31.5 vs. 32mm gauge

[martin_wynne]

It ought to be possible to identify the source of the "not smoothness" inherent in the combination of GOG fine wheel and track standards, and illustrate it diagrammatically ....... which I've never seen done.

 

Hi Kevin,

 

How about this:

 

This is a view looking towards the nose of the vee, from just in front of it.

 

As you can see modern wheels have nothing to support them until they reach the vee, and can fall into the gap between the wing rails with a bump.

 

The original wheels for 32mm track standards (0-Fine) were wider, sufficient to remain running on the wing rail until they reached the vee.

 

The narrower modern wheels (3.5mm wide) were introduced by Slater's a good few years ago now, and many other firms have now copied them (because they look nicer, fit inside splashers, etc.)

 

The solution in 0-MF is to make the flangeway gaps each side of the vee narrower, so that the modern wheels are supported on the wing rails all the way. If you make the flangeways narrower, and don't want to change the wheels back-to-back, it is necessary to reduce the track gauge. Hence the change to 31.5mm instead of 32mm for 0-MF.

 

A small change in the flangeway gap (from 1.75mm to 1.5mm) makes a big difference because the effect is doubled in the total gap between the wing rails.

 

p.s. real wing rails are inclined inwards, the diagram is simplified for clarity.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Northroader]

If you're just on the same standards, you can cheat by putting an infill at the bottom between the wing rails, so that the wheels run on their flangetips through the gap, and don't dip. (Scandalous suggestion,I know)

[Nearholmer]

Martin

 

Good diagram, although in some ways I think the point (!) is made more clearly by a view from above, showing the respective 'wheel tracks' with narrow and wide treads, and with wide and narrow checkrail clearances.

 

I don't do CAD, and I haven't got the back of an envelope handy, otherwise I'd sketch what I mean.

 

Kevin

[BG John]

Being a cheapskate, I thought I'd try the Roxey Mouldings gauges (sorry Debs). I couldn't find them on the web site, but got a very quick response to an e-mail to Dave, and the deal was done quickly through e-mail and Paypal when I was ready to order. As I've never seen a photo of them, here they are. They're available in 31.5mm and 31.75mm gauges, two per pack for £4.50, plus £3 postage. They're a 0.7mm etching with fold lines on the back.

 

 

[N15class]

I would of thought now anyone modelling finescale would want to use 31.5 rather than peco points that are designed to be able to take coarse scale too. I know at the moment it is case you have to build but it ain't rocket science. Yes there's time involved but unless you want to build Waterloo the average 0 gauge layout has very few points.

[Simond]

If you're just on the same standards, you can cheat by putting an infill at the bottom between the wing rails, so that the wheels run on their flangetips through the gap, and don't dip. (Scandalous suggestion,I know)

 

It ain't pretty but it works. (Provided all your flanges are the same depth). My mate, John, has used it on his garden track, and it's perfectly satisfactory from a running perspective.

 

You can do it with plasticard, or plastic padding!

 

I still prefer 31.5

Simon

[BG John]

It ain't pretty but it works.

My layout will have track that probably won't look at all pretty, as the antidote to all this exotic and expensive stuff that everyone seems to be building, but not to worry, as it will almost all be hidden by deep ballast covering the sleepers . My gauges (see above) cost £12 more than the track has cost so far, as it came out of the loft of a very nice RMwebber. Having decided I need 48" radius curves on the turnouts, rather than the roughly Peco size they are now, it means I need to totally dismantle and rebuild all of it, which is why I can do it in O-MF. It should be much more fun than spending hours sticking little bits of plastic onto every sleeper! I'm just wondering if I should stock up on solder suckers before I start unsoldering it all!

[hartleymartin]

When I hand-built points, I would reduce the gauge to 31.5mm so that the flangeways were 1.5mm wide. I would still use 32mm gauge on curves.

 

On other points where wheels drop into the gap, I would put some thin strips of styrene, which minimises the drop. The issue with this method is that if you have wheels with deeper flanges, the wheels actually jump up. It takes a bit of trial and error, but the aim is not to have the flanges riding on this styrene strip, but just to stop the wheels from dropping too far. If the wheels rise, you loose electrical contact and have issues with locomotives.

[Nearholmer]

N15

 

To avoid people getting disappointed: Peco current manufacture 0 gauge points are not designed to accept G0G coarse standard or similar wheelsets, and they don't in practice.

 

They can be amended so to do, but trying to run coarse wheels through Peco 0 gauge points straight out of the box will result in disappointment, because the checkrails are set too far apart to permit it.

 

Their SM32 points will, however accept coarse standard.

 

Kevin

[N15class]

N15

To avoid people getting disappointed: Peco current manufacture 0 gauge points are not designed to accept G0G coarse standard or similar wheelsets, and they don't in practice.

They can be amended so to do, but trying to run coarse wheels through Peco 0 gauge points straight out of the box will result in disappointment, because the checkrails are set too far apart to permit it.

Their SM32 points will, however accept coarse standard.

Kevin

When did they stop doing the adjustable check rails.

[Nearholmer]

I'm not sure, maybe 10+ years ago, but I know I'm not the only one who wishes they hadn't!

[ROSSPOP]

It is a pity that the quality of Peco Points Performance(PPP) has no improved since my dear old Dad first purchased me some back in 1963

 

I purchased an O Gauge Peco Y point in 2008 which had the same problems (ie unreliable electrical connections and `wheel drop` )

 

 

Lack of Competition in the Market Place I say......

 

JOhn

[3 link]

I sometimes feel sorry for Peco, as it was a tall order to try and design the 7mm turnouts that would cater for such a wide range of wheel treads, flange depth and in so many cases a less than accurate back to back measurement.

 

And thank goodness they did, as a lot of modellers would be up the creek without a paddle and I dread to think of how many would not have even given 7mm a go.

 

Martyn.

Edited August 27, 2017 by 3 link

[Simond]

I suppose Peco get criticised whatever they do, but they have surely been one of the mainstays of railway modelling throughout my lifetime. They're a very successful business, I wouldn't mind shares...

 

Best

Simon

[Jintyman]

I totally agree with Martyn that a lot of people would never of started in 7mm without Peco points, as they are the basis for many layouts.

 

I myself did decide to go down the 31.5mm route and I'd only had a brief foray into copperclad soldered track in 4mm prior to changing to 7mm. 

I had to build my own track in 7mm as the main junction of my modelled station was a complex which had a threeway and a single slip all within a double junction.

 

I built one standard turnout to see how it was and then built the junction as one unit once I felt confident.

I certainly didn't find it daunting, in fact I found it quite relaxing.

 

Here is the junction

 

 

 

I'm sorry it's only a small picture but I lost all my original pictures of the beginings of Talyllyn to ransomware, so I've had to pluck this one from my thread.

 

The whole complex took about a week of evenings to build, and Debs gauges were superb in putting it all together.

All the crossings allow a smooth flow across them for all RTR/Slaters/Peartree wheels although Heljan RTR stuff sometimes requires a slight adjustment using a B2B gauge as they are 'out of gauge' (too wide).

 

Jinty

[3 link]

 

That scene will look great with a local pick up goods coasting across the junction and a B set just departing the station. Look forward to the updates.

 

Martyn.

[sir douglas]

hang on a sec ive just realised something, isnt 31.5 supposed to be a finescale gauge but 31.5 comes out as 4' 6"

[Miss Prism]

hang on a sec ive just realised something, isnt 31.5 supposed to be a finescale gauge but 31.5 comes out as 4' 6"

 

In both 0 and 00, improvement of wheel contours has effected a reduction of the gauge. (00-SF TG is 16.2mm).

[BG John]

Finescale doesn't mean dead scale, and the difference to 32mm is only 0.8562992 scale inches (according to my calculator). O and O-MF are very close to the same gauge error/adjustment to allow for overscale wheels as EM is in 4mm, and that's been recognised as finescale for many decades.

[ROSSPOP]

hang on a sec ive just realised something, isnt 31.5 supposed to be a finescale gauge but 31.5 comes out as 4' 6"

 

Absolutely !!!!!  So I`m staying with 32mm which is the only gauge nearest to the accuracy of S7  and building O Gauge point kits and dealing with the OCCASIONAL wheel drops another way .................

 

...............Spot the difference.................................

 

WITH COMPENSATION.........

 

 

 

 

WITHOUT COMPENSATION........

 

 

answer.......        NONE

 

 

 

 

John

Edited August 27, 2017 by ROSSPOP

[martin_wynne]

hang on a sec ive just realised something, isnt 31.5 supposed to be a finescale gauge but 31.5 comes out as 4' 6"

 

And 32mm comes out as 4ft-6.86in

 

Neither is 4ft-8.5in.

 

Once you have decided to accept a reduced gauge why not choose the one which gives the best results?

 

Having the wrong gauge and STILL getting rough running seems a poor choice.

 

Martin.

[Simond]

Martin,

 

It seems pointless to pursue the debate.

 

The reasons why 31.5 mm gauge, with suitably narrowed flangeways, provides better running has been clearly explained in this thread, and others. Those who want to adopt it will do so, and those who are unwilling to, or incapable of, understanding the rationale will persist in denying the benefits, rather than enjoying them.

 

Better running is not obligatory. (And 31.5 "0-MF" is not the only way to achieve it) The joy of modelling is rule 1, you do what makes you happy!

 

Best

Simon

[martin_wynne]

Martin,

 

It seems pointless to pursue the debate.

 

True. But a debate on a FORUM is not simply an argument between the contributors. It is read by a great many more, now and later -- maybe much later. It is important not to leave misinformation on record which will be indexed and read on Google for 100 years.

 

That is why I get so angry when topics are locked -- as if RMweb is just another Facebook.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited August 27, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Nearholmer]

Clearly the trend for being interested in trivia, which I freely confess to being part of, is going to be alive and well in a century.

 

K

[NHY 581]

And 32mm comes out as 4ft-6.86in

 

Neither is 4ft-8.5in.

 

Once you have decided to accept a reduced gauge why not choose the one which gives the best results?

 

Having the wrong gauge and STILL getting rough running seems a poor choice.

 

Martin.

 

Surely it's down to the quality of the modelling rather that obsessing with correct gauge. For example there are some fantastic layouts in OO gauge.

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about..

 

 

Rob.