H0 16.2mm Gauge Crossings

[martin_wynne]

42 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

the Standard's true FW range is 0.89 - 1.27 mm

 

Hi Andy,

 

I don't get it. If the flangeway can be only 0.89mm, on 16.5mm gauge that gives a check span of 14.72mm. Well in excess of the minimum back-to-back.

 

As I've said before, the whole thing is a flawed triple-dimensioned dog's breakfast.

 

It's no good saying the flangeways can be asymmetric, with 0.89mm applying only at the crossing. In complex pointwork with parallel-wing crossings, wing rails get connected to check rails. Likewise K-crossings can't be asymetric.

 

The basic problem, right from the start, is that you have applied a range of values to dimensions which in a Standard are single limits.

 

A back-to-back dimension is a MINIMUM limit and nothing else. It doesn't have a range. The maximum separation of the wheels on the axle is governed by a completely different dimension -- the back-to-flange dimension which is a MAXIMUM limit and nothing else. It doesn't have a range.

 

I've explained all this stuff so many times that I'm weary of it. RMwebbers are very happy with the UK standards they have, and are not interested in this NMRA rubbish from across the pond.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited April 14, 2020 by martin_wynne
typos

[Andy Reichert]

If the numbers were not correct it would not be possible to draw the diagrams. They are even to scale proportionally.

 

I recommend this reference for a good analysis of the diamond crossing situation. BTW, despite the title, it's European.

 

 

Andy

[Allegheny1600]

10 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

RMwebbers are very happy with the UK standards they have, and are not interested in this NMRA rubbish from across the pond.

There's the problem - right there!

You claim "this NMRA rubbish" and yet the standards created by the NMRA have resulted in multiple manufacturers products from track to locos, rolling stock and couplers (not to mention digital standards and other things) - all being capable of functioning perfectly well together.

 

I have sufficient experience that I can remember some US model railroad products that had been produced to different standards to those recommended by the NMRA and they wouldn't work. Only when manufacturers adopted the NMRA standards did things come good.

Now, any manufacturer offering products to the US market, would be insane and would commit commercial suicide if they attempted to introduce something that diverged from NMRA spec.

Even such as Lionel and MTH may diverge from the digital standards but they darn well observe the track/wheel standards.

This results in customer confidence that any product purchased with work well with anything else on the customers layout.

"across the pond" and therefore not applicable in the UK?

Not a chance.

As you know very well, the vast majority of models sold in the UK are made in China - in some of the very same factories that produce US models (and for the rest of the world, too), these models by necessity use common parts and are in whole or part, are US owned companies like Bachmann. It was thanks to Bachmann that the UK was introduced to central motors, flywheel drives and all wheel drive diesel outline models.

These had the trickle down effect of causing UK customers to demand similar specification models across the entire British spectrum.

Accurascale, Hornby, Heljan, Rapido, Realtrack, Sutton Loco etc, etc - ALL owe their success to adopting, consciously or not, NMRA standards.

What about Peco? A completely British operation, maybe.

Well, I adopted their code 75 track as soon as it was introduced and it was good for my European stock but my US (NMRA) stock bounced through the pointwork - this was because the flangeways etc were not to standard.

By the time Peco tried to properly infiltrate the US market (with their code 83), they HAD TO observe NMRA standards and guess what? It works!

So, please!

Do not 'diss' the NMRA standards - they work. Not only do they work, they have been adopted by the vast majority of the worlds model railway manufacturers, about the only place where they haven't fully taken over is the German outline market with it's entrenched and wealthy particpants.

 

John E.

[martin_wynne]

12 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Now, any manufacturer offering products to the US market, would be insane and would commit commercial suicide if they attempted to introduce something that diverged from NMRA spec.

 

Hi John,

 

I'm fully aware of all that, and I apologise that my previous language was coloured by frustration.

 

But the point, as I've tried to make several times, is that this topic, in fact this whole section of RMweb is NOT ABOUT RTR MANUFACTURING.

 

It's called "Handbuilt Track & Templot", and it's about what modellers choose to do in the privacy of their own workshops. Mark, the OP on this topic, said in his first post "I am planning to build some H0 scale Standard Gauge turnouts with the gauge set at 16.2mm at the crossing", in which case what the NMRA or Hornby or Bachmann or Peco or Chinese manufacturers think about it is utterly irrelevant. He was asking for advice and experience from fellow modellers who have done likewise. Here in the UK a good many modellers have done that very thing and been pleased with the results.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

 

As in an example above, and the likes of UK cast bullhead chairs and C&L manufactured crossings,  I don't see any actual or agreed dividing line between between handbuilt track and manufactured or part manufactured track.  The use of a Standard (or the SAME Standard), as per it's purpose to ensure interoperability, is valid in either case.

 

Just recently there was posting on the Scalefour Forum demonstrating the use of Templot to directly "make" (in any quantity) 3D printed track, including even the rail. And Templot has a large range of "handbuilt" Standards built in (including several named "H0") that can just as easily be used for 3D printing.

.

Andy

[martin_wynne]

Hi Andy,

 

There you go again, trying to link everything to commercial manufacturing.

 

The work I'm doing on 3D printing directly from Templot is for modellers to do on their own 3D printers in their own workshops. Using battery/radio control on the polymer rails. It's not intended for commercial use, or to be compliant with any commercial standard.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Bachmann might have been originally US owned but not in recent years , it’s own by Hong Kong based Kader 

 

it’s misleading to attribute NMRA wheel standards such success , it’s largely adopted by default in the absence of anything better 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Junctionmad

[Andy Reichert]

17 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

SNIP

 

it’s misleading to attribute NMRA wheel standards such success , it’s largely adopted by default in the absence of anything better 

 

Isn't that a self defeating proposition? ;)

 

Andy

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

On 14/04/2020 at 12:54, martin_wynne said:

Hi Andy,

 

There you go again, trying to link everything to commercial manufacturing.

 

The work I'm doing on 3D printing directly from Templot is for modellers to do on their own 3D printers in their own workshops. Using battery/radio control on the polymer rails. It's not intended for commercial use, or to be compliant with any commercial standard.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

I don't know of any "commercial" model railway standards. I can use HO, 00, EM, P4, etc without having to pay a fee or apply for permission.

 

That's where you appear to be perpetually confused. Standards are independent of the use they are put to. The same standard can be used by a Bachmann factory  in China and optionally  by such as an "Albert Entwhistle-Cholmondley" hand micro-chiseling marble to make the most incredible accurate and realistic hand-built (all stone ) Beyer Garrett of all time in his shed. The published Standard set of dimensions and their inter-relationships are merely a means of ensuring inter-operability. between Bachmann's and (if he so chose) Albert's models on a layout when completed.

 

What Albert's notebook and Bachmann's engineering drawings look like are their own business and are only to do with  each's own process of getting from raw material to finished item. There are no unique only "manufacturing" or only "hand building" standards.  Just standards that successfully ensure consistent inter-operability, either between a group of users, or for an individual who only cares that all his trains to stay on the track smoothly everywhere on a single complex layout.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

There was an interesting case about 27 years ago when LGB launched a court action against a French company that was making track with exactly the same geometry.

 

The court action failed on the grounds that geometry is a natural phenomenon and can not be patented or otherwise protected.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

I don't know of any "commercial" model railway standards. I can use HO, 00, EM, P4, etc without having to pay a fee or apply for permission.

 

Hi Andy,

 

You know perfectly well what I meant by "commercial" standards. By your own admission the NMRA dimensions have been modified in the light of RTR manufacturing activity and include sufficient tolerances to admit of economic mass production.

 

Standards for handbuilt track such as P4 and 00-SF are different. They are not designed or intended for mass production.

 

In the case of 00-SF, by working to closer tolerances than RTR track, it has been found possible to run a mix of RTR and kit wheels on the same track reliably. This possibility is a big attraction to many 00 modellers, and the reason they are willing to take a bit more care over their handbuilt track than is ever likely to happen in a factory.

 

That's where you appear to be perpetually confused.

 

Story of my life.

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

The NMRA HO Standard dimensions have NOT been modified.  You are just still choosing  to interpret the late Ed Mccamey's presentation of the Standard as actual changes when they aren't. Perhaps you could point us to the FULL quote where you think I posted otherwise.

 

Similarly, you are playing with words for 00-SF. "Working to closer tolerances"  is NOT at all the same meaning as the actually truthful 00-SF situation of "reducing the running clearances".  Anyone can choose to work to "closer" tolerances for 00, HO and EM without changing any of the dimensions of their standards.

 

Andy

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Andy, I'm tired of this.

 

All you need do to prove your point is very simple. Tell the 00-SF modellers reading this what they should be doing instead.

 

Bear in mind that they are using a mix of wheels -- from RTR through Romford/Markits to Ultrascale.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Lads , let’s move on , in a world completely changed , it’s rather depressing this topic is being aired again , “ the dreary steeples of Fermanagh” , etc etc