nswgr1855

I have not cleaned my driving wheels for 40 years. I apply a small amout of Inox Mp3 on the track. It spreads around and cleans the wheels as you run your models. The dirt becomes conductive on the track and can be wiped off if to much builds up.

As others have rwplied, it depends on the size of the equipment you wish to use. The AMRA minimum radius standard gives the answers for minimum radius. https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AMRA-Minimum-track-radius-standard.pdf

We have had the same problem in Australia, no commonly agreed standard and Free-Mo /Fremo in Australia has gone nowhere. Now my local model railway club decided, instead of building a new exhibition layout, it would build a Fremo layout for exhibiting, with the club starting to build some useful modules as a start. The old chessnut about standards raised it's head, and after a quick discussion with the interested members I suggested we could get the AMRA standard improved, as I am on their standards comittee. We all had many years of modular layout design and exhibiting, and in a short period of time the AMRA standard was improved, updated and adopted by my local club. The new standard is basically a throw back to the early Fremo simple end board, 500mm wide and using close to the US Free-Mo depth 150mm. We decided to make jumper cables instead of using tethered plugs, as experience shows these can be damaged if the are not properly secured. Also the module wiring was simplifed, using DCC and Wifi allows this. With the support of both my local club and AMRA, this time we should get things going. Here is the link to the AMRA freeform standard, to get an idea of some alternative ideas. https://amra.asn.au/about/standards/

My experience is the lighest method of module construction is 3mm plywood for facias, bracing and track support. Scenery using using foam to support glue shell. 17mm or thicker plywood end boards are required for clamping strength. Seperate legs make the module lighter, though extra space for storing seperate legs is required.

Martin, Have you picked up a problem in the EM standard, that is the maximum span of 16.4mm? If you use a maximum track span of 16.3mm it all adds up nicely for 0.7mm wide wheel flanges.

Ther is a good reason whi I dismiss the DOOGA finescale standard, that it it is not used by many, if any one. It's a copy of the NMRA finescale standard, it's support is only on paper. OO-SF is designed so most RTR models run without modification. Peco code 75 usually complies to NEM standards and AMRA standards, that why I mention relevent standards. It's manufactures that set RTR track standards, RTR wheel dimensions follow the RTR track. Clubs can at best provide a set of standards so the goal posts don't move in the wrong direction.

When developing the AMRA fine tolerance standards I did consider flangeways finer than 1mm for H0 and EM. You can make 0.8mm flangeways and be within the limits of the AMRA standard on simple turnouts, however as agreed by all, it tightens building tolerances, and restricts wheels that are suitable. Also it should be noted standard DOGA 00 track uses 1.25mm flangeways as does NMRA MOROP and AMRA medium tolerance standards.

Fortinately the wagons with the 0.6mm deep flanges are only on short 4 wheel wagons. Most models I have use 0.7mm deep flanges. I use curves suitable to the models I run, and where trains derail due to rough track I adjusted the track so the transition to superelevated track is gradual. My wheels typically can have a back to back that can vary up to 0.1mm. I do get reliable running, (most of the time) and to prove the point here is a lima TGV, with narrow NEM flanged wheels turned down to 0.7mm flange depth on all cars except the trailing non powered 'power car' with H0 finescale 1.23mm wide wheels, 0.7mm flange depth doing a H0 scale speed of 265 km/h. Track is a mix of 1mm flangeways and old 1.25mm flangeways.

Hello Martin, I found it strange that there is a interest in making EM with finer flangeways when there is a well established finer P4 standard. The difference in appearance between 1mm flangeways and 0.8mm flangeways is only noticeable when looking close or with the magnification that results from photography. Also EM allows most 00 wheels regauged to be used. I find no noticeable wheel drop using 1mm flangeways with any 00 or H0 wheels in the market. On the other hand P4 flangeways are easily observed from typical viewing distances. Of course it's harder to build to P4 standards and get it to work. Each to his own. My H0 track is basically the same dimensions as 00-SF, just H0 scaled sleepers and spacing. I only know Andy from his posts in RMweb.

Im sure your Manchester wheels work fine on your well built, nicely flowing non superelevated prototype curved turnouts. The finest flanges I have on my layout are about 0.6mm deep and these now stay on my rougher HO track with superelevation of 1mm on 914mm curves. They are the wheels that find any problems in my trackwork.

Hello Martin, I have built quite a few H0 scale Turnouts and crossings with 1mm flangeways using your excellent program Templot as a guide and track gauges made to the AMRA fine tolerance standard which is the Australian H0 equalevent. My experience of testing and caculations indicate if I use 0.8mm flanges, I need to set the back to back to an exact value, with no tolerance to maintain track clearances at track limits. Most track is not at the limits and peoples methods of measuring wheel flanges and track are not perfect. If the 0.8mm wheel flange profile is a good shape, then the flange shape will compensate for a frog interference error of up to about 0.1mm without any noticeable problem if the turnout radius is not to sharp. The same will go for 0.6mm flanges with 0.8mm flangeways. My point is 0.5mm wheel flanges are the widest flanges you should use for EM-SF 0.8mm track flangeways without going to extra tight tolerances in setting wheel Back to back dimensions . Otherwise you cannot gaurantee smooth reliable derailment free trains.

Looking at the numbers you need to build to simililar or tighter tolerances compared to P4 to get your trains to run as smooth or as reliably if you use typical EM wheels. Ideally wheels with a maximum 0.5mm flange thickness are required to get practical clearances and back to back tolerance for your wheel sets using 0.8mm flangeways. Your Manchester wheels should have a flange width around 0.46mm, and that is ideal for your track and flangeways. However if your flanges match the Manchester profile, then your flanges are only 0.55mm, and without working suspension or compensation like P4, your track will need to be built to a higher level of flatness compared to wheels using the deeper EM flanges.

Clearly this new 'standard has not been properly designed. EM wheels are designed for EM track, that is a 1mm flangeway, so most of todays mass produced wheels can be used if you obtain longer axles and regauge them, or buy 3rd party EM wheels. 1mm flangeways can handle 0.7mm wide flanges, wider than this means clearances become less than scale if you consider practical wheel and track tolerances. Therfore using a 0.8mm flangeway means the widest practical wheel flange is 0.5mm to retain proven required clearances between the wheels and flange ways. Most of Existing stock will probably need to be re gauged to a precission of at least P4 wheel sets or have their wheels remachined to achieve reliable, smooth and derailment free results.

It looks like its easier to get P4 to work compared to EM-SF.

EM is already a 'fine scale' standard. Surely if you want to go finer you would choose P4 standards.