Jump to content

Andy Reichert

Members
  • Content Count

    1,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

575 Good

About Andy Reichert

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.proto87.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Central Coast California -

Recent Profile Visitors

376 profile views
  1. But my (and the previous poster's) point was that the 0.0.028" accurate FW depth does support both RTR and Kit wheels from dropping. Your and Gordon's alternative point is that you can hand lay the turnout to get the same support. But that is a must hand lay. It's near to impossible to modify the gauge of a plastic based commercial turnout. But quite easy to cut out just the crossing (aka frog) and drop in a matching replacement. Not having to relay all the layout's visible turnouts is a whole different level of ease of implementation to run mixed Kit and RTR wheels. Now you can use PECO everywhere. Andy
  2. All model "standards" are derived in some way from the single set of engineering based track and wheel dimensions used by the prototype. And the reason it's a single set on the prototype is that changing or having multiple standards means that you end up with incompatibility issues that cause problems in some way or another. ALL model standards have good and bad points, regardless of what the particular supporters of each will emphasize . You can choose to follow the one that suits you - and perhaps allows you and your friends to interchange vehicles, if that is a consideration. The answer to evaluating any particular standard is to do an "Agatha Christie" and follow the numbers. Numbers don't lie and they don't push agendas. But they are critical because each variation of a standard still has to meet the same set of engineering correctness criteria as the prototype to be viable. In most cases you can't alter a single dimension of an existing correct standard without altering several others to bring it back into engineering compliance. And all the numbers involved, if they have tolerances, must still work when the tolerances are worst case. Andy
  3. See Proto;87 Stores "88 safe" range of crossings (frogs) for 00/HO with a flange way base at exactly 0.028" depth from the rail head, but with a full flange way width of 0.050" for maximum flexibility within the NMRA HO standard. These can be used as "instant" drop in frog replacements in all commercial 00 and HO track, as well as all hand laid track. They can certainly obviate any need to use 00-SF track gauge changes. Andy
  4. I would recommend not trying to define "finescale". First and foremost everyone else will have different ideas. Secondly, any visual improvement is minimal compared to modelling wheels and track close to their correct scale. (AKA as Proto- Scales). Correct scale wheel width in 4mm is around 0.072" and in HO, 0.063". Scale flange way widths (1.75") are 0.023" in 4mm and 0.020" in HO. Even Proto-Scales compromise a little on the flange ways, due to running clearances not scaling down proportionally. IMHO, I can't honestly describe the idea of a 4mm scale flange way of 0.040" being "fine" when compared to the 0.023" of the scaled prototype or the 0.050" of RTR. For anyone interested, my modelling goal is to make HO scale, Proto-87 and 4mm scale P4 become a just as easy to put together as prresent day HO and 00 RTR. It's pretty much there for diesel and electric modelling now, but still some ways away for steam. Andy
  5. Invisibility isn't the problem. The key requirements of a standard are that the wheels don't fall into the crossing Vee gap and that the flanges don't run against the crossing Vee. Either of those and you will get a significant number of apparently random random derailments and unrealistic jolts and noise when wheels traverse the crossings. Andy
  6. Unfortunately, my just acquired Hornby Gresley Suburbans don't comply with the DOGA Intermediate Standard. Wheel width is only 2.54 mm and BB is 14.25. Andy
  7. I think you just discovered what's wrong with "00" today. I always thought it was supposed to be 4mm scale running on HO track, but that seems to have changed over the past coupla decades, presumably due a lack of technical understanding by UK manufacturers in particular. HO (as defined by the US NMRA) has stayed pretty stable and problem free over the years. And checking out the wheel and track standards (and introduction) of their website will give you a better understanding of what matters and what reliable dimensions should be. In the NMRA case correct HO wheels are 0.110" wide. Using narrower wheels requires matching track with narrower flange ways that AFAIK is not available commercially. Finescale is marketing term that can be applied to anything at the whim of the writer. My personal thoughts are that any model ystem that has a rigid chassis and relies instead on overscale depth flanges to keep the vehicles on practical model track is a "coarse" system, regardless of any other characteristics. Andy
  8. 1/25.4 In reverse, 1 mm = 0.0394" handles most everyday railway modelling. (Good) Working chassis suspension is what makes models realistically glide, rather than bump and bounce like toys. For me personally, slow smooth realistic movement, giving the impression of the massive weight and inertia of the prototype, is the Number 1 goal of my modelling. (plus the perfect pick up saves the chain saw complication of using battery power ) Andy
  9. Yes , we use both systems "Over Here" That's why I can send etch drawings to the UK and not not have them printed 25.4 times too small. OTOH, a "thou" is conveniently more precise than 0.1 mm when drawing small parts. Andy (one of the "they") . .
  10. I've been off the forum for about as long as you've been working on US HO in that shed. So I just got a big surprise at your change over. But I'm not at all a US diesel fan and I think your Irish models look a heck of a lot more attractive. So Gooood Job! Andy
  11. Note, I have been supplying precision parts for code 40 N and Z scale turnouts. for at least the past decade E.g. Preformed crossings (frogs), machined points, throw bars, rail fixing plates and sleeper bases. My full turnout kits currently have US sized and spaced sleepers, but these can easily be replaced with UK sized and spaced ones if wanted.. This is a Z scale # 6 I would advise care in choosing or building code 40 rail products, as it's not the rail height that matters, but the relative height of the rail fixings. They must always be set below the bottom of the wheel flanges you intend using. But they also have to be strong enough to withstand continued use. Here in the US, we have been using moving magnets for uncoupling Kadee's for as long as I can remember. Google "mounting uncoupling magnets on servos" for some of the latest ideas. Everything published is pretty much in the public domain, so you can make use of it yourself.. Andy
  12. I half etch the surface to leave rivets standing out. Andy
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.