Jump to content

Recommended Posts

366794588_UKHOties1.jpg.e588687de4e29510639447c45af20997.jpg

 

My efforts toward UK HO now include making sleepers and turnout timbers to 3.5 mm scale, so that highly realistic UK 3.5 mm track is now a much easier possibility. A side benefit of this is that those 00 modellers who don't like the "narrow gauge" appearance of regular 00 track, now have the option of using sleepers that match the scale of the track gauge. For now I'm restricting myself to Flat Bottom (FB) track as I don't know of any suitable BH rail and chairs made for 3.5 mm scale.

 

Andy

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, I always thought Peco track was scale for 3.5mm.  Peco turnouts seem to be widely used by modellers here from what I've seen.  I'm sure there's a sublety I'm missing.

 

Also, what about 3.5mm rolling stock?  AFAIK there is nothing commercially available, but then, I haven't really looked. 

 

I had, many years ago, a very lovely Rivarossi Royal Scot train; loco and coaches.  However, IIRC, these were 3.7mm and the difference between that and 4mm was still very noticeable.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

I have wanted to start a topic on this subject for a while but it's difficult to know how to get started without seeming biased towards my own choices.

 

I have four types of track on my layout:

- SMP Scaleway type J (00 BH), sleepers trimmed to length

- Peco Streamline 'fine' (FB code 75), sleeper webs cut and sleepers gapped out to 2'6" pitch

- Tillig (FB code 73?), sleeper webs cut and sleepers gapped out like Peco

- Kato Unitrack (FB code 83), for a link section without scenery.

 

All of these look good to me, even though the Scaleway rail is too tall (code 75 wanting a "code 68" we cannot buy), and its sleepers are fractionally too broad; and the Peco sleepers are a bit too narrow also a bit too broad.

 

My own feeling is, I am happy to build my own turnouts if I feel Peco ones aren't good enough for me, but making plain line by hand in any quantity seems like making work. If I wanted to try I would use 1/8 x 1/16" strip wood, this is readily available in the UK.

 

My biggest difficultly is finding wooden strips precisely 3.5 mm wide to represent turnout timbers. I think such a thing would produce a good-looking result in H0 if used with code 75 BH rail and EM or P4 chairs. It would look better than rail soldered onto 4mm wide copperclad, which is what I have managed so far.

 

- Richard.

 

ECC Wagon on SMP Scaleway with timbers shortened to represent 8' 6" length

P1000120.jpg.af9f0d245e060f7b89ad931cf8e8cd3f.jpg

 

Edited by 47137
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

I want to see some of the new(ish) Peco code 70 flexi track. If the sleepers will pass for British size when buried in ash or similar ballast I could include it in my new layout.

 

I've ordered up some of the Peco code 70 flexi track (their SL-7000) to experiment. If my wheel flanges clear the rail fixings and the sleepers can be spaced apart to pass for British ones, I can include it in my new layout.

 

- Richard.

Edited by 47137
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/05/2020 at 11:46, 47137 said:

I have wanted to start a topic on this subject for a while but it's difficult to know how to get started without seeming biased towards my own choices.

 

I have four types of track on my layout:

- SMP Scaleway type J (00 BH), sleepers trimmed to length

- Peco Streamline 'fine' (FB code 75), sleeper webs cut and sleepers gapped out to 2'6" pitch

- Tillig (FB code 73?), sleeper webs cut and sleepers gapped out like Peco

- Kato Unitrack (FB code 83), for a link section without scenery.

 

All of these look good to me, even though the Scaleway rail is too tall (code 75 wanting a "code 68" we cannot buy), and its sleepers are fractionally too broad; and the Peco sleepers are a bit too narrow.

 

My own feeling is, I am happy to build my own turnouts if I feel Peco ones aren't good enough for me, but making plain line by hand in any quantity seems like making work. If I wanted to try I would use 1/8 x 1/16" strip wood, this is readily available in the UK.

 

My biggest difficultly is finding wooden strips precisely 3.5 mm wide to represent turnout timbers. I think such a thing would produce a good-looking result in H0 if used with code 75 BH rail and EM or P4 chairs. It would look better than rail soldered onto 4mm wide copperclad, which is what I have managed so far.

 

- Richard.

 

ECC Wagon on SMP Scaleway with timbers shortened to represent 8' 6" length

 

 

 

1610079541_UKHOtimbers2.jpg.c1e943d0e39a30e4c79e4aada0e0450b.jpg

 

I made 3.5 mm UK turnout timbers at the same time as the plain track sleepers, specifically for realistic 3.5 mm UK turnout construction.  I have already made pre-assembled common crossings, throw rods and machined points in 3.5mm UK FB rail.

 

Andy

 

Andy

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Hmm.

 

1. I have a gut feeling: FB track is best assembled onto copperclad. This is prejudiced, because it is what I have done so far; but copperclad does allow for re-soldering to adjust things.

 

2. I am happy to try using real wood for timbers or sleepers, but at the moment I know of suitable fixings for only BH rail. These are 4mm scale items, but I'm not that fussed.

 

3. As a British H0 modeller, I spend a great deal of time finding, bodging and making specimens of rolling stock a 4mm scale adherent usually buys RTR or as a kit. I am conscious of the need to model the whole railway; I am not especially focused on track.

 

4. I have limited space, a limited  lifespan, and modest abilities ... and if I decide to make my own track, I will wonder if I should be working in S scale.

 

Please, could you be a bit more explicit in your postings? In particular, what is "3.5mm UK FB rail"?

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Please, could you be a bit more explicit in your postings? In particular, what is "3.5mm UK FB rail"?

Interesting question, it should be code 75 for the usual BR 109/110/113 lb rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Interesting question, it should be code 75 for the usual BR 109/110/113 lb rail.

 

I think code 75 is a bit hefty for all of these.

 

Jim Pike, in his book "Track" identifies flat-bottomed rails manufactured from 60 up to 113 lb/yard (page 8 of the book).

 

I'm also looking at dimensions of rail sections, published by British Steel:

https://britishsteel.co.uk/media/40814/flat-bottomed-rail-dimensions-and-properties.pdf

 

The metric equivalent of 113lb/yard is EN13674-1 profile 56E1, and this is 159 mm high (rounded up to an integer).

 

159 / 87 = 1.8 mm, about 0.072 inches.

 

So I suggest we ought to regard code 75 as a practical height to hold RTR wheel flanges (and of course what we buy from Peco) rather than a scale size. Code 72 or 73 (e.g. Tillig) would be a closer match.

 

I'm looking forward to trying out the Peco code 70 track when it arrives. See if losing 5 thou makes it look any better for an industrial scene wanting a lighter appearance.

 

Andy, what rail section are you using for your track components?

 

- Richard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 47137 said:

 

 

Andy, what rail section are you using for your track components?

 

- Richard.

 

And Grovenor said:

 

"Interesting question, it should be code 75 for the usual BR 109/110/113 lb rail"

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

.Rightly or wrongly, I had in my mind that the UK FB 4mm scale rail size was code 82. And so, scaling that 7/8 ths, I arrived at code 71+ , or in my close compromise, code 70 .   Which is freely available. Which also means that code70 pre-assembled crossings, and other parts, are also available. to really speed things up for track laying a layout.

 

Normal FB fixings still allow for a flange clearance running depth of at least 0.040"

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Well this is a bit of an eye-opener to me. I always thought, the sleepers on Peco Streamline code 75 were a bit skinny for British H0. This is not true; they are too wide. They only look skinny to me because they are narrower than those of SMP type J, but this is bullhead track marketed for 00 and I'd best not confuse the issue with too many facts.

 

Thinking about FB track for a British layout:

  • A British wooden railway sleeper is about 10 inches wide.
  • A Peco sleeper on their code 75 track is about 0.125 inches wide, which scales up to 11 inches (Peco SL-100F).
  • A Peco sleeper on their code 70 track is about 0.104 inches wide, which scales up to 9 inches (Peco SL-7000).

Both Peco products have their sleepers too close together for British practice, but it's easy if boring to cut the webs and set them up to a 30 inch or so pitch.

 

The Peco code 70 track (which is new to me) has smaller rail fixings (they are actually very neat indeed), and the space available for rail flanges isn't much different to the space with the code 75.

 

I suggest, while no 00 modeller would want to look at the Peco code 70 track, it could look really good in a British H0 setting, especially with ballast up to the tops of the sleepers. I will try some of my rolling stock on it in the next few days and report back.

 

- Richard.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/05/2020 at 09:16, 47137 said:

Well this is a bit of an eye-opener to me. I always thought, the sleepers on Peco Streamline code 75 were a bit skinny for British H0. This is not true; they are too wide. They only look skinny to me because they are narrower than those of SMP type J, but this is bullhead track marketed for 00 and I'd best not confuse the issue with too many facts.

 

Thinking about FB track for a British layout:

  • A British wooden railway sleeper is about 10 inches wide.
  • A Peco sleeper on their code 75 track is about 0.125 inches wide, which scales up to 11 inches (Peco SL-100F).
  • A Peco sleeper on their code 70 track is about 0.104 inches wide, which scales up to 9 inches (Peco SL-7000).

Both Peco products have their sleepers too close together for British practice, but it's easy if boring to cut the webs and set them up to a 30 inch or so pitch.

 

The Peco code 70 track (which is new to me) has smaller rail fixings (they are actually very neat indeed), and the space available for rail flanges isn't much different to the space with the code 75.

 

I suggest, while no 00 modeller would want to look at the Peco code 70 track, it could look really good in a British H0 setting, especially with ballast up to the tops of the sleepers. I will try some of my rolling stock on it in the next few days and report back.

 

- Richard.

 

Plastic plain track sleeper spacing is potentially alterable. Turnout spacing with plastic timbers that have rail fixings built in, are not not. Another factor to consider is that US style turnouts usually have the same width timbers as the plain track. Of course there are no US style turnouts that use BH rail with chairs.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

I am in a happy place. I have connected some Peco SL-7000 (code 70 USA-style) track into my layout and run some trains along it. Almost everything runs without touching the rail fixings.

 

I re-wheeled my Fleischmann Warship and all my Lima models some years ago; this leaves me finding only three models with their wheel flanges touching the rail fixings:

P1020110.jpg.e06c629d9bb8c403f2853103655f632b.jpg

 

All three have flanges about 0.057 inches deep, and all are ok on Peco Code 75.

  • The Liliput ballast tamper is a pain, I expect better on a present-day model.
  • The Fleischmann coaches can be rewheeled - they are also  a pain but only because I have eight of them, so 64 wheelsets to deal with.
  • The Trix NS6400 isn't British outline but it represents engines used on the Channel Tunnel rail link. Somehow, being Trix, it doesn't surprise me.

All of these run on the Peco code 70, but they make a funny noise proportional to speed and the sleeper pitch.

 

Conversely, I have successfully run the following items over the Peco code 70 track, all of these using their factory wheels:

 

Motive Power

Bachmann - Underground Ernie (both chassis styles), 4mm class 03 (useful chassis)

Halling - Flexity 2

Hornby - Terrier (useful donor model, both old and new designs)

Life-Like Proto 2000 - chassis under BR class 33

Liliput - OMD-8 self-propelled crane - this is contemporous with their ballast tamper, though it has larger wheels

Mehano - class 66

NMJ - Di8

REE - S100, Moyse locotractuer

Roco - NS600 third version (BR class 11)

 

Rolling Stock

Ferry wagons by Liliput, Modelbahn Union and Roco

Type F sleeper coaches by LS Models

BYA steel carrier running on Life-Like bogies

 

Thinking about the stock I have re-wheeled, the following wheels will also run on Peco code 70:

 

Alan Gibson

Steam Era Models

Ultrascale "finescale 00 standard" (probably goes without saying)

 

I think this is all a very positive outcome.

 

Peco code 70 connects up to code 75 more smoothly than I expected - this is without dressing the ends of the rails:

P1020111.jpg.778b0aefb3bfe5e95a7d0bc6bf63ef81.jpg

 

I'll post separately about the mechanics and aesthetics of the Peco code 70 track. I'd like to build a test piece and ballast it first.

 

- Richard.

Edited by 47137
Forgot the tram and the Roco class 11!
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Here is some Peco code 70 track (SL-7000) connected to their usual code 75 (SL-100F). The code 70 is for North American practice, the code 75 is possibly European:

P1020112.jpg.843a9527847f74077e7c27d8381d80a7.jpg

 

The difference in sleeper widths is very obvious here.

 

I have made myself a test piece so I can compare the two. This was a good idea to begin with, but then I ballasted it and painted it and this has rather hidden the different aesthetics:

P1020125.jpg.b6bf27f28260fe43649a973581dec514.jpg

 

The main thing is, Peco code 75 rail fits into the sleeper bases from their code 70 track. This means,

  • You can use up spare sleepers from the code 70 track using any code 75 rail you have to hand (you will have lots of spare sleepers if you gap them out to British practice!)
  • This code 75 track will take slightly coarser wheels, but will look much the same as the code 70 track.
  • You can have plain line with "narrow" sleepers from code 70  track joining up to Peco points, and have a clear visual difference between the widths of the sleepers and the timbers.

None of these are strictly "to scale" for British applications - the code 70 sleepers scale at 9 not 10 inches wide, the code 75 sleepers and point timbers scale at 11 not 12 inches wide. But you do get the characteristic two inches of difference in width. Also if you are worried about an eighty-seventh of an inch, British H0 is probably not for you.

 

I do like the overall effect possible with the code 70 track:

P1020124.jpg.1377bf3b217ace9e1900c1cda93439e6.jpg

 

I can imagine sleepers from code 70 track for all the plain line on my new layout, with code 75 rail for the through route and the run-round loop, and code 70 rail in the sidings.

 

For completeness - you could physically fit code 70 rail into code 75 sleepers but I cannot think of a benefit in this - the rail fixings are taller and might meet the wheel flanges, and the proportions are worse.

 

Thinking about the OP, I wonder where do we go with wooden sleepers from here?

 

- Richard.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 My intention is to first produce simple 3.5 mm scale jigs for laying model wood turnout timbers in the most common UK turnout turnout formations. Then it's just a matter of fastening down rail, pre-formed crossings and points to quickly and easily build working turnouts that bear a reasonable resemblance to the real thing, but in 3.5 mm scale. I'm not sure if the majority of intending 3.5 m scale users require full modelled 3D FB base plates for FB rail. Certainly the PECO equivalents don't provide fixings that look much like them. But I'm interested in what others think.

 

Andy

Edited by Andy Reichert
typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 My intention is to first produce simple 3.5 mm scale jigs for laying model wood turnout timbers in the most common UK turnout turnout formations. Then it's just a matter of fastening down rail, pre-formed crossings and points to quickly and easily build working turnouts that bear a reasonable resemblance to the real thing, but in 3.5 mm scale. I'm not sure if the majority of intending 3.5 m scale users require full modelled 3D FB base plates for FB rail. Certainly the PECO equivalents don't provide fixings that look much like them. But I'm interested in what others think.

 

Andy

 

At the moment, I would want to build my next FB turnouts using 3.3 mm copperclad, that is to say I would manage without any attempt at scale rail fixings. Before then, I'd like to try a BH turnout - British railways still have FB plain line using BH turnouts. I'd probably look to the 4 mm scale products from C&L, especially their code 75 chairs and their 3.3 mm wooden sleeper strips. I'd strip the rail from SMP track.

 

I think I am lucky to have an O level in metalwork, this has helped me a lot making this sort of thing. Like you, I'd like to know what other folk here think.

 

- Richard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of different sizes of rail being used for different grades of track, but would not go asfar as building my own track, unless it was for something very special or different. I also think it is differeces in size that are more noticable than actual size.

If I was really concerned and was to build my own track, probably would go for 4mm scale(EM) as there there are a lot more accessories available. My reason for going British  HO is simply the gauge. I can disguise thickness of rail with careful ballasting etc.

Far more concerned about rest of model building, such as actual buildings(bricks!), and prefer to go for an overall look that looks OK. Maybe it is me, but I notice differences more than actuals.

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

I think I'm with Simon on this, I'd go for an overall "look" rather than the minutiae of tiny details.

I commend those who do go for such things but it just doesn't seem like fun to me, rather more like deeply involved work!

I speak as someone who has tried P4 three times during my modelling career and always goes back to H0 where things just work.

If I want better looking trackwork, I would simply open up the sleeper spacings on simple rtr track and simply ignore the spacing of the turnout timbers, sorry!

John. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I think I'm with Simon on this, I'd go for an overall "look" rather than the minutiae of tiny details.

I commend those who do go for such things but it just doesn't seem like fun to me, rather more like deeply involved work!

I speak as someone who has tried P4 three times during my modelling career and always goes back to H0 where things just work.

If I want better looking trackwork, I would simply open up the sleeper spacings on simple rtr track and simply ignore the spacing of the turnout timbers, sorry!

John. 

 

I am sure, the overall effect is the main thing. The most immediate characteristic of railway track is two bright parallel lines, and the effect begins with having these lines about the right distance apart in proportion to the train(!) and in proportion to the scenic setting. The next thing is having sleepers of the right proportions (if not precisely the right size), and I do think re-gapping the sleepers of Peco track makes it look a whole lot better - more "British" I suppose. I like the effect I obtained by gapping Peco code 75 track, but I will try their code 70 version next time because I think the narrower sleepers will help that little bit in what will be an industrial setting. Also the moulded wood grain effect is a bit calmer!

 

After this, the overall effect depends on colouring and the ballast. A person pursuing P87 might want more precise details in their track to complement their wheels, but I haven't seen anyone on this forum tackling P87 for a British prototype.

 

The height of the rail seems to be relatively unimportant. Code 100 is always going to look very tall (too tall for me), but I find track using code 83, code 75 and code 70 looks fine as long as I have painted it roughly the right colour.

 

- Richard.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree with Richard on this!

As I said above, I tried P4 three times and still have some 'stuff' looking for a home, not sure what to do with it. First try was when I was just 15 y.o. and living in France, when I learnt of the differences between 00, EM and P4 and I thought if I'm going to change anything, I might as well change to the finest I can (how little I knew!). I kept this up for about three years and built a simple oval and converted about three items of motive power and a handful of stock but I couldn't manage a working point so gave it all up.

Subsequent tries many years later found me focussing on just the track and the minutiae and do you know what? It was very dis-illusioning!

Building up my stocks of US and EU H0 stock "proved" to me that H0 looks right AND works - easily.

I am now committed to Roco-Line code 83 track as my H0 stock from both sides of the Atlantic operate well on it, I guess I better take some photos so you can see what it looks like?

This is not to decry anyone attempting better looking British outline track in any scale (I still have some P:87 track stashed away!) but just to illustrate that I have tried the finescale option but prefer the easy life to be honest.

But, I am planning something much bigger in my new residence and there would be no way of hand building everything for that as I'll never live long enough and I want to play trains long before then.

Cheers,

John. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against the finer rail, but I prefer Peco insulfrog(I have my own mod which cures 99% of pickup problems which would not work with electrofrog easily!) and that only comes in code 100 rail.Also my inset track system works better with code 100 rail, but if I could get a manufacturer on board I have something suitable for finer rail track. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I note the several, "just modify what we have"  comments above.  My only response to that perfectly acceptable limited opportunity pragmatism is that I usually design from scratch.  When doing that, it seems to me to be rather pointless to design something to be wrong from the start, when you have the freedom to design it as right as possible, using just the same effort, time and cost.

 

My making so many parts for HO that look outstandingly better than those commercially available, has kept the "doors:" of the Proto:87 Stores happily open for the past 25 years.

 

My only major defection from that ideal is to run UK 4mm vehicles on UK 3.5 mm scaled parts of my HO/P:87 track . But then I think that's preferable to modelling  a non-existent 4ft 1.5 inch gauge UK track in 4 mm scale. 

 

After all, isn't that one of the main reasons for starting a UK 3.5 mm scale RM WEB section in the first place?

 

Andy

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 03/06/2020 at 18:11, Andy Reichert said:

I note the several, "just modify what we have"  comments above.  My only response to that perfectly acceptable limited opportunity pragmatism is that I usually design from scratch.  When doing that, it seems to me to be rather pointless to design something to be wrong from the start, when you have the freedom to design it as right as possible, using just the same effort, time and cost.

 

My making so many parts for HO that look outstandingly better than those commercially available, has kept the "doors:" of the Proto:87 Stores happily open for the past 25 years.

 

My only major defection from that ideal is to run UK 4mm vehicles on UK 3.5 mm scaled parts of my HO/P:87 track . But then I think that's preferable to modelling  a non-existent 4ft 1.5 inch gauge UK track in 4 mm scale. 

 

After all, isn't that one of the main reasons for starting a UK 3.5 mm scale RM WEB section in the first place?

 

Andy

 

 

 

I get a lot of satisfaction from modifying what the trade offers me. Often these offerings are for other scales. The activity holds my attention from finding a suitable donor right through to calling the model finished. If the Trade started to produce British H0 parts or even RTR in bulk, I'd probably move to 1:64 or even 1:55 scale. Although a class 37 would be useful.

 

Regardless of my opinions, do be aware you probably cannot underestimate the size of the market for British H0. I persuaded the proprietor of Poppy's Woodtech to do his excellent coaling stage in 1:87 scale and whenever I look at my model I feel I put him to a lot of work and I was his only customer to buy one. It's still a good kit:

http://217.199.187.193/poppyswoodtech.co.uk/otherscales.html

 

- Richard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 30/05/2020 at 07:43, 47137 said:

I re-wheeled my Fleischmann Warship and all my Lima models some years ago; this leaves me finding only three models with their wheel flanges touching the rail fixings:

 

All three have flanges about 0.057 inches deep, and all are ok on Peco Code 75.

  • The Liliput ballast tamper is a pain, I expect better on a present-day model.
  • The Fleischmann coaches can be rewheeled - they are also  a pain but only because I have eight of them, so 64 wheelsets to deal with.
  • The Trix NS6400 isn't British outline but it represents engines used on the Channel Tunnel rail link. Somehow, being Trix, it doesn't surprise me.

All of these run on the Peco code 70, but they make a funny noise proportional to speed and the sleeper pitch.

 

Seeing this prompts me to add a mention of a supplier of replacement coach and wagon wheelsets in Germany I have used two or three times:

http://www.modellbahn-radsatz.de/h0/radsaetze-h0-rp25/index.php

 

The wheels vary in diameter according to the original model manufacturer's whim, doubtless a lot more than the prototype as 1,000 mm seems to have been a standard (in Germany at least) for 100 years or so. That's a bit bigger than the typical contemporary British wheel (what a surprise) but 10.5 mm is a common diameter in this range which is pretty much right for UK wagons. Pardon my failure to do the sums but I would guess a 1:76 wagon wheel from Gibson is pretty much perfect on a 1:87 carriage?

 

Currently EUR 1.13 an axle as RP25 (watch out as you can buy NEM). I think they are the cheapest I have seen -- but don't forget to add in the postage cost (which was pretty reasonable when I ordered). The wheels are brass with a nickel surface and are chemically blackened. To explain the dimensions, taking as an example http://www.modellbahn-radsatz.de/h0/radsaetze-h0-rp25/fleischmann/index.php:

 

Quote

RP25 für Fleischmann Lkdm 11,0mm - Achse 24,0mm Fleischmann (2-achsige Wagen) Oberflächenveredlung: Nickel Spurkranzhöhe aller Radsätze beträgt 0,6 mm Wellendurchmesser: 2,0 mm Radscheibenbreite: 2,8 mm

 

Lkdm (=Laufkreisdurchmesser) tyre diameter - 11mm

Achse axle length - 24 mm

Oberflächenveredlung surface finish - nickel (I think the spec is absolutely standard across all their wheels)

Spurkranzhöhe flange depth - 0.6 mm

Wellendurchmesser axle diameter  - 2 mm

Radscheibenbreite wheel disc width (tyre and flange) - 2.8 mm [the tyre width I measure on a sample as 2mm]

 

Obviously these terms might be useful elsewhere around the internet; happy searching. If you do use this supplier you need to be considerate and put in a reasonable order -- they used to state EUR 25 minimum for PayPal. My first order was less than that and I got a grumpy email ;-)

 

If you order the wheelsets that are isolated on both wheels (beidseitig isoliert) you can pull them off the axles and put them on longer or shorter axles.

 

I didn't realise until recently that Roco sell RP25 replacement wheelsets too. I haven't got any.

 

Ben

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, readingtype said:

 

Pardon my failure to do the sums but I would guess a 1:76 wagon wheel from Gibson is pretty much perfect on a 1:87 carriage?

A 37.5" wheel to true scale in 1:76 would be 2.2% oversize for a 42" wheel in H0.  IIRC, Gibson wheels are actually 12mm and 14mm. The 12mm one is then 2% under-scale for a 42" wheel in H0, which is fine.

 

Uniquely, Gibson do a 12mm Mansell-pattern wheel which is perfect for older coaches in H0. 

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

 

 

To back track a couple of months, I ran my AEI class 81 today and discovered its Hornby class 67 running gear fouls the rail fixings on Peco code 70 track.

 

Somehow this tips the balance for me against using code 70 rail. I will be happy to slip Peco code 75 rail into the track bases from their code 70 track and set the sleepers to British spacing, but if I use code 70 rail it will be where I can solder it onto copperclad to give me the clearance for the wheel flanges.

 

Hope this is useful.

 

- Richard.

 

  • Informative/Useful 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
×
×
  • 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.