Relative merits of different track component brands

[gordon s]

For example......

 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by gordon s

[hayfield]

27 minutes ago, gordon s said:

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 concerns.
 

 

 

 

Gordon

 

Its a great pity we just cannot encourage others to have a go at track building in the UK, we have mentioned Exactoscale and C&L, but many folk forget Peco supply track building parts for many scales and gauges, then we have the likes of Maso kits and Off the Rails in 7 mm scale, DCC along with Scaleway cater more to the copperclad market, Phoenix Precision are now entering the market, Timber Tracks and one other concern who's name escapes me are into to Lasor cut timber bases. The EMGS plus Scalefour stores have their own products. Its never been a better time to built track. Yet it seems many are frightened off when gauge war starts. We should be encouraging folk not putting them off !!!

[hayfield]

10 minutes ago, gordon s said:

For example......

 

 

 

 

Go and have a glass of wine to ease the blood pressure, then show us some trains running on some delightful hand built track

[gordon s]

....and another....

 

Andy, please share with us your ideas of a standard we can use instead of 00-SF, rather than just never ending criticism with no solutions.  
 

Oh well, back to the coverage of the Ladies British Open. At least that has a conclusion......
 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by gordon s

[polybear]

12 hours ago, hayfield said:

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.

 

 

I'm sure John (Hayfield) knows this already, but it's worth pointing out that Alan Gibson EM Wheels are actually marked "00/EM" - there's no separate profiles for each.

[Junctionmad]

I started ( supplied by Millholme Models) building copper clad , then I moved to ply / rivets and then onto ply and plastic chairs and also plastic sleepers and plastic chairs. 
 

i firstly believe, that you need to want to “ model “ track , because quite frankly you can take RTR track and with a few cosmetic mods , good coloring /weathering and ballasting and make it extremely “ believable “ . ( well as believable as 00 can be) 
 

ive built to several 00 standards over the years and learned the pitfalls of several , I certainly regard 00-SF pointwork, flared back to  RTR 16.5 plain track as a very good compromise , hand building “ miles” of plain track gets old fast. 

 

I recently evaluated , c&L , Markway , dcc concepts and the new PECO bulkhead. Realistically when finished , ballasted and painted , all will make excellent representations of bullhead track. It’s largely down to personal preference which manufacturers system you want to adopt , PECO is a good balance between looks and cost , C&L is arguably the most prototypical , DCC  uses stainless which is a mega pain .

 

in the end , you can make all this work fine , 

Edited August 23, 2020 by Junctionmad

[adriank]

Hi David,

 

I used to use ply sleepers with a combination of rivets and functional plastic chairs, an approach suggested I believe, in Iain Rice's book. However, I was never completely happy with the quality of running and thought it may be better to use either rivets or plastic chairs but not a combination of the two.

 

Using all rivet and ply construction I am extremely pleased with the results. A B7 turnout requires approximately 110 rivets. Since I do not possess a combined punch and riveting tool, that's 110 holes to drill, 110 rivets to insert, 110 rivets to close with a rivet closing tool (from EMGS) and hammer and 110 joints to solder. The process is surprisingly quick and one I actually find relaxing.

 

The benefits are:

1. components are available from two reliable sources - the EMGS and the Scalefour Society 
2. only a few components are required - rivets, sleepers, rail and etched brass overlays for slide chairs (Bill Bedford)
3. low cost - you can afford to make mistakes while you learn how to do it
4. all soldered construction permits easy adjustment
5. mistakes are usually confined to one or two sleepers which are easily replaced

With regard to tools, I find the filing jigs extremely useful. For soldering vees, I use my own jigs made by sticking a couple of paddle-pop sticks to a piece of ply. I use a Mint gauge to check for tight spots particularly on crossings. I used to use the EMGS common crossing jig but now prefer to work directly on the Templot template.

 

Hope this helps. Good luck with making your own track.

 

Regards,

 

Adrian

 

 

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, polybear said:

 

I'm sure John (Hayfield) knows this already, but it's worth pointing out that Alan Gibson EM Wheels are actually marked "00/EM" - there's no separate profiles for each.

 

I have some drivers with both axles, and I guess their wagon and coach wheels are built to EM gauge standards not 00 even though they are sold in the narrower gauge !!

[down the sdjr]

I have been working on a couple of points over the weekend. One thing i have noticed about C&L timber / chair packs is, if you are making your own common crossings / switch blades the packs go a long way. I am almost making 2 points from a 1 point bag.

[Junctionmad]

I would suggest at this stage that ply sleepers ( I cut my own on a proxxon saw from a4 ply sheets ) and functional plastic chairs represent the zenith    of model track making , this can be backed up by the occasional rivet based sleeper to add strength or where functional chairs arbt suitable ( or brass shims etc ) 

 

It’s relatively cheap ( certainly cheaper then copper clad these days ) works well and looks excellent . They can be a bit flimsy until installed especially around the slide chairs. 
 

the plastic and ply is a better approach imho , then plastic /plastic constructions as it’s possible to reposition the chairs on ply if you need to , whereas it can be a damnation with plastic timbering usually requiring removal of the whole timber 

 

I tend to use brass shims on more complex track work , and cut up functional chairs to make cosmetic covers 

 

I now create jigs in PTFE , on my CNC Miller for common crossing setups !! 
 

in 00 modelling , 00-SF is by far the best compromise and I use it exclusively in point work married to RTR bullhead flexi ( all types except DCC concepts ) 

 

in O I use O-MF 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Junctionmad

[hayfield]

48 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

I would suggest at this stage that ply sleepers ( I cut my own on a proxxon saw from a4 ply sheets ) and functional plastic chairs represent the zenith    of model track making , this can be backed up by the occasional rivet based sleeper to add strength or where functional chairs arbt suitable ( or brass shims etc ) 

 

It’s relatively cheap ( certainly cheaper then copper clad these days ) works well and looks excellent . They can be a bit flimsy until installed especially around the slide chairs. 
 

the plastic and ply is a better approach imho , then plastic /plastic constructions as it’s possible to reposition the chairs on ply if you need to , whereas it can be a damnation with plastic timbering usually requiring removal of the whole timber 

 

I tend to use brass shims on more complex track work , and cut up functional chairs to make cosmetic covers 

 

I now create jigs in PTFE , on my CNC Miller for common crossing setups !! 
 

in 00 modelling , 00-SF is by far the best compromise and I use it exclusively in point work married to RTR bullhead flexi ( all types except DCC concepts ) 

 

in O I use O-MF 

 

The first thing to think about is what plain track is going to be used, agreed well stained ply sleepers and timbers do look best providing they are not obscured by the ballast, however making plain track with ply sleepers and plastic chairs is expensive, if the builder is going to use flexi track with plastic sleepers then in my view use plastic timbers for consistency and strength

 

Reusing chairs can cause issues, when you release a chair from ply it sometimes gets distorted also some of the plastic is left behind (making it thinner). Removing plastic chairs from plastic timbers is very easy providing you use the correct scalpel blade and it is sharp, I find a Swann Morton number 10 ideal, remove chairs carefully without damaging the timber. Replace with half chairs once the solvent is dried it sets solid

 

As for slide chairs, when laying the timbers place thin strips of 5 thou plastic strip along the rail line between the second timber and the first timber after the slide chairs, glue the timbers to these strips, also I stick the slide chairs to the rail with superglue. This method can be used with Ply timbers by substituting ultra thin card or paper strips 

 

Those who have trouble building common crossing subassemblies can use copperclad timbers in strategic positions and solder the rail in place using either brass chairs or copperclad/metal risers between the timbers and rails, this will allow cosmetic chairs to be used

 

Simply think about what you are doing, use the parts most suitable for the purpose in hand plus where possible use those you are most comfortable with. Sometimes you have to think out of the box and adapt/experiment 

Edited August 24, 2020 by hayfield

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       I have received a warning for Contentious behaviour by  a moderator of RMWeb. I assume it was my previous post on this thread which now appears to have been removed.

I wish to state it was never my intention to behave in a contentious manner and offer my unreserved apologies to any one whom  I may have offended or upset.

trustytrev.

[Andy Reichert]

On 22/08/2020 at 10:13, gordon s said:

For example......

 

 

 

Gordon, I apologize for my apparent mis-naming error. I was actually referring to a gentleman named Simon on another topic who did in fact give up on P4.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

On 22/08/2020 at 09:46, gordon s said:

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.
 

 

 

I've mentioned a few times on here that as well as P4/P:87, I produce very accurately made frogs for HO that support safe operation of both code 110 and code 88 RP 25 wheels, using a short 0.028" flange way floor to hold up the narrower wheel flanges from dropping.  They of course work on any track gauge. However Martin did strongly criticise that method at the time and I didn't want to go beyond showing the supporting numbers, into semantic and marketing arguments that are actually expressions of strongly held personal opinions.

 

I messaged Andy York for Small Supplier status and advertising rates several months back, but have still not yet received a reply. I have no particular interest into the cosmetic aspects of 4 mm BH track, apart from ensuring perfect running.  My expertise and technologies support FB track far more. So the lack of status so far hasn't caused me any harm or concern. But I am personally interested in making extremely realistic 3.5 mm UK FB track work, as that fits my personal own use need as well as my general goal of making "Real track, Scaled down".

 

The issue of wheels dropping into Vee gaps is of course a whole different cause from sideways bumping due to fundamental mistakes in designing running clearances. Or non-clearances in the case of the SF check rail numbers.  Hence my trying to counter and prevent the spread of false information leading to unnecessary less than perfect running.

 

None of the above is an intentional  money making exercise. So long as the Proto:87 Stores breaks even, it can continue to support and grow the hobby indefinitely.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

7 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

The issue of wheels dropping into Vee gaps is of course a whole different cause from sideways bumping due to fundamental mistakes in designing running clearances. Or non-clearances in the case of the SF check rail numbers.  Hence my trying to counter and prevent the spread of false information leading to unnecessary less than perfect running.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

You have mentioned this "sideways bumping" before. I think you have misunderstood the way check rails work, at least in the UK. I have previously posted an extract and diagram from the Permanent Way Institution's handbook, so I won't do so again. The 00-SF and 00-BF dimensions follow that prototype practice.

 

With the wheels set to the maximum back-to-back, if the outer wheel flange is running against the rail-head, the back of the inner wheel will just "kiss" the check rail.

 

With wheels set to less than the maximum back-to-back,  if the outer wheel flange is running against the rail-head, the wheelset will be pulled sideways by the check rail away from the outer rail. This is the way the prototype works -- or would do if the prototype back-to-backs were not held to much tighter tolerance than on models.

 

00-BF and 00-SF replicate this prototype behaviour. Which is why I have several times explained on RMweb and elsewhere, that for the best running, the back-to-back should be set as close to the maximum as possible, without exceeding it.

 

(For RTR wheels on 00-BF and 00-SF the maximum back-to-back is 14.4mm.)

(For Markits wheels on 00-SF the maximum back-to-back is 14.5mm.)

(For Gibson and Ultrascale wheels on 00-SF the maximum back-to-back is 14.6mm.)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited August 25, 2020 by martin_wynne
typo

[hayfield]

Given the fact that 00SF is being criticized for possible bumping into the crossing nose when I have just placed 3 of my locos (Hornby, Mainline & Bachmann) on to a short piece of 00 gauge track and all 3 slide about across the gauge, all 3 having totally differing back to back measurements and by the look of it differing wheel standards.

 

How can these locos all run smoothly through crossings?

 

By the way all 3 fail your required BtB measurements

 

I like the idea that a manufacturer likes the idea of supplying extremely realistic UK flat bottom trackwork, especially as there is a very wide range of rail fixings which has been used over time, I would even ignore it being under scale (3.5mm rather than 4mm) as something which looks right would be better than nothing at all, assuming that is the code of rail is similar/compatible.

 

 

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

An ho loco and an oo loco can both look right when sitting on its own with a blank background.

 

So why does ho track and oo track not look right when viewed on their own?

[Andy Reichert]

On 24/08/2020 at 15:34, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

You have mentioned this "sideways bumping" before. I think you have misunderstood the way check rails work, at least in the UK. I have previously posted an extract and diagram from the Permanent Way Institution's handbook, so I won't do so again. The 00-SF and 00-BF dimensions follow that prototype practice.

 

With the wheels set to the maximum back-to-back, if the outer wheel flange is running against the rail-head, the back of the inner wheel will just "kiss" the check rail.

 

With wheels set to less than the maximum back-to-back,  if the outer wheel flange is running against the rail-head, the wheelset will be pulled sideways by the check rail away from the outer rail. This is the way the prototype works -- or would do if the prototype back-to-backs were not held to much tighter tolerance than on models.

 

00-BF and 00-SF replicate this prototype behaviour. Which is why I have several times explained on RMweb and elsewhere, that for the best running, the back-to-back should be set as close to the maximum as possible, without exceeding it.

 

(For RTR wheels on 00-BF and 00-SF the maximum back-to-back is 14.4mm.)

(For Markits wheels on 00-SF the maximum back-to-back is 14.5mm.)

(For Gibson and Ultrascale wheels on 00-SF the maximum back-to-back is 14.6mm.)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Working prototype check rails in the UK (and elsewhere) have prototype size tolerances clearances and prototype wheels "run out" (or wheel wobble ). 

 

All the answers and explanations you give in replies to my concerns, by referring to the UK prototype, appear to assume that the prototype wheels and track running clearances for free movement scale down in the same proportion as the models. They absolutely do not. Free running bearings on the prototype are immovable solid items at 4 mm scale. All freely passing, sliding, touching and running clearances must match or exceed those that work for 1:76.2 models.

 

One quarter inch clearance on the UK prototype is 0.0033" on a 4 mm model, aka 0.083 mm, which is about 0.8 of the thickness of the 0.01 mm thick 20LB copy paper in your computer printer. 

 

There is no such thing as a model wheel that does not have some small amount of run out and dimensional tolerances. For example, DCC Concepts, who incidentally manufacture 00-SF track gauges,  describe their fine scale wheel products as follows.:

 

We are fortunate to enjoy relationships with a range of top quality manufacturers in Asia, one of which makes parts for one of Europes finest (and most expensive!) watch brands. Naturally they use super-high specification CNC machinery, and understand accuracy…

Overall their accuracy is without doubt the best ever achieved in model wheelsets.

Turning tolerance is -0.000”, + 0.002”

 

But 00-SF running clearance for RTR wheels is only +/-0.01 mm (0.004") in each flange way and 0.00 mm at the check rail rail. Which means that the super-high specification CNC machinery, and understand accuracy… has already used up half the 00-SF running clearance in the positive direction.  Presumably, more "Ordinary" wheels as fitted to RTR models are not so accurate?  And regardless of construction accuracy, whatever the actual wobble amount is. however small, will result in that amount of side striking the crossing vee. Because there is no running clearance fir the check gauge on 00-SF

 

It's also worth noting the normally viewed as "difficult to achieve reliable running" high accuracy requirements proto scale P4 actually has a 25%  larger running clearance of around +/- 0.005"

 

So that's why I think that there should be proper, fully informative disclaimers as well as advantages on the 4-SF website.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Andy Reichert
typos

[martin_wynne]

13 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

All the answers and explanations you give in replies to my concerns, by referring to the UK prototype, appear to assume that the prototype wheels and track running clearances for free movement scale down in the same proportion as the models.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

This is getting tiresome. I have never suggested that prototype clearances and tolerances can be simply scaled down for models -- it is blindingly obvious that they can't be. I said merely that model check rails replicate the purpose and function of prototype check rails.

 

Quote

Turning tolerance is -0.000”, + 0.002”

 

Andy, I'm a toolmaker. I have made tooling for Rolls-Royce aerospace components. I don't regard that tolerance as the least bit impressive for modern precision machining, especially when making gauge tools. That's a ropey turning tolerance, but may perhaps refer to the finished wheelset assembly on the axle.

 

You don't like the 00-SF dimensions. OK we get that -- they work fine for those who have tried them, but you don't like them.

 

So what dimensions do you suggest we use instead? We have asked you this several times, and answer comes there none.

 

The requirement your dimensions need to meet is for RTR wheels and Ultrascale* wheels both to run smoothly on the same track, with no wheel drop in the crossings (i.e. supported on the wing rails, not running on their flanges), and using realistic UK blunt-nose vees (which scale to 0.25mm wide at 4mm/ft).

 

The 00-SF dimensions achieve that -- not by original design, more a case of lucky accident.

 

Over to you.

 

*2.25mm wide, 0.6mm effective flange thickness

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by martin_wynne

[dasatcopthorne]

Haha. Jeeeees.

 

Is this bloody argument still going on!!!

 

Can't believe it, really!!

 

Thank god I can't be bothered with most of it any more.

 

I've built on 00SF and it is brilliant. Plastic chairs on ply sleepers with the occasional rivet to guarantee the track stays in gauge at critical points.

 

Haha. Keep it up boys.

 

Dave Smith

[polybear]

On 24/08/2020 at 09:33, Junctionmad said:

I now create jigs in PTFE , on my CNC Miller for common crossing setups !! 

 

 

 

I'm intrigued - would it be possible to post some photos of your jigs please?

 

 

 

[dasatcopthorne]

15 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Why does staying in gauge matter anywhere? 

 

The 00 vehicles aren't altered. You've got the whole range from 16.2 mm to 16.5 mm plus standard 00's allowed gauge widening that shouldn't make any difference to either RTR or fine wheels. It's only the check rail to vee that is critical for safe running. And the crossing flange way that has to be absolutely FW Min to actually achieve 00-SF dimensions.  If FW is just a tad wider than min, nearly all my wing rail bumping concerns go away in proportion to the increase.

 

Andy

 

What an absolutely incredible answer Andy.

 

After all these years, I thought you understood the importance of gauge!

 

It is so that wheels stay on the rails in question.

 

Now I know why I gave up posting on the subject of 00SF and track in general.

 

I shall return to my silence so don't bother to reply as I wont be reading the answer.

 

Cheers

 

Dave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Denbridge]

15 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Why does staying in gauge matter anywhere? 

 

The 00 vehicles aren't altered. You've got the whole range from 16.2 mm to 16.5 mm plus standard 00's allowed gauge widening that shouldn't make any difference to either RTR or fine wheels. It's only the check rail to vee that is critical for safe running. And the crossing flange way that has to be absolutely FW Min to actually achieve 00-SF dimensions.  If FW is just a tad wider than min, nearly all my wing rail bumping concerns go away in proportion to the increase.

 

Andy

What exactly is your problem? I'm becoming rather tired of you popping up all over the place making totally false criticisms of track standards that are PROVEN TO WORK and WORK EXTREMELY WELL.

You provide nothing useful in your endless, tiresome diatribes, I suspect you have a burning need for attention.

Please go away. Enjoy your own modelling in whatever standards work for you and relieve us of your constant nonsense. 

[trustytrev]

Hello.

         It's me again. I have kept quiet for a while but am somewhat confused. Contentious behaviour apparently warrants me receiving a warning . However others seem to engage in such behaviour without let or hindrance on a continuous basis without redress. I think it seems a clear case of discrimination against me. Dear moderators please get your act together.

trustytrev.

[hayfield]

That's the trouble, you get on disruptive person who take the thread completely off the thread and annoys many who would rather discuss the thread (not necessarily agreeing) without straying too much or long from the original topic.

 

No problem discussing these unrelated matters in their own thread, but few if any would contribute. really its up to the OP, the moderator and regular contributors to police these unwarranted interruptions. I now of one person who has blocked said person from disrupting his thread, pity more do not do the same.

 

Still I have done the same gone off on an unrelated tangent, sorry. Lets get back to the subject in question. Merits of different track components and related matters in which many are interested