[dwb]

>I have a 25 year old OO battle of britain ...

I have a 40 year old Britannia (only one owner) and intend to get one of the new Hornby loco drive models when they come out. I was thinking of putting together a "then and now" piece to quantify how things have changed.

David

 

[Thunder]

Thats a good idea dwb, i think some new and older models standing side by side, would show some huge differences in detail and quality, but i bet you fid others that are as good from 20/30 years back as are modern offerings now, I just wonder if my new 9F, when it arrives, will be as sound in 20 years time as are some of the older ones now, as a child i dont remember bits falling off my jinty? i must be more clumsy now, as i got a little pile of bits to put back on.

 

[dwb]

> bet you fid others that are as good from 20/30 years back
I have a Hornby "Evening Star" from c1979. I haven't decided whether to get a 9F or not. If I do it will be a black one.

David

 

[Makemineadouble]

All my current 9F's are loco drive and have sound, one of them is Evening Star, carrying a Pines Express headboard. This hasn't detered me from ordering the Bachmann Evening Star, and in time I'll probably add to my stud. BTW they all run quite sweetly, I just like 9F's.

 

[Dennis David]

QUOTE I would prefer for developement money to be spent on models for the masses rather than an elite few.
I figure anything that will separate me from the hoi polloi is a good thing ...

 

[dwb]

Here's a link to a side on view of a 9F similar to the photo higher up in the thread - it's a pity there is something behind the loco which prevents us seeing just how much "fresh air" there is between that pony truck and the rest of the loco. Visit Low aspect side view of 92203

David

 

[Dennis David]

What an awesome picture.

 

[dwb]

It's also a teensy weensy bit distracting when you see a 9F on a low loader on the opposite carriageway when driving to work!

David

 

[Thunder]

Thats an interesting photo of the 9F "Black Prince" do i recall seeing this loco at one of the warley shows at the nec? but i don't remember the flower garden halfway down the boiler!!!! wonder if this detail is supplied with the new Bachman 9F as and add-on if required, as it may not look right without it, of course i am just jesting......... at least i think i am.

 

[Ozzie21]

QUOTE (Doug @ 16 Jun 2006, 23:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think its meant to be like that. It was nicknamed the 'Spaceship' due to the big gap between the boiler and footplate had the effect of making the boiler look like one of the booster stages, used in the 60's NASA space project, on its side.

Yes it not sdo with the 9F as they were designed that way but there are many other locos in Hornby's and Bachmann's range that have an inordinate amout of daylight around the leading and trailing trucks. Just one of my many little pet hates

Ozzie21

 

[Ozzie21]

QUOTE (Dennis David @ 17 Jun 2006, 12:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't wish to open a can of worms but I often wonder how different things would be if you all had gone for HO scale rather than OO. You might already have that premier line courtesy of Marklin, Trix et al.

Well I've been in HO scale for some 30yrs and while I have changed my main stream modelling tastes I still have some HO scale mainly C&O Alleghenies, mikes, Kanawahs, Texas, Hudsons and pacifics in brass. Perhaps it would have been better for Hornby to have gone to HO scale so that that the locos would be correct for the track guage. Now that is a can of worms.

Ozzie21

 

[pedromorgan]

ozzie for resons i have said in my earlier posts, adopting HO is not as practical for the brittish as it is for most other countries. manufacturers would experience the same problems with their models that kit builders experience when constructing a P4 loco. namly the tight clearence between the cylinders and the wheels is too tight to allow for train set cutves.

Rivarossi did try it with a royal scot. it was a rubbish seller. i think i was about the only person who bought one! (didnt someone else do a 08 shunter?)

OO is not perfect but it is a very good comprimise between scale and practicality for our brittish models. it also has the advantage that our brittish models dont look out of place when we run them on the same layouts as the loco's you mentioned.

Peter

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE our British models dont look out of place when we run them on the same layouts as the loco's you mentioned. (Big Yanks )
Er . . . maybe they do!

The British locos and stock actually should look smaller than American/Continental, because the prototypes generally are.

Similar comments apply when running OO stock in HO scenery, particularly buildings - the scales don't match. I am only gently leg-pulling here.

We'll NEVER get agreement, so the best thing to do is
smile, smile, smile.

 

[Dennis David]

I'm having a hrad time uderstanding this. If N and Z scale locomotives can be built to tight clearences what's the problem with British prototype and HO? Am I missing something? I though the original reason was because the UK didn't or couldn't make motors small enough.

 

[Ben Manicom]

QUOTE Perhaps it would have been better for Hornby to have gone to HO scale so that that the locos would be correct for the track guage
A common misconception HO gauge isnt 100% accurate either (while more accurate the 00).
The reason behind the creation of 00 Gauge is that in the 1930s when Frank Hornby decided to produce locomotives for 16.5mm Track he realised the smaller Locomotives in Britain would not fit the motors at the time without loss of power or a massive gap in between the body and the wheels, so he adopted 4mm to the foot allowing the motors to be fitted to the locomotives. By the time the motors had been sufficiently developed 4mm had become the "standard" scale for British modellers and unprofitable to change to 3.5mm hence why Britain has remained in a time capsule to Europe (in many other ways too) resulting in the arguments today.

 

[Rail-Rider]

QUOTE A common misconception HO gauge isnt 100% accurate either
That's an interesting statement - I wonder who did the calculations?

The result makes the rivet counters look totally inept slovens of the very worst order!
Far as I can see, in HO, 16.5mm track gauge scales accurately to better than five thousandths of 1 mm or less than 5 microns. To put that into context, an average human hair is 10 to 20 times thicker than the difference.

I think I'd risk a small bet that no model manufacturer works to that precision on track and that it would be a super-human hobbyist who could even measure track gauge that accurately (and I definitely wouldn't believe anyone who claimed they could!)

Time for more big grins, I think!

 

[Ben Manicom]

By my Calculations 4mm scale Track should be 18.8333 mm in width
3.5mm track should be 16.4791666
I retract my statement I had read somewhere that it wasnt to exact scale when it more or less is

 

[pedromorgan]

hello dennis. the z gauge stuff is essentially watch makers stuff and made to extream tolerences. thats also why its so reliable. if you look at the new hornby scotsman i think its just about on the limit of what can be done with scale whilst keeping it suitable for train set curves. the valvegear is pretty much to scale but they have made up for it buy allowing huge ammounts of slop in the wheels. had it been ho then the cylinders ould have been very close to the front drivers and they would have not been able to get that slop thus making it unsuitable for train set curves.

if you look at an N gauge loco there are oversized flanges for a start, slop in the wheels and overscale track with overscale check rails. if you look at a good finescale N gouge layout they have overcome these problems but often can no longer run on tight curves. if you look at peco finescale n gauge track this shows the problem beautifully. there are no track chairs on the inside! this is to cope witht he fact that N gauge loco's are generally made with overscale flanges.

but remember HO scale model exist. they didnt sell.

Peter

 

[Dennis David]

I think I understand a little better and yes I have seen the difference between scale flange/rail here in the United States. I guess it boils down to the size restrictions most of us have to deal with regarding the space we have for our layouts and the compromises required in model locomotive design.

 

[spamcan61]

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 18 Jun 2006, 13:13) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ozzie for resons i have said in my earlier posts, adopting HO is not as practical for the brittish as it is for most other countries. manufacturers would experience the same problems with their models that kit builders experience when constructing a P4 loco. namly the tight clearence between the cylinders and the wheels is too tight to allow for train set cutves.

Rivarossi did try it with a royal scot. it was a rubbish seller. i think i was about the only person who bought one! (didnt someone else do a 08 shunter?)

OO is not perfect but it is a very good comprimise between scale and practicality for our brittish models. it also has the advantage that our brittish models dont look out of place when we run them on the same layouts as the loco's you mentioned.

Peter

Roco still offer the 08 shunter IIRC, or the very similar design.

Let's face it - commercial British HO is never going to happen on any scale; it would be utter commercial suicide for the existing players ( same product development costs with far, far fewer potential sales), and there's no signs of the remaining manufacturers on mainland Europe entering the fray.

Yes I know you can still get the Fleischmann Bulleid coaches, but they haven't exactly expanded the range much over the last 25 years, have they!