one of the reasons it's in serious trouble now. Lionel refused to follow NMRA standards, which eventually killed it. It was at one time the largest manufacturer of toy (and some scale) trains in the world. The marque was eventually bought by nostalgic investors, who have found a profitable niche market for Lionel-branded trains. It doesn't matter what the standards are, so long as they are standards. Signaturewolf k. > :Jerry: wrote: <snip> >>> Anyhow, the standards won't be new, they will be based on existing >>> practice, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > standard will be written so as to accommodate as many existing > practices as possible. Then it won't be 'Finescale', this was proved 40 years ago when the spec for 18.83 was laid down, to have a 'finescale' standard one needs to start with a clean sheet of paper, about the only common part between the then coarse "00", the better "EM" and the 'Finescale' "P4/S4" standard were the use of 1/8th inch dia' axles. As for the rest of your 'rant' about standards and the lack of interoperability between makes, all I can say is that you are woefully out of date as to the facts on this side of the 'pond'... :~( :Jerry: wrote: [...] > As for the rest of your 'rant' about standards and the lack of > interoperability between makes, all I can say is that you are woefully > out of date as to the facts on this side of the 'pond'... :~( Good. I'm up to date now, I guess. ;-) Signaturewolf k. :Jerry: wrote: >>> Jerry: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > between the then coarse "00", the better "EM" and the 'Finescale' > "P4/S4" standard were the use of 1/8th inch dia' axles. Ditto for "Finescale N". The 2mm standard was proved and written down well over 40 years ago. The reason 2mm standards work is the same as the reason the P4 (18.83) standard works; the standard defines both the wheel and the track. Use matching wheels/track and it all works fine. Try to force one which doesn't fit, or to cover a multitude of other wheel tread designs, then it falls apart. Much like the relationship between P87 and P4(18.83), there is a proven FiNe standard for 1:160 N scale in use in Europe, which is the 2mm wheel/track standards with the gauge and back-to-back reduced by 0.45mm to reflect the difference in scale gauge. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >Everyone, manufacturers and users, have far too much invested over >the years to change - it's never going to happen. The NMRA never >consulted outside the US as far as I can see, and as such is pretty >much irrelevant to us over here (except DCC). It's more than DCC. In advertisements I see wheels being offered as RP25 (Black Beetle bogies, for example). I would have thought that it would be in Peco's best interests to make their track to NMRA standards since the USA is a sizable part of their market. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html >>Everyone, manufacturers and users, have far too much invested over >>the years to change - it's never going to happen. The NMRA never [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it would be in Peco's best interests to make their track to NMRA > standards since the USA is a sizable part of their market. Isn't their "83 Line" range of 'HO' track made to NMRA standards already, it's specifically marketed for the NA market. >>Everyone, manufacturers and users, have far too much invested over >>the years to change - it's never going to happen. The NMRA never [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >be in Peco's best interests to make their track to NMRA standards since >the USA is a sizable part of their market. RP25 wheels have steamroller tyres, tiny flanges and a narrower back to back. [...] >> It's more than DCC. In advertisements I see wheels being offered as RP25 >> (Black Beetle bogies, for example). I would have thought that it would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > RP25 wheels have steamroller tyres, tiny flanges and a narrower back > to back. There are now "code 88" wheels available which have narrower tires, but will still run through NMRA turnouts without bumping. If the turnouts have been built to exact NMRA specs, that is. ;-) The key to RP25 is not the shallow flange, but the fillet between it and the tread. That's what makes them track so well, as was through exhaustive testing in the 1960s, when the RP25 wheel was developed. It was actually based on a a wheel profile designed by Central Valley, who realised they could make a finer looking and better tracking wheel, and still stay within NMRA specs. They called their wheel the CV-2. RP25 has a smaller flange than CV-2. The narrow back-to-back came about because it enabled check rails to be installed to spec by just butting the rail bases of code 100 flat bottom rail together. That also gave a standard flange-way. The increasing use of smaller rail is one of the factors bringing about a rethink of "ordinary" standards. HTH Signaturewolf k. Wolf, >The problem in Britain as I see it that there is an unwillingness by too >many people to give up their "correct" specifications, coupled with an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >standards, and a majority of _model builders_ using one or another of >the oddball varieties. Britain did have the BRMSB - the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau - which came into being just after WW2 and ceased to exist some years ago (I can't remember exactly when at the moment). But it did establish sets of standards for the popular scales in the UK although many would argue that these standards were not very good. This encouraged modellers to explore better standards which has given rise to the plethora of scale/gauge standards that we have now Also British proprietary manufacturers were renowned for sticking to their own standards which were incompatible with everything else. I think Graham Farish was the only one to use the BRMSB standards in their 4mm models. It's only in the past few years that proprietary wheel standards have got close to NMRA or the old BRMSB standards. But looking on the bright side, it would be terribly boring if we all used the same track and wheel standards ;-) Jim. > Wolf, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > British proprietary manufacturers were renowned for sticking to their > own standards which were incompatible with everything else. Yes, attempts to create captive markets. Didn't work very well, almost destroyed Hornby and Triang/Hornby. Is doing in Maerklin. Did in Lionel and American Flyer, which were eventually resurrected by investors with loadsadough and a massive case of nostalgia. > I think > Graham Farish was the only one to use the BRMSB standards in their 4mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jim. No, it would be delightful. We could have fun operating our models on each other's layouts. Really! :-) HTH Signaturewolf k. > [...] > >> Real standards - [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > -- > wolf k. I'm convinced there is room for "everyday standards" and "finescale standards" for each scale. For my garden railway there is no way I would consider "prototype" standards and I don't think they are practical for "trainset/toy/beginners" On the other hand the NMRA showed that much finer standards than most proprietry manufacturers were producing were practical at the "rough end" of the market. Correct scale to gauge ratio is the logical way to go - the resulting compromises are IMHO preferable to having track spacing vs gauge compromises. Given that there are three distinct major markets at present (Europe, Britain and the USA), it would make sense for all three groups to adopt the best of the others standards. (IMO generally the NMRA) Of course the NMRA has retreated to those silly, non-standard, Imperial measurements which make it impractical for others to follow Regards, Greg.P. <snip> > I'm convinced there is room for "everyday standards" and "finescale > standards" for each scale. > For my garden railway there is no way I would consider "prototype" > standards and I don't think they are practical for > "trainset/toy/beginners" "EM" (18mm gauge) in the UK has been proved to be totally practical to the *average* modeller who wants a finer (track) scale, and would be equally practical for "trainset/toy/beginners", indeed the track/wheel standards now used in mainstream RTR models is so close to that of "EM" except for the wider gauge. The problem is not track/wheel standards but the level of detail that makes something suitable for the "trainset/toy/beginners" market. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > standards but the level of detail that makes something suitable for > the "trainset/toy/beginners" market. EM (18mm) was simply achieved by pushing propriety wheels out as far as practical on their axles. AFAIK it quickly became 18.2mm. EEM (18.8mm) was achieved using longer axles and rounding 1435mm (4'8 1/2") to the nearest 0.1mm while retaining proprietry wheels profiles, for which there was no real working standard. S4/P4 followed on from EEM, but with prototypic wheel standards/non-standards. EM might be practical for beginner enthusiasts/average modellers, but the concept of having one gauge for beginners and another for enthusiasts is daft! A beginner should be able to move from toys to modelling seamlessly, without having to ddiscard all that went before, or you're going to lose most of the kids who will keep the hobby going in future decades. Being able to change interests between US/Euro/British models without starting again might be good too. Greg.P. <snip> > EM might be practical for beginner enthusiasts/average modellers, > but > the concept of having one gauge for beginners and another for > enthusiasts is daft! Why would they need to do that if both are already using the EM gauge standard?!... To address your general argument though, I really don't think you have grasped that most people *do not* just collect boxes and than want to run their contents all together on the same 'trainset', most people who do that don't actually care about the interoperability between different scales/makes (being more interested in the individual model aesthetics or value), most people *do actually* try and model - even in it's most basic form - what either does or did happen in the chosen country, region or specific location at a given time so actually have no need for an international standard - manufactures will still make specific models for specific markets due to them being different in design so incorporating different standards is really a non issue for them (besides, many of the internal parts can still be standardised). :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why would they need to do that if both are already using the EM gauge > standard?!... That hits on the point - you're finally almost down to two standards. My question, (yes, I know I'm the only one asking it) is why you want Brits to paint yourselves into the corner of having a different standard to the rest of the world? > To address your general argument though, I really don't think you have > grasped that most people *do not* just collect boxes and than want to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > design so incorporating different standards is really a non issue for > them (besides, many of the internal parts can still be standardised). My impression is totally different. 8^) I'd guess if you counted up every individual on these forums, letter writers to magazines, contributors to the model media and the like you'd have observed 1% of modellers/purchasers/collectors. Add in all model railway club members and you'd be up at about 2%. Regards, Greg.P. > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > standard > to the rest of the world? But we don't and haven't, those who wish to model the prototype in all it's glory can choose to go down either the EM or P4 road, those who don't can stay with 'finescale 00' and as they will not be running non UK prototypes why should they worry about the standards used elsewhere - considering that few in the UK will be running models of non UK prototypes and few non UK modellers will be running UK models on the same layout as their native stock. >> To address your general argument though, I really don't think you >> have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > have observed 1% of modellers/purchasers/collectors. > Add in all model railway club members and you'd be up at about 2%. That is what I was saying and is what blows your argument out of the window as there is absolutely no reasons for the UK to adopt any other standard than the one(s) they are using - indeed if any manufacture was to try they would suffer the same fate as Trix did back in the 1970s when it would have been time - if such a move to a different standard was ever going to happen - it would have been possible due to the fact that there was only one main RTR manufacture and a couple of 'bit players' in the market, indeed Lima proved this again when they tried to launch British outline 3.5mm scale models in the late 1970s. Sorry but you just don't seem to understand the UK model railway industry, market and hobby. >> :Jerry: wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >non UK prototypes and few non UK modellers will be running UK models >on the same layout as their native stock. I must be one of those few, as I'm in the UK, and I run North American and Australian stock on the same layout as my UK stock. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html >>> :Jerry: wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I must be one of those few, as I'm in the UK, and I run North > American and Australian stock on the same layout as my UK stock. Jane, you are most defiantly one of the few... :~) BTW, why is it that I always think of Vivian Thomson (of Eastbourne fame) when I see your messages?!.... :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > BTW, why is it that I always think of Vivian Thomson (of Eastbourne > fame) when I see your messages?!.... Jane models LBSC??? > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Jane models LBSC??? Jane is a woman, ladies are still quite rare as either full size or model railway enthusiasts here in the UK in my experience. :Jerry: wrote: [...] > Jane is a woman, ladies are still quite rare as either full size or > model railway enthusiasts here in the UK in my experience. My aunt was and is a railway enthusiast (strictly steam), but to preserve her sanity in a family of railway freaks, er sorry, fans, (she says) she decided to focus on steam traction engines instead. She has been introduced to well over half the extant examples in the UK, and was thrilled to meet some Canadian ones about 20 years ago when Uncle and Aunt visited us. Cheers! Signaturewolf k. >:Jerry: wrote: >[...] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >preserve her sanity in a family of railway freaks, er sorry, fans, (she >says) she decided to focus on steam traction engines instead. My Grandmother who passed on nearly 25 years ago had steam in her blood so she reckoned. Her father was an agricultural contractor and owned a couple of traction engines and a roller.Only met my Great Grandfather once, unfortunately about 10 years after his last Fowler had gone for scrap.Gran had a few Brass motion bits as highly polished ornaments till the day she died. She married a chap who had managed to get into the GWR works at Swindon. I do not know what Grandad was indentured at but do remember him talking about the Pacific Great Bear being constructed while he was there. Unfortunately injuries from the trenches of WW1 prevented him returning to a Railway career. They met at Swindon station while he was recovering. Though both getting on a bit they made their way to Kensington Olympia station to see the Loco King George V on the Bulmers Cider train back in the Autumn of 71 when British Rails steam ban was relaxing a bit. It would have been the last Steam loco he saw so being a GWR one it was nicely appropriate. G.Harman :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Jane is a woman, ladies are still quite rare as either full size or > model railway enthusiasts here in the UK in my experience. I've always prefered full size women! ;-) > I must be one of those few, as I'm in the UK, and I run North American and > Australian stock on the same layout as my UK stock. Bugger! There's a couple of HO-scale Alco diesels currently running around my OO-gauge 1960s Scottish branch line. Life's a bitch, and then you meet one ...........................! John. >> I must be one of those few, as I'm in the UK, and I run North American >> and Australian stock on the same layout as my UK stock. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John. If were likely to see more of such combinations if the UK changed to HO then theres an excellent reason for sticking to OO. :-) cheers, Simon > >> I must be one of those few, as I'm in the UK, and I run North American > >> and Australian stock on the same layout as my UK stock. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cheers, > Simon LOL. Greg.P. > >> :Jerry: wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I must be one of those few, as I'm in the UK, and I run North American > and Australian stock on the same layout as my UK stock. Hmmm, I buy "Continental Modeller" most months - it's full of UK adverts for all sorts of non-UK models and articles by authors with very English names ... Even the UK magazines with UK themes seem to have plenty of ads for US and European models. You must buy an awful lot of models, Jane! Regards, Greg.P. <snip> > Hmmm, I buy "Continental Modeller" most months - it's full of UK > adverts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > US > and European models. You must buy an awful lot of models, Jane! That doesn't mean that they all mix and match their rolling stock, such as having their LMS Black Five pulling 1938 German stock, as I've said, most pick a prototype to model or indeed prototypes (I used to know someone who had both a UK based layout and a German based one. There are exceptions but they are exceptions and not the rule as you seem to be implying. ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >There are exceptions but they are exceptions and not the rule as you >seem to be implying. I refer the honorable gentleman to http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/tonup.html SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html Re: > I refer the honorable gentleman to > http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/tonup.html Well done! Signaturewolf k. > ><snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden > http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html Those pnuematic points changers look interesting! Greg.P. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There are exceptions but they are exceptions and not the rule as you > seem to be implying. There have been (small) interchanges of rolling stock since 1835. UK stock went to Europe in 1914-18 and 1939-45. Tours of Royal Scot and Flying Scotsman ... Micheline Railcars. Ongoing exchanges of rolling stock began with the advent of rail-ferries in the early 1920s. Channel tunnel. I've set my layout in South Germany in 1932 - should I never take an interest in models outside my chosen theme? Regards, Greg.P. > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There are exceptions but they are exceptions and not the rule as you seem > to be implying. I agree with Jerry completely on this. Must remember that you need a minimum number of models that would be seen together in terms of time and space before you can have a layout[1]. Consequently before I could consider dumping my 40 or so OO locos and purchasing HO then there must be sufficient models of LMS trains in 1935 livery and would have to be convinced the manufacturer(s) are going to continue supporting the new scale. This means until there is a critical mass of products the manufacturer isnt going to get any of my cash and theres probably a few other modellers that think the same. Going to be a brave an rich manufacturer that sets off on that course knowing that me and a few others wont be interested for the first 10 years. Cheers, Simon [1] Do try to avoid the points about 'its my layout etc. They are correct but not relevent in this thread. it seemed the :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > non UK prototypes and few non UK modellers will be running UK models > on the same layout as their native stock. The point of using a common standard with the rest of the world is: 1) manufacturers will double their sales. 2) UK modellers can use products from the rest of the world. > >> To address your general argument though, I really don't think you > >> have [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Sorry but you just don't seem to understand the UK model railway > industry, market and hobby. Certainly I understand it - you have a scale that is out of step with the rest of the World and a scale that is out of step with your modelling gauges. For the moment you have several main-stream manufacturers supplying your market with non-standard scale models, but they are not British suppliers. As such your entire supply base could disappear overnight. >:Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >1) manufacturers will double their sales. >2) UK modellers can use products from the rest of the world. My main modelling is in O gauge/scale where.... NMRA O-scale works out to 5' prototype gauge. NMRA track and wheel standards give a max/min envelope where you can end up with situations which simply don't work. Gauge O Guild fine scale actually fits in the finer end of the NMRA window. American/etc manufacturers make wheels for the coarser end of the NMRA envelope, which have a narrower back-to-back and wider treads so they foul the check and wing rails on Gauge O Guild fine scale turnouts. They also make turnouts for the coarser end of the NMRA envelope, so that Guild fine scale wheels can drop into the frog gap. This isn't usually a problem for locomotives but rigid wagon can derail when the diagonally opposite wheel rises off the track. Not just plastic but even heavier etched brass kits with white metal fittings. Peco turnouts are a compromise between Guild fine scale and NMRA. > The point of using a common standard with the rest of the world is: > 1) manufacturers will double their sales. > 2) UK modellers can use products from the rest of the world. But since a large part of the world does not use 4' 8 1/2" gauge track for the original track, I think we are a long way off a 'common' standard? Perhaps when countries like Spain and Portugal finally switch, but I doubt that Russian models will be compatible any time soon :) SignatureLester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php > > The point of using a common standard with the rest of the world is: > > 1) manufacturers will double their sales. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL Hi Lester, the only Russian models I know of are HO scale and run on HO track. The sets sold a while back with 0-8-0 locos used Piko track. Electrotren (Spain) and Ibertren have used HO track fot their HO models. Those are no worse than the OO gauge/scale combination. Ibertren did do 3 rail N gauge some years back. Greg.P. >> The point of using a common standard with the rest of the world is: >> 1) manufacturers will double their sales. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps when countries like Spain and Portugal finally switch, but I > doubt that Russian models will be compatible any time soon :) They already are compatible (they run on H0 track), what they are not is scale models but that is not an insurmountable problem to the scale modeller, to the box opener/collector or toy market they *are* full compatible though... >>> The point of using a common standard with the rest of the world is: >>> 1) manufacturers will double their sales. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >They already are compatible (they run on H0 track), what they are not >is scale models Please can we stop talking about *scale* models? With every model to whatever scale there are inevitably some compromises, so you can never have a "scale model". It's just that some people (including myself) who are prepared to work with more compromises than others. What's wrong with that? > but that is not an insurmountable problem to the scale >modeller, to the box opener/collector or toy market they *are* full >compatible though... SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > >>> The point of using a common standard with the rest of the world is: > >>> 1) manufacturers will double their sales. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's just that some people (including myself) who are prepared to work > with more compromises than others. What's wrong with that? Hi Jane, I have no problems with your or other people's comptromises, so long as you/they don't insist I accept them for my own layout. Personally, I have a problem mixing scales on _my_ layouts - I keep my 1:87 and 1:24 scales quite separate. I cringe at 1:64 scale Matchbox toys mixed with 1:120 Matchbox toys on a layout and have done since I was about 10 years old. It also bothers me to see OO and HO together. My threshold appears to be around 5% in scale difference. For example, Fleischmann used to produce 1:82 scale where the likes of Roco produced 1:87 scale, or just over 5% difference. Rivarossi produced 1:80 at the same time. I still have very few Italian wagons in my collection, even though there should be a significant number, because there aren't any produced. A few old Fln models made it in to my roster but have slowly been replaced by newer models because they always niggled me. I'd love a Deans Goods 0-6-0, given that several stayed in Europe after WWI, but an OO one would look silly in my eyes. Having a Russian or British or French or out of era loco available to run doesn't bother me - I'm simply comparing different ways of achieving railways. Running out of scale models does bother me - it's a personal thing, and I know I'm not alone in that. Regards, Greg.P. <snip> > Please can we stop talking about *scale* models? With every model to > whatever scale there are inevitably some compromises, so you can > never have a "scale model". Say that to those who model in such 'scales' (not the inverted comers) as P4 or S7... > It's just that some people (including myself) who are prepared to > work with more compromises than others. What's wrong with that? Nothing, and that is exactly why we don't need to reinvent the wheel. ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Say that to those who model in such 'scales' (not the inverted comers) >as P4 or S7... I will. >> It's just that some people (including myself) who are prepared to >> work with more compromises than others. What's wrong with that? > >Nothing, and that is exactly why we don't need to reinvent the wheel. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html >><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I will. You will do what, say that to those who model 'finescale' or note the inverted comers?! >>><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >You will do what, say that to those who model 'finescale' or note the >inverted comers?! I don't understand. There's no alternative in the line I replied to. I shall say that to those who model in P4 and S7, but I shan't say anything to those who come inverted. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Say that to those who model in such 'scales' (not the inverted > comers) :Jerry:, Did they come on their heads? You obviously don't understand the english language. By your own standards, as espoused in another thread, you are a moronic twat! MBQ :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > modeller, to the box opener/collector or toy market they *are* full > compatible though... Huhh, you're saying that scale models are not scale models because they have the wheels set at the wrong spacing??? There goes the whole UK OO model industry! ;-) Regards, Greg.P. >Huhh, you're saying that scale models are not scale models because they >have the wheels set at the wrong spacing??? >There goes the whole UK OO model industry! >;-) Actually, as I've been trying to say, there goes the worldwide model industry! ;-) >Regards, >Greg.P. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > >Huhh, you're saying that scale models are not scale models because they > >have the wheels set at the wrong spacing??? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, as I've been trying to say, there goes the worldwide model > industry! ;-) Perhaps I'll go back to model aeroplanes! =8^) Right now I'm taking a soggy brain break from CAD designing model kits for production, so I'm well aware of the compromises involved in "scale" models. My aim is to make the models as close to scale reproductions while making them suitable for model railway operation as well as suitable for production with the equipment I have available to me. Some of those compromises, such as wheel standards and clearances add together to cause obvious distortions from scale, while others such as couplings blow the whole appearance, but generally I aim at prototypical appearance. Narrowing the gauge by 12% (18.83>16.5) would blow the whole design! Regards, Greg.P. > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > have the wheels set at the wrong spacing??? > There goes the whole UK OO model industry! No, not at all, those who wish to model to as close to exact as possible will do so in P4. You simply can't find a clue or you're just trolling - so what are you, and clueless cretin or a clueless troll?... I was pointing out that no one needs to reinvent the wheel so do what you keep suggesting vast numbers of people want to do what they already can. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > trolling - so what are you, and clueless cretin or a clueless > troll?... Trolling? Well, yes. =8^)> I realize that this discussion won't lead anywhere because the UK scale is 4mm:1ft. I've nothing against people doing ridiculous things so long as they recognise that they are. > I was pointing out that no one needs to reinvent the wheel so do what > you keep suggesting vast numbers of people want to do what they > already can. Sure, and I'm pointing out that the UK model railway industry has painted itself into a corner, just as it did in the 1960s with Hornby Dublo/Trix/Tri-ang/mettatoy(?). The outcome of that situation was that all four comercial companies folded. It's easy to imagine that your way of modelling is the way everyone models. (I can say that because I've been there, done that) However, the model market is divided into (at least) three groups: - toy train operators. - scale modellers. - collectors. Of the firms from the 1960s, only Tri-ang survived, with new owners but with the same products. That suggests to me that the first group is the biggest or most influential Judging by the present UK markets, with models that look superb but often won't survive real and long-term operating, the "collectors" are the second biggest group. That leaves you in the third or least popular group. Reading manufacturers interviews in the model mags and perusing their catalogues, the logic behined their choices of models seems to be along the lines of: we need a big express loco, a smaller express loco, a small tank loco, a bigger tank loco, a medium goods loco ... not, we need an LMS + GWR + LMS + SR + BR heavy Goods locos. When modellers demand a specific type of loco the manufacturers appear to consider it in terms of their current range, because a seconf small tank loco might well take sales away from their current offerings. An L&YR 2-4-2T isn't a likely candidate if they already offer a GWR 2-4-2T but it might be if their competitor already has the GWR 2-4-2T. Greg.P. > :Jerry: wrote: <snip> >> No, not at all, those who wish to model to as close to exact as >> possible will do so in P4. You simply can't find a clue or you're [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've nothing against people doing ridiculous things so long as they > recognise that they are. Glade to know that you know that you are being ridiculous, what do you not understand about the that there is no problem in the UK, those who want to model in P4 or EM can do so and still use 99pc of a RTR model if they so with, those who wish to model in 00 can do so, those who just want to play trains whilst mixing and matching their collection can do so - even to the extent that Bern loading gauge stock will fit through 4mm = 1ft bridges and tunnels etc. >> I was pointing out that no one needs to reinvent the wheel so do >> what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that > all four comercial companies folded. Not because they sold 4mm = 1ft models though, Hornby-Doubo folded due to production costs and sticking with outmoded *technology* (3-rail), Trix folded in the UK because they tried - more or less - what you are suggesting, Tri-ang and Triang-Hornby folded due to their parent companies (ROVEX) failings - indeed their model/toy train business was still trading and as sold very quickly by the administrators, as for the last am not sure if you mean Playmobil or Palitoy (TA Mainline model railways) - the latter failed again due to the parent company and not due to the model railway division, indeed many of the models live on, although some have been retooled. To complete the picture, Airfix Model Railways (later called GMR) folded due to the failings of the parent company, again many of their 4mm model railway items live on in either the ranges of Bachmann or Hornby. The UK model industry has never been so health as it is now! > It's easy to imagine that your way of modelling is the way everyone > models. (I can say that because I've been there, done that) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the second biggest group. > That leaves you in the third or least popular group. <the rest of yopur ignorant bollocks snipped> As I keep saying, you really don't understand the UK model railway market... :~( :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > the parent company, again many of their 4mm model railway items live > on in either the ranges of Bachmann or Hornby. Those British products no longer exist. > The UK model industry has never been so health as it is now! The UK industry now barely exists! What you have is UK marketting divisions of Chinese manufacturers. > > It's easy to imagine that your way of modelling is the way everyone > > models. (I can say that because I've been there, done that) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > As I keep saying, you really don't understand the UK model railway > market... :~( Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such an oddity as OO when the rest of the world uses HO. It's as if you Brits carried on with Sinclair computers and BASIC when the rest of the World went IBM and Windows. <snip more bollocks trolling> Oh F*** off troll. >Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of >the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such >an oddity as OO when the rest of the world uses HO. >It's as if you Brits carried on with Sinclair computers and BASIC when >the rest of the World went IBM and Windows. Duh. Because British modellers already have 4mm stock. > >Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of > >the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Duh. Because British modellers already have 4mm stock. We've established that fact. What I've postulated is that the manufacturers would sell far more UK models outside the UK if they were HO scale. Given that US and European models have sold well in the UK for the last 40+ years, don't you think that European and US modellers might buy a few UK HO models if they existed? You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? >> >Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of >> >the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >40+ years, don't you think that European and US modellers might buy a >few UK HO models if they existed? Only the few additional HO ones. British modellers wouldn't buy them. >You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? Idiot. > >> >Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of > >> >the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Only the few additional HO ones. British modellers wouldn't buy them. <sheesh> If the UK model railway community bought HO instead of OO then the sales would be combined, and considerably larger than for just OO. > >You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? > > Idiot. I'm an idiot because you want to continue with an odd scale which cuts you off from the rest of the World's model and accessory production ... >> >> >Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of >> >> >the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >If the UK model railway community bought HO instead of OO then the sales >would be combined, and considerably larger than for just OO. But you know they're not going to, because thay already have 4mm aren't going to do a mix'n'match. Stop pretending. Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. And somebody mentioned Trix, with their own intermediate scale. >> >You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? >> >> Idiot. > >I'm an idiot because you want to continue with an odd scale which cuts >you off from the rest of the World's model and accessory production ... And a liar as well now. > >> >> >Sure, but I'm left wondering what it is that differs from the rest of > >> >> >the world, and also why it is that you think you can continue with such [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Stop pretending. I don't seem to have got my point across to you! Your British models would be saleable outside the UK if they were to an internationally acceptable scale. Total sales would rise and your prices would drop. > Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. > > And somebody mentioned Trix, with their own intermediate scale. Trix and Rivarossi both made 3.8mm/foot models. > >> >You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And a liar as well now. That's getting a bit rude. Are you suggesting you don't care about the scale difference between HO and OO and that you happily accept HO scale models in your collection and on your layout? That would blow your argument. Regards, Greg.P. > Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. > > And somebody mentioned Trix, with their own intermediate scale. That's just it, Lima, Palitoy, Trix, Lima, Rivarossi etc, didn't make HO models. All of them made terribly short (height wise), wide models that looked nothing like the prototype, because they were so badly distorted. Kevin Martin SignatureTo Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form >> Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >models. All of them made terribly short (height wise), wide models that >looked nothing like the prototype, because they were so badly distorted. Which wasn't the main problem. So was much of the 4mm stuff of the time. >Kevin Martin And that's what HO is, alongside OO. Is your pickup goods going to contain a mixture of HO and OO wagons? When Lima did HO British stuff that's what you saw on some people's layouts before they learned from their mistake. Somebody mentioned an HO Flying Scotsman. For it to sell here they would have to also supply HO Gresley, Thompson or BR coaches, matching freight and tank engines, matching wagons and brake vans. In short, a complete system. And only new modellers will buy it because everybody else already has a 4mm collection. And unless they are complete newbies, potential buyers aren't going to lock themselves into a system from a single supplier. Remember Triang TNT. Somebody mentioned accessories. Those are the least of the problem. People, some buildings etc can be mixed and matched. Some of my favourite layouts in 7mm scale make streets look longer by tapering the scale of the buildings. Ditchling Green does this on its high street. But that's done by hand with a continual decrease, even in the same building. I bought a couple of Trix coaches once - cheap nowhere near any 4mm models - too small!!!! Can't remember if I still have them or not, if I have - I think I will sell them > I bought a couple of Trix coaches once - cheap nowhere near any 4mm models - > too small!!!! > > Can't remember if I still have them or not, if I have - I think I will sell > them They are 3.8mm scale, closer to OO than HO, so you can't sell them to me :-( When they were first introduced they were to a superior standard than any other proprietry UK (OO) coaches. Rivarossi fell into the same trap with their Royal Scot and LMS coaches, which were beautiful models, but to 1:80 scale. Regards, Greg.P. NZ > >> Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. > >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > street. But that's done by hand with a continual decrease, even in the > same building. That doesn't work for HO modellers - unless of course one has a large scenic area in front of one's layout so that the trains are reduced scale to the foreground. :-) You're absolutely right that one needs more than a loco and track to build a layout, or in Fleischmann's case more than a Western Region Loco and three Southern Region coaches. Regards, Greg.P. >> >> Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >scenic area in front of one's layout so that the trains are reduced >scale to the foreground. :-) Actually it probably does. Ditchling Green is probably only 2' deep. The street is at one end of the layout going from front to back. While it leads to a level crossing, the layout is a through station operated as terminus to fiddle yard, and you don't see trains on the level crossing. The street itself tapers from 7mm scale at the front to maybe 6 or 6.5mm at the back. You could do the same in HO, 3.5mm to 3mm. >You're absolutely right that one needs more than a loco and track to >build a layout, or in Fleischmann's case more than a Western Region Loco >and three Southern Region coaches. There was also an unrebuit Royal Scot and LMS coaches. >Regards, >Greg.P. > >> >> Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > The street itself tapers from 7mm scale at the front to maybe 6 or > 6.5mm at the back. You could do the same in HO, 3.5mm to 3mm. I was refering to all those 4mm scale models produced in the UK. > >You're absolutely right that one needs more than a loco and track to > >build a layout, or in Fleischmann's case more than a Western Region Loco > >and three Southern Region coaches. > > There was also an unrebuit Royal Scot and LMS coaches. Certainly, but that was 1:80 scale, much closer to 1:76.2 than 1:87, but useless to either scale. > >Regards, > >Greg.P. >> >> >> Lima and Palitoy both made that mistake a long time ago. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> >Regards, >> >Greg.P. >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:22:56 +1200, Greg Procter >> <procter@ihug.co.nz> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > sales > would be combined, and considerably larger than for just OO. Look idiot, if the UK model railway community was to adopt H0 and then built their layouts to that 'scales' loading gauge they would NOT be able to run non UK stock as it would not fit through the typical UK bridge, tunnel and possibly platform... >> >You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you off from the rest of the World's model and accessory production > ... But it doesn't as those who want to 'play trains' (apologies to Jane and John...) can do so at the moment, if the changes you suggest were made they would no longer be able to do so! The most kindest way of summing you and your suggestion up is, you are have solution looking for a problem were no problem exists. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > able to run non UK stock as it would not fit through the typical UK > bridge, tunnel and possibly platform... There are numerous European ferry wagons which are of suitable loading gauge to run into Britain, British ferry wagons which run into Europe and not a few British locos that have run in Europe, the US, Australia etc. > >> >You can't have that low an opinion of UK prototype? > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > summing you and your suggestion up is, you are have solution looking > for a problem were no problem exists. There's nothing on the UK market that is saleable outside the UK. (Well there's "Thomas", but that's not _model railway) I'd be buying those cottage industry 1920s/30s model cars and trucks, plastic building kits etc etc if they weren't so far from HO scale. <snip> > There are numerous European ferry wagons which are of suitable > loading [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Australia > etc. <snip more trolling> Yes, built to the UK loading gauge and not the Bern gauge you trolling idiot. Now kindly f*ck off, troll. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Now kindly f*ck off, troll. So why don't you run Hornby tinplate M/MO rolling stock on your layout with OO wheels fitted - they must be near enough to OO loading gauge. Regards, Greg.P. > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > with OO wheels fitted - they must be near enough to OO loading > gauge. You really can't grasp the fact that if the UK used H0 (3.5mm) scale and built bridges etc to the UK loading gauge no H0 model of European or USA stock would fit through them! :Jerry: wrote: [...] > You really can't grasp the fact that if the UK used H0 (3.5mm) scale > and built bridges etc to the UK loading gauge no H0 model of European > or USA stock would fit through them! Jerry, I'm not thinking about building a UK layout and trying to run non-UK rolling stock on it. I'm thinking about a non-UK layout with some UK visitors. Which is entirely prototypical. A 4mm model just doesn't look right - it's too big, and its proportions are wrong compared to the 3.5mm models next to it. Of course you know that diesels built to UK loading gauge are being used outside the UK, some of them in Europe, even. A bunch of those are being built in London, Ontario, at the moment. 66s, I think. They were a number of pictures of them in pale grey undercoating posted on alt.binaries.pictures.rail. They look very interesting next to the current crop of N. American 6-axle monsters. Especially when one considers that they pack almost as many horses under the hood as their US/Canadian cousins! Anyhow, to get back to some serious model railway discussion: I do have a few UK OO items. I've sketched a few two-level plans with a a GWR line at the lowest level of the layout, with the Canadian line running about 40 to 60cm above that, using shadow boxes to increase the visual separation. With more space than I have, one could interlace the lines at almost the same level (just minimum vertical spacing apart), arranging the lines so that only one of them is visible in any one scene. Again, visually separate the scenes in shadow boxes. Cheers! Signaturewolf k. > :Jerry: wrote: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > doesn't look right - it's too big, and its proportions are wrong > compared to the 3.5mm models next to it. But that is a commercial problem, no manufacture is going to make a profit on selling the (relatively) small amount of UK stock to people who live outside the UK, their profit will come from UK sales - if the UK was to adopt H0 they would (for the reasons above) loose their sales of non UK stock within the UK. > Of course you know that diesels built to UK loading gauge are being > used outside the UK, some of them in Europe, even. A bunch of those > are being built in London, Ontario, at the moment. 66s, I think. Yes, and there is room in the market for H0 models but it doesn't mean that the UK needs to switch scales, the number of UK designed and built locos in use on 'mainland Europe' is very limited. They were a > number of pictures of them in pale grey undercoating posted on > alt.binaries.pictures.rail. They look very interesting next to the > current crop of N. American 6-axle monsters. Especially when one > considers that they pack almost as many horses under the hood as > their US/Canadian cousins! Funny that, considering that they are, as you say, N. American, designed and built... > Anyhow, to get back to some serious model railway discussion: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one of them is visible in any one scene. Again, visually separate > the scenes in shadow boxes. Why not just build two layouts, the 'typical' GWR branch line need not take up much space, hence the reason why I suspect layouts based on the GWR have been so popular in the UK for years. :Jerry: wrote: > "Wolf K." <wolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message [...] >> I do have a few UK OO items. I've sketched a few two-level plans >> with a a GWR line at the lowest level of the layout, with the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > take up much space, hence the reason why I suspect layouts based on > the GWR have been so popular in the UK for years. Size of room.... Signaturewolf k. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and built bridges etc to the UK loading gauge no H0 model of European > or USA stock would fit through them! Blame George Stephenson - not actually a relative of mine, but one of his aunts married my great-great... grandfather. What _you_ are failing to understand is that there is a potential market for HO UK models outside the UK, just as there is a real market for non-UK models in the UK. The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit price. I fully realize that a wholesale UK change from 4mm to 1:87 isn't going to happen - I'm merely pointing out that it needs to happen. Regards, Greg.P. > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Blame George Stephenson - <snip lies> No, blame the people who followed, he invented the railways, he can't be to blamed for the mistakes of those who though they knew better! > What _you_ are failing to understand is that there is a potential > market > for HO UK models outside the UK, just as there is a real market for > non-UK models in the UK. There is nothing to stop those model being produced if there is a market, Trix, Lima and a couple of other manufacturers proved that there is no market in the market were most sales would have to be - history PROVES that you are wrong... > The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit > price. > I fully realize that a wholesale UK change from 4mm to 1:87 isn't > going > to happen - I'm merely pointing out that it needs to happen. Less the sales they would loose of course, 90pc of UK modellers would stop buying RTR models, replacing them with 4mm kits... :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > > Blame George Stephenson - <snip lies> You want a copy of my family tree? > No, blame the people who followed, he invented the railways, he can't > be to blamed for the mistakes of those who though they knew better! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there is no market in the market were most sales would have to be - > history PROVES that you are wrong... The UK 1:87 society proves you wrong. > > The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit > > price. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Less the sales they would loose of course, 90pc of UK modellers would > stop buying RTR models, replacing them with 4mm kits... It's another "George Stephenson vs those who thought they knew better" situation. The UK should have gone 1:87 scale from the beginning. Meanwhile you're left with the majority of UK modellers running 4' scale gauge models. Regards, Greg.P. <snip> > The UK 1:87 society proves you wrong. Oh right, so Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, Ratio, Wills, DJH, etc etc etc. etc. etc. don't sell anything in 4mm scale then?!.... You moron. Now kindly f*ck off. > :Jerry: wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > for HO UK models outside the UK, just as there is a real market for > non-UK models in the UK. Empirical evidence suggests not - Trix, Jeouf and Lima again. I have no idea what percentage of non-UK modellers go for UK outline, but I'd expect that it would be similar to the number of UK modellers doing non-UK outline (I'm talking Standard Gauge prototype here), i.e very small. Judging by on-line and magazine adverts for want of any better measure, I'd hazard less than 5% - well below any commercially viable level excpept possibly for specialist makers (basically kits). And even they aren't interested to date! > The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit price. > I fully realize that a wholesale UK change from 4mm to 1:87 isn't going > to happen - I'm merely pointing out that it needs to happen. I don't think it needs to happen - the vast majority are quite content with things as they are. Those that aren't have plenty of options, EM etc. IF that market grew substantially then I'm sure Peco and then Hornby etc would be delighted to supply it, but the very fact that Peco produce 009 etc track and not EM/P4 just demonstrates that 16.5mm is not a real issue to the vast majority of users. > Regards, > Greg.P. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > :Jerry: wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Empirical evidence suggests not - Trix, Jeouf and Lima again. - Trix never did any HO. - Jouef made toys. - Lima HO really weren't scale models. > I have > no idea what percentage of non-UK modellers go for UK outline, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > commercially viable level excpept possibly for specialist makers > (basically kits). And even they aren't interested to date! You obviously don't buy or read Continental Modeller! > > The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit price. > > I fully realize that a wholesale UK change from 4mm to 1:87 isn't going [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > demonstrates that 16.5mm is not a real issue to the vast majority > of users. Peco produces HO track and labels it OO. :-) I'm not worried about UK British modellers, they've been a captive audience - I'm suggesting there's a world-wide market for British HO at proprietry model prices in the modeller and collector areas, not the "toy train" market, which Jouef and Lima were. The extra sales, if the UK modellers bought HO instead of OO would allow a better quality product for the price, or lower prices. > > > :Jerry: wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Trix never did any HO. (Chorus) Oh yes they did! I had a Western and a blue/grey Mk 1 Buffet! > - Jouef made toys. As they say, so? > - Lima HO really weren't scale models. Debateable, but they were still trying the market. > > I have > > no idea what percentage of non-UK modellers go for UK outline, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You obviously don't buy or read Continental Modeller! Nope, But then no one stocks it round here, which is a good market indicator! > > > The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit price. > > > I fully realize that a wholesale UK change from 4mm to 1:87 isn't going [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Peco produces HO track and labels it OO. :-) Until relatively recently it was labelled as 00/HO, nevertheless it is still 00 as well as H0. > I'm not worried about UK British modellers, they've been a captive > audience - I'm suggesting there's a world-wide market for British HO at > proprietry model prices in the modeller and collector areas, not the > "toy train" market, which Jouef and Lima were. And I'm suggesting there isn't - those that choose to model UK outline overseas go 00 or finescale, there isn't demand for anything else. I can see finescale 00 catching on some more, but H0 is a dead duck for UK outline. If anyne were to suddenly launch an entire range it would be EM/P4 or similar. > The extra sales, if the UK modellers bought HO instead of OO would allow > a better quality product for the price, or lower prices. I very much doubt it. 00 models are already at the stage where detail is so fine that customers are complaining about their fragility - to which Hornby have very sensibly responded by introducing the Railroad range. Obviously this will only become clearly defined from the mainstream range over time as products develop. If Hornby were to "try harder" for mass-market overseas distribution costs would exceed any price benefit - they've been there, got the tee shirt and the blistered fingers! Much better to do what they are doing instead. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > > > :Jerry: wrote: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > > - Trix never did any HO. > (Chorus) Oh yes they did! I had a Western and a blue/grey Mk 1 Buffet! (responding chorus) Ohh no they didn't! ;-) Your Western and a blue/grey Mk I buffet were 3.8mm:1ft which is closer to OO than HO. OO modellers rejected them and HO modellers didn't even consider them. > > - Jouef made toys. > > As they say, so? OO and HO modellers rejected them equally because they realy aren't models - they are toys that look a bit like models. > > - Lima HO really weren't scale models. > > Debateable, but they were still trying the market. They can be made into scale models with some serious alterations - by the same token a Tri-ang original Jinty can be made into a scale model with a few alterations. =8^) > > > I have > > > no idea what percentage of non-UK modellers go for UK outline, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nope, But then no one stocks it round here, which is a good > market indicator! Someone must buy their output - besides me, that is. > > > > The increase in total sales of any given model lowers the unit price. > > > > I fully realize that a wholesale UK change from 4mm to 1:87 isn't going [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Until relatively recently it was labelled as 00/HO, nevertheless > it is still 00 as well as H0. It has to be one or the other. > > I'm not worried about UK British modellers, they've been a captive > > audience - I'm suggesting there's a world-wide market for British HO at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And I'm suggesting there isn't - those that choose to model UK outline > overseas go 00 or finescale, there isn't demand for anything else. It's hard work finding any British HO! I have a pile of rebuilt Lima and some scratch-built models. I can't run British OO on my layout with European models, it looks silly. > I > can see finescale 00 catching on some more, but H0 is a dead duck for > UK outline. If anyne were to suddenly launch an entire range it > would be EM/P4 or similar. Go look at the British 1:87 site, they have an awful lot of HO British models! Of course British HO is a dead duck in model shops, no-one stocks it. > > The extra sales, if the UK modellers bought HO instead of OO would allow > > a better quality product for the price, or lower prices. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk > I have become... comfortably numb <snip> Seeing as this is obviously going nowhere I'll give up now. The market for UK outline 00 is seeningly stable, if not growing. The market for UK outline H0 is barely above non existant. QED. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >>>>> Jerry: wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > (Chorus) Oh yes they did! I had a Western and a blue/grey Mk 1 Buffet! Where they HO or some in between scale. I do remember the DMU Transpenine >>>>>> Jerry: wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >Where they HO or some in between scale. I do remember the DMU Transpenine 3.8 mm/ft. > Blame George Stephenson - not actually a relative of mine, but one of > his aunts married my great-great... grandfather. Compared to the tenuous claims you see on some (usually US) genealogy sites, that's a close relationship ;-) MBQ > > Blame George Stephenson - not actually a relative of mine, but one of > > his aunts married my great-great... grandfather. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MBQ My Dad's mother kept a family tree going back several hundred years with some perhaps tenuous bits going back 800 year. On Mum's side there's two branches going back to the 1750s. Mum always went on about Dad's Yorkie family and relatives - both families came from Yorkshire about 50 km apart but Mum's side had been here in NZ for 4 generations. > :Jerry: wrote: <snip> >> > My question, (yes, I know I'm the only one asking it) is why you >> > want [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 1) manufacturers will double their sales. > 2) UK modellers can use products from the rest of the world. But they can do that already, 3.5mm scale (H0) runs on 00/H0 track, 4mm (00) runs on 00/H0 track, were id the problem?! <snip> >> Sorry but you just don't seem to understand the UK model railway >> industry, market and hobby. > > Certainly I understand it - you have a scale that is out of step > with I can assure you that you DO NOT understand it. :~( > the rest of the World and a scale that is out of step with your > modelling gauges. Are you seriously suggesting that because the scales are different manufactures will not make the *individual* body tooling for such models - the internals can and do use the same components - after all the tooling is different to each model anyway so the scale used is irrelevant. You also seem to fail to understand the reason why there was a difference (3.5mm against 4mm) in the first place, try running a piece of Bern (loading) gauge 3.5mm scale stock through an average British loading gauge bridge/tunnel built to 3.5mm scale, you will soon find that you can't do it, but a bridge/tunnel built to the UK 4mm scale will allow the Bern gauge stock to pass through - this is why track and accessories are marketed as 00/H0 and not 00 *or* H0. > For the moment you have several main-stream manufacturers supplying > your > market with non-standard scale models, but they are not British > suppliers. As such your entire supply base could disappear > overnight. That could happen anyway, regardless of the scale used. :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I can assure you that you DO NOT understand it. :~( Hmmm, I've been reading UK mags since the early 1960s, have numerous UK model friends, relatives still in the UK, have been purchasing models from the Uk since 1963 ... > > the rest of the World and a scale that is out of step with your > > modelling gauges. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the tooling is different to each model anyway so the scale used is > irrelevant. I'm suggesting that if the most popular scale in the UK was HO rather than OO then manufacturers would sell considerably more UK models. > You also seem to fail to understand the reason why there was a > difference (3.5mm against 4mm) in the first place, I'm well aware of the history of different scales. > try running a piece > of Bern (loading) gauge 3.5mm scale stock through an average British > loading gauge bridge/tunnel built to 3.5mm scale, you will soon find > that you can't do it, but a bridge/tunnel built to the UK 4mm scale > will allow the Bern gauge stock to pass through - this is why track > and accessories are marketed as 00/H0 and not 00 *or* H0. You're only looking at this from a UK perspective. Try running HO UK models on a European HO layout - the difference in loading gauge is immediately obvious, just as UK prototypes running on European tracks are. > > For the moment you have several main-stream manufacturers supplying > > your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That could happen anyway, regardless of the scale used. Sure, but if there was a standard scale your chances of supply continuance would be greater. >You're only looking at this from a UK perspective. Try running HO UK >models on a European HO layout - the difference in loading gauge is >immediately obvious, just as UK prototypes running on European tracks >are. Don't forget that when the British settled on OO, the Americans had yet another OO standard - 4mm scale on 19mm track gauge. And that in the early days of British OO, what became called EM (18mm gauge) was once known as OO fine scale. > >You're only looking at this from a UK perspective. Try running HO UK > >models on a European HO layout - the difference in loading gauge is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And that in the early days of British OO, what became called EM (18mm > gauge) was once known as OO fine scale. There was even a time when British 4mm:ft was called HO and European 16.5mm gauge was called OO. FOAD troll. :Jerry: wrote: > > FOAD troll. Hey, I'm a potential customer of British HO! I currently own the Fleischmann D800 and upgraded Lima locos, a couple of scratch built L&Y locos, four trains of coaches and around 50 goods wagons. Many of my wagons are scratch-built or based on Lima bits. I'd buy and own more if there were any HO manufacturers. Regards, Greg.P. <snip> > I'd buy and own more if there were any HO manufacturers. Their only customer no doubt!... :Jerry: wrote: > > <snip> > > I'd buy and own more if there were any HO manufacturers. > > Their only customer no doubt!... Possibly - however I suggest there's a market for something like a "Flying Scotsmann" in HO outside the UK. > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Possibly - however I suggest there's a market for something like a > "Flying Scotsmann" in HO outside the UK. Then why hasn't there been a H0 model of the "Flying Scotsman" been made, probably one of the most famous and best known locos in the world yet no one has produced a H0 model of it, rather tells us that your surmising is wrong... :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > world yet no one has produced a H0 model of it, rather tells us that > your surmising is wrong... Actually, there has been one. Brass and expensive. They (Tenshodo?) have done several HO British models since. Up until recent years the models that the mass production manufacturers have chosen to produce have been those they expected to get large numbers of sales for. In recent years we've seen models released that obviously cannot be expected to sell in vast numbers. Obvious examples are Heljan doing the Deltic prototype and the other UK Diesel prototypes. Brawa is doing similar things in Germany with models like the BR 19.1001, Bavarian S2/6 and Prussian S9. (all single locos) Fleischmann brought out the HO D800 and three Bullied coaches about twenty years ago. They are still in the Fleischmann catalogue, so either the second production run is selling _very_ slowly or they are selling enough to keep them in the catalogue but not enough to justify bringing out new models. If a thousand odd models have taken 20 years to sell you'd think they would have dumped them on the market at cost price a decade or more ago. Greg.P. <snip> > Fleischmann brought out the HO D800 and three Bullied coaches about > twenty years ago. They are still in the Fleischmann catalogue, so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bringing > out new models. Which, either way, rather blows your argument out of the water - there is and never will be a market for RTR British outline models in H0! :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Which, either way, rather blows your argument out of the water - there > is and never will be a market for RTR British outline models in H0! It's an indication that an isolated model isn't enough to cause any modeller to chose the more logical scale. > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's an indication that an isolated model isn't enough to cause any > modeller to chose the more logical scale. It proves that there is no market, perhaps if you understood the history of the German and British DH locos you would also understand why Fleischmann produced the BR D800 model, if there was a general market for British H0 there was nothing to stop them from following up on the said model - perhaps with a Western... :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > market for British H0 there was nothing to stop them from following up > on the said model - perhaps with a Western... I suggest you go and look at the British 1:87 scale website, there are about two dozen locos listed there, from a $2000- brass LNER A3 down to a conversion of the Roco Dutch shunter, with numerous British and Dutch kits of British locos. I must say that I am amazed at how big the market actually is. There are Southern, GWR, ROD etc prototypes offered. :Jerry: wrote: >> :Jerry: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > world yet no one has produced a H0 model of it, rather tells us that > your surmising is wrong... There have been HO models of Flying Scotsman and of GWR King, in brass, made by Fulgurex around 1970 IIRC. Pricey, of course, and aimed at the collector market. I couldn't afford either back then (well, I could've, but I would've had a lot of 'splainin' to do to my nearest and dearest, who had other ideas about how to spend our surplus lolly.) Signaturewolf k. :Jerry: wrote: > <snip> >> I'd buy and own more if there were any HO manufacturers. > > Their only customer no doubt!... No, me too, and who knows how many others. Keep in mind that Flying Scotsman toured N. America. An HO version would sell more than few dozen, I think. Signaturewolf k. > :Jerry: wrote: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Scotsman toured N. America. An HO version would sell more than few > dozen, I think. So why haven't one of the US manufactures made an H0 version then, indeed why hasn't Hornby made such a model then?... :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So why haven't one of the US manufactures made an H0 version then, > indeed why hasn't Hornby made such a model then?... There are about the same number of US manufacturers as there are British manufacturers - US models are almost all made outside the US. (Roco, Mehano, Kato, Bachmann, Rivarossi ...) > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > manufacturers - US models are almost all made outside the US. > (Roco, Mehano, Kato, Bachmann, Rivarossi ...) In other words - because there is no market for such a model... :Jerry: wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > In other words - because there is no market for such a model... Huhh? There are almost no US manufacturers of US models because you consider there's no market for British HO??? > :Jerry: wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Huhh? There are almost no US manufacturers of US models because you > consider there's no market for British HO??? Not from were I'm sitting in the UK, and that is the market which matters to any manufacture of British outline models, but you knew that... > > > > > >>> Richard, > > > > > >>> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > Cheers > Richard Hi Richard, I accept all you say - however, there is an international standard/standards for HO. They all run together and although I mostly model old-time German I always end up with a US model or two, something French, Italian ... and a few bits of British. OO is no use to me because it is a different scale, so I have to collect the odd bits of British HO that have appeared on the market over the last 30 years and a few scratch built items. If you Brits went with HO then you'd have a bigger market as many collectors would buy. Remember, the UK is about 1% of the World's population so the other 99% might well buy as much again as Britain absorbs - double the market - double the models available :-) Greg.P. Jim, Guthrie wrote: > Richard, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jim. 1:32 is a good round scale - it works for metric or imperial measurements. It also matches fairly well with the gauge. It is also the accepted scale in Europe, where I scale is reasonably catered to. > Jim, Guthrie wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It is also the accepted scale in Europe, where I scale is reasonably > catered to.- I note there is little availability of British locos in G scale/gauge (whatever correct term is). What is the availability like for ready to run British locos (particularly steam) in Gauge 1? > I note there is little availability of British locos in G scale/gauge > (whatever correct term is). What is the availability like for ready > to run British locos (particularly steam) in Gauge 1? Actually 'Gauge and Scale' are a little misleading since one can get many of the live steam engines in 32 or 45mm gauge. A number of the Accucraft engines are now sold out, but new ones are coming along. I was given a nice present for my birthday and xmas which is a 1:20.3 scale and 45mm gauge live steam engine and I'm saving up for some 20.3 scale carriages. These match the 3ft gauge Manx railway rather than main line stuff. Some of the larger gauge 1 models do come in with rather a large price tag, so the Narrow gauge models are a reasonable compromise. SignatureLester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php > > Jim, Guthrie wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > (whatever correct term is). What is the availability like for ready > to run British locos (particularly steam) in Gauge 1? Bear in mind that "G" is a minority gauge. The major players in the RTR market are LGB and Bachmann with a few other smaller US brands. Beyond that comes the "cottage industries", an area where there appear to be numerous British firms. Generally the British models are labelled "16mm" representing 2' gauge on 32mm and 45mm gauge. In message <f85bbabd-3765-47c0-9025-9c227a0bb768@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Brian Whitehead <brianwhitehead@hotmail.com> writes >I am thinking of building a simple garden railway, and have in mind >either Gauge 1 or G scale. I understand that the gauge of track for >both is the same, but the rail heights differ. Will engines built to >either scale run on either type of track? If not, which has the >better availability of engines and stock? Look up the US Garden Railroads magazine and I believe that there is one in the UK. If you live anywhere near the south coast there are a couple of guys that belong to South Shore Model Railroad Club (based in Worthing) who model G scale. Contact me if you want further info. SignatureMike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.