Jump to content
 

Relative merits of different track component brands


Recommended Posts

On 28/06/2020 at 02:25, hayfield said:

Given the success of many layouts on here, two large ones in particular where they constantly use large Pacific RTR locos (and in one case the occasional appearance of larger American H0 locos, your theories have been debunked time and time again. By all means continue to use and promote the standards you prefer. But please recognize most often than not, there is more than one solution to a problem.

 

In addition to this there is a growing demand this side of the pond for better looking and performing trackwork without going to the trouble of changing gauge or back to back measurements. In the past when commercial track gauges of any standard gauge are offered for sale on our nations favorite model railway site, and are clearly described and listed demand is always high. On these pages there have been many requests as to where these can be obtained, in fact I think the 3 point gauges are now unavailable.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Edited by Andy Reichert
error correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
52 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

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.

 

Hi Andy,

 

???

 

For 00 RTR wheels having flanges 0.8mm thick, the maximum back-to-back is 14.4mm. The minimum back to back is 14.3mm on 00-SF. That looks like a tolerance of 0.1mm to me.

 

For the best results set the back-to-back close to 14.4mm without exceeding it. So that as one wheel just kisses the check rail, the other is held clear of the crossing nose.

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

???

 

For 00 RTR wheels having flanges 0.8mm thick, the maximum back-to-back is 14.4mm. The minimum back to back is 14.3mm on 00-SF. That looks like a tolerance of 0.1mm to me.

 

For the best results set the back-to-back close to 14.4mm without exceeding it. So that as one wheel just kisses the check rail, the other is held clear of the crossing nose.

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin is it worth the effort, clearly 00SF works which is a fact bourn out by many working layouts both large and small. It is clearly not for all and I don't think anyone who models in 00SF derides anyone for using 00, EM or P4 gauges. I for one after considering 00SF decided it was for me not much effort to move to EM gauge simply for the improved looks of wider track. But many have tried EM gauge and gone back to 00 gauge for the ease of using RTR items out of the box

 

In the end does it matter? a well executed bit of hand made track in 00 gauge well ballasted and weathered will look far superior to a badly built and laid piece of P4 track. Again how many modelers actually check the back to back measurements of their stock let alone even know what it should be

 

However what is all this technical dialogue got to do with this topic  "Relative merits of different track component brands" absolutely nothing. Will it encourage modelers to build their own track?

 

Lets get back to building and the topic, for the hand built track builder things have never been do good, below I have shown the New C&L chair sprues and for the 7mm scale modeler a 3 Bolt sprue in the same format is now in production. And there are more new items coming out later this year/early next. Don't forget for the 00 gauge modeler common crossings with 1.25 mm flangeways are now available along with 1 mm and P4 versions

 

292.jpeg.f2add65372357e3671aeaa0d076b520b.jpeg

 

Here we have a close up of C&L's new S1 3 bolt chairs, as well as 10 standard chairs, you get two bridge chairs and two J chairs along with two functioning fishplates, used in conjunction with the range of Exactoscale special chairs, highly detailed models of turnouts can be made in 4mm scale, they work just as good in 00 & EM gauges as P4

 

293.jpeg.50e146465863e8c712887a56df96148c.jpeg

 

This is a close up of the two fishplates on the sprue, one standard the other reinforced. These are also available separately and soon to be available in cast brass 

 

294.jpeg.1eb4f1e1e0492597c1a615cc5ed3efba.jpeg

 

These are the new C&L GWR 2 bolt chairs, in the same format 10 standard chairs two Bridge and two J chairs along with 2 standard functioning fishplates. The bridge and J chairs are new to 4 mm scale, if required now with a bit of chopping the Exactoscale special chairs can be adapted to use with 2 bolt chairs cut in half simply to better represent GWR special chairs

 

295.jpeg.4a117dcfe51e1316460404e8d66ea33b.jpeg

 

This is a close up of the fishplates on the 2 bolt sprue, both standard. These are also available separately and soon to be available in cast brass 

 

296.jpeg.434b7be085080d2ef116b84709d2ac57.jpeg

 

To finish off track building for the GWR modeler the Modelu 3D printed 2 bolt slide chairs

 

For those wanting to build their own common crossings the simple and inexpensive EM gauge society Jig is simple to assemble and use (member only from the stores or to public at society shows)

 

257.jpeg.6390eec8aa8a9651b2ba1947d8a269e3.jpeg

 

Not the best photo, but explained in another thread

 

In short never been a better time to build track

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, hayfield said:

Martin is it worth the effort, clearly 00-SF works

 

 

Hi John,

 

Is what worth the effort? Answering Andy R's comments?

 

The problem is that stuff written here will be indexed on Google for 1000 years. I answer not for the benefit of anyone reading now -- we all know what we are doing. But for beginners coming later, and for those trying to find out what we were doing when we are all dead and buried.

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the point, as for the gentleman in question. I hoped we had an agreement that we would not reply to each others posts, I am just ignoring him. I wish I knew what is his problem, if he does not like something why not just ignore it, I assume he models in H0 so is totally irrelevant   

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I take the point, as for the gentleman in question. I hoped we had an agreement that we would not reply to each others posts, I am just ignoring him. I wish I knew what is his problem, if he does not like something why not just ignore it, I assume he models in H0 so is totally irrelevant   

 

Hi John,

 

Although he doesn't declare it in his sig, Andy R is a manufacturer and trader:

 

 http://www.proto87.com/

 

He has a significant investment in 16.5mm gauge products.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

But what has Proto 87 got in common with 4mm scale British modelling?

 

 

Hi John,

 

Very little.

 

But if handbuilt 16.2mm gauge became a well-recognised option here in the UK, might it spread elsewhere for those using essentially the same wheels?

 

Terry Flynn's H0-SF standard for AMRA in Australia being a case in point.

 

Another example here in the UK -- years and years after 7mm modellers realised that 0-SF and 0-MF gave better running than the Gauge 0 Guild's 32mm Fine Standard, the Guild have finally now incorporated them into their published standards.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many USA  modelers are on RMweb? and of them how many build their own track. Given the usual North American attitude of ignoring what the rest of the world does would 00SF actually make any difference at all

 

Some of the components look very interesting, however I cannot see myself taking advantage of them at the moment

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

???

 

For 00 RTR wheels having flanges 0.8mm thick, the maximum back-to-back is 14.4mm. The minimum back to back is 14.3mm on 00-SF. That looks like a tolerance of 0.1mm to me.

 

For the best results set the back-to-back close to 14.4mm without exceeding it. So that as one wheel just kisses the check rail, the other is held clear of the crossing nose.

 

Martin.

 

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.

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Andy,

 

Three times you have referred to "RTR 0.08mm" flange thickness.

 

RTR wheels to the NMRA 110 profile have a flange thickness of 0.8mm.

 

Once is a typo, three times suggests you are confused?

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi Andy,

 

Three times you have referred to "RTR 0.08mm" flange thickness.

 

RTR wheels to the NMRA 110 profile have a flange thickness of 0.8mm.

 

Once is a typo, three times suggests you are confused?

 

Martin.

 

I'm an infrequent typist. I clearly meant 0.8mm as that is the figure I'm quoting from your website.  The only confusion is that you have  not commented on the arithmetic.  Instead, creating and repeating your own biased conspiracy theories without any evidence to try and undermine the facts you obviously can't cope with.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

I'm an infrequent typist. I clearly meant 0.8mm as that is the figure I'm quoting from your website.  The only confusion is that you have  not commented on the arithmetic.  Instead, creating and repeating your own biased conspiracy theories without any evidence to try and undermine the facts you obviously can't cope with.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

I would dispute that. My own conspiracy theories are not biased. I take great pride in creating and repeating only unbiased conspiracy theories. Especially those without any evidence.

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, trustytrev said:

Hello John,

      

Any pictures of them and and their purpose please?

trustytrev.:)

 

If its what I think it is its what I refer to as a block gauge

 

299.png.3968f9e02bbd4cd4ed45d2e0fe5d93cb.png

 

I have them in EM and P4, I think it does a similar job as a 3 point gauge (auto gauge widening on curves)

 

300.png.81969cd4342609580f0cf940265872df.png

 

I have a set of these DD Wheelrights wing rail alignment jigs in both EM & P4 gauges. The larger piece works much the same, the other 2 bits work as a wing rail gauge. A very kind member milled me up an 00 gauge block gauge, The EM & P4 are only available through the societies

 

DD Wheelrights

http://ddw.coffeecup.com/

 

You could buy this from them if you work in 00 (16.5) and replace the smaller flat piece with a bit 1.25 mm thick

 

These are a very simple idea, and if you have machining skills should be easy to replicate. I guess if you are very careful you could solder 2 thin strips of brass to a large thick piece of brass about 35mm x 19,5 mm  (just given myself an idea for 00SF)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2020 at 13:23, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

I would dispute that. My own conspiracy theories are not biased. I take great pride in creating and repeating only unbiased conspiracy theories. Especially those without any evidence.

 

Martin.

 

That's agreed then. You can't dispute the erroneous numbers and dimensions for using RTR on 4-SF on your own website. Nor apparently can anyone else.

 

So it is undisputed that the current 4-SF is NOT a valid set of dimensions for good performance of RTR wheeled vehicles.

 

One possible change for improvement to be explored might be to increase the crossing flange way width to 1.1 mm. all other dimensions to be left as as is.  I suspect that the Australia Model Railway Association "Fine Standard" may have already incorporated similar slight differences from the 00-SF dimension set.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

That's agreed then. You can't dispute the erroneous numbers and dimensions for using RTR on 4-SF on your own website. Nor apparently can anyone else.

 

So it is undisputed that the current 4-SF is NOT a valid set of dimensions for good performance of RTR wheeled vehicles.

 

One possible change for improvement to be explored might be to increase the crossing flange way width to 1.1 mm. all other dimensions to be left as as is.  I suspect that the Australia Model Railway Association "Fine Standard" may have already incorporated similar slight differences from the 00-SF dimension set.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

Well it's all good fun to keep this going. I'm not sure everyone will agree though. You must know that the RMweb moderators are very lock-happy and are always itching to find a reason to lock topics. You are going the right way to get this one locked.

 

Please define what you mean by a "valid" set of dimensions? I certainly have never said that 00-SF is optimal for RTR wheels. It was not originally intended for such wheels, it was intended for what we used to call "Scale 00" wheels, which essentially meant the Romford (now Markits) wheel profile -- 2.5mm wide, 0.7mm flanges, at 14.5mm back-to-back. Back in the days when 00-SF was invented, many modellers would convert the then RTR models to "Scale 00" using such Romford wheels.

 

9780900586088-uk-300.jpg
linked from: https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780900586088-uk-300.jpg  

 

It was subsequently found that more modern RTR wheels mostly run very nicely on 00-SF as they stand, and folks have by and large stopped bothering to change the wheels on the current high-quality UK RTR 00 models. They can be run side-by-side with "Scale 00" and later "kit" wheels by building 00-SF track.

 

By the same token, EM modellers have found that modern 00 RTR can be run on EM track using their existing wheels, if widened to 16.4mm back-to-back.

 

I have explained all this time and again, but you don't listen.

 

Increasing the crossing flangeway to 1.1mm while leaving everything else the same would be a silly thing to do. It would create asymmetric flangeways, with 1.1mm on one side and a nominal 1.0mm check rail flangeway on the other side. That makes it impossible to build parallel-wing crossings, and complex formations such as 3-way tandem turnouts, where often an extended wing rail is combined with a check rail. It also makes a nonsense of K-crossings, which tend to be the most critical area of pointwork.

 

If you want to increase the crossing flangeway to 1.1mm, it would be much better to increase the gauge to 16.3mm, creating a 1.1mm check rail flangeway to match. That would make a very sensible standard for modern RTR wheels, and I have a Templot designation ready: 00-MF. Were I in that most secretive place on Earth, the Peco boardroom, when their new bullhead track was being discussed, I would have urged 16.3mm gauge with 1.1mm flangeways for it. At that time DCC Concepts were also mooting a new 00 bullhead track system, and Richard Johnson hinted on another forum that he was minded to go for something narrower than 16.5mm for it.

 

But there is always a trade-off, and for modellers who like to use prototypical blunt-nose vees, increasing the crossing flangeway to 1.1mm would mean the minimum wheel width increases to 2.45mm. Still ok for Romford/Markits wheels, but wider than the finer 2.3mm "kit" wheels such as Ultrascale, Gibson, and the EMGS-profile. All of which would become bumpier as a result. Also of course, one of the attractions of 00-SF for many modellers is the improved appearance of the 1.0mm flangeway, and increasing that would be seen as a backwards step.

 

In any event we are where we are. Many modellers are very happy with their 00-SF track, and parts and supplies for building it are now readily available. They will be sighing into their breakfast to read your suggestion of changing it, and your constant attempts to rubbish it and rekindle old disagreements. Valid or not, it works very nicely.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
book image added
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the annuls of history, did the early EM gauge supporters face being called heretics, then later on those wanting something better on deciding to model in P4 being called cranks.

 

Given the quality of modern ready to run stock and the quest for better looking wheelsets in 4 mm scale, surely its the 00 gauge track standards that have not kept up with RTR wheels and mechanisms

 

I can understand the thought process that states its wrong to narrow an already narrowed gauge even narrower (even when to the naked eye its very hard to see). But this leaves you with either leaving crossings with overscale large flangeways, or having to widen all wheels back to backs.

 

The main issue is not having an active association, or rather a lack of support from 00 gauge modelers giving the society the strength to liaise with manufacturers in a similar manner as the EM & P4 societies in setting standards. As you alluded to track and wheel standards have not moved together harnessing improvement in both design and manufacturing.

 

Yes 00SF is a compromise (as are all gauges) but the best we have to accommodate modern 00 gauge finer standards of wheel without having to adjust the wheels

 

However this should this not be a subject which is discussed by those who are involved with the scale/gauge and  have an interest in the gauge, certainly free from completing commercial interests, but including those who are or want to be commercially active in the scale/gauge combination.   

Edited by hayfield
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, hayfield said:

The main issue is not having an active association for 00 gauge who can liaise with manufacturers in a similar manner as the EM & P4 societies in setting standards.

  

 

This could get interesting.... ;)

Edited by polybear
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

This could get interesting.... ;)

 

 

Well please tell me who is it that sets the standards which the manufacturers adhere to, as they all seem to differ

 

I am not having a pop at any one society (sorry if any offence is taken) I guess the existing ones try their best. But the trade seems to go their own individual way

 

As it is the RTR buying public now demands finescale products, but it seems there is no coconscious between the trade in matching 00 finescale wheel standards a set of agreed finescale track standards.

 

Stock seems light years ahead of track in scale details. look how long it took to switch from a H0 scale product to a 00 scale and gauge product.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone particularly notice a bit of bumping of some vehicles over pointwork? I doubt it unless it is really noticeable, so in my eyes 0.1mm on a flangeway ain't gonna make much difference. It's a manufacturing tolerance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, roythebus said:

Does anyone particularly notice a bit of bumping of some vehicles over pointwork? I doubt it unless it is really noticeable, so in my eyes 0.1mm on a flangeway ain't gonna make much difference.

 

 

Hi Roy,

 

Changes to the crossing flangeway are in effect doubled -- if you increase the crossing flangeway by 0.1mm, the gap across in front of the vee increases by 0.2mm.

 

On the prototype wheels don't drop into crossings, whether you mind your model wheels doing that is up to you. On the prototype wheels are fully supported on the wing rails as they run through crossings.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roythebus said:

Does anyone particularly notice a bit of bumping of some vehicles over pointwork? I doubt it unless it is really noticeable, so in my eyes 0.1mm on a flangeway ain't gonna make much difference. It's a manufacturing tolerance.

Funnily enough, its one of those things that I really do notice.

I can turn a blind eye to it sometimes, but I still notice it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I but it doesn't really bother me. What bothers me more is layouts that don't work, waiting for ages for something to move, lots of button pressing on DCC layouts to get something moving, operators chatting instead of making things work.

 

Going off-topic a bit, back in the early 1980s i made a German HO layout using the then new Peco code 75 and the first off the line double slip. The layout was on more or less bare boards with just track and a couple of buildings, a branch terminus to reverse loops. I used Kadee couplings for the first time. It went to a show at Hemel Hempstead and had a crowd round it all weekend. There were other bigger/better/prettier layouts that didn't attract crowds. When I asked people why they all stood watching my layout, the answer was "because it works". The fact that trains may have bumped over the points (Rivarossi didn't like code 75 in those days) and it was not British didn't worry them. Trains moved, it worked.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...