Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

I am fairly sure that somebody somewhere has had this problem. I am test laying track sections of the new layout and this has given me the chance to go deeper into some of the running problems I had with the previous one, now removed.

 

Some rolling stock, carriages or locos, derail going through the frog area. Most likely to occur is travel from the toe of the point towards the frog. I have found that the cause is that the leading wheel strikes the apex point of the frog, causing it to jump out of the track line completely. As the leading wheel approaches the frog apex, the wheel in contact with the stock rail is entering the area of the guard rail, but the gap there is large enough to permit the sideways drift that enable the wheels to strike the apex of the frog. If you run a carriage through by hand, and just push the trailing wheel set of a carriage sideways for example, the turning force on the leading wheels pushes them into the correct line and they pass the point; however the second set will then derail in identical fashion. In a rake, or a train for that matter, if the first pair of wheels pass the frog OK the rest will because the couplings holds them in line, I suppose. 

 

At first it looked as if the depth of track at the frog wasnt enough but it is. What looks like the solution is to trim the apex of the frog, being Hornby its plastic and about 1cm long. The wheels will then strike it a bit later, when they are more into the guard rail area. Howveer Im not totally confident this is the right thing to do, and once done the point is probably scrap if it fails. I also wondered about glueing some very thin plastic strip to the inside of the guard rail. In scale terms the gap there seems huge.

 

This problem first came to light when I began to acquire more recent rolling stock. My old A4 and Duchess locos from 20 years or more ago just cruise through, its the newer Bachmanns with very light pony trucks (im 100% steam) that always derail, but I didnt have any of those when the  old layout was first pinned down. I really don't want to have this problem going forward.

Edited by RobinofLoxley
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I also wondered about glueing some very thin plastic strip to the inside of the guard rail

Much the better option. If you test glue with PVA or double sided tape you can remove if it doesn’t work. 
 

Andi

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried inserting a piece of yogurt pot loose into the guard rail gap and it worked pretty well. The guard rail gaps are quite massive. Even with the plastic lying loose in the gap but occupying the space, my test piece which is a Pullman Coach, went through all 6 gaps I tried. I didnt even trim the bit of plastic.

 

Now, how will I glue that to the guard rail, while making it look like a piece of metal??

 

Actually I will have to test it on a modified Hall first...

20210110_210702.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Surprised this hasn't been sorted out yet by manufacturers. Haven't used rtr curved points since the 90's but can remember having to do exactly this with plasticard on the check rails to stop trains derailing on leading points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, SR71 said:

Surprised this hasn't been sorted out yet by manufacturers. Haven't used rtr curved points since the 90's but can remember having to do exactly this with plasticard on the check rails to stop trains derailing on leading points.

 

 

Until all the manufacturers actually agree on a consistent track and wheel standard for UK 00, then it's never going to be sorted.

 

Unfortunately, that particular standards horse bolted many, many, years ago.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I solved this particular problem by buying Peco Points, and binning my Hornby moulded plastic bright rim wheels.   The Hornby points worked great with Hornby 13.8 to 14mm back to back silver seal wheels but not with the later (Current?) ones.   The older metal axle wheels can be eased out to 14,5 with a screwdriver or similar to suit the Peco points.    My old Hornby points now await trimming live frogging and new check rails.  Or sticking on eBay..

Edited by DavidCBroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a comparison David, can you tell me what the size of the gap is between the guard rail and the stock rail on these Peco points. Not at the entry where the gap is tapering, but the constant width section. I have estimated the Hornby point gap at 1.2mm using an engineers rule and a magnifying glass. I cant see all those changes helping unless the gap on the Peco is much smaller. Different stock, etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happens with the curent Trix-C track wide radius curved turnouts on the inner track.. The standard curved turnout are fine.

If you observe closely you can see the wheels are hitting the point of the metal frog because the plastic guard rail gap is too wide for non Marklin-Trix models.

The solution is to glue a thin strip of plastic onto the guardrail which moves the wheel outwards. A simple fix.

See:  https://railway.zone/post/fixing-derailments-on-trix-c-track-large-radius-curved-turnouts

 

 

 

Edited by maico
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 10/01/2021 at 18:01, RobinofLoxley said:

I am fairly sure that somebody somewhere has had this problem. I am test laying track sections of the new layout and this has given me the chance to go deeper into some of the running problems I had with the previous one, now removed.

 

Some rolling stock, carriages or locos, derail going through the frog area. Most likely to occur is travel from the toe of the point towards the frog. I have found that the cause is that the leading wheel strikes the apex point of the frog, causing it to jump out of the track line completely. As the leading wheel approaches the frog apex, the wheel in contact with the stock rail is entering the area of the guard rail, but the gap there is large enough to permit the sideways drift that enable the wheels to strike the apex of the frog. If you run a carriage through by hand, and just push the trailing wheel set of a carriage sideways for example, the turning force on the leading wheels pushes them into the correct line and they pass the point; however the second set will then derail in identical fashion. In a rake, or a train for that matter, if the first pair of wheels pass the frog OK the rest will because the couplings holds them in line, I suppose. 

 

At first it looked as if the depth of track at the frog wasnt enough but it is. What looks like the solution is to trim the apex of the frog, being Hornby its plastic and about 1cm long. The wheels will then strike it a bit later, when they are more into the guard rail area. Howveer Im not totally confident this is the right thing to do, and once done the point is probably scrap if it fails. I also wondered about glueing some very thin plastic strip to the inside of the guard rail. In scale terms the gap there seems huge.

 

This problem first came to light when I began to acquire more recent rolling stock. My old A4 and Duchess locos from 20 years or more ago just cruise through, its the newer Bachmanns with very light pony trucks (im 100% steam) that always derail, but I didnt have any of those when the  old layout was first pinned down. I really don't want to have this problem going forward.

 

Same problem with a straight/LH -  my fix is described here. I found that Hornby's frog design problem was compounded by a check rail that doesn't actually check a wandering wheel, hence my fix with a new one of those!

Edited by john new
Just remembered it was an L/H point.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 10/01/2021 at 23:30, newbryford said:

 

 

Until all the manufacturers actually agree on a consistent track and wheel standard for UK 00, then it's never going to be sorted.

 

Unfortunately, that particular standards horse bolted many, many, years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

I recall they did - BRMSB (or similar initials) set a good standard. Meccano used that for their Hornby-Dublo range, other manufacturers used a courser standard. The market place decreed the latter won out long term. Same with the tension lock coupling, H/D, Trix, Playcraft all used the PECO designed and patented knuckle coupler, but commercial reality meant the market decreed the success of the alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, john new said:

 

Same problem with a straight/RH - my fix is described here. I found that Hornby's frog design problem was compounded by a check rail that doesn't actually check a wandering wheel, hence my fix with a new one of those!

 

I also failed to check a reasonable spectrum of points, whihc was a really schoolboy error. Having checked an R8073 (post above) I thought all track would be similar but aving just checked a real curved point, the gap is more like 1.6mm (both guard rail gaps). This means the wheel can move at least 1mm sideways so it's not surprising it hits the apex point of the frog.

 

With plastic fillets simply resting in the spaces, the Modified hall that would always derail went straight through. I had 2 points lined up toe to toe and the loco went through all 4 possibilities. Now I have to work out how to glue them in place.

On 10/01/2021 at 18:30, Butler Henderson said:

An issue with those is that at this one location a curved rail parallels a straight rail leading to a momentarily gauge narrowing.

I checked this using a magnifying glass and straight edge, and as far as I could tell, both sides of the plastic section of the frog on a R8075 curved point do in fact curve. I was surprised as you might expect a straight piece of plastic, but given they are 18mm long I guess someone decided they couldn't tolerate the deviation from parallel you refer to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, john new said:

 

Same problem with a straight/RH - my fix is described here. I found that Hornby's frog design problem was compounded by a check rail that doesn't actually check a wandering wheel, hence my fix with a new one of those!

Thanks for the tip, that looks a bit drastic to me. I havnt had obvious problems on any points except curved, but as I lay my new track every loco is going to be tested on every section just to be sure! I will report the success or otherwise of any bodge I undertake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I have started a test piece using a less than 100% condition point. I cut a couple of bits from a yoghourt pot and glues them with humbrol too the inside faces of the guard rails and then painted all with silver enamel - needs another coat. I cut the plastic inserts deliberately large; I should eb able to trim them flush if I need to, but i wnated to be sure that they push the wheel sideways, not up. Will report tomorrow.

20210112_201542.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, while I was on the subject, I had a look at the R8072 and found something I had overlooked before. Call me a fool if you will.....

 

I have lots of these and I am working towards automation in very baby steps. So I have carefully planned block isolations as I build the track, which is in its infancy still and all easily removable. I notice underneath that the straight ahead point rail is connected to its corresponding frog rail by a clearly visible metal fillet. So the frog rail is powered in normal construction  from both ends of the point. As far as I can see, however, the curved frog rail is not connected to anything and can only be powered in the conventional way through the fishplate connection to the next adjacent piece of track. The other metal parts visible are guards and they arent connected to anything at all.

 

I will have to take the track I have laid apart and insert some additional IRJ's as a result of what I have found. No evidence there's a connection in the curved point, would be interested to know if anyone thinks there is.

20210112_201637.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

But then, while I was on the subject, I had a look at the R8072 and found something I had overlooked before. Call me a fool if you will.....

 

I have lots of these and I am working towards automation in very baby steps. So I have carefully planned block isolations as I build the track, which is in its infancy still and all easily removable. I notice underneath that the straight ahead point rail is connected to its corresponding frog rail by a clearly visible metal fillet. So the frog rail is powered in normal construction  from both ends of the point. As far as I can see, however, the curved frog rail is not connected to anything and can only be powered in the conventional way through the fishplate connection to the next adjacent piece of track. The other metal parts visible are guards and they arent connected to anything at all.

 

I will have to take the track I have laid apart and insert some additional IRJ's as a result of what I have found. No evidence there's a connection in the curved point, would be interested to know if anyone thinks there is.

20210112_201637.jpg

It's possible the connection is concealed - a multimeter would quickly identify if there is continuity

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Thanks for the tip, that looks a bit drastic to me. I havnt had obvious problems on any points except curved, but as I lay my new track every loco is going to be tested on every section just to be sure! I will report the success or otherwise of any bodge I undertake.

The key issue I found, hence my cutting off the moulded one and replacing the rail, was that the start of the plastic moulded check rail was after the place where the wheel set began to move sideways and needed to b checked.

 

The point in question  is part of a pair feeding three sidings and as the lead wheel set came out of L/H  point one towards the next frog (Another L/h) it was OK if going left (The third road). However, if that was then set for going straight ahead into the centre/second siding the wheels did not centre in time and therefore the left hand wheel hit the frog nose, rode up and derailed the bogie. (first noticed testing with my Hattons Class 66)

 

The check rail lengths and positioning may have been a prototypical piece of modelling by Hornby, unfortunately, they needed lengthening in the real model world in order for them to actually work as check rails. The drawback to narrowing the flange-way gap is that some older wheel sets will then stick.

 

There may be other solutions, that one worked for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, andyman7 said:

It's possible the connection is concealed - a multimeter would quickly identify if there is continuity

Dont need to do that. After I posted i realised I was nuts - if there was no connection, the point wouldnt function, for example as a siding with no other feed, it would be electrically dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, john new said:

The key issue I found, hence my cutting off the moulded one and replacing the rail, was that the start of the plastic moulded check rail was after the place where the wheel set began to move sideways and needed to b checked.

 

The point in question  is part of a pair feeding three sidings and as the lead wheel set came out of L/H  point one towards the next frog (Another L/h) it was OK if going left (The third road). However, if that was then set for going straight ahead into the centre/second siding the wheels did not centre in time and therefore the left hand wheel hit the frog nose, rode up and derailed the bogie. (first noticed testing with my Hattons Class 66)

 

The check rail lengths and positioning may have been a prototypical piece of modelling by Hornby, unfortunately, they needed lengthening in the real model world in order for them to actually work as check rails. The drawback to narrowing the flange-way gap is that some older wheel sets will then stick.

 

There may be other solutions, that one worked for me.

I cant see that on the points I have. I wonder if you had R612/3 older generation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

IIRC the current range of Hornby points is in fact that sold previously by RoCo, hence having huge gaps everywhere to accommodate the coarse flanges beloved of 'continental' ranges of stock. The older Peco Setrack ones were also troublesome but more recent production is better with a tighter tolerance.  As Peco make their own track not a 'bought in' product they can respond to these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I cant see that on the points I have. I wonder if you had R612/3 older generation points.

Quite likely, one of the decisions when I first started this particular quick build was just to use track bits I had in stock from earlier purchases so it was zero initial cost. The Y point on the layout is an old PECO one maybe even from the 1970s as it has been on a few previous layouts!


It was built to be a public shunting plank option at an exhibition. After the show I decided, as it was portable, and I have limited space in the house, I could use it as a test piece for trying various things like DCC and also for general modelling. One thing learnt is that the old one’s were in fact much better built, three of the newer one’s* have had to have the switch blades soldered to copper clad sleepers as the fixings were too weak. (Recovered from my grandson’s train set and swap replaced for him) 

 

* not used in this, problem more recent.

 

 

Edited by john new
Added a footnote for clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a multi faceted problem really. On the one hand track, the other locos. I have a modifed hall (of 3) where the pony truck mechanism goes anywhere, it is completely unstable. So I cant really use it to test track integrity. I thought there might be a component missing but it looks correct according to the service sheet; if I can't fix it in the end it will be scrap. The first attempt I did, photo above, reduces the clearance too much, causing tank engines to stick. So something about half the thickness of my first try is needed, then that maybe wont stop things striking the vee. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

This is a multi faceted problem really. On the one hand track, the other locos. I have a modifed hall (of 3) where the pony truck mechanism goes anywhere, it is completely unstable. So I cant really use it to test track integrity. I thought there might be a component missing but it looks correct according to the service sheet; if I can't fix it in the end it will be scrap. The first attempt I did, photo above, reduces the clearance too much, causing tank engines to stick. So something about half the thickness of my first try is needed, then that maybe wont stop things striking the vee. :(

 

Look closely at the problem, is it the track or the loco's bogie? Testing principles are a step by step process to steadily eliminate causes until the actual problem is located/fixed.

 

Is it, as I found, the check rail isn't checking or the pony truck on the loco? Is that the only rogue loco and do your other 2 Halls do the same thing?

 

If the former a simple bit of card blue-tacked in place to extend the check rail will identify the fault (why I replaced the rail). If the latter some thoughts, if it is your only failing loco is the back to back correct, if the mounting arm has a joggle is it installed the right way up/right way round?* I have some derailing wagons, found to be that they have wrongly gapped wheels. Probably not a track fault but I have yet to reset the wheels to establish that.

 

Assuming the wheel set is correct you will need to possibly add some weight or alternatively fit some extra springy bits to the leading bogie to steady/guide it. 

 

* observation, does the bogie also derail if going through running tender first or only if leading in?

 

 

Edited by john new
To make better sense.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2021 at 04:28, DavidCBroad said:

I solved this particular problem by buying Peco Points, and binning my Hornby moulded plastic bright rim wheels.   The Hornby points worked great with Hornby 13.8 to 14mm back to back silver seal wheels but not with the later (Current?) ones.   The older metal axle wheels can be eased out to 14,5 with a screwdriver or similar to suit the Peco points.    My old Hornby points now await trimming live frogging and new check rails.  Or sticking on eBay..

Having a bit of time, with the weather being a bit cold to be in either garage or loft, I had a look at Peco curved points. Of course you didnt say curved, but I have a space restriction that seems to force curved points on me. I need to fit a 90-degree turn of track angle together with a 4 platform terminus station of required platform length and a small goods yard, into a specific length fixed by the house builder. The big difference is the angles - Hornby are 25/33 and Peco are 6/12 - massive difference. No setrack exists for 6 degree angles of course so either sawing curves in half, or using flexitrack is required. I can fit these points in but I lose critical distance on platform length - now working on that. The reduced curvature however looks good on paper, I have at least lost one reverse curve so far!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...