Rivermead Central

[John R Smith]

Some additional information on the Dinky/Hornby figures.

Thanks very much for that info, Martin. It clarifies things a great deal. So it turns out that I have had most of the figures from both the early and later sets - I did have the hikers, but sold them on because I just didn't like them much. I wonder why they changed the size to smaller figures (which are actually under scale). Was it just a cynical move to use less metal?

John

 

[simond]

An idle thought. Imagine the masters were lost or worn, and they remastered from existing stock cast figures.

Would the shrinkage explain the difference in size?

 

[40057]

An idle thought. Imagine the masters were lost or worn, and they remastered from existing stock cast figures.

Would the shrinkage explain the difference in size?

Hi Simon

They didn’t do that because the clothing and poses were changed. The post-1937 figures are not just smaller, they are different.

Martin

 

[40057]

Thanks very much for that info, Martin. It clarifies things a great deal. So it turns out that I have had most of the figures from both the early and later sets - I did have the hikers, but sold them on because I just didn't like them much. I wonder why they changed the size to smaller figures (which are actually under scale). Was it just a cynical move to use less metal?

John

I wonder if the smaller size was so the figures looked better with the Dinky road vehicles — which were to a smaller scale than 0 gauge trains. I don’t know what the notional scale was of Dinky cars (1:50?), but the scale wasn’t consistent. Models of larger vehicles were to a smaller scale so they would fit in a standard box size.

Martin

 

[Overseer]

I wonder if the smaller size was so the figures looked better with the Dinky road vehicles — which were to a smaller scale than 0 gauge trains. I don’t know what the notional scale was of Dinky cars (1:50?), but the scale wasn’t consistent. Models of larger vehicles were to a smaller scale so they would fit in a standard box size.

Martin

I just logged on and saw your message. I downloaded these scans from somewhere on the web some years ago. The provide the nominal scales, I would expect they are not all in proportion in all axis.

 

[John R Smith]

I wonder if the smaller size was so the figures looked better with the Dinky road vehicles — which were to a smaller scale than 0 gauge trains. I don’t know what the notional scale was of Dinky cars (1:50?), but the scale wasn’t consistent. Models of larger vehicles were to a smaller scale so they would fit in a standard box size.

Good thinking, Martin. Just a quick measure up of some of my post-war Dinkys, reveals that they are not 7mm to 1 ft or 1/43 scale. My Jaguar Mk 2 3.4 litre checks out at exactly 1/48, or 1/4" to the foot, as in the above list.

And as many of the figure sets were marketed under the Dinky brand, not Hornby, it would seem logical that they should match up with the road vehicles, perhaps.

John

 

[40057]

I just logged on and saw your message. I downloaded these scans from somewhere on the web some years ago. The provide the nominal scales, I would expect they are not all in proportion in all axis.
View attachment 264662
View attachment 264663

Thanks, for this — very interesting.

I note ‘0 gauge items’ (not specified) are shown at the correct scale.

Some very odd mixtures here, which mean models that would ‘go together’ won’t. For 0 gauge, the telephone box is under-scale, the pillar box over-scale. The postman is not the same scale as the pillar box. The lawn mower is twice the size of the garden roller and wheelbarrow.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Some very odd mixtures here, which mean models that would ‘go together’ won’t. For 0 gauge, the telephone box is under-scale, the pillar box over-scale. The postman is not the same scale as the pillar box. The lawn mower is twice the size of the garden roller and wheelbarrow.

Martin

True enough, but compared with some of the Hornby Series railway range the discrepancies are minor. We have already had a discussion about the signals, which are certainly a tad on the large side, but how about the Hornby luggage items or the sack truck which are just enormous?

I think we should be very wary of judging vintage models by the standards of today. And at least Meccano Ltd did document all the different Dinky scales used in some detail.

For example, if you are comfortable with the B-L Lowko track, why would you really object to mixing the Dinky telephone box and the piller box together on the concourse outside Rivermead Central?

John

 

[40057]

Martin

True enough, but compared with some of the Hornby Series railway range the discrepancies are minor. We have already had a discussion about the signals, which are certainly a tad on the large side, but how about the Hornby luggage items or the sack truck which are just enormous?

I think we should be very wary of judging vintage models by the standards of today. And at least Meccano Ltd did document all the different Dinky scales used in some detail.

For example, if you are comfortable with the B-L Lowko track, why would you really object to mixing the Dinky telephone box and the piller box together on the concourse outside Rivermead Central?

John

Hi John

I think it reasonable to judge vintage items by the criteria claimed by the manufacturers and within the constraints of what was economically and technically feasible.

The Hornby and other ranges sold by Meccano Ltd were marketed as good quality toys for children. As such, they were excellent. Judge them as scale models — and of course they are awful. Not just by today’s standards, but in comparison with the scale models sold by others in the ‘20s and ‘30s. But wholly unfair to Meccano Ltd to criticise them for not achieving something that was never their aim.

Bassett-Lowke always claimed to sell scale models. These had to run around absurdly small radius curves, so wheels and some dimensions could not get even close to correct scale size. That’s fair enough, to produce a practical model. But a Peckett tank that is a scale 16’ tall is not a scale representation, by any standard. It fails if judged on Bassett-Lowke’s own stated aim.

Lowko Track is certainly over-scale. But it was designed in 1908 when Gauge 1 would have been the most common size for a proper model railway, and to make it economically, the same parts had to be used for gauges 0, 1 and 2. So I see Lowko Track as reflecting the state of the hobby at the time it was first made.

Probably don’t want a Dinky telephone box, however.

Martin