martin_wynne

2 for $5, but a picture of 3.

RAIB report published today: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887642/R052020_200528_Edinburgh.pdf Press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-052020-loss-of-brake-control-on-a-sleeper-train-approaching-edinburgh Martin.

Hi Andy, Is this helpful? It all pre-dates the invention of the Pandrol clip. cheers, Martin.

You don't give up, do you? I have mentioned several times that 00-SF is not for train-set radii. 00-SF is for finescale layouts which might otherwise be built in EM. Folks building 00-SF do not use sharp radii through pointwork that needs more than 0.1mm gauge-widening. Also, although the back-to-back MIN is 14.3mm, most will be aiming for more than that for optimum running, so that back-to-flange dimension is approaching 15.2mm. For modellers building sharp industrial turnouts I have suggested sticking with 00-BF, if for use with RTR wheels. Many folks are very pleased with 00-SF for the type of layout they are building and the radius of their curves. They do know what they are doing, just as EM modellers do. Your every argument against 00-SF applies with equal force, or lack of force, to EM. Which is a successful gauge in use for decades and for thousands of layouts. Many EM modellers use RTR wheels widened to 16.4mm back-to-back without any problems at all. Martin.

Hi Andy, Looking good. For 100+ FB pics, here you go, many thanks to Michael Davies: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view_slides.php?user=1679 Or in the gallery, click on them to access the high-res originals: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view.php?user=1679#gallery_top See also the detailed articles by Colin Craig: http://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/modern-permanent-way/ p.s. for FB called baseplates, not chairs. Lots of different UK designs for the rail fixings, mostly pre-dating the invention of the Pandrol clip(1957). See Colin Craig above. cheers, Martin.

Certainly is. If you ring up Hornby and ask them, they will say exactly that. It works very nicely though, with a few ifs and buts. No radii below about 750mm, for which some gauge-widening is needed back to 16.5mm. And check that the wheels back-to-back is not less than 14.3mm. And the wheels back-to-flange is not more than 15.2mm. If all that is too much trouble, stick to Hornby's advice and use 16.5mm gauge. cheers, Martin.

Hi Keith, Seems simple enough to me. You imagine the track gauge, multiply it by 4mm/ft and that's the correct gauge. In this case, if you use 00 RTR models you don't need to do the imagining yourself, because the RTR manufacturers have done it for you. They make 4mm/ft models, and design them to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge track. If you need some prototype 4ft-1.5in gauge track it's very easy to pay your local heritage railway to build some for you -- they are crying out for funds at present. They will use the same rail, chairs, fishplates, etc., as their 4ft-8.5in gauge track, so the same model components can be used to model it. No doubt they would point out that their 8ft-6in sleepers are unnecessarily long, and you can ask them to saw 6 inches off. cheers, Martin.

How is the gauge narrower than it should be? 00 gauge models are made to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge track. If you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track in 4mm/ft scale, 16.5mm is the correct gauge. cheers, Martin.

Hi Jeff, Narrower than what? It's a scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track, so naturally it looks narrower than 4ft-8.5in gauge track. Which in turn looks narrower than Irish 5ft-3in gauge track. For 4ft-1.5in gauge track, an 8ft sleeper is the optimum length. Anything longer would be a waste of timber to no advantage. It could be shortened a fraction, but sleepers significantly shorter would not adequately support the weight of main-line traffic, needing constant packing and maintenance. Branch lines and light railways might possibly use shorter sleepers, or wider spacing. cheers, Martin.

Yes they have. The BRMSB set the standard for 00 gauge at 32mm a lifetime ago. It was adopted by almost everyone until Peco muddied the waters with their introduction of Peco Streamline. It's great that folks ignore the standards, do their own thing and invent their own scales and gauges -- that's what true model-making is about. Otherwise there would never be any innovation or progress. But to say that there is no existing standard is daft. Martin.

Hi Andy, Of course they should. Your sleepers are marvellous. But neither of them are 00, as you referred to for the first ones. 00 sleepers are 32mm long. Likewise AndyID's experiments are marvellous. But he doesn't call them 00. My point is that "00 gauge" has a meaning, which hasn't changed for a lifetime. It doesn't need me or you (or Peco) trying to change it, which is where all the 00 confusion arises. New sizes are scales are great and I welcome them. But not calling them 00. I made that mistake with naming EM-minus-2 as 00-SF in Templot and was called out for it. I changed it to 4-SF for that reason. Likewise AndyID's experimental size is called H00-DN in Templot, not 00. cheers, Martin.

Hi Andy, Well it looks like a 3.5mm/ft model of UK track, until you put 4mm/ft models on it. It then looks daft, as if they are running on matchsticks. As for example when running on Peco Streamline. UK 00 gauge models are made to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge. Prototype UK track built to that gauge has sleepers 8ft long and 10" wide. At 4mm/ft those dimensions scale to 32mm x 3.3mm, and the 4ft-1.5in gauge scales to 16.5mm. Those have been the 00 gauge dimensions for over 60 years, and haven't changed -- which merans the sleepers in your picture are not for 00. cheers, Martin.

I asked about that for the social distancing. According to Facebook it is 2 gas meters you have to keep between you.

Loose-heel is mostly a UK term and denotes the usual method of constructing them in the UK where the fishbolts at the heel of the switch rails were left slightly slack in the fishplates to allow movement of the switch rail. One two of the mysteries of life which I have never been able to establish is "how slack?" and "what prevents them working loose and falling out?" The general trend to flexible switches in the UK, 100 years ago now, probably means such engineering details were originally left to the ganger to keep an eye on, and never updated. In other parts of the world they have remained the norm, and are provided with properly engineered means for the switch rail to pivot at the heel. The big problem with loose-heel switches in model terms is that you can't model them to scale in other than P4, S7, etc. The wider model flangeways in 00, EM, etc., require the switch rails to be made much longer and pivot over a greater length, to ensure an adequate flangeway clearance at the joint. cheers, Martin.