Buckingham Central

This forum is for the discussion of railway modelling of the LNER and its constituent companies.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

User avatar
Atlantic 3279
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 6527
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am
Location: 2850, 245

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by Atlantic 3279 »

Isn't that coupling rod alignment typical of something that's only four-coupled and has either done a very high mileage to wear the holes in the rods out to a large size, or one which has been built with "well freed off" hole sizes to allow for other inaccuracy in the chassis? It reminds me of a brand new 4-4-0 that featured on another railway modelling website about ten days ago. A very high mileage C12 on a friend's layout was like that too, but still ran sweetly....
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1

Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
john coffin
LNER V2 2-6-2 'Green Arrow'
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:24 am

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by john coffin »

Graeme, you are probably right I just thought to point out that actually things can run even when something is wrong.

Does not detract from the modelling skill of a lowly paid vicar.

Paul
Pebbles
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by Pebbles »

Whilst the coupling rods are at a strange angle the cranks themselves appear to be in line with the wheel spokes. I think its just a case of wear.
joppyuk1
GER J70 0-6-0T Tram
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:21 pm

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by joppyuk1 »

I've just come across a snippet in a Hobbies Weekly from August 1950, of a photo and very short write-up, about a layout "...built to a scale of 1 in 72 and was made by Mr P.B.Denny of Acton, London,W...." The photo is very obviously an early Buckingham and the piece shows how long the layout has been around. Interesting about the scale description.
exile
LNER N2 0-6-2T
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: France

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by exile »

At that time it seems scales were more than a little liberal.

Elsewhere I have read that it was only in around 1952 that H0 was agreed to be 1:87 - even though it must be obvious if you use 16.5mm gauge track to represent 4ft 8.5in. I think I am right in saying the 3.5mm:1ft resulted from that decision rather than being the pre-defined standard (but I might well be wrong).

Even then it took some continental manufacturers several decades to change the scale of some of their models from such combinations such as 1:80, 1:82 and 1:85.
User avatar
kimballthurlow
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by kimballthurlow »

Henry Greenly (quoted) says that OO is 1:75.

HO is "half O" which is half of 7mm to the foot = 3.5mm.
Now expressing a scale as metric:imperial, is an oxymoron.

Those larger scales appeared when British vendors had their models manufactured on the continent. (Bassett Lowke viz Bing, Carette, Marklin).
A British scale engineering plan (likely 1:48 or derivitave) was suitably re-measured metrically by the continental manufacturer for their own purposes.

Kimball
Hatfield Shed
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by Hatfield Shed »

exile wrote: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:42 pm At that time it seems scales were more than a little liberal.

Elsewhere I have read that it was only in around 1952 that H0 was agreed to be 1:87 - even though it must be obvious if you use 16.5mm gauge track to represent 4ft 8.5in. I think I am right in saying the 3.5mm:1ft resulted from that decision rather than being the pre-defined standard (but I might well be wrong).

Even then it took some continental manufacturers several decades to change the scale of some of their models from such combinations such as 1:80, 1:82 and 1:85.
When the 'half O' track gauge was devised, it was difficult to get commercial mechanisms to fit, and especially for width. The deviation between the OO solution of increased constant scale for the body to create the space for the mechanism width; and the HO solution - still applied today - of variable scale for the body width as and where required, gradually emerged, and had become set by the 1950s.

HO is quite possible for UK steam, if the variable width scaling compromise can be accepted. But the UK market didn't react well to the result on the Rivarossi Royal Scot (sorry, there isn't an LNER example!). Unfortunately, between the commonly applied close fitting wheel splashers on UK designs and a maximum width of 9 feet as compared to Mainland European 10 feet, the HO model ends up with bodywork at OO scale width from the splashers down, simply to accommodate commercial mechanism parts in an arrangement that will negotiate set track radii.

The enthusiasts for constant true scale in HO use P87, and have to accept much the same minimum radii as our P4/S4 modellers, unsurprisingly.
User avatar
kimballthurlow
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buckingham Central

Post by kimballthurlow »

Hatfield Shed wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:15 am
exile wrote: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:42 pm At that time it seems scales were more than a little liberal.
.....
..... variable scale for the body width as and where required, .....
It is well known that Marklin and the others still use mixed scales for body width (1:87 generally) and length (often 1:93.5 or 1:100), so some rolling stock can negotiate curves and stay clear of legacy lineside accessories.

Kimball
Post Reply