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