Re: Bachmann innovations.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:44:14 +1300, Gregory Procter


No, as you know, there were a few 'Ferry Wagons' which had brakemans cabins, I've no idea if the Lima was close to any of them.

Near enough to the correct 18.83mm I use, but coupler height is independent of gauge. Remarkably one of the NEM socket heights used by Bachmann puts an NEM shanked KD at the NMRA 00 height. This then couples nicely with their models of modern buckeye fitted stock which have the couplers at the prototypical height (they would look awful if it was altered). The pundits doing the reviews praise the modern wagons but pan the ones with NEM sockets as 'wrong' because they are not at the H0 standard.
In reality with no defined standard for 00 other than the nmra one, there is no right or wrong, just personal preference. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keith Norgrove wrote:

Same planet!

enough. ;-)

There really isn't a prototypical height for European buckeye couplers, with the exceptions of BR coaches and Russian railway stock. One thing that put me off Kadees for my European stock was having to cut into the buffer beam to mount the couplers - bye bye resale value! (pre NEM shanked Kadees)

I guess Bachmann is right to mount the pockets proportionately higher for 00, even in H0 they are something of an eyesore on many models. I was just hoping that they would be at H0 height because their advertising gave the impression that's how they would be.

A defined standard is needed! Both the NEM and NMRA have a habit of accepting proprietry practices as standards.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:57:19 +1300, Gregory Procter

No, the spreadsheet does that when you feed in 1435/76.2, I work to a track gauge that somebody made as accurately as they could, and there are tolerances, one of which is gauge widening which puts G max above 19mm. Mind you the nmra 00 flangeways will not be acceptable.

The modern buckeye fitted stock I referred to above are UK freight stock, most of the new construction now has buckeyes, as have many of the class 66 and 67 locos, largely from the Wisconsin Central Influence on EWS. And there are other pockets of buckeye use in Europe, Belgian EMUs for instance.

Hm, I don't recollect ever getting that impression from their ads, but its certainly what many people seem to want. And I agree with you that they are usually unsightly even on H0 stock. The problem comes IMHO from the European penchant for those corners so that the couplers have to be free to swing through a wide arc without fouling anything.

Oh, I dunno, if 00 had standards half the fun would go out of it. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keith Norgrove wrote:

Have they gone with the US/Russian height or the BR coaching stock height?

It's better than putting the wide arc on the coupler itself, as with Triang!

LOL!
You could join the move to British H0.
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is there a move to British H0? It looks to me to be the same few enthusiasts it's always been.
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"kim" wrote

enthusiasts
'Few' being the operative word. I met one once - real crank! :-)
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:34:39 -0000, "John Turner"

There are actually suitable models - Fleishmann (I think) produced an unrebuilt Royal Scot and some rather nice carriages, also a Warship diseasel and Bulleid stock. Not Most modellers' meat because it restricted it to the short period they worked out of Waterloo.
Also British built exports, like the version of the class 08 that was sold to the Netherlands.
Forget the early Lima crap.
And I think Palitoy's first attempt was an HO diesel - long before their OO Mainline stuff.
But I can't see much point in it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is there still a TT following out there? Or has that died a death?
--
Regards,

James Christie
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.3mm-society.freeserve.co.uk /
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All my TT stuff is in the loft, ready for its Second Chance. I spend a morning every couple of years exercising the locos round a circle of track - and playing with the Codar: great fun but I was warned not to use it on the N-gauge layout.
--
Dave,
Frodsham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James Christie wrote:

It's only second to HO in Eastern Europe - search for "Tillig", "Pilz" and "Berlinerbahn". The British TT was of course a completely different scale but on 12mm gauge track. There is still an active 3mm scale society in Britain.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks for all the info about TT. So it seems British TT at least is another 'bastardised' gauge, same as OO.
--
Regards,

James Christie
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James Christie wrote:

12mm at 3mm to the foot is only 4 foot gauge, even worse than 00's 4'1 1/2" gauge!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I recall the British version of TT was called TT3. I must admit the gauge was a bit wrong, though.
--
John Sullivan
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:57:33 +0000, John Sullivan
John,

To be pedantic, it actually had a hyphen - 'TT-3' :-)
And the narrow gauge was very obvious. I had a fair bit of it when it came out in the late 1950s and it all ran well as far as I can remember. It is quite a nice scale if you are pushed for space and you can now model it in 13.5mm or 14.2mm gauges if you want things a bit more realistic.
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Wasn't TT3 for narrow gauge modellers running 4mm scale on 3ft gauge track? I think Peco still make track for it?
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

No, you're thinking of OOn3 as it was called in those days. Heaven alone knows what Peco call it now.
--
John Sullivan
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The unrebuilt Royal Scot and LMS coaches were by Rivarossi, if memory serves me right. I also have a feeling that the Fleischmann Warship was under scale length, whether working in HO or OO. HTH, David Costigan
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:

For me it's simple, I can run and compare the British models with my German stock.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:34:39 -0000, "John Turner"
John,

You might question who the cranks really are when the rest of the world models to 3.5mm scale on 16.5mm track :-)
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.