Rivermead Central

[40057]

Martin

That three-quarter view of 292 is glorious. The little handrail on the smokebox door catches my eye. Not knowing the prototype at all means that I am completely unaware of any missing details or rivets that you suggest may have been left out. You have managed to get an amazing amount of daylight below the boiler, so often a real problem with the B-L engines like the 4F.

Our discussion above got me thinking about my family's view of O Gauge back in the 1950s. My father was a very fine model engineer and also an accomplished railway modeller, in fact a leading light in the local club which had two extensive O gauge layouts, one indoors and one outdoors. As far as he was concerned there was tinplate (by which he meant Hornby on the carpet), O Gauge (which was basically Bassett-Lowke, Leeds, Milbro etc), and finescale, a term which he applied only to those wheels which would not run properly on the club track. I don't remember him ever using the term "coarse scale".

At that time (say the mid 1950s) I had never seen an example of finescale O gauge except for one GWR coach at the club. This was an object of contempt and derision from the clockwork and live steam gang, as it refused to run through our points and always fell off the track (no wonder, with 29mm B to B). Otherwise, my first awareness of finescale was the amazing feature on W S Norris' layout in the MRN for June 1957 (p143 et seq). Inspirational as it was, it in most respects seemed irrelevant to our efforts. But I suppose this was the moment that I began to view what had hitherto just been standard scale O gauge as "coarse" rather than "fine". In retrospect, it now does seem most unfortunate that those terms (fine and coarse) were adopted, with their somewhat judgemental implications.

John

Hi John

Both 292 and 828 are modelled in 1922 condition, based on photographs or information about general changes made to the class. Hence 828 has a steam heat connection on the tender (not the loco) which is most likely, but we didn’t have a dated photograph of the rear of 828’s tender to know for sure. In 1922, there would be hardly any visible rivets on either loco. The most obvious omission from 292 is the loco brakes. However, each side of each wheel there is either a footstep or a sandbox, so there is enough going on below the platform to look ‘busy’. If 292 was being built now, I probably would put brakes on the loco. Neither 292 or 828 have brake shoes on the tender on the grounds of these being hardly visible. We had an excellent dated photograph of 292 to work from which is why this particular loco was chosen, though in 1922 it was only a few years old so ‘as built’ was a reasonable surmise. In 1922, 828 was 23 years old and there certainly had been changes since it was new. However, the loco is well documented (a whole book about it) so I am confident the model is a very good representation of it as it was at the end of the Caledonian Railway’s independent existence.

Both Tom and Brian did an excellent job at hiding the motor. Of course, for 828 we had the benefit of Tom’s CAD process to test alternative motor positions. For 292, I was moving the motor about on top of an outline drawing photocopied to be exactly 7mm scale. The corollary of only a small projection of the motor under the boiler ahead of 292’s firebox is that the motor fills the lower part of the cab. But the cab design means that doesn’t show. And the large motor relative to the size of the loco has produced a really powerful engine. The other area where modelling has moved on between 2009 and 2025 is visible in the photo of 292’s tender. The tender axle-box + spring castings for 292 were cast from a pattern made by Brian, silver soldered in brass. For 828, 3D-printed waxes were used. Undoubtedly, the castings for 828 are far better. That’s not a criticism of Brian’s pattern-making skills, just the advance produced by the new technology. The tender axle-box + spring castings for both locos are brass and both sets were made by CSP models.

Martin

 

[Roger Pound]

Once again I am a little late to the party regarding the terminology but some years back I produced a small layout using Peco SM32 track to be able to run modern so-called coarse scale locos together with currently produced, shall we say, standard scale 0 gauge stock (e.g.:- Dapol). With a little work it made, even if I say so myself, a presentable little layout. The then Editor of the Gauge 0 Guild Gazette was kind enough to publish an illustrated article featuring my efforts.

My point is that it is only words we are playing with here when really we should be spending time enjoying our models and trying to achieve the standards and effects that we seek for our pleasure. Perhaps my view may be considered too simplistic - or am I just getting old............. ?

Apologies, Martin for this minor highjack of the thread.

Roger.

 

[RichardG]

But to answer the question, I think it is too late, but if I was going to offer a suggestion I'd say change Coarse to Original or date it by the year a standard could be considered to have been adopted.

I am even later to the party! How about "Hornby scale"? This would give a credit to the man who did so much for us, and leave "fine scale" and "true scale" for what followed.

 

[Ian@StEnochs]

I am even later to the party! How about "Hornby scale"? This would give a credit to the man who did so much for us, and leave "fine scale" and "true scale" for what followed.

It is the word ‘scale’ which is the problem. Coarse, fine, S7, are all using the same scale 1-43.5 or 7mm/ft or near enough. However we are using different track standards and track gauge. The various manufacturers have always gone their own way with wheel standards, after all they wanted customers to only buy into their system.

The GOG did try to set standards but do any of the current manufacturers take any notice? I very much doubt they do.

I recall a discussion where it was said that if, when Slaters introduced their range of wheels, they had used a gauge of 33mm we would all be modelling in S7.

 

[Masbury]

I have learnt so much from this thread - especially about the complex inner life of Bassett-Lowke and its relations with Winteringham/Bing etc! The dialogue between Martin and John is really interesting - and the conversation is enhanced by contributions from other participants.

Just one or two observations if I may. The first is about the 'Ramp Rail' (posts 97 onwards). The Bank of England Inflation Calculator lets us know that the (May) 2026 equivalent of 30s 3d (i.e. the cost of this rail, including purchase tax) is approximately £42.50. This is a useful, but not the only, metric. During the past 75 years incomes have generally - and notwithstanding wage freezes, 'pay pauses', etc. - risen considerably. It seems to follow that, although £42.50 remains a substantial amount today, 30s 3d would have 'meant' more to a prospective purchaser in 1951 than would £42.50 today. it would therefore appear unlikely that the Ramp Rail would be a priority for even quite affluent customers. By the way, the 1938/1939 price for a Hornby '0' gauge tinplate straight brake and reverse rail was 1s 3d (approximately £3.63 in May, 2026) - but this was of course with tinplate track and there was no 're-start' facility.

Secondly, the Hornby figures and accessories (posts 949 onwards). The Hornby pieces of luggage (round topped trunk; flat topped trunk; wicker hamper; and suitcase) were presented as a set, which also included a porter's barrow, and was named 'Platform Accessories Set No.1'. The set was first sold in 1924 and was renamed 'Railway Accessories Set No.1' in 1928. With minor changes, the set continued to be made until, along with most Hornby products, it ceased to be made after December, 1941. Production of the set was not resumed after WWII.

The blue 'sack truck' is a different item, Dinky Toys No.107a, and is much larger than the porter's barrow mentioned above. It was first released in 1948/49 and was made until 1958. It was, and is, a very pleasing model. As far as I am aware, Meccano Limited did not advertise or present it as an accessory for '0' gauge railways.

 

[simond]

If you want to play around with prices over time, I suggest comparing them with the average workers' wage and calculating the value of the item in the time an average working person would have to labour to afford the item. Of course, this doesn't necessarily correlate with the hours it was necessary to work, nor the conditions under which the work was undertaken.

 

[40057]

Correct, the distinction is not a different scale. My locomotives are built to the same scale as an S7 locomotive.

I think ‘coarse’ and ‘fine’ are reasonable words to use for the difference in wheel (and track) standards. ‘Coarse’ meaning ‘large, lacking refinement’. Yes, relative to true scale, Bassett-Lowke and similar wheels are too wide and the flanges too deep. Correspondingly, the rails are too tall and the flange-ways at crossings too wide. Fine meaning ‘delicate’ or ‘excellent’, used as a relative term in contrast to ‘coarse’, is a reasonable adjective for wheels and track close to exact scale dimensions. I have no issue with describing my wheel and track standards as coarse scale.

The distinction between more versus less accurate, or very detailed versus simplified models is not about scale. It is often down to commercial considerations, making something that is good enough at a price people will pay. Compromises such as incorrect wheel spacings so the motor can be used in several different models have been with us since the start of mass-produced model railways. Using the same bodies in different liveries, some at least not prototypical, was common practice in 1910 as it is today. And for the same practical reasons of selling enough copies to justify the capital cost of tooling. These compromises are not mistakes, though models can suffer from those too. There are also some departures from true scale that are directly related to track standards, specifically the minimum radius of curve for the model. Historically, undersize bogie wheels were usual to allow locomotives with outside cylinders to negotiate standard model railway curves. Undersized driving wheels too, to give enough space above the axles for a bulky motor, whether clockwork or electric. But none of these departures from an accurate representation involves a change of scale.

There is a difference between a fully-detailed, exact scale, representation and a very nice, broadly accurate, model, but it’s a continuum. Whereas sets of wheel and track standards are pretty much discrete and define the use of the model. So there is a logic to labelling models according to wheel and track standards.

C.R. 828 (see above) is a model with coarse scale wheels. It is not ‘a coarse scale model’, since it is otherwise of accurate scale dimensions. I do wonder if the recent 00 gauge production of a CR 812 class loco, including 828 in various liveries, has wheels that are much closer to true scale than my clockwork model. And of course, the 00 model is significantly less accurate than my 828 in that it runs on 4’ 1½” gauge track.

Yet no-one would refer to the Bachmann model as ‘coarse scale’.

Martin

 

[40057]

I have learnt so much from this thread - especially about the complex inner life of Bassett-Lowke and its relations with Winteringham/Bing etc! The dialogue between Martin and John is really interesting - and the conversation is enhanced by contributions from other participants.

Just one or two observations if I may. The first is about the 'Ramp Rail' (posts 97 onwards). The Bank of England Inflation Calculator lets us know that the (May) 2026 equivalent of 30s 3d (i.e. the cost of this rail, including purchase tax) is approximately £42.50. This is a useful, but not the only, metric. During the past 75 years incomes have generally - and notwithstanding wage freezes, 'pay pauses', etc. - risen considerably. It seems to follow that, although £42.50 remains a substantial amount today, 30s 3d would have 'meant' more to a prospective purchaser in 1951 than would £42.50 today. it would therefore appear unlikely that the Ramp Rail would be a priority for even quite affluent customers. By the way, the 1938/1939 price for a Hornby '0' gauge tinplate straight brake and reverse rail was 1s 3d (approximately £3.63 in May, 2026) - but this was of course with tinplate track and there was no 're-start' facility.

Secondly, the Hornby figures and accessories (posts 949 onwards). The Hornby pieces of luggage (round topped trunk; flat topped trunk; wicker hamper; and suitcase) were presented as a set, which also included a porter's barrow, and was named 'Platform Accessories Set No.1'. The set was first sold in 1924 and was renamed 'Railway Accessories Set No.1' in 1928. With minor changes, the set continued to be made until, along with most Hornby products, it ceased to be made after December, 1941. Production of the set was not resumed after WWII.

The blue 'sack truck' is a different item, Dinky Toys No.107a, and is much larger than the porter's barrow mentioned above. It was first released in 1948/49 and was made until 1958. It was, and is, a very pleasing model. As far as I am aware, Meccano Limited did not advertise or present it as an accessory for '0' gauge railways.

Hello and welcome to WT.

There are several threads on here detailing layouts using vintage equipment.

Tom Mallard’s workbench thread covers the building of 828 (and his other wonderful creations).

There’s a ‘New Members’ thread if you want to say anything further about your own modelling interests.

Martin

 

[Masbury]

Hello Martin,

Thank you for your kind welcome, and for your 'steer' towards threads of interest. I hope to visit these in the near future!

Best Wishes, John (alias Masbury)

 

[RichardG]

It is the word ‘scale’ which is the problem.

Yes it is. I think a word of one syllable is best. Wheels and track go hand in hand, and "track" seems to fit: coarse track, fine track, scale track.

I know such terminology won't become mainstream, but it's good to put an adjective in front of a tangible thing and not something as fixed as "scale".