Jump to content

Current / future 4mm finescale track option clarification


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Martin has the demonstrated authority from RM WEB to alter and/or delete others posts on RM WEB's behalf. I.e he is an authorized (and de facto) agent of RM WEB policy.

 

 

I am not an agent of RMweb. This section of RMweb: "Handbuilt Track & Templot" references my registered mark "Templot". I have moderator privileges in this section only. I do and will protect my mark from being associated with misinformation and misleading statements. Especially those which might confuse beginners to hand building track.

 

Martin.

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

The rail width measurement, if reasonable, is only cosmetic,  ... ...  have no other effect on the running aspects of the standard.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

True. But when quoted wrong it destroys the credibility of the document. That document was dated 1983, long after scale BS-95R bullhead rail was readily available and in use for finescale 4mm/ft track building.

 

If the document can get one thing wrong, it can get another. For example quoting the check gauge as 17.25mm and so creating asymmetric flangeways, when it should be 17.20mm.

 

In truth, the check gauge dimension is always a minimum, so an actual measured value of 17.25mm is perfectly acceptable. But it can't be quoted as the check gauge because it creates asymmetric flangeways, which are definitely not acceptable in any sensible standard. They can arise only where there is gauge widening.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Martin has the demonstrated authority from RM WEB to alter and/or delete others posts on RM WEB's behalf. I.e he is an authorized (and de facto) agent of RM WEB policy. 

 

 

Yes, Martin has moderation rights within this sub-forum. Not on anyone's behalf but for the benefit of the majority. Wind the conspiracy theories in please, if I removed every post where you've irritated another member your post count would be a lot lower. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grovenor said:

IMHO, this rail width goes back to the 1950s, early 1069s before Kings Cross introduced the scale bullhead rail, the previous oversize bullhead was, IIRC that width. Came with the wire chairs that had tails to be fitted through holes in the fibre sleepers and were squeezed into the web by a special tool. I think they were very early Peco but not sure on that, could have been someone else like ABC or Hamblings. Should be findable in the ads in late 50s mags.

Peco Individulay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5050 said:

Peco Individulay?

 

I don't think so but as I no longer have my Peco catalogues from that period I can't be sure. Only goes to prove you should never throw anything away :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 5050 said:

Peco Individulay?

I have some of these parts (up in the loft). They are not Peco but from memory have META (or similar) on the packs. I have a feeling Peco's Indvidulay was spiked track. I will go into the loft later and bring my box of ancient track parts down, which also includes the spiked point kits mentioned in the W&H catalogue page I have scanned

 

 

 

 

Sorry I am having issues up loading photos the correct way round, Sorry tried several attempts even a second scan and a second entry *sorted*

Scan0121.jpg

Edited by hayfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Sorry I am having issues up loading photos the correct way round

 

 

Hi John,

 

Don't take photos with the camera horizontal (i.e. book or model flat on a bench). The camera's orientation sensor doesn't work when it is horizontal.

 

If you don't have a scanner to use instead, prop the book against a wall, and take the photo with the camera vertical.

 

If it's a phone, look on the back and turn it round so that the camera lens is at the top.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Martin

 

Thanks, but I used a scanner !!

 

Hi john,

 

In that case you put the book in it the wrong way round!

 

There are usually some marks round the glass showing the top of the document.

 

If it will only fit some other way, you need to rotate the image afterwards in a photo editor program. Some scanners have an option in the settings to rotate it for you.

 

p.s. I remember using W&H code95 bullhead rail back in the 1960s, but I can't remember how wide it was or whether it came from Peco.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi john,

 

In that case you put the book in it the wrong way round!

 

There are usually some marks round the glass showing the top of the document.

 

If it will only fit some other way, you need to rotate the image afterwards in a photo editor program. Some scanners have an option in the settings to rotate it for you.

 

p.s. I remember using W&H code95 bullhead rail back in the 1960s, but I can't remember how wide it was or whether it came from Peco.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

Thanks, on the third attempt it worked ?  How many people will understand the pricing when its in LSD and purchase tax ?

 

Scan0121.jpg.9156a3e345100842b451a63e81b78e3e.jpg

Edited by hayfield
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi john,

 

In that case you put the book in it the wrong way round!

 

There are usually some marks round the glass showing the top of the document.

 

If it will only fit some other way, you need to rotate the image afterwards in a photo editor program. Some scanners have an option in the settings to rotate it for you.

 

p.s. I remember using W&H code95 bullhead rail back in the 1960s, but I can't remember how wide it was or whether it came from Peco.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

Sad as it may be I have a few lengths of what I assumed was code 100 bullhead as it is nigh on compatible with code 100

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Martin has the demonstrated authority from RM WEB to alter and/or delete others posts on RM WEB's behalf. I.e he is an authorized (and de facto) agent of RM WEB policy. 

 

The rail width measurement, if reasonable, is only cosmetic, like the sleeper dimensions are for the DOGA. It (they)  have no other effect on the running aspects of the standard.

 

Andy

 

But it clearly shows a simple error, which then could lead to a mistrust of the information supplied. now if anyone follows and builds a track (roller) gauge to these standards it would be incorrect as it would be too loose on the rails !!!!!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hayfield said:

Sad as it may be I have a few lengths of what I assumed was code 100 bullhead as it is nigh on compatible with code 100

 

 

How wide is it?

 

Presumably listing prices with and without purchase tax (now VAT) was for their trade customers. I remember a local model shop as a boy, where whatever you asked for he shook his head, reached for the W&H catalogue, and said "I can get it by Monday".

 

The catalogue was a good exercise in mental arithmetic. Cover up the left column and subtract 1/10.5 from 12/7. smile.gif

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi john,

 

In that case you put the book in it the wrong way round!

 

There are usually some marks round the glass showing the top of the document.

 

If it will only fit some other way, you need to rotate the image afterwards in a photo editor program. Some scanners have an option in the settings to rotate it for you.

 

p.s. I remember using W&H code95 bullhead rail back in the 1960s, but I can't remember how wide it was or whether it came from Peco.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

The only thing I can remember about it was that I used to get it it from Jones of Chiswick, mainly because it was cheaper.

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

 

How wide is it?

 

Presumably listing prices with and without purchase tax (now VAT) was for their trade customers. I remember a local model shop as a boy, where whatever you asked for he shook his head, reached for the W&H catalogue, and said "I can get it by Monday".

 

The catalogue was a good exercise in mental arithmetic. Cover up the left column and subtract 1/10.5 from 12/7. smile.gif

 

Martin.

 

I will have to go back up in the loft again as I cannot find the code 95/100 bullhead rail yet

 

Rather than post vintage items in this thread I have started a new thread on vintage track parts

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Grovenor said:

IMHO, this rail width goes back to the 1950s, early 1960s before Kings Cross introduced the scale bullhead rail, the previous oversize bullhead was, IIRC that width. Came with the wire chairs that had tails to be fitted through holes in the fibre sleepers and were squeezed into the web by a special tool. I think they were very early Peco but not sure on that, could have been someone else like ABC or Hamblings. Should be findable in the ads in late 50s mags.

Wasn't it Brook-Smith who devised that track, similar to that used on the MRC's Longridge, Brampton Sands and Calshot layout of the early 1960s that you and I were involved with in those days? 

 

ISTR the Kings Cross rail was introduced circa 1966 by the late Keith Dan and others. the shop in york Way certainly stocked it when I worked there in 1968/69, along with stamped brass chairs punched out on a fly press in the basement.

 

The only other "scale" rail was Jones Brothers TT flat-bottom rail which looked right fo scale 00 rail. Commercial bullhead rail was chunkier and seemed to match code 100 to BRMSB standards.

 

And I will repeat that the late Frank Dyer of Borchester fame used the 16.2 gauge for his Borchester layouts from the mid 1960s and built the MRC's Dyers end trackwork using 16.2 gauge. We never had any problems with commercial or BRMSB stock running on it. Maybe Frank was THE first to use 16.2?

 

Edited by roythebus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peco individualay was spiked track, flat bottom rail held in with flat spikes with offset head which you had to push through sleepers into a softboard base. I suspect the bullhead rail was code 95, used by Ray Rippon and others, but dearer than the Jones Bros stuff.

Edited by roythebus
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

Yes, Martin has moderation rights within this sub-forum. Not on anyone's behalf but for the benefit of the majority. Wind the conspiracy theories in please, if I removed every post where you've irritated another member your post count would be a lot lower. 

 

I have always expected RM WEB to want to supply accurate information in order to get the very best modelling results. So  I try to base all my posts on running the numbers supplied by others and checking their validity by the usual proven scientific means. Mostly just simple arithmetic suffices.

 

However, quite often the results are not want some people with optimistic and/or exciting new ideas and unsubstantiated opinions want to hear. That doesn't mean the scientific results and conclusions are reversible by a popularity contest, no matter how irritating the real answers might be.

 

Arithmetic is not a conspiracy theory. Denying it and it's proven conclusions almost certainly is.

 

I don't know of any majority within or without the EMGS that is trying to overturn their published standards dimensions in favour of contrary RM WEB postings. I would advise those who want to contradict the standards to join the EMGS and propose any changes from within if they are that concerned. AFAIK the BRMSB is  not a current organization that has any control over the EMGS.

 

Andy

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

AFAIK the BRMSB is  not a current organization

 

Grow up Andy. You can go back onto moderation as I'm not putting up with snide comments this weekend.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I have always expected RM WEB to want to supply accurate information in order to get the very best modelling results. So  I try to base all my posts on running the numbers supplied by others and checking their validity by the usual proven scientific means. Mostly just simple arithmetic suffices.

 

However, quite often the results are not want some people with optimistic and/or exciting new ideas and unsubstantiated opinions want to hear. That doesn't mean the scientific results and conclusions are reversible by a popularity contest, no matter how irritating the real answers might be.

 

Arithmetic is not a conspiracy theory. Denying it and it's proven conclusions almost certainly is.

 

I don't know of any majority within or without the EMGS that is trying to overturn their published standards dimensions in favour of contrary RM WEB postings. I would advise those who want to contradict the standards to join the EMGS and propose any changes from within if they are that concerned. AFAIK the BRMSB is  not a current organization that has any control over the EMGS.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Andy

 

Probably unlike yourself I am a member of the EMGS , one of my layouts is built to EM gauge, rather than be a theorist I am active in modelling this scale/gauge combination and at this moment I am building a loco to EM gauge standards, having just finished two turnouts and one crossover to EM gauge, these turnouts were built with commercially available gauges, presumably to standards shown by Martin. They have served me very well in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future

 

Why should I waste my time and the time of the officers on a fools errant. A mistake has been made in one if not more areas of that info sheet. How many EM gauge modellers will be actively engaged in building their own gauges ?  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

Grow up Andy. You can go back onto moderation as I'm not putting up with snide comments this weekend.

Hello,

        Is going  "onto moderation"  more serious than receiving a "Warning for Contentious behaviour"? I hope so. I'm a glutton for punishment.

trustytrev.;)

Edited by trustytrev
humour
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roythebus said:

Peco individualay was spiked track, flat bottom rail held in with flat spikes with offset head which you had to push through sleepers into a softboard base. I suspect the bullhead rail was code 95, used by Ray Rippon and others, but dearer than the Jones Bros stuff.

Peco 1960 catalogue pages showing Individulay and Spiked.

 

Individulay.A.jpg.9e0da849bbb9cb1ab5d76c22ea279706.jpg

 

63901450_SpikedTrack.jpg.3ece2a62ef121c78826af88ce23e67d0.jpg8593310_SpikedPoints.A.jpg.2dd91ce95d8985b3c1a020390d13f92a.jpg

 

Not the same!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2020 at 18:39, Andy Reichert said:

Because as in all tech drawings, laws, legal documents, Templot versions, etc. the latest date always supersedes the earlier version. Otherwise nothing could ever be repaired/improved. ;)

 

Andy

 

 

 

Though just because a document etc. is "the latest issue" doesn't mean it is correct......

  • 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.