 |
 | 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 / February 2010Glimer of sanity on the horizon
Spent this weekend looking at the job and explaining about minimum radius curves, train lengths, point lengths and 4mm to the foot as a scale. The 'mountains' are now to be 'a hill or two' and we are starting with the high level oval running round the walls (lift up section across doorway). This will have a station that is actually the fiddle yard (4 tracks inside the building), a smaller junction station diagonally opposite, where the branch to the industrial lower level joins the main line. That way we can get the circuit up and running, adding the industrial bit and the quay to the lower part later, this means he will not be leaning over delicate stuff on the front of the board whilst 'doing' the upper level. It is all starting to look a lot more doable. He's keen on using a shop (wants to see what he is buying) and is now looking at the Hornby Elite controller. For the moment I have retrieved some old OO stuff for him to play with to get a sense of scale. He bought sopme 'large radius' curves, which give a 31 inch dia circle, which I would have thought was about as tight as they would go (apparently the chap in the shop told him there is an even tighter radius. Bit concerned as so many makes these days specify nothing less than 'second radius' - I wasn't there, not sure about this at all). Woodwork starting this week. Regards Mike > Spent this weekend looking at the job and explaining about minimum radius > curves, train lengths, point lengths and 4mm to the foot as a scale. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mike Suggest get him a peco catalogue, has lots of dimensions in it as well as track geometry. What make of track curves are they ? Peco show 1st radius 2*14 5/8 = 29" 2nd radius 2* 17 1/4 = 34.5 " 3rd radius 2* 19 7/8 = 40" Hornby ... 1st radius 2*371mm = 29" 2nd radius 2*438mm = 34.5 3rd radius 2*505mm = 39.7 Seems you've got 1 and a bit radius which is too small for most modern locos. Cheers, Simon >> Spent this weekend looking at the job and explaining about minimum radius >> curves, train lengths, point lengths and 4mm to the foot as a scale. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Had intended to pick the catalogues up on the trip to the shop, but he wasn't up to the trip. I'll get him one at my end and take it over with me. He is just starting to get a handle on what can be done in the space available. I think it could end up rather good, but I'm still having a problem adjusting after 20 years playing in N myself (the proposed track plan would just about fit on a decent dining table in N). Thanks for the assistance, I was tired, not used to the scale, wanting to get it right as he will probably only get one shot at this and dealing with some fairly unrealistic expectations on his end. Regards Mike >What make of track curves are they ? >Peco show [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >2nd radius 2*438mm = 34.5 >3rd radius 2*505mm = 39.7 Out of curiosity, where do the definitions of the various radii come from ? Adrian  SignatureTo Reply : replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies. >>What make of track curves are they ? >>Peco show [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Adrian Peco from the Peco catalogue and Hornby from Hornby catalogue - might be on their website as well. Both for settrack. Both give it as a radius, Hornby in mm and Peco with fractions of an inch. Cheers, Simon >Peco from the Peco catalogue and Hornby from Hornby catalogue - might >be on their website as well. Both for settrack. >Both give it as a radius, Hornby in mm and Peco with fractions of an inch. Thanks, but not what I meant (bad phrasing on my part I suspect). What I meant was, who decided what constitutes a first radius, and a second, and a third. Since Peco and Hornby seem to pretty much the same, it looks like a "standard". Adrian SignatureTo Reply : replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies. >>Peco from the Peco catalogue and Hornby from Hornby catalogue - might be >>on their website as well. Both for settrack. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Adrian Adrian - It's a de facto standard, dating back I think to the days of Tri-ang Super 4 track in the 1960s, which had two radii, small and large (it might even go back to Series 3 and Standard). These were perpetuated into System 6, and when the third radius was added small and large became first and second respectively. There is now a fourth radius as well. When Peco Setrack came out the radii were the same as Tri-ang (later Hornby) but I have a feeling that the geometry of the pointwork might be slightly different. Why the actual radii are what they are is a question I can't answer. Perhaps something to do with getting a double track oval on a 3 feet wide board? The distance between centres of 2.625 inches allows long vehicles to pass on the curves without hitting each other. Hope this helps. SignatureRegards John >It's a de facto standard, dating back I think to the days of Tri-ang Super 4 >track in the 1960s, which had two radii, small and large (it might even go >back to Series 3 and Standard). These were perpetuated into System 6, and >when the third radius was added small and large became first and second >respectively. There is now a fourth radius as well. The geometry of Series 3 (the short black widely spaced sleepers) and Standard (integrated sleepers on grey ballast base) was different in that the smaller radius was 13.5 inches. The common feature was that the larger radius for Series 3 and Standard was 17.25 inches which is the same as the current second radius. Standard straight pieces of track were 7.25 inches long and each curved section was 30 degrees. I think Standard 4 and the systems that followed were an attempt to tidy up the geometry to give closer parallel track centres and make more complex track formations easier in terms of using a pair of turnouts to form crossovers. SignatureBill Campbell >> Peco from the Peco catalogue and Hornby from Hornby catalogue - might >> be on their website as well. Both for settrack. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > second, and a third. Since Peco and Hornby seem to pretty much the > same, it looks like a "standard". My bet is that Hornby bought Roco's existing first radius track from Austria when it became obvious that their old products weren't competitive. The definitive answer would have to come from Hornby's design or marketting departments of 30 years ago. Greg.P. >Thanks, but not what I meant (bad phrasing on my part I suspect). > >What I meant was, who decided what constitutes a first radius, and a >second, and a third. Since Peco and Hornby seem to pretty much the >same, it looks like a "standard". Many thanks for the follow ups, and the diversion into linguistics. Adrian SignatureTo Reply : replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies. >>What make of track curves are they ? >>Peco show [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Out of curiosity, where do the definitions of the various radii come >from ? Hornby invented the terms, the other manufacturers followed suit in order to make it clear to customers that their track is compatible with Hornby's. All the measurements are based on the tightest - the "1st radius". A 2nd radius curve is designed so that a double track circuit with 1st on the inner track and 2nd on the outer will have the correct distance between the two tracks, and the same then applies for a double track circuit formed from 2nd and 3rd respectively. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk > All the measurements are based on the tightest - the "1st radius". A > 2nd radius curve is designed so that a double track circuit with 1st > on the inner track and 2nd on the outer will have the correct distance > between the two tracks, and the same then applies for a double track > circuit formed from 2nd and 3rd respectively. < pedant mode > That very much depends what you mnean by 'correct distance' between two tracks. It certainly is NOT a correct scale spacing, but one designed to allow long(ish) coaches & other items of rolling stock to pass each other on tight curves without clouting each other. < /pedant mode > Clouting = good old Yorkshire word meaning meaning hitting or colliding. John. >> All the measurements are based on the tightest - the "1st radius". A >> 2nd radius curve is designed so that a double track circuit with 1st [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John. Common down in the Midlands - especially from clout round the ear as used to be administered by teachers, police and parents in the good old disipline days. Then of course theres 'never cast a clout before april is out' know what it means but not where its from. Cheers, Simon > > "Mark Goodge" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > be administered by teachers, police and parents in the good old disipline > days. It's more old Engllish than old Yorkshire. MBQ The message <9e882e0e-478a-4d4a-abcc-ce939f218549@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> from "manatbandq@hotmail.com" <manatbandq@hotmail.com> contains these words: > It's more old Engllish than old Yorkshire. Certainly! The Dark Side doesn't have a monopoly of "unusual" words... <g> SignatureDave, Frodsham http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net >> Clouting = good old Yorkshire word meaning meaning hitting or colliding. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Cheers, >Simon The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen North, it was getting distinctly warm long before the end of May. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is out" - > that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen North, it was > getting distinctly warm long before the end of May. But surely it is a contemporaneous reference to the interminable labour government, hanging onto power at all costs, and should be read as ... "Ne'er cast out a clot until May 6th" ? >> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is >> out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen North, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Ne'er cast out a clot until May 6th" ? There's a another saying, "Better the devil you know"! Or, put rather better by The Who " ...... ...... There's nothing in the street Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now the parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around me Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Meet the new boss Same as the old boss" I'm afraid I am a "None of the above" voter, or would be if I were allowed to ...... Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is >>> out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen North, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Cheers > Richard If you really cannot tell the difference between any of the current great leaders then please do not vote. The worst thing you could do is vote for current PM based on better the devil you know - actually based on any reason. But thanks for the reminder of the song. The missus was suprised when I pointed out that the song in CSI was from the very same group. Cheers, Simon >>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is >>>> out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Believe me I won't be voting - the only sanction I can see against two lots of self-serving lying toads who have no interest in anyone but single issue pressure groups is to not even register to vote. Judging by the stack of registration forms the lady had the other day I'm not the only one. Perhaps when voter turnout falls sufficiently they may actually start listening to the silent majority (by asking why). In the meantime I expect many more fatuous "reports" from them blaming absolutely anything else except themselves for low turnouts. As for the song - amazing isn't it that so many 60's/70's protest songs have become relevant again - "Won't Get fooled Again", Dylan's "Hard Rain", "Chimes of Freedom" and "Masters of War" - lets hope "The Times They Are A Changing" will be equally appropriate again - soon, though I doubt it as the UK has lost it's heart and become a nation of 'yes men' who just moan and then roll over and die. SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb > lets hope "The Times They Are A Changing" The Times They Are A Changing ... ... into The Telegraph? >>>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may >>>>> is out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > though I doubt it as the UK has lost it's heart and become a nation of > 'yes men' who just moan and then roll over and die. But, with respect, haven't you done just that by not voting, ie, moaned, rolled over and died? Also, it is in the major parties' interests to have low voter turnout. It makes stacking votes so much easier, ie the only people who will end up voting are party members, which is so much easier to organise and manipulate and cheaper than convincing the average punter to show up to a voting booth and vote. After all, if you only have to win over the faithful, you can promise so much less and get away with so much more! On the other hand, if greater numbers showed up and voted for anyone BUT the major parties you may just possibly achieve 2 things: 1. A genuinely representative member for your constituency. 2. A much stronger focus from the major parties who will want the seat back and be prepared to do what it takes to get it - even including representing you. Where I come from (Australia) voting is compulsory, and it is amazing to see what the major parties here will do to win back a seat from an independant! We get promised rail lines to small regional towns, environmental projects (before it was trendy) and all sorts of things. Some of them even happen! If you're serious about wanting representation, not voting and being apathetic isn't the way to go... snip > On the other hand, if greater numbers showed up and voted for anyone BUT > the major parties you may just possibly achieve 2 things: Throw in voting for anyone but the incumbent, if only the majors put forth candidates. Eventually the penny will drop! > 1. A genuinely representative member for your constituency. > 2. A much stronger focus from the major parties who will want the seat [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you're serious about wanting representation, not voting and being > apathetic isn't the way to go... > snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Throw in voting for anyone but the incumbent, if only the majors put > forth candidates. Eventually the penny will drop! [...] Oh fer gawd's sake, qwitcherbitchin and get involved in your local party organisations. Or start your own party. The only reason such a bunch of crooked nitwits get to run the country is that the average geezer prefers to whinge and drink his beer instead of doing the hard work of politics and government. cheers, wolf k. >> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh fer gawd's sake, qwitcherbitchin and get involved in your local party > organisations. Been said and done for decades. Makes no difference. > Or start your own party. In process in the US - constantly. > The only reason such a bunch of crooked nitwits get to run the country is > that the average geezer prefers to whinge and drink his beer instead of > doing the hard work of politics and government. Nope, it's because "he's Our crooked nitwit" on election day. Nothing will work but undermining their security. > cheers, > wolf k. >>>>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is >>>>>> out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > But, with respect, haven't you done just that by not voting, ie, moaned, > rolled over and died? I don't see it that way - if I vote for another party they will assume I have voted for them and approve of their policies. If I waste my vote on a no-hoper, my vote will be viewed as irrelevant. That makes voting worse than not voting. By not registering to vote at least doing so appears as a statistic available to government - if they choose not to ask why (or, more likely, fool themselves into thinking it's down to the phase of the moon or something) then that just reinforces my belief that they simply do not care about the public. > Also, it is in the major parties' interests to have low voter turnout. > It makes stacking votes so much easier, ie the only people who will end > up voting are party members, which is so much easier to organise and > manipulate and cheaper than convincing the average punter to show up to > a voting booth and vote. After all, if you only have to win over the > faithful, you can promise so much less and get away with so much more! Which would matter if there was any significant difference between the parties. Apart from flag colour, and the way numbers are presented to support their views, the fundamental policies are effectively the same. It doesn't really matter who wins, there is no viable alternative until such time as politicians wake up and realise that just because someone has access to, and knows how to manipulate, the media they do not necesserily represent the majority (or even significant minority) of voters. It's all sound bites now. > On the other hand, if greater numbers showed up and voted for anyone BUT > the major parties you may just possibly achieve 2 things: 1. A genuinely > representative member for your constituency. 2. A much stronger focus > from the major parties who will want the seat back and be prepared to do > what it takes to get it - even including representing you. A valid point, but harder (and not recordable) to make that not even registering. > Where I come from (Australia) voting is compulsory, and it is amazing to > see what the major parties here will do to win back a seat from an > independant! We get promised rail lines to small regional towns, > environmental projects (before it was trendy) and all sorts of things. > Some of them even happen! They are equally keen here - only they very, very rarely deliver and no one believes them in the first place - particularly since the expenses scandal (some of them are *still* trying to keep their fingers in the till and not accept responsibility for their actions) their credibility is approaching zero. > If you're serious about wanting representation, not voting and being > apathetic isn't the way to go... I'm not apathetic - but I am disillusioned. I went on both countryside marches (which were NOT about fox hunting, the Blair propaganda machine did well there - the vast majority of us went to warn people about what was happening to individual freedoms, and how right we were), the second of which saw very nearly a million people turn out and the government (with a great deal of aid from the BBC) simply ignored and ridiculed. They did the same with the fuel protesters, claiming intimidation and violence yet were unable to find anyone who had been intimidated. Blair introduced a new form of "democracy" and it isn't going away. The tactics now being used have very worrying precedents in European history. SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb > >>>>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may is > >>>>>> out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the frozen [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > Blair introduced a new form of "democracy" and it isn't going away. The > tactics now being used have very worrying precedents in European history. I want to state some of my thoughts on the direction of this thread I was a local councillor for 10 years until the council was disbanded by the government last year. My party was labour (before you hang me for war crimes, I was low rank who rarely followed orders). We where constantly bombarded by rule changes and directives that made no sense, moved us away from socialism and cost us dearly (in votes and members). One memorable was one where the regional director pushed through all women seats (this person was on record of calling the defeat of labour in the Scottish parliament a victory as there was more women elected than lost). The members who had been in these seats who where dumped purely for being male promptly resigned, stood as independent and therefore split the vote (as result we lost the new council) Of course I have been to many election counts at my first there were three invalid/spoilt votes for the whole council (2 blank and one calling for the council chief to be hung). At my last count (about 2 and a half years ago) there was around 60 to 70 spoilt votes. All of these are shown to the candidates and agents to see if it can be determined which way the voter was thinking (e.g. ticks or the numbers 1,2,3 etc) But watching the ego of some people deflate as the more personal comments where read was amazing. Since the agent was also the leader of the local party you could also see him deciding on what dead wood and liabilities needed to be dropped or shunted to the no hope seats. So my advise is if you feel that you should not vote, go to the polling station and write on the paper why, it will be read by the candidates. >> >>>>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may >> >>>>>> is [quoted text clipped - 183 lines] > So my advise is if you feel that you should not vote, go to the polling > station and write on the paper why, it will be read by the candidates. But theres a fundamental difference between the main parties. They may have some of same aims but will use radically different methods to achieve them. take reducing the difference between haves and have nots. Labour will hit the haves and say improve conditions for have nots. But actually they reduce everyone to lowest common denominator. So increase cost of independent education, ensure even spread of types of pupils to all schools. All schools equally ruined, dumb down exams and it all appears equal. Better off pay for better drugs that NHS doesnt provide so hit them with extra costs so fewer people can afford them - more equality as more people cant have better drugs. But as far as I'm aware theres very few people want equality, nearly everyone wants to be in the haves. But lets make it all equal, for example the lottery. Buy ticket for GBP1. Say 5p for admin costs, 30p for charities/good causes and everyone gets 65p back. Thats fair. Of course that 30p will mean 10p to administer pay out to good causes as need to make sure its distributed properly. Got to make sure anyone that gets it follows socialist rules (inclusive tests ....). Then lots can go to build huge paper statues, curious street acting - not opera of course. Cheers, Simon >> >>>>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till >> >>>>>> may is out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] > polling station and write on the paper why, it will be read by the > candidates. Interesting thoughts. However, the showing the votes to the candidates thing must be a UK concept (yes I am aware this is a UK newsgroup) as having worked at quite a few Australian elections now including supervising a booth, I doubt that happens here as it would be seen as a potential conflict of interest. The vote count is certainly scrutinised by party scrutineers, but they are not allowed to touch votes, merely keep an eye on things and ensure the count is fair. My mother works in the electoral commission, I might ask her what happens higher up, maybe in close call seats where the votes are recounted that more attention is paid to invalid votes and what might be written on them, but I'd still be surprised. >> >>>>>> The way I recall it, the verse goes "Ne'er cast a clout till may >> >>>>>> is out" - that's the may blossom, not the month: even in the [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > So my advise is if you feel that you should not vote, go to the polling > station and write on the paper why, it will be read by the candidates. That's interesting - I didn't know that candidates got to see the spoilt ballot papers. So there is, in effect a "none of the above box". Food for thought. SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >>> Clouting = good old Yorkshire word meaning meaning hitting or colliding. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > David "Clout" is a dialectical variation of the singular of "clothes". cheers, wolf k. >> simon <nospam@nospam.com> writes >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "Clout" is a dialectical variation of the singular of "clothes". A breechclout is a strip of cloth 15-24 inches wide and about 60 inches long. It passes through the legs, covering the groin and bottom, while the ends of the cloth hang over a belt. These ends form an apron both front and back, adding additional modest covering. They were commonly worn by native Americans. http://www.imrisk.com/breechclout/breechclout.htm SignatureMartin S. >> What make of track curves are they ? >> Peco show [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Adrian SignatureHornby and Peco catalogues. Hornby at one stage were buying track from Roco, whose standard radii included those dimensions. > Hornby and Peco catalogues. > Hornby at one stage were buying track from Roco, whose standard radii > included those dimensions. I think the dimensions actually predate the days of Roco manufacture. As a matter of interest Bachmann seem to be having their set track manufactured by Roco in Austria, and are even using the same catalogue numbers as Hornby. Makes you wonder about the economies of relative manufacture in China and Europe. Peco are still making their track in the UK and it's cheaper than Hornby's Chinese manufactured products. Same comment applies to Bachmann's Austrian made track. John. From: "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> Snipped > As a matter of interest Bachmann seem to be having their set track > manufactured by Roco in Austria, and are even using the same catalogue [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bachmann's Austrian made track. > John. I imagine that labour costs are not so crucial in track manufacture as in other model railway products. Not too much time consuming assembly work will be required and is largely automated. Add to that the transportation costs and it probably makes sense for Bachmann to use European manufacture, even though their parent company owns the Chinese factory. In 2003 I saw Bachmann E-Z track being manufactured by Kader and it only required one person to watch the machine. I didn't see any turnout production though. I wonder if they ever approached Peco! Riddles. > I wonder if they ever approached Peco! At one time Peco were manufacturing N-scale setrack for Bachmann. John. >> Hornby and Peco catalogues. >> Hornby at one stage were buying track from Roco, whose standard radii >> included those dimensions. > > I think the dimensions actually predate the days of Roco manufacture. Roco started in the early 1960s. I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more standard 360mm (European HO) > As a matter of interest Bachmann seem to be having their set track > manufactured by Roco in Austria, and are even using the same catalogue [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bachmann's > Austrian made track. Molds are the expensive part of any plastic product. Once a mold exists it actually costs a tiny fraction of the model railway selling price for the materials. (I specify MR because things like plastic pegs etc are produced in the millions and are priced as low as possible) There are a lot of expensive molds required for a complete range of track but once they exist it requires lots of sales to cover the cost of the molds. Place a big enough order and the cost per item goes way down towards materials and staff costs. Regards, Greg.P. > >> Hornby and Peco catalogues. > >> Hornby at one stage were buying track from Roco, whose standard radii > >> included those dimensions. > > > > I think the dimensions actually predate the days of Roco manufacture. > Roco started in the early 1960s. > I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more standard > 360mm (European HO) I've always assumed that this was necessary because of OO being to a greater scale (4mm to a foot) as opposed to HO (3.5mm) so a 60ft coach in OO would be 24cm long but only 21cm in HO giving a greater overhang and more chance of buffer locking etc so the smallest practicable OO radius curve was 371mm as opposed to the equivalent HO of 360mm. However since the continental loading guage was larger then British it wasn't necessary to increase the radius to the full 4/3.5 ratio which would have produced a smallest OO radius of 360x4/3.5=411mm Alan Signaturealan.dawes@argonet.co.uk alan.dawes@riscos.org Using an Acorn RiscPC > Roco started in the early 1960s. > I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more standard > 360mm (European HO) Yes, but did they start manufacturing Hornby's setrack at that time, and if so was it at the same time that Hornby switched from Series 3 to Super 6 (or whatever they were called at the time)? I've just got an inkling that the code 100 setrack manufacture pre-dated Roco's involvement. ohn. >> Roco started in the early 1960s. >> I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more standard [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ohn. Series 1. (original Rovex grey ballast single ended) Series 2. or "Standard" (Grey ballast based, reversible) Series 3. (High rail black wide spaced sleepers.) Series 4. Code 100? (split end sleepers) Series 6. Code 100 matching Peco etc. Don't know what happened to Series 5.(???) Roco started in 1959, making plastic toys and producing their own designs for US firm(s) (AHM?) They started some Euro wagons and Mini-Tanks by the early 1960s. (I have a catalogue printed 1962) Track came soon after that, but not as far as I'm aware sold as "Roco" in Europe. Locos came in the late 1960s (V160 Diesel and E44 electric) The year before Roewa collapsed (1972?) they had a catalogue with DB locos, coaches, wagons and track. I don't know when Series 6 was introduced but it's some coincidence that the geometry matches Roco's track and Roco was largely existing on outside work. Regards, Greg.P. >> so was it at the same time that Hornby switched from Series 3 to Super 6 >> (or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Don't know what happened to Series 5.(???) Wonder if it was left as a "space" in case former Hornby Dublo 2 rail track was going to be continued? Or is that what Super 4 was based on. I had a Tri-ang set* but ISTR that my mate who had a Dublo set had much finer track. *series 3 so almost anything looked better,though in later years it was utilized for an experiment with 7mm narrow gauge in which role it didn't look too bad. G.harman >>> so was it at the same time that Hornby switched from Series 3 to Super >>> 6 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I had a Tri-ang set* but ISTR that my mate who had a Dublo set had > much finer track. Fairly sure Tri-ang was on Super 4 when HD was absorbed (1964) HD as series 5 would make sense. > *series 3 so almost anything looked better,though in later years it > was utilized for an experiment with 7mm narrow gauge in which role it > didn't look too bad. > > G.harman SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> Roco started in the early 1960s. >>> I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. I'm sure that it was "Super 4" and "System 6" - I can remember by dad bringing home a couple of "converter sections" for the two types that allowed me to use Peco track with my then massive collection of Super 4. I never did buy any System 6! Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >>>> Roco started in the early 1960s. >>>> I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > allowed me to use Peco track with my then massive collection of Super 4. > I never did buy any System 6! Here in NZ Lines Bros only ever produced Series 3. I think Standard had previously been imported from the UK too go with NZ trains. I don't thing any Super 4 was produced here. By that time I was buying Graham Farish and Peco and model trains so I lost track of Lines-NZ products. |
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.