To the kind attention of HORNBY

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 27 Jul 2008, 15:34) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>***Ummm You mean this one Alistair?? Roco model number 63922 - admittedly Danish railways, but it looks very 08 to me.

It does look very similar.........

QUOTE (Brian Considine @ 28 Jul 2008, 11:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Been available in the Dutch version off & on (BRITHO has one) - although AFAIK it's not actually an 08.

Another ex UK loco used in over the water was the EM2.

.......because it's not an 08, it's nearest UK relative was the 11 - all of which were withdrawn years ago.

While on the subject of Brit locos abroad don't forget the trusty Austerity/J94 0-6-0ST. Quite a few of them were used in Europe, and I know for a fact that SNCB had a few until the early 50's.

Regards

Ok Gents, I give up. Seems it never will happen.

QUOTE (Thomas @ 26 Jul 2008, 15:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think the market is too small for a wide range of British locos in HO but some could be economically sucessfull:
8 F was used in a lot of countries so would be my first choice.
A4 Mallard and A3 Flying Scotsman as the most famous ones and are very beautiful so these models could be added to the Rivarossi range. I could imagine that lots of modellers would se these locos in their local hobby shop and buy them by impulse just because of the good looks and the famous names.
Hornby maybe is the wrong company for such models as their production seems to be geared towards greater numbers but could Dapol or Heljan be persuaded?
Thomas

Thomas, very rightfuly put. These are very famous loco's that I and many other HO modeller/collector would like to see among their stable.

I do not model American outline but that does not mean I would not buy any famous US loco. I have 3 US diesels also after a Big Boy. Believe me there are quite a few people out there who would love to have one of the 3 locos mentioned above.

Baykal

I understand that much effort goes into the research and production of new locos, and given the difference between the Chinese economy and the British economy, I perceive there is a veritable bottom line profit for Hornby, Bachmann and the rest, which will encourage them to keep on making super-detailed locos to sell here at high prices.

However, I would like to see a real effort made by these companies to manufacture correct track with correct sleeper spacing, and not keep feeding us with an HO/OO dual purpose item.

This is not likely to happen, as it is easier to sell a new loco to run on existing track, than it would be to rip up all existing layouts and replace the trackwork with accurate sleeper spacing etc.

A pipe-dream I know, but I'm beginning to feel they could address this if they wished to, but they choose not to.

Anybody else feel the same way or am I a solitary voice crying in the model wilderness ?

QUOTE (tolpuddleman @ 30 Jul 2008, 22:20) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>..I would like to see a real effort .. to manufacture correct track with correct sleeper spacing, and not keep feeding us with an HO/OO dual purpose item.

..Anybody else feel the same way or am I a solitary voice crying in the model wilderness ?

You are not alone, but the received wisdom in the UK railway model trade is that the demand isn't there. The situation is that Peco essentially 'own' the UK market for a better RTR OO track: you can have set track from Hornby, Bachmann or Peco; and for something better there are Peco's code 100 and 75 options. Unless they experience the same impact of competition that led to the development of the code 83 range for the North American market, there is no prospect for change there.

For OO, plain track of significantly more correct appearance is available from SMP and C&L. It's code 75, with the sleeper width and spacing representative of 'typical' UK track, the sleeper length shortened by the 2.3 mm missing from the track gauge. It looks very good. Problem is points, which have to be built from kits, or bought from a specialist track maker like Marcway. There are good kits available, but it is a lot more work than buying a RTR point. I can get a decent appearance once painted and ballasted, out of lightly modified Peco large radius code 75 points, combined with SMP plain track; with a few kit points in the most visible locations. Would I prefer a range of RTR OO points of Peco's build quality to match SMP? Oh yes.

QUOTE (34C @ 28 Jul 2008, 22:14)I remember being surprised to see a model of an A4 on a US modeller's PRR layout. It looked pretty diminutive next to typical US superpower, and the owner had not realised that it was actually overscale.

That exactly hits the point. When standing side by side on the track, or on a layout, 00 stock looks larger than most continental HO stock. Thus, the real proportions are being reversed, and the more compact British steam locos are larger and higher than the H0 models (e.g. a LMS Royal Scot looks far bigger than a Reichsbahn class 17, although both being 4-6-0 locos of similar dimensions).

I would appreciate RTR British H0 models in order to have models being in the same scale and therefore directly comparable and thus deployable on the same trains. O.k., I do admit that these thoughts are based on my mainly H0 stock and therefore a bit egoistic....
....but if there would have been British H0 models I would have bought my first models of British prototype ten years ago (instead of 00 gauge last year).

QUOTE (alastairq @ 27 Jul 2008, 20:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>and.....what about the Japanese models, designed to run on 16.5mm gauge track, which is quite 'out of gauge' for the prototype?

Concerning the scale/track width relation of Japanese HO models I would like to admit that due to the scale used (1:80) proportions of the modelled rolling stock and track width are correct. In contrast to Spain and Ireland where 1:87 scale rolling stock on H0 tracks indeed are sort of narrow gauge models, the Japanese Market is big enough. In case of Ireland and Spain, the compromise of offering 1:87 scale models has to be accepted due to the overturn of these markets does not seem to justify models in a separate scale (i.e. 1:94).

QUOTE Concerning the scale/track width relation of Japanese HO models I would like to admit that due to the scale used (1:80) proportions of the modelled rolling stock and track width are correct. In contrast to Spain and Ireland where 1:87 scale rolling stock on H0 tracks indeed are sort of narrow gauge models, the Japanese Market is big enough. In case of Ireland and Spain, the compromise of offering 1:87 scale models has to be accepted due to the overturn of these markets does not seem to justify models in a separate scale (i.e. 1:94).

of course.....

so.....the critiscms and long -held views concerning the existance of OO gauge [4mm scale], and it's more accurate derivatives [EM, P4,S4,etc], the why's and wherefores are not particularly unique to Britsh outline models......amazingly the modeling/collecting world remain generally silent regarding all the above- listed anomalies.

In the end, the compromises are, and always have been, down to expediency.

The paucity of British-outline HO models will remain so, simply because there is no percieved market for them........and Hornby are unlikely to be prevailed upon to fill that hole....

QUOTE (34C @ 3 Aug 2008, 19:20) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The Fleischmann HO Warship and coaches were much superior to the Triang Hornby competition, and from a brand with a 'quality' reputation reasonably well known to UK railway modellers. Didn't sell anything like the necessary volume by all accounts, and since Fleischmann have (twenty years on?) yet to expand the range...
I did not mention the FLM offerings because of the limited range & the price (which was clearly unacceptable to the UK modeller of the time - about 30 year ago). The range was not expanded because it simply did not sell, there was talk of a Bullied Pacific but it did not appear.
Currently, many FLM Dealers have the Warships & coaches at well discounted prices. The Warships & coaches are still in the 2007/8 catalogue.
European manufactures at the time simply did not understand the need for a hybrid scale/gauge.

Quite simply HO was invented after 4mm scale , and that 1937 cutting is rather tendentious - and would have been seen so at the time.

The sequence is - Bing table top - 5/8" gauge , scale questionable

1924 - Greenly prints a table declaring that this is called OO, with 4mm scale, 5/8" gauge

Late 1924 - some modellers from south London sketch out a scale version based on a scale of 3.5mm

1926 - appearance of an alternative proposal based on 4mm but 19mm gauge

Late 1926 - "A name for 3.5mm gauge ( sic) is coming into use in some corners of the model railway world. This is H0 gauge which means half '0' gauge, to distinguish it from 4mm scale, which is adopted in the trade for '00' gauge".

Detailed reference here :

History of OO

I've never heard of the magazine Richard Johnson refers to, but it looks like an early attempt to talk OO out of existance

let's face it.......IF one were wholly upset by the issue of scales and gauges.[which, internationally, does not seem to be the case?]...then why bother even with HO UK outline?

when....there is a thoroughly viable, well-backed [by the trade] scale for UK prototypes with 3 mm scale?

This gives but only a slightly smaller proportionality, a huge advantage in space needed, yet without the watchmaker's eyesight demands of N or 2mm scales?

I actually believe...[track gauge apart] that Tri-ang got it ever so right back in the early 1960's with their TT range.......[it even got the Tri-ang XT60 motor onto the mass market, ideal for small, 4mm scale engines]........but...for TT it was really the right place at the wrong time.........40 years on, with modern manufacturing techniques we are now so familiar with, and the shoebox home mentality we are compelled to subscribe to, who knows what we might be arguing about today???

12mm gauge, or 14.4mm gauge??