Andy Reichert

I spent much time 40 years ago checking out HO wood box cars to find ones with wood ends to match my 1920's Pacific Electric roster. Fortunately, soon after, Accurail actually made a PE labelled batch many years back. and I purchased a few then. But my main source was the original "Train Miniature" 1970's Tobacco Road series to repaint them in everyday SP box car red schemes . I think they were all under $5 full retail. Now apparently the originals are collectors items at sky high prices. Modern manufacturers seem to focused on more modern eras, as that's only what newcomers to the hobby remember. Andy

How does the printed part of the track stand up when you solder a power wire to the rail? Andy

Rural, and even suburban, roads and areas in the US were then (and often still are) far more poorly lit than the equivalent UK scenes. Little glows from remote homes with no street lighting is quite typical. I think the model looks about right. Andy

Hence my earlier post about the serious risks (to a manufacturer) of manufacturing a product with misleading naming and usage implications. Andy

Well Ravenser's (snipped) RM Web post below is nothing to do with me. I'm sure I can find others if I look a little longer. .Ravenser Members 2.7k Posted October 19, 2015 On 16/10/2015 at 14:00, Ravenser said: This goes to the heart of my concern with what you are promoting. You are stripping out clearances and working tolerances to the point where intermittent binding somewhere becomes well-nigh inevitable. The whole layout ends up on hairs-breadth clearances at best - and the moment that anything is sub-optimum , you're stuffed You accept that clearances are very tight with RTR wheels - but in fact the picture is even worse, because "tight" wheelsets down to 14.3mm are quite common on RTR : most Bachmann locos will have one wheelset like that in my experience. That immediately wipes out half the limited clearance at the check span. You are down to 0.1mm total clearance, or an average of 0.05mm each side. And you've repeatedly said that B2Bs down to 14.3mm are okay on OO-SF. These minimal clearances aren't exceptional cases - they will be commonplace - and you're expecting the whole wheel/rail interface system to work with complete reliability under such minimal clearances Critically you have very restricted clearances for the RP25/110 flange through the flangeway and very restricted clearances across the check span. It may not be possible for the wheelset to satisfy both the very narrowly defined constraints simultaneously. At which point something must come off. This is not a recipe for reliable running There is now independent testimony from Brian Kirby that this is a real issue in practice: SNIP And I I object to your continually claiming that there isn't a different and 100% working solution when it has been used successfully here in the USA at least 15 years. That of course does not have any effect on minimum radius. And for that reason it appears to have been incorporated in most commercial RTR turnout products by now. Andy

Actually 00-SF has also been disagreed with by multiple members of RM WEB over the past 20 years. The gauge change is irrelevant. It's the serious build and running accuracy issues that are the problem. 00-SF using RTR wheels needs one and a half times more accuracy in track and wheels than P4 does. FWIW here roughly are the wheel flange running clearances from of the various "standards" and "variants" in descending order. Andy,

For a hand laying individual no. You are responsible for your own scratch building results. If you are a commercial outfit, setting correct product descriptions, customer expectations and whether you deliver them all is critical. Also a product which only works in X % of the situations it's advertised for, and/or only X % of the expected performance/time will usually entail having a large, expensive, customer support department, and losing your reputation, even if X is 95%. Andy, Been there, done that, (Redesigned the product {fast} and saved the company)

I asked if that inferred there was a separate "00" version of the spacer for the "00" version of your turnout kit. It seems logical there should be, if only for consistent labelling, but Martin didn't answer that. My obviously relevant ongoing question is "what gauge are you using at the throw bar (and for the turnout ends for that matter) for the "00-SF" version of your turnout kit?" Apparently (see Siberian Snooper post) the much lauded as 00-SF Gordon S layout only used 16.2 mm gauge through the common crossings. So it's not clearly defined what gauge(s) an 00-SF turnout actually is supposed to be. Andy

Sorry. I assumed it was obvious my question was to Wayne as the kit maker. I would think only Wayne knows his manufacturing dimensions and tolerances. Andy

It looks like of your thru route (Main line ?) goes through the diverging sides of many of the turnouts. That's not very prototypical and imposes very slow speed restrictions. Personally I'd add passing sidings in between the two side switching areas so you can have the interest of more than one train and running both ways around Andy

Andy, Do you think it is possible to print FB base plates with presentable looking pandrol clips? Both 3.5 mm and 4 mm scale preferably Andy R

You may want to check out using old US Athearn "Blue Box" diesel mechs for repowering UK EMU's and DMU'S. The wheel base is close, the central motor and 8 wheel drive power is reliable and more than adequate, spares abound and working suspension is a simple add-on. Andy

I wondered why the little spacer said "EM/00-SF". Presumably there is an alternate version that is for plain "00" with a slightly wider opening to safely accommodate/clear the fatter wheel flanges of RTR wheels? If so, wouldn't "00" gapping be more appropriate if allowing for using RTR wheels on 16.2 mm gauge? Andy

The point of individual sleepers being available ready made, just like rail, and PCB sleepers, is that it obviates the need for every individual modeller having computers, software, milling machines, laser cutters, 3D printers, or whatever, in order to make plain track and many varieties of turnouts. When it comes making turnouts, one size of turnout timber cut to the needed length fits all the possibilities. PCB sleepers are already used extensively in the same manner, despite their flat appearance and rail isolating slots. With wood sleepers, the scaled down grain is a major plus for close up photography. Then drilling and/or punching and/or gluing into softy wood allows very easy addition of just about every possible type of rail fittings. And BTW, they don't melt when soldering wire to rails. Much like we use the humble simple brick as the universal part basis for building real houses of every conceivable type and size. Andy

FYI Current US prices for bulk HO wood cross ties ( sleepers) is around US$ 21 per 1000. For bulk HO Switch ties (Turnout Timbers), prices are double at US$ 21 per 500. US HO track needs about 150 ties per yard and so one 1000 pack is sufficient for nearly 7 yards. (3 US$ per yard). The amount of wood needed for each larger UK 4 mm modelled sleeper is greater, but the number of sleepers per yard much less ( My guess 110). So I would expect UK modellers to get about the same cost per yard for wood sleepers. Andy

Coffee produces wakers, not sleepers.

For a recent paved street project here in the US, I used a laser cutter to scribe a sett pattern across the whole street width. The slots are for the girder rail, to be added later. I introduced a slight random jiggle in the scribing to try and prevent a too precise and unrealistic sett laying pattern for a street that had been paved a couple of decades earlier. Merging the setts into curved track was most challenging. I ended up creating a transition at the edge of the straight street boundary, tweaking just about every sett in the transition by hand to make them sort of appear to fit. But I think any real life version would have been done much more professionally. I'm not sure how prototypical this width and pattern would be for London streets. Any input for that would be most welcome Andy.

Just thought I'd mention the quite popular material used over here in the US for hand-modelling track, so it can have it's own focused discussion thread, rather than bringing it up randomly in other topics that don't want distractions. There are quite a few positives that are worth considering before choosing one of the ( quite many ) various known UK methods. Andy

Thanks, I'm still using filaments that are are organic and grow on trees. . . from files created eons ago Around 350 Million years perfecting . . . and still counting Andy

For Setts on straight track., I had good results with Slater Plasticard Roof sheets.

Code 82 FB is only proportionally to scale at 18.83 mm. If your track gauge is 16.5 mm then code 70 looks the correct height in relation to the gauge. Of course to maintain the same scale reduction (and visual impression) for 16.5 mm gauge, you really should shrink the sleeper size and spacing too. Andy

Sorry if missed this on an earlier post. I understand picture 1 but what is the base and rail of picture 2. Or is it just a printed paper sheet? Andy

Then you should really enjoy reading https://groups.google.com/g/rec.models.railroad/c/fc8hjnn2o-w/m/eh_F3iHRFzgJ It's way before my time, so nothing to do with me, but the issues are the same. The reference to 16.2 mm first appears around Mar 15, 2006, 6:02:56 PM There are several similar threads on uk.rec.models.rail. Just fewer Australians. Cheers, Andy

Great, will do shortly . Many thanks. Andy (Cockney in Califonia)

Given the almost double size of UK O compared to 00. And the much higher vehicle weights, I presume it is very straightforward and reliable to just go to near scale flange ways and wheels of S7 or the like, and not have to worry about having visible well over scale crossing flange ways at all. Andy