Michanglais Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 43 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said: I wonder what those people would say if I ever built something based on the paper-exercise alternate universe I play with, in which BC never joined Canada and became a Dominion in its own right... 😆railways with electrics like BB15000, JNR EF66, and Vectrons over the years alongside EMD, Alco, Baldwin, GE, and other diesels, and Deltic-based A-B-A sets built under licence locally (think along the lines of a pair of single-cab Class 55s sandwiching a cabless one)... etc etc Are we talking an SNCF BB15000, here? Would love to see that! My fave SNCF loco. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 8 hours ago, Jeff Smith said: The wheels seem to be all disc for diesels NWSL used to do a spoke wheel for logging applications in 24" and 26" diameters but AFAIK that was about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 23 hours ago, Porfuera said: They can't sell more than they can produce so how much more visible does it need to be? Fair point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
britishcolumbian Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 2 hours ago, Michanglais said: Are we talking an SNCF BB15000, here? Would love to see that! My fave SNCF loco. Yup, that's the one. I do love the Nez Cassé look in all its variants - French, Portuguese, Slovenian, Korean... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michanglais Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said: Yup, that's the one. I do love the Nez Cassé look in all its variants - French, Portuguese, Slovenian, Korean... I've got a fairly large collection of BB15000s in HO, plus some BB7200 and BB22200 in N. I, too, am fond of the Portuguese variants, they look great heading up rakes of stainless steel Corail-based coaches. I want to try to keep my TT:120 to UK only but I'd be sorely tempted by some Nez Cassés in TT! Probably just as well there are none on the horizon... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
britishcolumbian Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 5 hours ago, Michanglais said: I've got a fairly large collection of BB15000s in HO, plus some BB7200 and BB22200 in N. I, too, am fond of the Portuguese variants, they look great heading up rakes of stainless steel Corail-based coaches. I want to try to keep my TT:120 to UK only but I'd be sorely tempted by some Nez Cassés in TT! Probably just as well there are none on the horizon... If one were to come along in TT, it's quite likely I'd get one to do a Korean version. I did once do a North Korean M62, but have long had idle thoughts about doing some KNR/Korail diesels based on US equipment... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
009 micro modeller Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 11 hours ago, Hobby said: Not as far as I'm aware, mine's one of the dreaded "preserved" railways that some people think "doesn't count" as a true model railway, so I can run, within reason, what I like. Wouldn’t something like a Ruston 48DS, or the little Simplex from Hemelite (actually that one might be too small) suit the Kof chassis? Not sure on the various wheelbases. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les1952 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) There seems to be a lot about "serious railway modellers" at the moment- perhaps it needs a thread of its own. My six (so far) exhibition layouts probably mostly fail some folks tests of "serious model" Furtwangen Ost N(:160)- a fictional tramway added to a "might have been" post history of a Black Forest private branch. Almost all sectional track of two makes (Tomix and Peco Setrack) Hawthorn Dene (UK N)- a colliery that never existed perched beside the Durham Coast line with a few serious liberties taken to get it into the space. NO PLACE (OO) a fictional post-history of a Durham colliery with a preservation group and an almost derelict Coal screen side by side. Croft Spa (UK N)- the only attempt to model an actual location, where I even got the two bridges the right distance apart - this one might pass a lot of purist tests. Bregenbach im Schwarzwald N(:160)- a fictional Black Forest line with very steep gradients (less steep than the prototype) but an exercise in building entirely on Fleischmann sectional track and getting N scale pantographs to run touching the wires. Bregstadt- again a fictional post-history of the line to Furtwangen partly built as a TT (:120) test track but with Peco out front and Hornby pointwork (for now) behind the backscene. Do I think I'm serious- possibly. Each of these is different in scale and concept to its predecessor. Each has been designed to give me challenges, to make me think. A lot will look at them and think that as I'm not sticking to a single theme and going into infinite detail I'm not a serious modeller. I would say that the person just into the hobby building what starts off as an out-of-the-box TT:120 trainset and expanding from there is just as serious a modeller as I am. And that is regardless of the direction they take. And not joining RMWeb doesn't make that person a lesser modeller.... Les Edited May 13 by Les1952 typos as usual 9 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 7 hours ago, Les1952 said: And not joining RMWeb doesn't make that person a lesser modeller.... The most prolific TT120 modeler isn't on RMWeb at all, as far as I know. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 On 12/05/2024 at 19:53, Phil Parker said: All you have proved is that some loon on social media said something. Something no one else had read, or cared about. You haven't proved it to be true, But that was what he was accused of alleging falsely. (That someone else had said it.) He presented the proof that indeed, someone else had said it. I don't think it was alleged at any point that it was true? The only way to do that would be to put the two models, the 08 and the coach in question, beside each other and take a photo, wouldn't it ? And compare that to a photo of real 08 coupled to the same kind of coach ? Or am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Parker Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, teletougos said: The only way to do that would be to put the two models, the 08 and the coach in question, beside each other and take a photo, wouldn't it ? And compare that to a photo of real 08 coupled to the same kind of coach ? Or am I missing something? I imagine something based on accurate measurements would be a better bet than photos, which are subject to issues with angles and the effects of lenses. However, since it's not become a massive topic, I'm inclined to believe that Hornby has got it righter then random people on the web. 3 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Phil Parker said: I imagine something based on accurate measurements would be a better bet than photos, which are subject to issues with angles and the effects of lenses. However, since it's not become a massive topic, I'm inclined to believe that Hornby has got it righter then random people on the web. I just hope someone puts the 08 on a bit of track with the coach coupled to it, and takes a good side-on shot & uploads here. I'm assuming someone here has one of each? Then we don't need to juggle suppositions. You may be so inclined viz Hornby. However, a look at the their Mallard's nose beside the Corgi one, and a shot of the real thing, ought to raise questions. Edited May 14 by teletougos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Parker Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 4 minutes ago, teletougos said: I just hope someone puts the 08 on a bit of track with the coach coupled to it, and takes a good side-on shot & uploads here. Then we don't need to juggle suppositions. Unless you can get a perfectly aligned image to compare with a prototype photo that is shot from exactly the same position, and counteract the distortion put in by the camera lens, then the comparison won't work. I've been here before with people drawing lines on pictures I've posted on here before ignoring the angles the model photos have been taken. It never ends well. What is it that scares you about numbers and measurements? That is the way to be sure. Anything else is subjective. 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Phil Parker said: What is it that scares you about numbers and measurements? Nothing, but I don't have either item to measure! Why put words in my mouth?? Hopefully someone here does and can do that. Edited May 14 by teletougos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, teletougos said: You may be so inclined viz Hornby. However, a look at the their Mallard's nose beside the Corgi one, and a shot of the real thing, ought to raise questions. We are going back to the beginning of this (or one of the other threads) thread now! It was pointed out by several 3mm scale modellers, and accepted by everyone, that to incorporate any outside cylinders and valve gear and overscale width wheels that the locos in question would need to be widened slightly. That was accepted back then so I'm puzzled why you've raised the issue again. It's called "compromise". Modellers have been doing it as long as railway modelling has existed. For the record my Mallard measures just under 25mm over the cylinders, the scale width is 9ft, so just under 23mm, so it's 2mm wide. The A3 is the same, though the tender body and A3 cab are both correct width. Selective expansion it would seem has been used. The 08 measures 22mm over the platform, it should be 21.5mm. Edited May 14 by Hobby clarification 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletougos Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 3 minutes ago, Hobby said: that the locos in question would need to be widened slightly. So ? I know some of this, since years ago a guy called Bertiedog went into this. And maybe this is another example? I don't think it hurts to be aware. I have not read the whole thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 Of course it's another example, and as I said it was done to death and accepted many moons ago, it was your raising it as if it's something new to us all that have got you the comments. It's old news. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) The Mk1 coach bodies are to scale (length and width). I've also checked the height of the 08 and Mk1, bearing in mind that from drawings the heights are only about 1" different (including the roof vents of the Mk1), laying a steel rule on top of the Mk1 roof it lines up with the roof of the 08, as it should. Edited May 14 by Hobby 5 1 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Craigw Posted May 14 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, Hobby said: We are going back to the beginning of this (or one of the other threads) thread now! It was pointed out by several 3mm scale modellers, and accepted by everyone, that to incorporate any outside cylinders and valve gear and overscale width wheels that the locos in question would need to be widened slightly. That was accepted back then so I'm puzzled why you've raised the issue again. It's called "compromise". Modellers have been doing it as long as railway modelling has existed. For the record my Mallard measures just under 25mm over the cylinders, the scale width is 9ft, so just under 23mm, so it's 2mm wide. The A3 is the same, though the tender body and A3 cab are both correct width. Selective expansion it would seem has been used. The 08 measures 22mm over the platform, it should be 21.5mm. But weren't a good number of people going on that one of the great things with TT120 was that the track gauge was right? So now, you have the correct track gauge and models that are too wide. Gotta love progress. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
britishcolumbian Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Craigw said: But weren't a good number of people going on that one of the great things with TT120 was that the track gauge was right? So now, you have the correct track gauge and models that are too wide. Gotta love progress. Show me one (1) model in any scale smaller than 1:48 that is perfect in every dimension. Edited May 14 by britishcolumbian 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Craigw Posted May 14 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 14 Just now, britishcolumbian said: Show me one (1) model in any smaller than 1:48 that is perfect in every dimension. Never said they were. But, when you use overscale wheels on a correct track gauge, you cause compromises in the design. Something that those crowing about the corrct track gauge appear not to have understood or appreciated. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
britishcolumbian Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 6 minutes ago, Craigw said: Never said they were. But, when you use overscale wheels on a correct track gauge, you cause compromises in the design. Something that those crowing about the corrct track gauge appear not to have understood or appreciated. I was one of those saying it - and I still stand by it. It has been something every modeller has had to accept in every scale since forever. A few hundredths of an inch difference is nothing compared to the gross inaccuracies of legacy British scale/gauge combinations. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 And round and round we go... 🙄 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Craigw Posted May 14 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 14 14 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said: I was one of those saying it - and I still stand by it. It has been something every modeller has had to accept in every scale since forever. A few hundredths of an inch difference is nothing compared to the gross inaccuracies of legacy British scale/gauge combinations. But the quoted 2mm is not "a few hundredths of an inch" is it? It is probably closer to 6 or 7 inches. So instead of the gross inaccuracy of the track you move that error to the locomotives - especially ones with outside cylinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 22 minutes ago, Hobby said: And round and round we go... 🙄 HO all over again - the wheel and track standards force the outcome….. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now