Jump to content

Relative merits of different track component brands


Recommended Posts

@martin_wynne

Hi Martin,

I dont want to de-rail the thread but i have a question please. I have just started using Templot and what a great thing it is, thank you.

I have started printing out single points for my plan but i am unsure what gauge i should be using. I plan to run 00 gauge RTR all newish models none older than say 12 years, Bachmann, Hornby etc, would it be 00-BF ? I dont want to start building to find out im using the wrong one.

Thank you.

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can still remember going to an exhibition, which featured a layout which used a certain type of ready-made track. The layout was used to show the track system to its best advantage in the adverts of the day. I can still see the locos and stock bumping over the trackwork and sometimes de-railing. I was not impressed with the track system. It is no longer available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, down the sdjr said:

Hi Martin,

I don't want to de-rail the thread but i have a question please. I have just started using Templot and what a great thing it is, thank you.

I have started printing out single points for my plan but i am unsure what gauge i should be using. I plan to run 00 gauge RTR all newish models none older than say 12 years, Bachmann, Hornby etc, would it be 00-BF ? I don't want to start building to find out I'm using the wrong one.

 

Thanks Paul.

 

A. If you are using only RTR models (with original wheels) you have a choice of 00-BF, 00-BRMSB, DOGA-Intermediate, or 00-SF (4-SF).

 

The first three are all 16.5mm track gauge.

 

00-BF (1.3mm flangeways) is the option of choice for easiest building and widest tolerance to different RTR models. 2-slot 15.2mm check rail gauges available from C&L. thumb_smiley.gif

 

00-BRMSB (1.25mm flangeways) is traditional "Scale 00" from the 1950s -- multi-slot roller gauges available from Markits.

 

DOGA-Intermediate (1.2mm flangeways) is DOGA's modern equivalent of 00-BRMSB -- multi-slot roller gauges available from DOGA.

 

00-SF 16.2mm track gauge (1.0mm flangeways) is an increasingly popular finer standard which looks better but may require care over some RTR wheel back-to-back settings (but mostly not), and needs larger radii than train-set curves. 2-slot roller gauges available from C&L. 2-slot 15.2mm check rail gauges available from C&L. thumb_smiley.gif   

 

B. If you are mixing RTR wheels with kit wheels such as Markits/Gibson/Ultrascale, your only sensible choice is 00-SF (4-SF).

 

C. Whatever else you choose, avoid DOGA-Fine at all costs, as every wheelset would need to have the back-to-back adjusted -- multi-slot roller gauges available from DOGA and C&L.

________________________

 

Summarising all that waffle -- the most important consideration is the availability of 2-slot 15.2mm check rail gauges. Multi-slot roller gauges are the traditional way of trackbuilding, but in my view they should all be chucked in the bin, they are an absolute pain to use to build accurate properly checked crossings.   

 

That means the sensible choices are 00-BF for the easiest build and no worries about even some older RTR models. Or 00-SF if you want the better appearance of the narrower flangeways and/or think you might one day build kit models. (00-SF is also called 4-SF in Templot).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

I can still remember going to an exhibition, which featured a layout which used a certain type of ready-made track. The layout was used to show the track system to its best advantage in the adverts of the day. I can still see the locos and stock bumping over the trackwork and sometimes de-railing. I was not impressed with the track system. It is no longer available.

 

That's not helpful if you don't name the track. It's even more helpful if we could understand what caused the bumping. Often it's mixture of more than one issue.

 

I'm residing in the USA, so I've only managed to visit one UK MR exhibition since about 1960. So I have no idea what running problems are out there.

 

Andy

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Check with Martin what your greatest minimum radius needs to be.

 

Andy

The curved points section i am starting is 10 chains, about 2600mm.

Thanks.

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/08/2020 at 00:37, hayfield said:

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.   

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the back to back accurate on the prototype using a wheel lathe; in this case  5' 0" on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland loco 105. 

 

This scales at 20mm for 21mm track in 4mm scale.

 

Photo from RPSI website

 

20200820_075152.jpg.0fed95e9a6ffd54bbd6657ec6b5d5da3.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

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".

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

WOW. No wonder you have been getting so wound up about 00-SF.

 

No-one using such sharp train-set radii should be even looking at 00-SF. I didn't think I needed to spell it out that 00-SF is for typical finescale layouts with handbuilt track, where even 36" (900mm) radius is considered tight. Paul above mentioned  that he is using 10 chains curves -- that's 2640mm = 104" = over 8ft radius.

 

I have mentioned several times that 00-SF is a derivative of EM and shares the same restrictions on curve radius. If you need curves below about 36"/30", for example in a yard, they will need some gauge-widening. 3-point gauges are available for this purpose. In practice many 00-SF modellers use16.5mm flexi-track for plain track, which gives them gauge-widening automatically, whether needed or not. That's the reason 00 gauge uses 16.5mm in the first place, it has built-in gauge-widening to allow for such sharp curves.

 

Truly there are in fact two different hobbies here, if you think 17"/23" is a typical radius in 4mm/ft scale.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have politely requested that you do not reply to any of my posts after claiming I was acting like a troll on your posts, something which was completely inaccurate as I rarely read the posts you submit let alone bother to reply to that many. For someone who as I understand neither models in 00 gauge or to a British outline this topic has no interest other than I expect to further your own personal commercial interests (in a different scale). You blindly ignore the clear and absolute evidence that 00SF was initially designed for use of modern kit components in 00 gauge, however given the quality of many modern RTR stock in all but a very few examples the gauge works very well using the gauge, As there are two very large layouts which use RTR stock this is a FACT.

 

Sadly you at the very least are trolling 00SF gauge, certainly you are bring nothing to either this thread of the move towards better looking and working 00 gauge track. I accept 00SF may not be to every 00 gauge modelers liking. but please stop disrupting threads others enjoy. I know that at least one poster has banded you from their thread over you constantly disrupting it, it is a pity people have to go to these lengths.

 

Please can we now agree to disagree, and as been requested before start your own thread so you and your like minded converts discuss this, Please let me remind you of what the topic of this thread is

 

Relative merits of different track component brands  (not the merits of 00SF)

 

I cannot see in any of your posts actually relating to the subject matter posted by the OP. By all means please give us some of you wisdom about the ranges and products available in this country, this way the hobby can move forward rather than being bogged down in unrelated dogma. 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To bring the topic back on track.  On Brighton East I used C and L chairs and flexitrack for the bullhead in the yard, Peco pan for the flat bottom wooden sleepered points.  P4 track company concrete fast track for the main running lines. I have since built 00 points for my sons new layout. These were to 16.2 mm through the common crossings but 16.5 mm for the rest of it. Plain track was P4 track company fast track, points uses their plastic chairs. It all works fine using RTR loco's and wagons. What would I do for any future layout, probably stick to the P4 chairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What rail would you good people suggest for fine scale OO flat bottom track that will match OO scale bullhead rail? I've got some Peco code 75 from old bits of track but the b/h gauges don't fit the rail head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, roythebus said:

What rail would you good people suggest for fine scale OO flat bottom track that will match OO scale bullhead rail? I've got some Peco code 75 from old bits of track but the b/h gauges don't fit the rail head.

 

Hi Roy,

 

What do you mean by "match" bullhead rail?

 

In 4mm/ft scale the correct size for most standard-gauge flat-bottom rail is code 82. It sits on thinner baseplates than chair castings, so the rail top ends up almost level with bullhead. Code 82 FB rail is available from C&L: https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/CODE-82-FLAT-BOTTOM-RAIL-HiNi-Nickle-Silver-Rail-10-X-1-M-p128178198

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, roythebus said:

Thanks Martin, I was thinking of rail head dimensions.

 

Hi Roy,

 

Code 82 FB and code 75 BH should both have the same head width (scale 2.3/4" = 0.92mm).

 

But different batches of model rail do vary. I believe some recent code 82 rail is under scale width.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Roy,

 

What do you mean by "match" bullhead rail?

 

In 4mm/ft scale the correct size for most standard-gauge flat-bottom rail is code 82. It sits on thinner baseplates than chair castings, so the rail top ends up almost level with bullhead. Code 82 FB rail is available from C&L: https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/CODE-82-FLAT-BOTTOM-RAIL-HiNi-Nickle-Silver-Rail-10-X-1-M-p128178198

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Fixings for flatbottom rail are quite numerous, as far as plastic ones C&L do the ST base plates, Peco have Pandrol (though many comments say they are overscale) plus a slide chair, also Peco do a clip with their concrete sleeper pack, no idea if these are available separately. C&L still do the HiNi code 82 rail, Peco have changed to code 83 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rail head dimensions as in the prototype surely is the same width? Therefore scale FB should fit the same track gauges as bh rail is what I'm getting at. But it doesn't. It seems I'll have to buy new gauges just for the fb rail.

 

At the moment I'm just experimenting with how easy it isn't to hand build fb points compared to bh points soldered to pcb sleepers. Extra filing time compared to extra threading-chairs-on rails time. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, roythebus said:

Rail head dimensions as in the prototype surely is the same width? Therefore scale FB should fit the same track gauges as bh rail is what I'm getting at. But it doesn't. It seems I'll have to buy new gauges just for the fb rail.

 

At the moment I'm just experimenting with how easy it isn't to hand build fb points compared to bh points soldered to pcb sleepers. Extra filing time compared to extra threading-chairs-on rails time. :)

 

 

Not so. DCC 00SF flatbottom gauges do not fit code 75 bullhead rail, however their bullhead gauges allow the flatbottom rail to rotate in the slot (see Martins caveat).   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/08/2020 at 00:06, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

WOW. No wonder you have been getting so wound up about 00-SF.

 

No-one using such sharp train-set radii should be even looking at 00-SF. I didn't think I needed to spell it out that 00-SF is for typical finescale layouts with handbuilt track, where even 36" (900mm) radius is considered tight. Paul above mentioned  that he is using 10 chains curves -- that's 2640mm = 104" = over 8ft radius.

 

I have mentioned several times that 00-SF is a derivative of EM and shares the same restrictions on curve radius. If you need curves below about 36"/30", for example in a yard, they will need some gauge-widening. 3-point gauges are available for this purpose. In practice many 00-SF modellers use16.5mm flexi-track for plain track, which gives them gauge-widening automatically, whether needed or not. That's the reason 00 gauge uses 16.5mm in the first place, it has built-in gauge-widening to allow for such sharp curves.

 

Truly there are in fact two different hobbies here, if you think 17"/23" is a typical radius in 4mm/ft scale.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Oh Dear, the same old serious easily shown "misunderstanding" over and over.  I'm beginning to to think this a deliberate cover up. It's too obvious a silly mistake.

 

No of course you don't get the same radius characteristics and reliable performance of EM if you put RTR flange width wheels in EM width flange ways.  Most 11 year olds can easily confirm  the basic addition and subtraction arithmetic I posted to show the need for impossibly accurate RTR wheels you need to avoid creating a fundamentally bumpy ride using your recommended 4-SF dimensions.

 

You don't need me to explain that. The EMGS is officially against using RTR wheels in their flange ways and after banging my head against this illogical circular brick wall, I have a lot more confidence in their engineering understanding than yours.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Not so. DCC 00SF flatbottom gauges do not fit code 75 bullhead rail, however their bullhead gauges allow the flatbottom rail to rotate in the slot (see Martins caveat).   

Then I suddenly realised I'd used a bit of Code 100...doh!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy,

What does "officially" mean in this sentence? "The EMGS is officially against using RTR wheels in their flange ways"

 

I did not say that the performance of RTR wheels on EM would be the same as for other wheels on EM.

 

I did say that they work, at 16.4mm back-to-back. I didn't add that they do that only for typical EM radii, i.e. 36" and above, because I assumed readers here are sensible enough to realise that. No-one in EM uses your 17" and 23" radii.

 

What the EMGS thinks about it, officially or otherwise, hardly come into it -- if modellers have an RTR model in front of them they are entirely free to make it run on their EM layout any way they choose.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Oh Dear, the same old serious easily shown "misunderstanding" over and over.  I'm beginning to to think this a deliberate cover up. It's too obvious a silly mistake.

 

No of course you don't get the same radius characteristics and reliable performance of EM if you put RTR flange width wheels in EM width flange ways.  Most 11 year olds can easily confirm  the basic addition and subtraction arithmetic I posted to show the need for impossibly accurate RTR wheels you need to avoid creating a fundamentally bumpy ride using your recommended 4-SF dimensions.

 

You don't need me to explain that. The EMGS is officially against using RTR wheels in their flange ways and after banging my head against this illogical circular brick wall, I have a lot more confidence in their engineering understanding than yours.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi Andy,

What does "officially" mean in this sentence? "The EMGS is officially against using RTR wheels in their flange ways"

 

I did not say that the performance of RTR wheels on EM would be the same as for other wheels on EM.

 

I did say that they work, at 16.4mm back-to-back. I didn't add that they do that only for typical EM radii, i.e. 36" and above, because I assumed readers here are sensible enough to realise that. No-one in EM uses your 17" and 23" radii.

 

What the EMGS thinks about it, officially or otherwise, hardly come into it -- if modellers have an RTR model in front of them they are entirely free to make it run on their EM layout any way they choose.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

I am a member of the EMGS, I am not aware that they do not advise against using RTR wheelsets, may be common sense not to use older coarser scale wheels, lets face it certainly C&L track parts do not like some early 00 gauge wheels and Peco code 75 will not accept early coarse scale wheels. Many 00 gauge modelers who use earlier stock find they have to change wheels for one reason or another anyway.

 

On the other hand one of the merits being sold as a benefit of moving to EM gauge is that many modern models can easily be converted at nil cost to EM gauge by altering the back to back gauge. The society cannot have it both ways.

 

Still this is going very much off topic and in some ways hijacking a thread which is not gauge war related

 

10 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Oh Dear, the same old serious easily shown "misunderstanding" over and over.  I'm beginning to to think this a deliberate cover up. It's too obvious a silly mistake.

 

No of course you don't get the same radius characteristics and reliable performance of EM if you put RTR flange width wheels in EM width flange ways.  Most 11 year olds can easily confirm  the basic addition and subtraction arithmetic I posted to show the need for impossibly accurate RTR wheels you need to avoid creating a fundamentally bumpy ride using your recommended 4-SF dimensions.

 

You don't need me to explain that. The EMGS is officially against using RTR wheels in their flange ways and after banging my head against this illogical circular brick wall, I have a lot more confidence in their engineering understanding than yours.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please what does this post have in common with this thread, 

 

The title is "Relative merits of different track component brands"  I cannot see any reference to gauge standards.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hayfield said:

On the other hand one of the merits being sold as a benefit of moving to EM gauge is that many modern models can easily be converted at nil cost to EM gauge by altering the back to back gauge. The society cannot have it both ways.

 

 

Hi John,

 

We all know what we are doing here.

 

It's only Andy Reichert from afar who is determined to find fault with everything for some reason, without ever making a practical suggestion of what we should be doing instead. Come on Andy, if you don't want owners of modern RTR models to regauge the wheels for EM, and bearing in mind that it works just fine, tell them what to do instead and why.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve asked Andy the same question on at least two previous occasions. He was continually questioning the use of 00-SF and  so I asked rather than just continually criticising a standard of which he has no interest in from a hobby perspective, please share his experience with us and tell us what would work. Not surprisingly his recommendations on track standards that would work and allow RTR loco’s and kit built stock using Romford, Markits, Gibson and Ultrascales to run together without  wheel drop and derailments never materialised, so I can’t help but question his motives.
 

It is clear Andy has a business in the US promoting his own track building products, so his opinions are hardly unbiased. Perhaps we ought to have a register of interests on RMweb so we can understand whether or not criticisms of other products and standards are independent of commercial interests.
 

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.