Andy Reichert Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 Opinions solely on appearance of models are fine if they are sincerely held solely personal feelings and don't violate RM Web rules. E.g. "Please do not post unsubstantiated criticism of any person, party, business or organization. However, if such criticism is continual and from a moderator, it becomes indistinguishable from RM WEB Policy. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted May 24, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 24, 2020 Having approximately the right amount of sleeper on the outside of the rail is one thing that can be done correctly in 00. A 32mm sleeper or a 34mm one for a pregrouping look, works out about right. If your gauge is about 2mm narrower than it should be, making the sleepers 2mm narrower disguises it rather than accentuates it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 24, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, t-b-g said: Having approximately the right amount of sleeper on the outside of the rail is one thing that can be done correctly in 00. A 32mm sleeper or a 34mm one for a pregrouping look, works out about right. If your gauge is about 2mm narrower than it should be, making the sleepers 2mm narrower disguises it rather than accentuates it. How is the gauge narrower than it should be? 00 gauge models are made to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge track. If you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track in 4mm/ft scale, 16.5mm is the correct gauge. cheers, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 How can you define a correct gauge if you are modelling something entirely imaginary? It can only ever be your opinion of what that imaginary track would be like. Hence all the variety. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 One has to wonder who's job it is to define (and be critical of) what a "scale model"of 4ft-1.5in gauge track in 4mm/ft scale actually is. AFAIK, there isn't a prototype for it. So there is no rail height, sleeper size and spacing to refer to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 The Glasgow Subway is close at 4ft...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 24, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 24, 2020 42 minutes ago, Grovenor said: How can you define a correct gauge if you are modelling something entirely imaginary? It can only ever be your opinion of what that imaginary track would be like. Hence all the variety. Hi Keith, Seems simple enough to me. You imagine the track gauge, multiply it by 4mm/ft and that's the correct gauge. In this case, if you use 00 RTR models you don't need to do the imagining yourself, because the RTR manufacturers have done it for you. They make 4mm/ft models, and design them to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge track. If you need some prototype 4ft-1.5in gauge track it's very easy to pay your local heritage railway to build some for you -- they are crying out for funds at present. They will use the same rail, chairs, fishplates, etc., as their 4ft-8.5in gauge track, so the same model components can be used to model it. No doubt they would point out that their 8ft-6in sleepers are unnecessarily long, and you can ask them to saw 6 inches off. cheers, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said: One has to wonder who's job it is to define (and be critical of) what a "scale model"of 4ft-1.5in gauge track in 4mm/ft scale actually is. AFAIK, there isn't a prototype for it. So there is no rail height, sleeper size and spacing to refer to. 13 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said: The Glasgow Subway is close at 4ft...... Then of course there are the ultimate in narrow gauge railways in southern Africa at 3'6" with steam locomotives as heavy as many standard gauge ones and running on heavy gauge rail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted May 24, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 24, 2020 2 hours ago, martin_wynne said: How is the gauge narrower than it should be? 00 gauge models are made to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge track. If you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track in 4mm/ft scale, 16.5mm is the correct gauge. cheers, Martin. An interesting viewpoint! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 3 hours ago, martin_wynne said: How is the gauge narrower than it should be? 00 gauge models are made to run on 4ft-1.5in gauge track. If you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track in 4mm/ft scale, 16.5mm is the correct gauge. cheers, Martin. So in your firm conviction, 16.2 mm is therefore an incorrect gauge for 00 Models to run on. Andy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 Isn't this thread getting a bit silly? In a few years time when Peco manages to complete it's OO BH range it will be accepted as normal just as many thousands of OO modellers accepted (maybe somewhat grudgingly) HO streamline as normal, and many will continue to do so....... 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 24, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: So in your firm conviction, 16.2 mm is therefore an incorrect gauge for 00 Models to run on. Certainly is. If you ring up Hornby and ask them, they will say exactly that. It works very nicely though, with a few ifs and buts. No radii below about 750mm, for which some gauge-widening is needed back to 16.5mm. And check that the wheels back-to-back is not less than 14.3mm. And the wheels back-to-flange is not more than 15.2mm. If all that is too much trouble, stick to Hornby's advice and use 16.5mm gauge. cheers, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted May 25, 2020 Author Share Posted May 25, 2020 Despite all of the above the intrepid eccentric carries on undeterred Here's a pic of some lower-profile FB chairs. The FB rail is by Andy Reichert. The gauge is 16.2 mm (or about as close to as I can achieve.) First pic from a sensible viewing distance. Second pic same as first pic but enlarged in terrifying close-up to G1 dimensions. I'd be most grateful If anyone can point me at some pics of UK FB turnout construction/chairs. Cheers! AndyID Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2020 3 hours ago, AndyID said: I'd be most grateful If anyone can point me at some pics of UK FB turnout construction/chairs. Hi Andy, Looking good. For 100+ FB pics, here you go, many thanks to Michael Davies: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view_slides.php?user=1679 Or in the gallery, click on them to access the high-res originals: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view.php?user=1679#gallery_top See also the detailed articles by Colin Craig: http://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/modern-permanent-way/ p.s. for FB called baseplates, not chairs. Lots of different UK designs for the rail fixings, mostly pre-dating the invention of the Pandrol clip(1957). See Colin Craig above. cheers, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted May 25, 2020 Author Share Posted May 25, 2020 Many thanks Martin. It's probably time I hit the sack here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 20 hours ago, martin_wynne said: Certainly is. If you ring up Hornby and ask them, they will say exactly that. It works very nicely though, with a few ifs and buts. No radii below about 750mm, for which some gauge-widening is needed back to 16.5mm. And check that the wheels back-to-back is not less than 14.3mm. And the wheels back-to-flange is not more than 15.2mm. If all that is too much trouble, stick to Hornby's advice and use 16.5mm gauge. cheers, Martin. You've measured the increased running friction on curves for 6 coupled (and above) steam locos on your layout then ? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 Andy PLEASE can we keep on topic, 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 12 minutes ago, hayfield said: Andy PLEASE can we keep on topic, On 18/05/2020 at 02:28, Buhar said: Speak softly, but is 16.2 gauge possible? Hi Alan, Andy is in the land of nod for the moment, so I'll answer for him -- it is 16.2mm. It's in a gauge called H00-DN which you can find in the Templot gauge list (other gauges menu item). cheers, Martin. 21 hours ago, martin_wynne said: Certainly is. If you ring up Hornby and ask them, they will say exactly that. It works very nicely though, with a few ifs and buts. No radii below about 750mm, for which some gauge-widening is needed back to 16.5mm. And check that the wheels back-to-back is not less than 14.3mm. And the wheels back-to-flange is not more than 15.2mm. If all that is too much trouble, stick to Hornby's advice and use 16.5mm gauge. cheers, Martin. And while we are quoting numbers, How does gauge widening at turnouts (span = 14.2 mm ) help if the wheel BB is only 14.3 mm. Any widening beyond 0.1 mm just lets the wheel back rub the wing rail. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2020 51 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said: And while we are quoting numbers, How does gauge widening at turnouts (span = 14.2 mm ) help if the wheel BB is only 14.3 mm. Any widening beyond 0.1 mm just lets the wheel back rub the wing rail. You don't give up, do you? I have mentioned several times that 00-SF is not for train-set radii. 00-SF is for finescale layouts which might otherwise be built in EM. Folks building 00-SF do not use sharp radii through pointwork that needs more than 0.1mm gauge-widening. Also, although the back-to-back MIN is 14.3mm, most will be aiming for more than that for optimum running, so that back-to-flange dimension is approaching 15.2mm. For modellers building sharp industrial turnouts I have suggested sticking with 00-BF, if for use with RTR wheels. Many folks are very pleased with 00-SF for the type of layout they are building and the radius of their curves. They do know what they are doing, just as EM modellers do. Your every argument against 00-SF applies with equal force, or lack of force, to EM. Which is a successful gauge in use for decades and for thousands of layouts. Many EM modellers use RTR wheels widened to 16.4mm back-to-back without any problems at all. Martin. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 1 hour ago, martin_wynne said: You don't give up, do you? Pot and kettle! Regards 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 2 hours ago, martin_wynne said: You don't give up, do you? I have mentioned several times that 00-SF is not for train-set radii. 00-SF is for finescale layouts which might otherwise be built in EM. Folks building 00-SF do not use sharp radii through pointwork that needs more than 0.1mm gauge-widening. Also, although the back-to-back MIN is 14.3mm, most will be aiming for more than that for optimum running, so that back-to-flange dimension is approaching 15.2mm. For modellers building sharp industrial turnouts I have suggested sticking with 00-BF, if for use with RTR wheels. Many folks are very pleased with 00-SF for the type of layout they are building and the radius of their curves. They do know what they are doing, just as EM modellers do. Your every argument against 00-SF applies with equal force, or lack of force, to EM. Which is a successful gauge in use for decades and for thousands of layouts. Many EM modellers use RTR wheels widened to 16.4mm back-to-back without any problems at all. Martin. Martin The best way to deal with this situation is to ignore the posts and stick to replying to matters relating to the thread topic, 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgman Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 Whilst I haven't said anything about one of many irksome and somewhat acerbic responses I have to agree with the above and feel that they should be totally ignored. It appears very much as though it has some point scoring or oneupmanship about them which has grated for a long time and really should stop please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted May 25, 2020 Author Share Posted May 25, 2020 On 18/05/2020 at 02:28, Buhar said: Hi Andy, That looks really good. Is threading the rail and sorting out the crossing nose reasonably straightforward? Two questions spring to mind. With the components drawn, does this mean that various geometries are easy to configure or does each have to be done from scratch? Speak softly, but is 16.2 gauge possible? Alan Hi Alan, Sorry for not getting back to you before this. Once you get the jaws profile correct, which can take a bit of trial and error, threading is quite straightforward. One trick I've used is to thread rails into the base while it's still on the printer's heated bed but remove them again before the base is taken off the bed. I just file the nose rails and slide them in. Then I secure them with a dab of CA adhesive. I will solder a wire to each piece of rail for electrical contact when I install them - at least that's the plan. Assembling the 3D models in CAD for different turnouts is quite simple as most of the components are common. The crossing chairs are different of course for different crossing angles but I've created a set of sub-components that let me generate the chairs for any crossing angle fairly quickly. Yes, 16.2 but the same method should work for any 1:76.2 scale turnouts. Cheers, Andy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted May 25, 2020 Author Share Posted May 25, 2020 It has occurred to me that it would not be difficult to print certain timbers with a pocket to accept a piece of copper-clad laminate that the rails could be soldered to. Might be useful at the nose. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted May 25, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 25, 2020 You’d almost certainly melt the adjacent timbers. I keep wanting to try this for FB turnouts in N. I fear anything that retained the rails would just be too fragile though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now