HO versus OO

"Simon" wrote

But there isn't an alternative and it's highly unlikely there ever will be.

All current production will run on Code 75. Couplings are beginning to be standardised on the Bachmann mini-style tension lock coupler - even Hornby are starting to fit something almost identical.

There's not been standardised couplings in the States either. Most manufacturers until recently fitted that abysmal horn-hook coupler, which most enthusiasts chose to throw away and fit Kadees. I accept that in the last year or so, Kadee compatible couplers are now rapidly becoming the norm.

You're looking through rose coloured glasses - see previous comment on Kadee couplers. I've not had to change a wheel on any current production British OO-scale model in ages and I use code 75 track.

Utter rubbish; it didn't stop either Bachmann or Heljan.

Exactly, so they (Hornby) are clearly beginning to respond to what the market wants. If Athearn or Atlas chose to enter the British market I'll guarantee 100% they'd go for OO rather than HO.

That wouldn't help many thousands of OO-scale modellers who already have model fleets which meet their requirements. Those who find the scale-gauge issue to be a problem, already adopt EM or Scale 4 standards (note two different standards, not one) but only a small proportion of 4mm scale modellers do that.

My years of experience in the model trade certainly suggest it's certainly the preferred option for many, many 4mm scale modellers for whom the gauge is not an issue. Can you prove otherwise?

John.

=>No wonder OO lives..but please John, don't conclude it is the =>preferred option. =>

=>Simon

IOW, OO in all its messy glory persists because there isn't anything better. Quite so.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote: > IOW, OO in all its messy glory persists because there isn't anything better.

VHS vs Beta might be a better analogy.

Cheers David

They're crap IMHO. I'm replacing all my Hornby/Bachmann/Airfix/Dapol couplers with Kadees. Where the coupler is screwed or riveted on, it can usually be replaced with a NEM 18/19/20 with a 1.8mm hole drilled through it, or a 20/30/40 series underset coupler. Even when couplers are moulded with the bogie, you can usually cut the loop off and find enough space to glue or screw a cutoff NEM Kadee. I've fitted Kadees to my old and new Hornby steam locos, using a variety of adaptations.

In message , John Turner writes

I think you'll find that until recently Kadees were covered by a patent. That patent has now run out. That explains what happened.

I've even heard of P4 and EM modellers who are coming back to 00 because they're fed up with the cost of changing wheelsets. Probably driven by the fact that r-t-r stuff is now being produced with semi-decent wheel standards that will tolerate finescale (handbuilt) track.

I appreciate that if you model in EM, P4 or finescale 00 (not Peco code

75!!) you've still got to handbuild the pointwork, but by keeping 00, there's now no need to change the wheelsets to suit finescale track.

And one of those considering the EM-00 switch is a Hull MRS member............

Cheers, Mick

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 00 scale. What is wrong is that we do not have an organisation like the NMRA to fight the modellers corner and create standards.

Steve

Now

titans writes

Er, have you tried measuring the gauge and scaling that up and seeing how that compares with the real thing .

=>There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 00 scale. What is wrong is that we =>do not have an organisation like the NMRA to fight the modellers corner and =>create standards. =>

=>Steve

Well, there have been attempts to do that, the BMRS (IIRC) was/is one. But too many EM, P4 and other fanatics have resisted having standards "imposed" on them. Bah!

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Beta was the better system technically, VHS is now being superseded by DVD.... OO couplers work, I have never been able to make US couplers work no wonder everyone scraps them and changes to Kadee types. Kadee types look ridiculous on most european stock, it does not resemble in any way a screw link or 3 link or instanter , so why change from a working and reliable system to kadee? The same system is used in europe (Fleischman) as in britain until someone can work out how to couple prototypically the british coupler invented by A.R. Walkley back in the early 20´sis still the best allround coupler better than the Lanal (Märklin style) and the horn hook and Kadee. , Mind you a return to A.R.Walkleys original coupler (a wire across the buffers coupled to a wire hook) would be nice and far less noticeable........

Beowulf

Wolf Kirchmeir writes

(Snip)

I'll take that as a compliment then . We already have our standards thank you, and the only coherent ones you are going to get in 4mm. Quite how we should do *other* than resist the imposition of any 'standards' developed for a hybrid scale/gauge nonsense like 00 is bizarre. Not that I have the slightest problem with any 00 modellers enjoying what they do of course. But it's not for me.

Never mind the gauge and all those super-detailed odd and sods on the locos and coaches, what about thouse bloody ugly couplers and the huge gaps between coaches or wagons??

I preferred the old Hornby Dublo couplers, which were something like a primitive Kadee, to the hook & loop ones that Rovex persisted with when they took over Hornby. The worst kind, I find, are the Bachmann ones of a few years ago; the spring-assisted plastic hook is even less reliable than a gravity-assisted metal hook. It seems rather pointless to me to go to the trouble of making locos as accurate and super-detailed as possible, then hanging those intrusive, totally non-prototypical couplers on the ends. I also fail to see the point of sprung buffers.

I agree Kadees are not prototypical either, especially on UK steam-age stock, but to me they are a definite improvement in terms of both appearance and ease of action, and allow for a closer vehicle spacing with less play. At least you can lift a vehicle out of the middle of a rake without wrestling with the ones either side. I guess many UK and European-outline modellers use Kadees because of the lack of any reasonably-priced, reliable and easy-to-use alternative.

Converting Hornby, Bachmann, etc. has proved to be less difficult than I first thought. My main problem is finding enough Kadee NEMs over here (which I usually just screw or glue to the old mountings). My best source is a Toronto dealer that specialises in imported European trains.

Another type that I am using on my Hornby LMS and (old) Pullman coaches is the Keen Systems close coupler, which extends on curves and retracts on the straight, together with their sprung corridor connections. These are not automatic, but suitable for use within a semi-permanent rake.

"Roderic Cameron" wrote

Yes it's wrong - so is British N-scale, British O-scale and G-gauge is a real bastardised scale/gauge in anyone's book. So what?

John.

With the population you have in the UK, surely there must be a retired civil servant somewhere just waiting for a committee to chair???

Greg.P.

You mean the UK standard gauge is not 4'1-1/2" ???? =8^O

Greg.P.

This might be a good moment to describe my coupler for British HO! :-)

I normally run European HO with NEM couplers modified for magnetic uncoupling, but these tend to look rather large on British standard RCH wagons. I played with Alex Jacksons but I have tight curves and wandery NMRA standard wheels ...

- I mount an N scale coupler head on fine piano wire attached to the wagon frame at about mid point.

- A "U" stirrup behind the buffer beam restrains side and down movement.

- a chain of three iron loops hanging from the piano wire provides the uncoupling.

The N scale couplers are wide enough to couple in all reasonable situations. The couplers even couple with NEM hook and loop couplers which I originally fitted to all my British HO locos although they will not uncouple magnetically. The only problem I now have is finding a source of N scale coupler heads for all my stock.

Regards, Greg.P. Takaka, NZ.

Steve,

We did have - called the BRMSB (British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau). However it died off some years ago principally because it was quite ineffective in maintaining the standards it tried to set. In it's early days, the main proprietary producers - Hornby, Triang/Rovex and British Trix went their own sweet way on the matter of standards and it was left to one suppler (Graham Farish) and suppliers of wheels (Romford, Hamblings, etc) to produce products to the BRMSB standards.

I read some time ago that the company which pulled the rug from under its feet was Hornby. After the war, the British model railway industry had a chance to start with a clean slate, but Hornby went ahead and started production using its pre-war tooling - virtually giving a two fingered salute to the BRMSB. Trix did the same thing, and Rovex (to become Triang) started a new product with its own course and incompatible standards. (This action by Hornby also kicked the possibility of H0 as a UK standard into touch as well)

And I don't think any of the three model railway magazines of that time bothered too much about supporting it either - unlike the US, where the Model railroader really gave the NMRA a tremendous amount of publicity and support which led to the NMRA standards being accepted very widely.

Jim.