TRIX OO Scale products?

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
Absolutely right, Lima, Fleischmann and Rivarossi (not to mention the much inferior Playcraft range) all started to produce UK models in HO scale and where are any of them in today's British market?
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Loading thread data ...
But my point is that Lima, Fleischmann, Rivarossi & Playcraft if you like, did *not produce HO models, but some mythical in between scale* . How did any of these big brands ever expect British HO to take off?
If your going to challenge a new market seriously, you have to be prepared to do the job properly. If you want customers to change their loyalty, you have to provide a better alternative. Instead the HO models were *all crap, regardless of scale* and something to be sold to unsuspecting parents/relatives at High St toy shops.
The Rivarossi LMS coaches in particular looked to be quite a high quality model but the proportions were dreadful & they would have lost a lot of money on their tooling costs. Kittle Hobby's were trying to flog them off for years afterwards :-)
When Lima failed in their British HO, they significantly lifted their game for the OO versions, just look at the HO & OO Class 33s side by side, there is simply no comparison. At least Lima recognised eventually that there was a significant number adult modellers and the British market was not just kids train sets at bargain prices.
My memories of Playcraft suggest that they were the closet to being a consistent 3.5mm scale compared to the others, if the models were somewhat crude - OK then, complete rubbish.
Reply to
Kevin Martin
"Kevin Martin" wrote
As far as I'm aware only Trix produced models to the odd-ball 3.8mm:1 foot scale, the others were pretty much standard HO.
Lima of course did produce a bastard scale 'Deltic' but that was because they'd already started to produce at HO-scale and switched half-way through, but that was really a one-off, other than the class 50 which utilised the HO scale 'Deltic' bogies.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
"John Turner" wrote in message
Did the Lima class 37 have these bogies too or were they from a different mould ? Simon
Reply to
Model Depot
The Lima class 37 bogies were to 4mm scale, a different mould and a very acceptable result. Keith
Reply to
Keith
Which doesn't prove anything, either way.
They lasted 30 years because they had a large market for continental HO. If they had been a company whose sole product line was British HO they would have gone a lot quicker.
MBQ
Reply to
manatbandq
In what way is it a "pity"? The only difference it makes is to those running combinations of British and foreign outline which hardly ever happened in real life.
(kim)
Reply to
kim
They didn't have much choice. Britsh industry was completely burned out after WW2, there wasn't any money for investment in new tooling. Rovex had the advantage of not starting before the economy started to pick up again in the 1950's.
(kim)
Reply to
kim
Kim,
it was a pity because if Hornby had adopted HO scale the scale/gauge ratio would have been near enough spot on.
Paul
Reply to
Paul Stevenson
Kim,
Rovex pretty quickly invested in new tools once they had the Track Master tools modified and working but Meccano were much slower off the mark.
Paul
Reply to
Paul Stevenson
Not quite true. Page 49 of Hornby Book of Trains 25 year edition, tells a different story, where the desired choice of materials was not available due to Gov't restriction on the use of nonferrous metals. This was because of the Korean War. It also tells of brass plunger pick ups (mounted vertically) lifting the driving wheels sufficiently to prevent a Princess from hauling more than 2 coaches ;-)
Reply to
Kevin Martin
Ah, Thank you Paul. Some one with the right answer at last ;-) It's always been a Furphy, the comments about British & Continental outline not mixing. I have never understood the relevance of that argument at all. The prototypes are built to the same scale, so why not the models? Especially when it leads to a total botchup that OO is.
Reply to
Kevin Martin
Hi Paul,
There is no advantage in getting the scale/gauge ratio correct unless you can also use narrow wheels with dead-scale profile (proto87 for H0, P4 for 4mm), which you can't reliably do for an r-t-r train set.
If you use wider r-t-r overscale wheels with the correct gauge, the wheels and valve gear won't fit behind outside cylinders, inside the spashers, etc., which have to be widened to fit. If you use r-t-r wheels with a correct gauge, the inevitable result is that the model is over scale width in running gear, bogie sides, axleboxes, etc. This is noticeable on all r-t-r H0 models.
Those who promote coarse-scale H0 for British-outline steam locomotives have never addressed this issue.
The best solution for r-t-r wheels is to narrow the gauge slightly so that you can get the wheels to fit within a scale width model. Going right down to 00 gauge for 4mm/ft scale is overdoing it a bit, but reflects the time when r-t-r wheels were much wider than they are now. But the principle of using a narrowed gauge for r-t-r models is correct. What's the advantage of having an exact track gauge if the models look wrong?
regards,
Martin. ---------- email: snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web:
formatting link
Reply to
Martin Wynne
It would also have been near enough spot on if they had chosen the alternate "19mm" gauge which was around at the time but they didn't for the same reasons they didn't adopt H0 scale.
(kim)
Reply to
kim
Because Henry Greenly wasn't a scale modeller. His main interest was functioning large scale live steam. Most of which was over-scale to give more powerul, more impressive engines but nobody really noticed it.
So when HO was introduced he made the engines over-scale to fit the available mechanisms because British prototypes were smaller than European or American. Hence OO using HO track.
I
Reply to
Christopher A. Lee
Kevin,
no problem! :-)
Just think of all the agro that would have been avoided EM, EEM, Scale 4, whatever the other one was called? Protofour? All the bellyaching about 4mm scale bodies not being wide enough to get scale gauge wheels into.
If Hornby Dublo had declared towards the end of the war or just after that new releases were to have been in HO new manufacturers would have followed suite, Trix would not have been bothered and all the effort could have been put into making better models. Much as it galls (sp) me just look at the American models of the sixties, streets ahead of our stuff, yes I know there were other considerations.
The big opportunity missed and I bet 3mm scale would have been dead in the water!
Paul
Reply to
Paul Stevenson
Martin,
got to take issue here!
I have to say you are missing the point. Get the fundamentals right and work can be done on the other stuff. Flange depth is not a function of gauge.
Yup I agree but not half as noticeable as the narow gauge, its over 2mm out for goodness sake!
Its a problem for the dead scale 4mm types!
Whats the point of having scale width cylinders and motion if the gauge looks wrong?
Paul
Reply to
Paul Stevenson
Which were?
Getting the gauge/scale ratio right is fundamental. Lots of people were using the gauge so why not used a true scale? 19mm gauge was a complete non starter as hardly anyone in the UK was using it, no one on the Continent, only in the US did it gain a foot hold.
Paul
Reply to
Paul Stevenson
Hi Paul,
Who says so? Where is it written down? What's so sacrosanct about the track gauge dimension above all the others?
I could equally say that getting the dimension across the outside faces of the wheels right is fundamental.
But you can't have them both right unless you adopt P4 or proto87.
I'm not defending the reduction all the way to 16.5mm gauge, but the principle that as you coarsen the wheel profile, so you reduce the gauge, is correct.
regards,
Martin. ---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :
formatting link
Reply to
Martin Wynne

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.