Relative merits of different track component brands

[Mark Forrest]

On 27/08/2020 at 00:31, Andy Reichert said:

 

Why does staying in gauge matter anywhere? 

 

[Buhar]

I seem fatally attracted to these threads....

 

Anyway, for 00 it seems the consensus is plastic chairs (of various makes) for turnouts and buy-in plain track.  What about off-scene turnouts?  Assuming that appearance is wholly unimportant but that robustness, reliable running and bespoke configurations remain necessary, what's the view on the cheapest way to achieve this? 

 

Alan

[martin_wynne]

9 hours ago, Buhar said:

What about off-scene turnouts?  Assuming that appearance is wholly unimportant but that robustness, reliable running and bespoke configurations remain necessary, what's the view on the cheapest way to achieve this?

 

 

Cheapest and most robust is to fix rails directly to a one-piece plywood or MDF base. They can be soldered to flat-head brass tacks or panel pins:

 

https://frankshaw.co.uk/collections/panel-pins/products/13mm-brass-panel-pins?variant=31975886520366

 

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51RyX+gt3sL.jpg

 

 

Also available in 500gm bulk packs.

 

Prices vary a lot if you search online. The Challenge brand is better quality with a flat funnel head which sits flush to the surface. Solid brass makes for much easier soldering. Support the base on soft fibre board or similar for assembly, so that excess length can be snipped off the underside of the base afterwards. Spacing of about 25mm / 1" is sufficient. Insert them through the template, which can be left in place afterwards or ripped away, as you prefer. Keep rail lengths short to allow for thermal expansion.

 

Martin.

Edited August 31, 2020 by martin_wynne

[hayfield]

10 hours ago, Buhar said:

I seem fatally attracted to these threads....

 

Anyway, for 00 it seems the consensus is plastic chairs (of various makes) for turnouts and buy-in plain track.  What about off-scene turnouts?  Assuming that appearance is wholly unimportant but that robustness, reliable running and bespoke configurations remain necessary, what's the view on the cheapest way to achieve this? 

 

Alan

 

Off scenes is not trying to represent anything, some of the best layouts use cassettes etc which at their basic are strips of metal. I think Copenhagen Fields off scene just uses metal strips !!!

 

Don't forget this thread is about hand built track, not knocking RTR

[Buhar]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

Don't forget this thread is about hand built track, not knocking RTR

Hi John, 

I hope I didn't come across as knocking anything! I'm quite happy to use RTR and as I'm leaning towards 4-SF I'm interested in alternatives to Peco pointwork off stage.  

It's really a staging yard rather than a fiddle yard, so cassettes don't seem so useful. 

The brass strip idea is in my mind as apparently it serves as a re-railer to some degree, might end up a bit expensive though. 

Alan 

[hayfield]

5 hours ago, Buhar said:

Hi John, 

I hope I didn't come across as knocking anything! I'm quite happy to use RTR and as I'm leaning towards 4-SF I'm interested in alternatives to Peco pointwork off stage.  

It's really a staging yard rather than a fiddle yard, so cassettes don't seem so useful. 

The brass strip idea is in my mind as apparently it serves as a re-railer to some degree, might end up a bit expensive though. 

Alan 

 

 

Not coming across knocking anything, whilst the thread is not only about hand built track, but chaired track as well the visual standards are for the scenic area, off scene the quality standards are still the same, but the amount of detail can be reduced, or even revert to RTR

 

Keep up the good work

 

[nswgr1855]

On 20/08/2020 at 14:32, Andy Reichert said:

 

Technical compromises are either necessary or voluntary. In either case they may cause limitations or restrictions on the function or the performance of the system designed. Those limitations or restrictions should be clearly stated in the specification and promotional materials for the design. For example, 4-SF imposes an at least 33% increase in minimum operating radius for a fairly typical modern Hornby RTR 2-6-4T.  From 17" to almost 23".  8 coupled and 10 coupled locos are likely to have even larger differences. Also the tolerance allowances on dimensions are such that a perfect set of all dimensions needed cannot be readily achieved by an average modeller, if at all. The often claimed common gauge widening solution for too tight radius turnouts is fundamentally not available in 4-SF.

 

No such statements are on the 4-SF website.

 

Actual fundamental technical errors that stop a system performing as claimed should be fixed before publishing any claims. They are not excusable as compromises, whether disclosed or unmentioned.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andy,  The AMRA minimum radius standard  works for 00-SF /16.2mm track gauge.

 

[nswgr1855]

On 14/08/2020 at 07:44, Andy Reichert said:

 

I'm not proposing any theories. I'm concerned about the 14.4 mm numeric value for RTR BB setting stated on the 4-SF web site. It appears to require a tolerance of +/- 0.00 to avoid a wheel striking and being bumped sideways by either the check rail or the crossing wing rail.

 

Check the arithmetic yourself.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy,

 A wheel back back of 14.4mm to 14.5mm works out as a practical range for wheels with flanges less than 0.7mm wide. 00-SF works fine, as does the AMRA fine tolerance alternative. https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AMRA-Fine-tolerance-wheel-track-standard.pdf Here is a viedo of my H0 TGV at speed going through my AMRA fine tolerance track including a curved diamond crossing at speed. 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by nswgr1855

[nswgr1855]

On 15/08/2020 at 05:18, Andy Reichert said:

 

From the 4-SF website:

Using RTR 0.08mm effective flange width wheels on 16.2 mm gauge requires a BB setting of 14.4 mm MAX to ensure that the wheel next to the check rail,"kisses" the CHECK RAIL, but does not strike it. The BB must also be not less that 14.3 mm MIN to avoid jamming across the wing and check rails.

The distance between the wing rail and the stock rail on a 16.2 mm gauged turnout is 16.2 mm (the gauge)- 1mm (the crossing flangeway). = 15.2 mm

From simple addition and substraction:

Using RTR 0.08mm effective flange width wheels on 16.2 mm gauge requires a BB setting of 14.4 mm MIN to ensure that the opposite wheel can only  "kiss" the WING RAIL, but cannot strike it.

Consequence.

For RTR 0.08mm flanged wheels, smooth running through a turnout without striking either the check rail or the wing rail ACTUALLY requires a BB setting of 14.4 mm +/- 0.00 mm.  I.e MAX and MIN must impossibly be the same.   Anyone who understands mechanical tolerance will confirm that's not a practically possible tolerance for RTR wheels, whether manufactured or hand "tuned".

Therefore 16.2 mm gauge with RTR wheels set to 14.4 mm BB with a practical tolerance will suffer degraded performance due to sudden sideways movements when running through turnouts, even through the straight road.

While the 4-SF website only gives dimension for single wheel sets running in a straight line, the situation for the center wheels of six coupled or greater wheelbase steam locomotives and six wheel diesel and coach bogies is worse, if the BB setting is less than 14.4 mm. In that case the smoother sideways movement of the center wheel(s) due to the track curvature is suddenly increased as the wing rail is struck and further increases the already increased minimum radius of the vehicle, due to narrowed gauge.

HO gauge  and to some extent 00 gauge, avoid this poor performance issue by just having the larger wing rail flange width. The dramatic sudden sideways movement of the front wheels of the GWR tank loco exiting the platform near the beginning of the oft quoted "Excellent 4-SF running" video shows that flaw very convincingly.

 

Most RTR 00 wheels have flanges les than 0.7mm. Your claim that the wheels through 00-SF trackwork has a problem is incorrect.  Many layouts are using a minimum track gauge of 16.2mm with excellent results. I have throughly tested the AMRA fine tollerance standard, which only has a 0.05mm difference in turnout dimensions compared to the 00-SF dimensions. It works for my high speed  H0 TGV, power car pushing at a scale 240Km/h, my Hornby 2-8-2 LNER P2, my NSW 4-8-2 58 class, pushing 30+ 4 wheel wagons through curved diamond crossings. The sharpest turnout I have buils is curved with a minimum  600mm radius and works for models that comply with the AMRA minimum radius standard for 600mm radius. Check out my viedo channel.  You can see the Hornby P2, with unmodified original Hornby wheels first goes through old Shinora turnouts, with 1,25mm flangeways, 16.5mm track gauge, then along peco code 75 track, track gauge of 16.6mm, then into AMRA fine tolerance turnouts and a curved diamond crossing, 16.25mm track gauge, and facing turnouts, 16.25mm track gauge, all at express speeds.

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by nswgr1855