What's changed?

"kim" wrote

I'm not sure I'd want to do that - I believe in looking forward rather than looking back.

John.

Such as?

(That's a genuine question. 20 years ago, RM, while not the only player in town, had by far the broadest coverage. It's what I'd automatically look for now, unless a newcomer has made its mark in the meantime).

Mark

"Model Rail" and "British Railway Modelling" have pretty much eclipsed Railway Modeller in the readership stakes. They each have their own house style and I don't have any particular preference for one or the other. RM is still a good all-round magazine but tends to be very similar from one month to the next. The remaining titles tend to be more specialised favouring modern image or continental outline.

(kim)

Easy - Model Railway Journal. Backnumbers for issues 0-99 should get you back up to speed. 100-150(plus) are good, but not in the same groundbreaking way as the earlier ones.

- Nigel

No Terry, "EM" was initially a wider gauge version of "OO" with the proprietry wheels pressed out to18mm gauge. (circa 1948 see Peter Denny/Buckingham) Later the gauge/scale was standardised at 18.2mm/ 4mm-ft. The wheel and rail standards were simply "OO" widened by 1.5mm/1.7mm.

Regards, Greg.P.

That was "Scale 4" or "S4".

Regards, Greg.P.

The scale ratio is different between 00 and H0, if you define the terms H0 and 00 as scales. Today the nominal track gauge is the same, 16.5mm. The exception is the NMRA definition. My H0 finescale models can run on the same finescale track as some 00 scale RTR models, for example the latest Hornby. EM today complies with my definition of finescale, wheels with flanges double scale size. Kim, I'm just stirring the pot, using letters to describe scales and or track gauges is always going to generate poor definitions. There is no practical reason why H0 and 00 finescale should not use identical track standards.

I was talking today. Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 uses H0 gauge. H0 gauge is now a nominal 16.5mm, was 5/8". The H0 scale is now 1:87 or 3.5mm/ft.

"OO" as in track and wheel standards as set out by the BMRSB, as used by Hornby Dublo and proprietry (kit and wheel) manufacturers and whatever it has developed into today. (well, yesterday as I guess the Chinese manufacturers will basically convert UK OO to NMRA standards)

Definitely not!!!!

P4 is the standard defined by the MRSG (Model Railway Study Group) back in the mid '60s. They decided in their wisdom to increase the crossing flangeway by about 0.005". Along comes Ray Hammond who decided that this wasn't really acceptable and so he set about trying to redefine the P4 standards to be exact scale. He called this Scalefour (S4) to overcome the legal problems with P(anything). He didn't really acheive anything as when you apply the tolerances needed to get into production the two sets of standards overlap. All he introduced was confusion.

P4 standards are those that the S4 Society and the EMGS promote. No society promotes S4 standards and there are very, very few layouts built to S4 standards.

Any layout built to P4 standards shouldn't be calles an S4 layout and neither should P4 and S4 be used interchageably. It's as bad as calling a lyout 00/H0.

Greg Procter wrote:

In message , Greg Procter writes

I hope not. NMRA standards for OO specify 19 mm. gauge.

Or did you mean NMRA HO standards?

"Jane Sullivan" wrote

Indeed, but that's specifically for USA outline modelling where OO-scale is not totally unheard of.

John.

I meant NMRA HO standards - If Chinese manufacturers make items like the Thomas range which is sold in Britain as "Hornby" and in the USa as "Bachmann" it would make sense to make them all the same an just slot them into the correct boxes as required. NMRA "OO" is close to Dodo status.

Regards, Greg.P.

As far as I am aware the Hornby and Bachmann TTTE ranges are totally different designs made in different Chinese factories.

(kim)

The ones I have seen were the Hornby Thomas etc with RP25 wheels and Hornby couplings.

"kim" wrote

That's correct.

The Bachmann TTTE loco range (suitably disguised) are available in the UK in one of the digital starter sets, and are due to be released separately in DC form (again NOT carrying TTTE liveries / names).

John.

If you take the approach of simply dividing a scale factor you end up with an impractical solution. P4, S4 and proto 87 deviates from scaled down dimensions to make it work. The problem with exact scale standards such as P4, S4 and proto87 is the scale wheel cannot track reliably more than prototype errors in the track without rough tracking and increased chance of derailing. Lateral displacement needs to be less than 0.04mm for smooth reliable running for these exact scale wheels. More reliable, not from what I have seen. Simpler, it's not. Compare the flange profiles exact scales modellers say they use with the finescale and coarse scale alternatives. My experience is properly profiled and dimensioned finescale wheels and track will out perform the exact scale alternatives because they can handle double the lateral displacement. Under test conditions using scale curves and mostly straight track I was able to push the equivalent of 114 four wheel wagons with a 4 wheel wagon at the front of the train. That exceeds my prototypes maximum and I was using RTR flex track. Decrease the track gauge and the train length gets longer.

Hornby today and its predecessor, Triang have never used anything like the BMRSB standard, which was nothing more than good marketing by a small group of modellers who failed to produce a useful standard. The BMRSB standard is rubbish.

They will make wheels to a check gauge of 15.2mm because their track is not to NMRA standards. Often their wheels are just under the NMRA back to back minimum. Current Australian models from China are using flanges at the NMRA maximum depth of 0.71mm.