TRIX OO Scale products?

Kim,

I think you are missing the point.

And if you are being flipant, then shame on you.

Paul

I'm not the one posting anti-4mm scale sentiments in a UK model railway group, you are. Most of us are perfectly happy with 4mm and have no reason to wish it was 3.5mm instead.

(kim)

The only 'pity' that they didn't scrap 3-rail and start all over again with

2-rail. Hornby would probably still be here today if they had.

(kim)

And the flanges would look even sillier on British H0 models because of the generally smaller prototype.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

They did of course, but not until the mid-50s, and then chose a particularly complex form of point wiring which might account for their eventual demise.

Interesting though that the Hornby Dublo product was much superior to that produced by Tri-ang, and yet the latter out sold Hornby and eventually absorbed them. The only logical reason for this is that the Liverpool made range was too expensive, and rather negates the argument that others have used that price is not an issue, but that it is the quality that counts.

John.

particularly

By that time it was counter-productive and merely antagonised their own

3-rail customers, including me. 3-rail sucked but abandoning it such a late stage sucked even more.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

I didn't think they abandoned it until the demise of Mecanno in 1963-4.

John.

Kim,

You have missed the point! I'm not posting anti 4mm scale comments I'm simply wondering why an alternative course of action did not happen. The chance was there and it was not taken. Much complexity has come from that decision, it does no harm to wonder what would have happened.

Paul

Like Paul, I have not posted anti 4mm comments either, they have been anti poor mechanisms comments whether HO or OO. Still, I suspect Kim will misread something else into it.

Kim, right from the start has ignored my suggestion that British HO has never taken off, because frankly it has never been on the market as such. All there has ever been offered is distorted models maskerading as HO, always the various offerings have been to HO height & OO width. All of these have plainly failed and rightly so, not because they *were HO* but simply because they weren't. As you realise Paul, there is a difference.

My main comments were about in the 1970s when Airfix & Mainline started out, here was another missed opportunity for respectable HO models to be made. Both their OO models were streets ahead of Tri-ang Hornby (as it was a that time). Also much of the detailing kits (particularly partly etched ones) really came into being during the same period to further improve the Airfix & Mainline ranges.

The problem with is not with 4mm scale but with OO scale which is an oxymoron, however anyone looks at it. Any finescale arguments, or over size flanges etc are relevant to both HO & OO for exactly the same reasons & are not part of the HO vs OO argument.

Kevin,

I think you have had the last word there! or as this is usenet probably not!

As you say OO scale is nothing of the sort! Why oh why have we steered clear of using ratios to denote scales in this country?

Paul

In message , Paul Stevenson writes

Why don't we just call it "OO" and leave out "scale", "gauge" or what-have-you? Surely everybody knows that OO is 4 mm. scale running on

16.5 mm. gauge track, whether they like it or not?

"Abandoned" as in switching their focus to 2-rail which mightily annoyed their existing customers. Most 3-rail fans felt immediately betrayed. The mere presence of 2-rail in their catalogue was an affront to most of us. I know one fan in Herts who stuck with 3-rail Hornby right through to his death a few years ago, never considered anything else.

(kim)

You said it was a "pity", which implies that 4mm is somehow inferior to

3.5mm and then questioned my sincerity in posting otherwise.

(kim)

For any given gauge the oversize flanges on a larger scale model are less noticable than those in a smaller scale. 00-scale flanges are less noticable than H0 scale flanges. This is especially important for UK outline due to its generally smaller loading gauge. It was the argument used by George E. Mellor in RM to support the adoption of 00 over H0 or 19mm. So, had the UK adopted "true" H0 as you suggest it would look even siller than continental H0.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

I didn't feel betrayed, even though I stuck with 3-rail until the late 60s when I disappeared into higher education. It just seemed like a natural progression to me, and in some respects it pleased me that Hornby were looking to the future.

I regularly got pissed off by a school mate who claimed that 3-rail was unprototypical, even though his grotty Tri-ang Princess was severely under scale. The fact that Hornby were willing to rectify the major anomoly of

3-rail track was something I could throw back at him. Just a shame that Tri-ang won in the end! :-(

John.

WTF do flanges have to do with the fact that bodies are 1/8th over size compared to the track gauge? Some of the GEM kits were crap, I have one here where the holes through the chassis for axles are at approx 85 degrees.

The obvious flaw in your argument that flanges are somehow related to the model trackgauge, is that using your logic european HO models would have needed a narrower gauge than 16.5mm. Perhaps 15.5mm?

Hi Kevin,

That's exactly right. IF you want a scale-width model, i.e. wheels fitting within scale size splashers, behind scale size bogie sides, behind scale size outside cylinders and slidebars, etc. All H0 models with r-t-r wheels are over scale width in the running gear.

The only way you can have a scale-width model AND an accurate track gauge is to use dead scale wheel standards, i.e. proto87 for H0, which is totally impractical for an r-t-r toy train.

If you want a scale-width model and r-t-r wheels, the sensible thing would be to reduce the track gauge to fit. 15.5mm would have been about right for 3.5mm/ft scale.

Question: why is the track gauge regarded as sacrosanct when compromises are happily accepted in so many other dimensions? Curve radii, length of platforms, thickness of cab side sheets, etc., the list is endless and in most cases the % error is far greater than that required in the track gauge.

If you must have an exact track gauge then the consequence is that you must choose exact scale wheels to go with it -- proto87, P4, S7, etc. Which is fine for skilled modellers but not practical for r-t-r.

00 may look wrong, but it makes it possible to fit toy mechanisms in a scale-width model -- with the happy result that they can then be converted to fine scale for EM, P4 etc.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

Martin,

Continental modellers using 1:87 scale / 16.5mm gauge or 1:45 scale /

32mm gauge also manage to make decent models. The compromises are different, of course, than when using narrow gauge, but it is no less sensible.