[Gary]

Thats exactly the point. British locos are tichy to start with. Thats why we had 00 in the first place in the 1920's so that the motors around then would fit. If we start shrinking British outline models we simply won't have the space to put all the electronic gizmos in that DCC offers.

Its bad enougth at the moment fitting a chip. What about when sound comes in, and smoke?

Can N gauge modellers do any of this, and if they can at what price?

Miniaturization means more for less.

In terms of value how is the average British outline modeller going to feel when they are paying the same money (or more!) for something that is 15% smaller?

And HO has a reputation in Europe for being very expensive.

I say stay out of the Euro! Stick with the Pound!

You know it makes sense.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

Do we all remember the dual gauge track mixing broad gauge and standard gauge across much of west Britain?

Maybe Hornby should take the initiative and start to produce dual gauge track so that P4 and OO locomotives and rolling stock can operate on the same layout!

And over time then can shift from one standard to the other!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

Just checking something else out and discovered this bit of trivia.

O gauge is 32mm. W. J Bassett-Lowke in a letter to Model railway News in 1937 claims that OO always has been the recognised symbol for railways of 16mm gauge as the British were the originators of small scale railways. We (the British) have never departed from this standard symbol. How the symbol HO came about no one can determine although Mr Bassett-Lowke speculates that it may have come from America.

So it appears that 16mm gauge has the official symbol OO wherever you are in the world!

And it is further argued that all locomotives that run on standard gauge track no matter what their size when scaled down to run on OO scale track should be deemed to be OO scale.

So as this is the case why are we having this debate as HO does not exist!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

You are a genius when it comes to the DCC side of things Lisa4P but it seems that history is not your strong point.

According to Marklin's own timeline they did not introduce HO until 1935.

http://www.marklin.com/about/timeline.html

Bassett-Lowke introduced Bing into Britain in 1921 and this was an OO gauge (as used by Bing) system running on 16mm track and scaled at 4mm. So yes, a German company first produced small scale table top railways but it was not Marklin.

In 1927 Marshall Stewart of London introduced what they termed HO (half O, 3.5mm).

In 1938 Mr George Mellor of Meccano put the case for adopting a slighty overscale OO with the Hornby Dublo range in the Meccano magazine and the rest as they say is history. It was claimed to be nothing at all to do with the size of electric motors but more to do with getting the best running performance on 16mm tin plate track given that it was a toy for children. Oversized flanges were required and these could not easily be accomodated in a HO scale body.

Its all in Michael Fosters book on the subject of Hornby Dublo.

Now given that the model trains are still perceived as something to introduce the kids to then surely it is best to stick with the scale in Britain that best accomodates their needs. And it has to be said that in Hornby train sets the locomotives do normally have a courser scale of wheel which in the circumstances is reasonable. After all sets are normally purchased by starters to the hobby. And they would be discouraged if every time they set up a layout the trains kept coming off the track.

I supose the real argument has to be with Rovex of Richmond in 1950 when they introduced their brand new system for the first time that undercut Hornby Dublo significantly on price. Now why did Rovex persist with an OO scale when they could have adopted an HO scale in 1950?

Rovex production moved from Richmond to a new factory in Margate in 1954...

I'll take a few pictures of my Rovex Princess Elizabeth train set of 1951 made at the Richmond factory and then you can all see what a proper train set looks like!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

N scale should be classified as "OOO" gauge as it used to be in the UK.

Think Lone Star triple O railways. British N gauge is not N gauge at all but half OO (or it should be).

The Brits have very simple standards - O, OO and OOO . Otherwise known as the Father Xmas standards.

Its everybody else who makes life very complicated with a hotch potch of letters to define scales.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

QUOTE there is no longer any good modelling reason for maintaining OO.

Would disagree entirely. And the history has to be introduced as it guides us as to the reasons for OO gauge being adopted in the first place. Remember prototype British locomotives operate to a smaller gauge on the rail network than European and American counterparts and so would be significantly smaller in size in HO.

A reminder.:-

1) Unlike locomotives overseas a large number of British locomotives have wheel arches over the top of the wheels. Only a small number such as the Q1 and the BR Standards do not. OO gauge was adopted partly to permit the clearance of the overscale wheel flanges by these wheel arches and at the same time to preserve the appearance of the model in miniture.

2) The slightly overscale OO permits the bogies on locomotives with these overscale flanges to have sufficient clearance to swing at the angles required of them to function properly on the standard set track curve radius. Note that Hornby do provide alternative scale bogies with some locomotives for modellers who only have large radius curves.

3) Whatever one says the can motor even now just about fits within the width of an OO scale body. Think about why tender drives where introduced in the first place! And even now tender drives with traction tyres do have unbeatable pulling power. You can reduce the size of the motor but at the cost of hauling power and a reduction in overall performance (unless you want traction tyres back!)

4) Psychologically HO gauge is at a disadvantage for modellers because it involves working to a scale involving a fraction. (4mm to 1ft is much easier on the mind than 3.5mm to 1ft)

5) OO provides more room for accurate detailing of outside valve gear and cylinder detail taking into account the issues above.

6) A smaller scale alters buffer and coupling heights and could make uncoupling and coupling even more difficult than it already is for British outline locomotives.

7) Bearing in mind the fine detail that we currently enjoy on OO gauge British locomotives and the parts and components used to create this detail, I fail to see how these detail parts could be made any smaller/thinner without making the locomotives less durable and without increasing the costs of production. More and more things are shipped by the Post Office as a result of online sales so durability is an issue to consider.

I have said enough. Let the small band of British HO enthusiasts continue along their merry way with perfectly prototypical scratch built locomotives and track.

As a practical gauge for the family and the typical British household who wants something reliable that runs straight out of the box and on a layout that has been quickly set up then it is very hard to beat OO from a British perspective. Anything else is simply going to increase costs and prices!

And are we happy to pay higher prices for HO?

Say double!!!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS I know Lima and Rivarossi produced HO gauge models for the UK. Have a close look at their locomotives next time you get the opportunity and see what compromises had to be made to the bodies in terms of bufferbeam heights and wheelarch size and spacing. Only 25 years on and this would not be acceptable to the modellers of today I suspect.

 

[Gary]

QUOTE However the actual 'arguments' brought to bear are severely flawed in that they totally ignore the very successful presence of HO, N and Z gauges, which overcome most of the objections voiced above. Sorry but their existence, their high quality and their usability virtually negates it all.

I would guess that N and Z gauge modellers would die for OO gauge style detail and accuracy!

No mention of price or cost in the reply. A Z gauge railway 1/3 the size of OO probably costs at least 50% more to put together! And that is without the cost of the magnifying glass required to see the detail! Having chatted with a lot of modellers at shows and exhibitions N and Z gauge is seen as the young man's gauges as you need good eyesight and steady hands. I hear this time after time!

And the points don't ignore the presence of HO gauge. They simply say why OO scale works for mass produced British outline locomotives.

Again its down to what is practical.

I'll tell you what. Let Bachmann switch their entire future production to HO scale and let Hornby continue with OO scale. That is the best solution and no more model duplication either! And Bachmann could raise their prices aswell to European levels so everybody wins! Customers who get a choice of scales, retailers who no longer have model duplication on the shelves, and manufacturers who are no longer in competition with each other!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS I'll respond to Lisa4P's points another day but I want to let the dust settle first!

 

[Gary]

QUOTE However the actual 'arguments' brought to bear are severely flawed in that they totally ignore the very successful presence of HO, N and Z gauges, which overcome most of the objections voiced above. Sorry but their existence, their high quality and their usability virtually negates it all.

QUOTE Hardly! If it was THAT important, surely they would have opted for OO in the first place! In any case. what have either N or Z gauge to do with this specific HO/OO comparison.

I agree. It hasn't!

And I didn't introduce these gauges to be fair.

Are you saying that OO is not successful?

And that all the positives don't also apply to OO?

I firmly believe that British modellers are now getting continental standards for a lot less money and this is down to OO scale being used. A British tank loco is £40-£50 for a very good model. The HO continental equivalent is £100 or more. I simply am not prepared to pay £100 for a new tank loco no matter what and if HO means that then forget it. And I suspect that I hold a majority view on this point!

Is British N gauge really of the quality that you are suggesting? I do read the reviews in Model Rail and other magazines. I do accept a that N gauge has a lot going for it in terms of the operating side and this is why it has many followers. But to suggest that the models have the same "look and feel" of OO gauge would be seen by many as doubtful. And there are no British Z gauge models so British modellers cannot even think about it.

Happy modelling
Gary

The images below are from the Ontracks website. Would an HO Class 08 have to have a similar compromise to the N gauge version?:-

 

[Gary]

This is an image of a British OO scale loco. Take into account the fact that the loco is on its side and it has to have sideways play in the axle to enable the loco to negotiate set track curves. An HO scale British loco body would be 12.5% narrower. How is all the motion gear going to fit in the available space whilst permitting enough lateral movement in the axles and providing clearances to enable the navigation of small radius curves?

Yes I do know about Romford wheels but all the kit built locos I have had with complex motion gear have never had the required lateral movement in the axles to navigate tight curves. And those that have had the lateral movement and have been able to navigate tight curves have had a simple crank and no fancy valve gear. Romford wheels give you an extra 1mm either side and this is simply not enough as the reduction in overall width of an OO scale loco of 35mm would be almost 4.5mm. So I need 2.5mm from somewhere. Remember that HO scale continental locomotives have an almost identical width to their British OO counterparts.

Mission impossible I would suggest unless you increase the width of the track!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS I have just measured the width of an HO scale Lima loco I have and I will confirm that Lima cheated. The loco is too wide for HO scale!

 

[Gary]

Continental HO locomotives are the same size as UK OO locomotives. You are asking manufacturers of British outline to shrink their locomotives. Detail will have to shrink also else it won't look right and overscale. This will require the use of more expensive techniques to create this finer detail. More use of etched metal and fine wire and castings. British HO will cost more.

Now what about the technical argument? (See pictures above)

For a wheelbase of 70mm on radius 2 curves, axle movement of 1.5mm is required by the centre axle relative to the two end axles for a 4-6-0 configuration (for example). This is much higher for radius one curves. This allowance combined with the detail above would make HO scale unworkable on 16.5mm track for British outline models unless there was major compromise which is likely to be unacceptable to most modellers.

In fact by reducing the loco width by 4.5mm you are loosing around 33% of your working space for motion gear and axle play for curves.

HO simply will not work with British locomotives unless the steam cylinders are sticking out. This was tried once before by Hornby with an Ivatt in the 1970's and it only lasted 2 years before it was dropped! It was a very unpopular model as it did not look right as a result of this compromise.

So Hornby have been there, seen it, done it, and the compromises have not been popular with modellers.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

I have just made a remarkable discovery whilst browsing through a Fleischmann catalogue.

All steam cylinders on continental locomotives stick out from the bodywork!

And on British locomotives they do not but are tucked away flush and under!

It makes it so much easier if a manufacturer can stick the cylinders out in terms of clearances and tolerances and they can get away with 1-2 mm in this area.

Sadly for the Brit OO manufacturers they cannot and so they have no room to maneuver in this area.

Continental HO manufacturers have it easy!

Thats probably the end of this discussion!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

QUOTE Gary You ignored requests for info on the illustrated OO and N diesels.
Is the problem that the OO model surprised you by costing quite a bit more than the N?

To be fair the purpose of the illustration was not about price comparison but for the record the difference between the two models is around £10 in favour of the N gauge example in this case. I simply wanted to illustrate that N gauge models do have compromises as a result of the scale and that British HO models may suffer the same fate.

My local stockist does report that the main objection raised when he suggests N gauge to new customers who come in and browse is that they expect a model half the size to be at least half the price and are surprised when they learn it is not and in many cases more!

QUOTE Regarding lateral movement of driving axles - it isn't actually necessary that all the slack be taken up by a single axle to negotiate curves. It can be shared by all the axles and, in many cases, that is what is done by Continental manufacturers. There are other little engineering tricks too.

Agreed but the slack still has to be found from within the width of the engineering and the body of the chassis of the loco and that does not get over the fact that British OO models and European HO models are a similar width. British OO would have to loose 4.5mm on the width which is 30% of the dimension within which models have to accomodate the motion gear, movement and clearances.

See image below which is from an earlier post:-

QUOTE Strange that a UK manufacturer doesn't jump in and start making continental models - I wonder why not?

Bachmann and Hornby both own strong European brands and both already produce HO models for European markets.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

I have covered this in an earlier post with reference to Romford wheels only giving an extra 2mm when we need to find 4.5mm.

Don't take this the wrong way Lisa4P as I can see the merits of P4 and EM. However forget P4 and EM!

Its not practical. Modellers want to run both continental and American HO on the same track as British OO. To say that you want ready to run manufacturers to produce British outline locomotives that only run on special 18mm track (or whetever) is not a serious option.

We still need to find 2.5mm from somewhere assuming that narrow wheels and fine/smaller less deep rivets/bolts have the strength required for a ready to run loco that might suffer abuse from a minor.

Hornby locomotives operate for 100's of hours without maintenance. Can you say that of P4 and EM models with all this very fine detail under the chassis?

Hornby and Bachmann have warranties to honour and are highly regarded for producing reliable running locomotives. We cannot overlook this consideration.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

European and American HO ready to run manufacturers use wheels that are the same width as British OO manufacturers.

It is unfair to single out British manufacturers in this respect.

It is done for several reasons and these are reliability, strength and cost I suspect.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

QUOTE I can't comment on European prototypes but most US models these days use the NMRA RP25/88 wheel standard, this gives a wheel which is 2mm wide, compare this to the 4mm wide wheels you keep bringing up and that's a reduction of 4mm over the wheelset

The wheels on the Hornby loco in the picture are 2.5mm wide which is 0.5mm wider than the figure quoted, not 2mm wider. The Hornby and Bachmann wheels are designed to run on code 100 proprietory set track and do a very good job providing excellent performance in these conditions. The locomotives are smooth and capable of hauling plenty of coaches around set track small radius curves and also are capable of crossing points and other track features.

There are probably a lot of folk reading this who would be surprised that you seem to have so much of a running problem with ready to run Hornby locomotives!

I cannot comment about your own track set up Lisa4P except to say that it is not a proprietory track. If folk choose to use track that has not been produced by a proprietory manufacturer then it is not fair to criticise a manufacturer if running is perceived as not being to a standard required. And remember that manufacturers have to take into account all standards of railway modellers and not just those who are in the top 1-2%.

I think doubleOO made a similar point elsewhere in a track discussion.

You could probably see this point of view?

QUOTE Perhaps we could persuede the rest of the world adopt 4mm scale instead.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the "coming storm"

Nice idea!

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

I'll be posting some more pictures later for LisaP4 to manipulate.

Not quite sure what Lisa will do when these are posted but they are good pictures!

Its one thing to manipulate images but its the difference between manufacturing on a production line to make a product and offer a complete value package for the masses and hand building a loco to produce a model for the few.

Hornby probably produce 500,000 locos or more each year. Kit white metal manufacturers probably have production runs of 50 to 100 and the running gear is designed for those who seek what LisaP4 is seeking. Why don't kit manufacturers do HO if we are saying that it is possible to do this taking into account all the other variables?

Now I am not saying what is right and what is wrong but there are factors that determine what can and cannot be done easily that we as customers may not appreciate.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

QUOTE Why are we willing to accept a major flaw (the gauge) in all our 00 models, when we clearly won't accept the odd dimensional inaccuracy in other areas?

What evidence do you have for this?

There are large numbers of correspondents at both Pat Hammonds site and in the modelling press that are very happy with the products that are being offered to us.

I would discount rivet counters that go looking for issues as these are unrepresentative, probably don't appreciate the manufacturing process, and still buy the models anyway!

If they have the right look and feel and nice detail and they run right and appear to offer remarkable value then what more can you ask?

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

QUOTE The thing is 00 models don't have "the right look and feel" below the chassis, although some will say it isn't noticable if you stand far enough away from it and look at it from a certain angle and ignore it.

I don't look at my models. I run them. And if you stand far enough away you can't see the detail below!

And my comment that you have refered to was about detail above the body not below and about HO compromise for smaller British prototype locomotives. The fact is (and you cannot deny this) people did not buy these HO locomotives and Rivarossi gave up and Lima quickly moved to OO. The HO models produced by these companies were almost the same width as OO models but were shorter in length by 12.5%. Would you buy one of these HO examples?

They offered "compromise" HO with British Loco bodies that had an above scale width that would sit on a chassis designed for HO models in Europe.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

I was looking at a Lima HO Class 4F that I have that is just 1mm less wide than its Hornby OO equivalent.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[Gary]

I have done a google search and nobody produces a kit of an HO "Flying Scotsman".

I would agree with LisaP4 that if any British steam loco was to be considered as a candidate for an HO model it should be "Flying Scotsman".

Now given that it is possible to create a smaller HO chassis than is currently available, then an investment of £150,000 would be required to produce a ready to run HO example of this model that would be of an acceptable standard.

And say the production cost was £35 after the start up investment. At a wholesale price to retailers of say £60 with retail at £90 (or whatever the overseas currency conversion rate is at these sort of levels) a sale of 100,000 examples would provide a gross return for the manufacturer of £100,000. Not a lot for the risk.

Now this would be an "export only" model. It would not be available in the UK.

And what about coaches. These would have to be developed and produced in HO also. How could you sell an HO "Flying Scotsman" without matching coaches? This is an additional cost and risk.

Are there 100,000 enthusiasts outside the UK who would be happy to purchase a UK outline HO "Flying Scotsman"?

Judging by sales of the OO scale version overseas probably not. The Bachmann HO "Hogwarts Express" trainset sold in America was not the stunning success of its Hornby brother in the UK. Perhaps evidence that Americans are not too interested in British outline.

These are the sort of numbers you would need to be talking about for an investment of this type to be viable and there is evidence that these sort of numbers would not be met.

Happy modelling
Gary