Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1

[Nearholmer]

Real trains, and model/toy trains, can be designed and built to cope with horrible track geometry, and will work fine on it if they are, long bogie vehicles included.

 

What will never work is making an exact-scale replica of a main-line vehicle, and expecting it to traverse track with the sort of geometry encountered in a quarry or a dockyard. One of two things has to change to achieve compatibility: the track has to be a scale replica of mainline track; or, the vehicle has to be amended to resemble something used in a dockyard or a quarry. Or, you tweak both track and vehicles a bit to meet in the middle, which is what G0G 'fine' attempts to do.

 

In short, compatibility is king. 

 

Oddly enough, in 0, the least mutually compatible wheel/vehicle/track standards are to be found in so-called 'fine': horrible old coarse scale works, and surprisingly smoothly too; super-fidelity S7 works; but 'fine' sometimes doesn't quite and is prone to things like 'frog drop', which is why some people productively bastardise it by reducing the gauge by 0.5mm.

 

 

[GRASinBothell]

Interesting discussion about S-curves. I put in an S-curve on my layout, (a) to avoid having the track parallel to the baseboard edge, and (b) to make room for a beach and Lionel lighthouse. The S-curve consists of a right hand Atlas O-99 curve immediately followed by a left-hand O-90 curve (the same on both inside and outside tracks). All worked fine for a while, but eventually I had a problem with the centre-rail pick-up on a Darstaed corridor bogie coach. Just at the join between the two curves, the straight section of the pick-up spoon caught on the 3rd rail, causing the bogie to derail.

I reshaped the spoon, so the straight section shouldn't come into contact with the rail, and so far it's been OK. Fingers crossed...

Gordon

[rockershovel]

This is why my O27 door layout avoids using reverse curves, with one exception, and why I wanted a tender engine as a switcher (first the 0-8-0, now an 0-4-0). 

 

The two Hudsons, and the Berkshire, will all negotiate the O27 curves (although with care, in the case of the 2-8-4) but I don’t put them over the curved legs of the switches. The front overhangs of both switchers cause derailments when pushing, but the short tender on the 0-4-0 will push stock over the switches. 

 

I also find that the very light, modern and MPC era stock is both too light, and too unstable on its trucks to negotiate the curves reliably - especially with a the weight and rolling resistance of a lighted caboose at the back. 

[Simond]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

some people productively bastardise it by reducing the gauge by 0.5mm.

 

Me, for example.

 

I suspect that this is not the thread for an 0-MF discussion, though I’m happy to walk through the whys and wherefores - should you want to see some track, please see my Porth Dinllaen thread, linky thingy below.

 

Season's Greetings to all!

simon

[Donw]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Real trains, and model/toy trains, can be designed and built to cope with horrible track geometry, and will work fine on it if they are, long bogie vehicles included.

 

What will never work is making an exact-scale replica of a main-line vehicle, and expecting it to traverse track with the sort of geometry encountered in a quarry or a dockyard. One of two things has to change to achieve compatibility: the track has to be a scale replica of mainline track; or, the vehicle has to be amended to resemble something used in a dockyard or a quarry. Or, you tweak both track and vehicles a bit to meet in the middle, which is what G0G 'fine' attempts to do.

 

In short, compatibility is king. 

 

Oddly enough, in 0, the least mutually compatible wheel/vehicle/track standards are to be found in so-called 'fine': horrible old coarse scale works, and surprisingly smoothly too; super-fidelity S7 works; but 'fine' sometimes doesn't quite and is prone to things like 'frog drop', which is why some people productively bastardise it by reducing the gauge by 0.5mm.

 

 

 

The big problem with 0F is the wheels commonly used are slightly finer than the standard. I never had much problem with my handbuilt A5.5 turnouts but it does seem to occurr with Peco trunouts. The finer wheels do look good and the gauge reduction reduces the flangeways too. However the gauge reduction does not go well with tiht curves unless of course you  introduce gauge widening for curves (including through turnouts) back to 32mm which rather negates the whole thing. We are generally talking on here about shoehorning  a layout into a smaller space than we might wish for and often there is a fight between the curvature and train length.

With crossovers the use of large radius turnouts may ease long coaches through but will steal precious inches needed to accommodate them. It is also worth pointing out that  having a close track spacing can impact on the clearing point spacing the tracks slightly wider apart can help. Us GWR modellers can often blame the wider spacing on ex Broad gauge lines.

 

Don

 

[goldfish]

I have no problems with the S bends through the 627mm radius points on my shunting plank, despite the couplings having been changed to reduce the distance between buffers.

 

[rockershovel]

... but don’t forget that 627mm radius translates to 51” diameter, and O54 is considered quite a large curve in coarse O ...

[Nearholmer]

Which points are you using Goldfish?

[Donw]

1 hour ago, goldfish said:

I have no problems with the S bends through the 627mm radius points on my shunting plank, despite the couplings having been changed to reduce the distance between buffers.

 

 

The turnouts are blade to blade perhaps the curve eases a fraction at that end and the couplings aren't ordinary three link which probably avoids buffer locking when pushing. Even so it is quite impressive tha you can use such tight radius.

 

What make are the turnouts?

 

Don 

[goldfish]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Which points are you using Goldfish?

 

On my shunting plank I use ETS points track and points. Unfortunately 2-3 rail switchable locomotives and stock will not run through them so I have to change the wheels to 1.5mm or less flanges.

The couplings are LMC pattern  drop link couplings. The private owner wagons and brake van are the usual swivel type, but the plain grey open wagon and the low sided wagon have LMC pattern couplings with a sprung drawbar as used on normal 3-link couplings.

Dapol  7-plank wagons can  be pulled through the S bend with the standard couplings, but cannot be pushed  through it. Replacing the 3-link couplings with Dapol screw link couplings and glueing the links rigid allows them to be pulled and pushed though the S bend reasonably reliably.

The shunting plank is 2400mm x 400mm and currently is an enhanced inglenook with full 5,3,3,3 sidings and 3 wagon head shunt. Using 11 wagons instead of 8 makes an interesting puzzle.

[Nearholmer]

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

 

For unto you is given universal 0 gauge points, which shall be a smooth way for wheels of all profiles and shall bring an end to all strife.

 

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the points wrapped in rust-inhibiting paper, lying in a shallow straw-filled box.

 

Tragically, even this wasn’t enough, and the Children of G0G continued in their disputatious ways, and their engines were off the rails as often as on.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Nearholmer

[goldfish]

7 hours ago, rockershovel said:

... but don’t forget that 627mm radius translates to 51” diameter, and O54 is considered quite a large curve in coarse O ...

 

627mm radius is the only curve ETS produce, and nobody else does small radius 32mm 2-rail track.

I do have a small test track with Lionel 0-36 S bends that a surprising amount of stock will negotiate.

My apologises for the image quality.

 

 

[goldfish]

15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

 

For unto you is given universal 0 gauge points, which shall be a smooth way for wheels of all profiles and shall bring an end to all strife.

 

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the points wrapped in rust-inhibiting paper, lying in a shallow straw-filled box.

 

Tragically, even this wasn’t enough, and the Children of G0G continued in their disputatious ways, and their engines were off the rails as often as on.

 

 

 

And low, the Children of G0G came to the manger, but when they counted the rivets they were dismayed. For the number of rivets on one side was even, but the number of rivets on the other side was odd. And it came to pass that a mighty schism sundered the Children of G0G that counted on the odd side from those that counted on the even side. But the Children of the third rail were unmoved. For in their innocence they thought the rivets looked more like nails.

 

[rockershovel]

“What is truth?” said Pilate, “are mine the same as yours?”.  And he went forth, and said “I find no fault” 

Edited December 25, 2019 by rockershovel

[Northroader]

 Then there was modellers, dwelling in the wilderness, tending their tracks by night, and the angel of the lord appeared and spake to them, saying “Rejoice, for your problems are of nothing compared to those ****** modelling in four mil” and they praised the lord, giving thanks, saying my back to back is nearly like yours, and the Lord saw it was good. Glory be to GOG.

[Nearholmer]

Is there any danger of my thread being locked for blasphemy, which is, after all, a fairly old-fashioned crime offence against common law?

 

(Having checked, it seems only to have disappeared from UK common law in 2008, and one of the things that might constitute an offence was "... profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures ......". Mind you, a great deal of profane scoffing, and resultant rolling about laughing, went on with nobody being punished, so we're probably safe from temporal retribution.)

 

 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Simond]

I do hope not!

 

Merry Christmas!

Simon

[rockershovel]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Is there any danger of my thread being locked for blasphemy, which is, after all, a fairly old-fashioned crime offence against common law?

 

(Having checked, it seems only to have disappeared from UK common law in 2008, and one of the things that might constitute an offence was "... profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures ......". Mind you, a great deal of profane scoffing, and resultant rolling about laughing, went on with nobody being punished, so we're probably safe from temporal retribution.)

 

 

 

I don’t recall it being anything particularly unusual...

 

while shepherds washed their socks by night

all watching ITV

the Angel of the Lord came down

and switched to BBC 

 

I’m only surprised that anyone troubled to remember the existence of such a Statute, as late as 2008. 

Edited December 26, 2019 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

Can I submit a mildly old-fashioned 00 (yes, two oos) idea for critique?

 

I have a Triang ‘Nellie’, virtually unused since I bought it new in, I think, 1971 or 72, and have been considering building a ‘piano line’ for it. The idea is to use Peco Code 100 points and track, which should accept its rather iffy wheel profile.

 

Well, things got out of hand, and I’ve arrived at ‘Chlavicord Quay’, in 6ft x 16in on a single board, the added features being a carriage shed (Triang four-wheelers!!!) and a loco hutch, and what I think is a better arrangement for shunting by crossing the incoming line over the runaround loop.

 

Watjer fink?

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Annie]

Looks like a lot of fun in a small space Kevin.  Very light railway and with the odd nod of the head towards Wantage in some of its elements.

[St Enodoc]

57 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Can I submit a mildly old-fashioned 00 (yes, two oos) idea for critique?

 

I have a Triang ‘Nellie’, virtually unused since I bought it new in, I think, 1971 or 72, and have been considering building a ‘piano line’ for it. The idea is to use Peco Code 100 points and track, which should accept its rather iffy wheel profile.

 

Well, things got out of hand, and I’ve arrived at ‘Chlavicord Quay’, in 6ft x 16in on a single board, the added features being a carriage shed (Triang four-wheelers!!!) and a loco hutch, and what I think is a better arrangement for shunting by crossing the incoming line over the runaround loop.

 

Watjer fink?

 

 

 

Looks like fun. My only concern would be getting Nellie not to baulk at the short crossing.

[rockershovel]

I used a diamond crossing for a similar reason on my O27 door layout, it really opens up the options. A dockside is exactly the sort of place one would be used in British practice. 

 

I’d suggest that you simplify the concept a little and focus on a single category of traffic - fish vans, oil tankers, that sort of thing. When I was in Plymouth last year I discovered Victoria Wharf, a compact little dock (served by rail until recent times) with a surprising range of traffic including bulk powder. It would make a super little model, right down to the entry via a tunnel under the access road and scenic breaks on all sides.

 

https://www.victoriagroup.co.uk/about-us/victoria-wharf/

 

[Northroader]

It’s got an attractive symmetry about it. My first reaction looking at it was “too many points”, but then I thought that when Martin sc published the plan for his shed line, and as it took shape, it didn’t look cluttered at all. I think it’s just how it looks on a small piece of paper, when you do it, it will fit perfectly. I’m running two Nellies on my Whimsy line, they don’t seem to understand the word “slow”, so some modern backup would be good, such as a Peckett hired  from the mighty new  Peckett fleet owner?

[Donw]

Looks fine to me. In the old fashioned spirit you could add a track wiper or two to Nellie if she has trouble with a short crossing. I dont think Peco do an electrofrog version of the short crossing. As far as I am aware there have been more problems reported with DCC shorts on the short crossing. DCC being notoriously fussy about momentary shorts.  There is a thread on here about that.

 

Don

[Simond]

The other solution to impatient locos, is to tame them with DCC.  This doesn’t feel very old fashioned, but is quite effective.

 

atb

Simon