Flaxfield- A bucolic 1950s Suffolk backwater

[Quintus]

The issue is wider than that - the wheel standards (widths, flange depths, etc), vary within loco ranges. The two Hornby Pecketts have markedly different profiles from one another, they're different again from Bachmann's rough standard, and so on. I think the wagon and coach wheels are generally consistent within product ranges, but since I work in EM, I tend to replace on spec'.

Adam

I had no idea 00 was in such a mess. Perhaps the answer IS to replace all the wheels with those of a consistent standard (I will now duck!)

 

[40057]

I remember reading years ago that the BRMSB was set up during or just after WW2 to set UK model railway standards. The halt in model production during the war years gave an opportunity to start with a clean slate. They drew up a set of standards, but Hornby decided to restart operations using their own standards and I think British Trix did the same, with their own standards. And Triang appeared in the early 50s with their own standards. I think that the only manufacturer who followed the BRMSB standards was Graham Farish with their 4mm range. I remember buying a GF wagon in the 1950s to run on my Trix layout and finding out the hard way about wheel standards at a very young age.

So someone did try but our manufacturers gave them the finger.

Jim.

Changing wheel standards is always going to be difficult because of the commitment (by manufacturers and customers) to the status quo. Post-WW2 Trix continued the extremely coarse wheel and track standards used pre-war ‘in fairness to our existing customers’. Also it was a toy system with the track designed to be got out, put together, used to run trains, then dismantled when the table was needed for supper. So true, level track couldn’t be assumed, hence big flanges etc.

Two points.

First, if the last serious attempt at standardisation was in the 1940s, isn’t it time to try again? Nobody in the industry now was active then, so no baggage.

Second, the main impediment I would see to agreeing on new standards, is prior commitment to the existing standards. Modellers who have spent time and money, manufacturers who have made investments and need to keep selling the products they are already making. Essentially, the Trix type argument quoted above. But hang on a minute! From what has been said above, there are no existing standards. Already, a Hornby model won’t run on the same track as a different model they made a couple of years previously. Nobody appears to be wedded to a consistent standard they would have to change. Assuming the new standard was within the range of existing production variations, no-one has anything to lose by a standardisation. OK some existing models won’t be fully compatible with the new production — but that seems normal now, without manufacturers appearing bothered.

Standardisation ought to be possible, surely? And once it has gone so far, everyone will have to fall into line or their products won’t sell.

I’m not talking here about fine versus coarse scale etc. There will always be finer standards available for those that want them and are prepared to build, re-wheel etc. The standardisation I am thinking of is for r-t-r volume sales.

 

[76043]

A respected railway model shop owner recently told me that 80% of his customers are collectors, so is there any incentive to make anything compatible?

DOGA publish OO standards.

Standards - The Double O Gauge Association

Track Standards Finer Track Intermediate Track Wheel Standards Finerscale Wheels Intermediate Wheels Other Standards NEM Coupling Pockets

doubleogauge.com

My Dublo stock runs perfectly on Peco code 100, but I'm about to build an EM test track. If that doesn't go well I might just throw in the EM towel and do a 'Larry' and get on with my O gauge FS....

Oh well it's only a hobby....

Tony

 

[Osgood]

In which case is it not more important to standardise on box sizes?

 

[oldravendale]

Regrettably I suspect that standardisation will never occur. This was brought home to me, somewhat forcibly, as a member of a BS committee dealing with certain motion picture standards. (Gears, Sprockets and something else I can't remember). All very important if one is to get film to run through all the projectors, work in all the cameras etc etc. I'd investigated a film reel which was out of spec (not manufactured by my company) which didn't work on a certain projector which met standards. Full of joy at having raised the issue I returned to work, joyful that I'd put this before such learned minds to be told "we don't sell standards. We sell product". So that's about as much manufacturing pays to such edicts. Did I submit? Under considerable pressure and after constructive argument it was either that or do the other thing.

However... ISO9000 became a "thing" and to achieve the status to put that on company paperwork etc one had to adhere to the appropriate standards and prove that the company did. It certainly had a value as very many companies chased after it. It was hard work! If we had a similar standard to which model railway companies could work and then claim adherence to ISO something or other we'd have some firm ground. Right now we don't. Would there be a willingness by manufacturers to participate? Frankly I doubt it, particularly if it's true (and I have no basis on which to doubt the figure) 80% of sales are to collectors who'll never take the model out of the box.

The downside is that new entrants to the hobby who don't want to change wheels or worry about clearances and just want to play trains, which is probably where most of us came from, will find the lack of universal standards challenging and in many cases difficult to overcome without further application. Or am I over thinking this? Will starters have points that work with the locos available today and it's only us who are concerned about particular applications? I don't know. However, I certainly agree that we should report such failings to the manufacturer who may care to take notice or not. Failure to do so simply means we've not tried.

Brian

 

[Heather Kay]

However... ISO9000 became a "thing" and to achieve the status to put that on company paperwork etc one had to adhere to the appropriate standards and prove that the company did.

Best Beloved's former employer went through that system. Himself was put in charge of ensuring the company met the standard. He termed it "GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out". It meant nothing as to the actual product, just it met a certain arbitrary standard consistently.

 

[oldravendale]

Best Beloved's former employer went through that system. Himself was put in charge of ensuring the company met the standard. He termed it "GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out". It meant nothing as to the actual product, just it met a certain arbitrary standard consistently.

Absolutely! But that's not what it set out to do. Just needs proper and tighter controls.

(BTW, I didn't continue working for BS for long. It was in my spare time or often in company time anyway...)

 

[James Spooner]

As someone who has modelled in EM for about thirty years now, firstly I had to teach myself how to make track (points really as even then EM gauge flexible track was available) and also rewheel all my stock. By doing all of that consistently to the EMGS standards I very rarely have any issues with wheels running freely through points, derailing etc. If I do get a piece of track that doesn’t work properly I can usually trace the fault and correct it. What am I saying here? I guess that, if I as a basic bodger can do that, then it must at least be worth a crack by you more talented modellers. Come in, the water’s warm!

Nigel

 

[NHY 581]

Evening all ( yes, perhaps a bit late to be saying that ).

This is what all the fuss is about and what I'm trying to acheive with the test build.



Hardly earth shattering. I've plonked the track down to gauge ( !!! ) the plot as it were, and all is good.
So once the point thing is resolved, this is where we are going. It's a bit more adventurous than the original one point test plank, pre-Flaxfield build but why not ?

I'm thinking of dual role.....GER/Early L&NER and SE&CR/ Improbable light railway. Should be doable if I either avoid anything company related such as signs, notice boards etc or simply have alternative structures or signage to swap over. The Terrier therefore represents typical small tank engine motive power.
Low timber built platform to the front of the station building which will sit on a brick or concrete base. Low, grassy scenery, bit of water to front.

Fiddle yard ( somewhat grandiose title ) is pretty much built so both baseboards are in hand as it were.

So, despite the pointage issue, I still feel righteous and hopeful about this.

Rob

 

[paulc]

Evening all ( yes, perhaps a bit late to be saying that ).

This is what all the fuss is about and what I'm trying to acheive with the test build.

View attachment 220234

Hardly earth shattering. I've plonked the track down to gauge ( !!! ) the plot as it were, and all is good.
So once the point thing is resolved, this is where we are going. It's a bit more adventurous than the original one point test plank, pre-Flaxfield build but why not ?

I'm thinking of dual role.....GER/Early L&NER and SE&CR/ Improbable light railway. Should be doable if I either avoid anything company related such as signs, notice boards etc or simply have alternative structures or signage to swap over. The Terrier therefore represents typical small tank engine motive power.
Low timber built platform to the front of the station building which will sit on a brick or concrete base. Low, grassy scenery, bit of water to front.

Fiddle yard ( somewhat grandiose title ) is pretty much built so both baseboards are in hand as it were.

So, despite the pointage issue, I still feel righteous and hopeful about this.

Rob

It's just three points Rob , hand build or kit if you must and move on plus you will have the satisfaction of having made them .

 

[NHY 581]

It's just three points Rob , hand build or kit if you must and move on plus you will have the satisfaction of having made them .

Morning Paul.

Exactly. Before, I may well have thought, stuff it, I'll revert to Code 75 Electrofrog points to get it done. Not any more. There's no rush with this ( or Flaxfield for that matter) so I may as well experiment and find a solution.

Rob

 

[Phil O]

Sheepy,

Come on, dip a toe in the hand built track pond, it's not rocket science! It's liberating as you're not constrained to the geometry of the RTL offerings. Yes, it does take a bit of time and effort to get it right, but it's very satisfying.