coachmann Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Hang on Coachman, I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I just thought that sentence was at variance with what appeared to be the sentiment of the rest of that post. I understand that now. Your words led me to the wrong end of the stick I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2016 This is true for push-fit wheels but many of us use Romford/Markits drivers where it is difficult or impossible to reset the b-t-b. 1mm flangeways require 14.8mm b-t-b. It might be nice if Markits produced an axle for this standard as they do for EM. If we stick to 14.5mm b-t-b then we need 1.25mm flangeways which I think is what Peco code 75 have. Or 00-FS of course but I feel reluctant to narrow an already narrow gauge. Mike As I said, I haven't measured the flangeways (I must do it on my next visit). Perhaps they are 1.1mm as locos with standard Romford/Markits wheels run through them just fine. It is possible to widen the B 2 B on Romford wheels by sticking strips of metal shim to the back of the wheel centres. I have done it once when I ended up with a dodgy axle that was a tiny amount shorter than it should have been and I was many a mile away from a stockist and didn't want to wait for the post. But you are right, a suitable axle would be a really useful addition to the range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2016 Clive I think you will find that they are correct for the type of sleeper and fixing being modelled as its the Costain and the engineer who built the moulds is highly thought of, the sleeper spacing is exactly the same as Exactoscale bullhead track which most seem to think looks good in this gauge John The review in DEMUs Update spring 2003 states the sleepers are to widely spaced for CWR and the shoulders on them are incorrectly shaped. But then CWR is not part of this topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I do note that nobody has yet shown us their wonderful home made OO track to illustrate what they are telling us all we should do. Or even responded to my suggestion of telling us where they saw the best OO track they have seen, so that we can look at it and decide if we like it. After 48 pages of mostly questionable theory, isn't it time somebody actually showed us what they do instead of telling us what they think we should do? I'm not sure what you want to see t-b-g. Graeme has said this thread is about RTR track in 16.5mm gauge..... Confused of Wokingham. Any comment about Little Bytham or Peterborough North having outstanding trackwork or are you expecting layouts using Peco track to be nominated? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 As illustrated earlier in the thread Little Bytham's turnouts are built using 4mm scale components on an HO template and as such probably does not count as pure OO. No idea about Peterborough North. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 built using 4mm scale components on an HO template and as such probably does not count as pure OO. I thought that was the definition of "00". It can never be 'pure', its a crossbreed compromise. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The timbers would be correct width but spaced too closely. This closeness is exagerated by the over wide timbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I was under the impression that 4mm 'scale' trackwork had been discussed and discarded as the sleepers at 34mm emphasised the narrow gauge of 16.5mm. t-b-g asked us to nominate the best looking track we had seen, 'so we could look at it and decide if we like it'. I think you would be hard pushed to improve on Little Bytham...... Is the idea to use that as a 'template' in terms of rail section, sleeper length and pitch and then use those dimensions in a new track product? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2016 I thought that was the definition of "00". It can never be 'pure', its a crossbreed compromise. Regards The definition of 00 is a 4mm/ft scale model of a 4ft-1.5in gauge railway. H0 doesn't come into it. The object of this exercise is to decide what 4ft-1.5in gauge railway track should look like. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2016 I've said several times in the past that I think that the question of 00 track should be decided by modellers actually working in 00 I think you will find that the question of 00 track will be decided by the manufacturers actually making it. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I was under the impression that 4mm 'scale' trackwork had been discussed and discarded as the sleepers at 34mm emphasised the narrow gauge of 16.5mm. t-b-g asked us to nominate the best looking track we had seen, 'so we could look at it and decide if we like it'. I think you would be hard pushed to improve on Little Bytham...... Is the idea to use that as a 'template' in terms of rail section, sleeper length and pitch and then use those dimensions in a new track product? I would nominate Eastwood Town. Other than being 4-SF the sleeper/timber lengths and positions I suspect are spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Andy Hayter Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2016 For goodness sake, this is getting tiresomely stupid. If the prototype is really 4ft 1.5 inches please show me some prototype pictures of an A4, a Mark 2 coach or a Precursor running on such track. If it helps you in your modelling then so be it but the constant mantra of Um bali, 00, four feet one and a half inches Um bali, 00, four feet one and a half inches Um bali, 00, four feet one and a half inches get more than a little tiresome. For me it is a form of esoteric mental masochism that has no real point - in every sense. As for me I have put up with nearly 50 pages of diversion and I am off and building the next layout in Peco. Not my preference but it is my first choice as currently available RTP. I would love a bullhead set of off the shelf point work, but it isn't there. And before someone says it is easy to build - I know, I did it in (swearword warning coming up) HO. Life is too short and this thread is now far too long. My sympathies to the OP. I share your frustration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2016 If the prototype is really 4ft 1.5 inches please show me No-one has suggested there is a real 4ft-1.5in gauge prototype. But if you build a model at a scale of 4mm/ft and set the rails 16.5mm apart, that is by definition the prototype for your model. It helps to recognise the truth of this before deciding what to do about it. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Why can't we forgot 4' 1½" gauge track, P4 and 00-FS model tracks and just concentrate our minds on 00 gauge track. I once (once was enough for me) adapted a pile of plastic chairs and glued them to a Peco large radius point. Once painted it looked quite dandy joined to C+L plain track. My mind wasn't drawn to counting sleepers everytime I looked at the set-up....It just looked better than the adjacent untreaded point which now looked like a flat-bottom point. That is how I know a Peco style point with chairs would do for me. I believe some Peco points had chairs added to them on a popular Scottish layout featured on RMweb. If asked to make any further changes, I would simply suggest the new track be to Peco Code 83 geometry, but it is not that important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2016 I once adapted a pile of plastic chairs and glued them to a Peco large radius point. Once painted it looked quite dandy joined to C+L plain track. That is how I know a Peco style point with chairs would do for me. Hi Larry, I believe it would do for a lot of 00 modellers too. It is also the type of change to the mould tools which Peco might be willing to consider. The chairs would need to be under-scale to match the timber width and reduced height of the rail above them, but it could be made to look quite effective. The reason for all the heat in this topic is that such a proposal bears no relevance to the stated subject of this topic, which is: "16.5mm traditional 00 gauge. Classic steam era pointwork". I think Graeme could get his topic back to his liking if he changed the title to "Suggested modifications to Peco pointwork" or some such wording. Those visiting this topic would then know what to discuss. And those not interested in the subject would know to avoid it. (To change a topic title, the OP needs to edit the first post, and click Use Full Editor.) Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 The definition of 00 is a 4mm/ft scale model of a 4ft-1.5in gauge railway. H0 doesn't come into it. The object of this exercise is to decide what 4ft-1.5in gauge railway track should look like. Martin. No-one has suggested there is a real 4ft-1.5in gauge prototype. But if you build a model at a scale of 4mm/ft and set the rails 16.5mm apart, that is by definition the prototype for your model. It helps to recognise the truth of this before deciding what to do about it. Martin. Re-defining OO as the modelling an imaginary 4' 1 1/2" gauge prototype has never been the objective of this topic and it never will be. The overwhelming majority of OO modellers consider that they are modelling standard gauge track, i.e. 4' 8 1/2". The goal when modelling OO track to a better standard than Peco offer has therefore to be to make it look as nearly like a model of standard gauge track as the constraints allow. If you don't want me to be rude yet again Martin recognise that this topic is not yours, I started it, and it is about "norma"l OO gauge modelling not your strange twist on it. STOP TRYING TO HIJACK IT PLEASE! If you want to "pump" the idea of modelling a non existent prototype gauge then why don't you advocate your ideas on a suitably titled thread of your own somewhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 15, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2016 STOP TRYING TO HIJACK IT PLEASE! Hi Graeme, I am not trying to hijack your topic. What I am doing is responding to the subject title which you gave it. No-one is prevented from dismissing my posts as the ravings of a lunatic. If you want me to stop posting in it -- change the title to correspond to what you do want to talk about. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.