Wormdale

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph. It's because I'm very slow at modelling together with a lot of other competing things that I have to do. I am getting faster as I learn more about the hobby. or should we say 'craft'?

 

Nick, I was not blaming you. I meant how have all the RMWeb members, myself included, missed out on seeing and commenting on this layout for three years!

 

Perhaps the name is discouraging people?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[Allegheny1600]

I agree!

There's some of the best scenic and building work I've ever seen on here, set in a terrific part of the country and yet, few seem to 'see' it!

Maybe these posts will help?

Cheers,

John E.

[Captain Nick]

You are very kind but I'm a long way from the standard of so many excellent craft people on here, the very people who have given me so much inspiration. I just wish I could actually get some of my locos to run satisfactorily (this mornings frustrations!). I have one near perfect Black 5 running whilst all the others stutter or not run at all.

Joseph thinks people may be put of by the name of my layout and he may have a point. Wormdale is named after the pretty but ancient hamlet of Wormhill that sits above Chee Dale. As I was sticking in an extra bit of dale between Millers Dale and Chee Dale, I thought that Wormdale would fit the bill by way of a suitable name. Anyway, many thanks to you all for following my rather intermittent thread.

Regards

Nick

[Captain Nick]

 

Train departed!

[Guest bri.s]

Amazing modelling those buildings look very imposing

 

I do like the grassed over head shunt or siding end in the last pic very nice

Brian

[Joe MCMLXI]

Good to see this stunning model back at the top of recent posts - where it belongs! The buildings / weathering are excellent Capt. Nick....please keep posting more pictures 

joe

[Captain Nick]

Well a few weeks have gone by since I last posted and all I have to show for it is a kit bashed Ratio Midland signal box, the inside levers etc. not yet attempted. I'm pretty despondent with all things Wormdale at the moment. My locos won't run properly and I have possibly shred the gears on a Hornby Duchess whist trying to increase the B to Bs. On that note, I have been following the various threads on the Hand Built Track/Templot sub forum and been taken aback by the intensity of some of the  arguments and opinions expressed thereon.

 

From all this I have learnt quite a great deal about my own track work. Those following this thread will know that I had my track work hand built by 'Just Tracks' four or five years ago. I had thought it was constructed to 00-Finescale, ie 16.5 gauge with 1mm flange ways. Well I was wrong. I used to have Templot downloaded on my last computer but hadn't got round to re-installing it on my new one. This I have now done and consequently had a look at Wormdale's original files and found that my track is actually constructed to 00-BF standards with flange ways of 1.25mm. However,.... It appears on inspection and measurement that some of my flange ways are set at 1mm, as I had originally assumed. Has this been part of my loco running problems?

 

All my coaches and waggons run through the pointwork with no trouble at all, old stuff with chunky wheels and deep flanges have been replaced with finer wheels, but... they have all had their B to Bs  altered to 14.8mm. The only loco that runs perfectly both motorwise and through the point work smoothly is my un-modified Hornby Black 5 except for the fact that the B to Bs are now set at 14.8 minimum. I have similarly had a go at some other locos but these seem to stutter or jerk at slow speed so I guess that as they seem to go through the pointwork fairly well that the issue here are motor problems and/or the CVs need tweaking. Some of these locos also lose current at times going over the (clean) points so maybe keep-alives' are the answer? Should I look at re-wheeling the locos as yet still with their 14.4 B to Bs  but with decidedly chunky looking flanges?

 

What with the railway room being in a continual mess and looking more like an artist's untidy studio with bits and bobs strewn willy nilly about the work benches. Why am I so bl***y untidy? Is it any wonder that I'm depressed with, and about all things, modelling!

[Alister_G]

Sorry to hear your woes Nick, and wish I could offer some useful advice, but as you'll know if you saw my thread at the time, I took one look at hand-built track and ran away screaming.

 

There are just too many standards, and although it looks great, is it really worth the hassle of re-wheeling and adjusting every bit of stock? Your method of getting someone else to build it seems good, but not in my price bracket at the moment.

 

The various factions seem to be permanently at war here on RMWeb, which to me seems rather immature, so all-in-all I will continue to ignore it.

 

It's a great shame that you are unhappy with Wormdale, because from here, It's a magnificent piece of modelling, but if you can't reliably run trains on it, then it must be frustrating.

 

Al.

[Captain Nick]

Thanks Al. I was just having a whinge. I know I have one perfect loco and my stock is fine so that's a start I suppose. It's my fault for not running trains this last couple of years and concentrating on scenery and buildings instead. Changing the B2Bs on non loco (modern) stock is easy. I just use a brass 'hammer' gauge and they run perfectly. I will. however get my locos working no matter what it takes. The Black 5 is a joy to watch moving very slowly through the formations and so it becomes my gold standard. As for changing wheels on the locos with the 'older wheels' then I will need further advice so I may have to post in the "HELP" sub forum. I certainly don't want to get embroiled in one of those gauge standard arguments hereabouts although I read Martin Wynn's posts with interest as the 'Godfather' of all things track. After all, I have good looking track and it does work so when my morale improves........I'll get back to work on it but if anyone else out there in RMWeb Land can offer me advice then I'll welcome it. Now.....Time for a Prosecco!!

[martin_wynne]

My locos won't run properly and I have possibly shred the gears on a Hornby Duchess whist trying to increase the B to Bs.

 

Hi Nick,

 

I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties in modifying back-to-backs to meet the the DOGA-Fine 00 standard.

 

I have linked to your post in my recent reply here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/104207-00-gauge-standards/&do=findComment&comment=2069612

 

If you don't wish to be associated with that, please let me know and I will edit that post to make that point clear.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Rowsley17D]

Hi Nick, I am wondering if it is the check rail gauge that is causing problems? If the crossing flangeway gap is 1mm then for 00-SF (now called 4-SF) the check gauge should be 15.2mm. If this dimension is too small, wheels can hit the nose of the vee and very likely derail, or at least bump. If this dimension is too large, the wheel backs will bind or jam on the check rail. To make sure it's correct, the check rail is set using check gauge tools.

 

For a useful B-to-B gauge see

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98904-oo-sf-back-to-back-dimension/

 

Hope this helps.

 

Edit: Martin has beaten me to it.

​

Edited October 28, 2015 by Rowsley17D

[Captain Nick]

Hi Martin and Rowsley. Thanks for your comments. I have checked the check gauge and it does seem to be 15.2 although I don't have the check gauge tool. I may well make one as per Martin's thread elsewhere. Just to re-iterate, just about all my waggon and coach wheels are set at a B2B of 14.8 go through the point work with apparent ease. It just that I have b*****d up the Duchess (does that sound right?) in setting the B2B. I have an Airfix 4F which has been modified to have a motor in the boiler and Romford wheels but it only has pick-ups on two of the tender axles, nothing on the drivers and so stalls easily. When it is going it does go through the points easily with i's 14.8 B2Bs.

I think, with hindsight, I should have taken on board and understood the problems of fine scale track at the outset and proceeded appropriately. My main criteria when I began Wormdale was to replicate the flowing track work I had been mesmerised with at shows and in the magazines.

 

I have fifteen locos in total so it shouldn't be too much of a project to get them running in the same way as my Black 5 runs. It may take time, advice, expertise and money, but the damn things WILL run.

 

Low morale now turning more belligerent I think!! The Duchess will be restored to her athletic prowess and beauty. (But surely, you ask, there were never, ever, Coronations running on the Midland Main Line! In the world of Wormdale, they did on one particular train I have decreed!)

[hayfield]

Nick

 

You are like most other 00 gauge modellers requiring their track to look better and why not, you can buy excellent Locos, coaches and wagons. Buildings also have come along over the years in leaps and bounds. Track sadly has not followed suite with the RTR trade

 

Build your own track parts also have developed over the past 10 years with the Excellent Exactoscale range entering the market for the P4 modeller, but many parts are interchangeable into EM or 00 gauges. Sadly as you have found out 00 standards are a minefield, which most modellers need assistance in choosing which set of standards will best suite their needs, especially and manufacturers cannot agree a set of common standards. As for re-gauging loco wheels you are a very brave man, wagon and coach wheels are fine and not very expensive to replace.

 

The problem with Templot's 00bf equates to DOAG intermediate, but when you add the word finescale I can see the confusion with the DOAG fine set of standards, which in some cases requires wheels to need their back to back gap altered. 

 

One solution may be to but from C&L a set of check rail gauges which will set the check rails at the correct distance from the common crossing, is worth a try. Not knowing which track building method has been used I cannot help further

 

The DOGA is supposed to support all 00 gauge modellers, it is very sad that 2 of its followers seem so against 00sf that they have provoked a bit of self defence from those using the said standard. One would have thought ( and perhaps they do) the DOAG would welcome new members into the fold

 

Still back to your problem, the check rail gauge (which is the same for 00bf/DOGA intermediate and 00sf) may (and I guess we all hope) start solving your problems, though a set of replacement wheels may be on the book

[martin_wynne]

I have checked the check gauge and it does seem to be 15.2 although I don't have the check gauge tool. Just to re-iterate, just about all my waggon and coach wheels are set at a B2B of 14.8

 

Hi Nick,

 

If the check gauge is 15.2mm (may be that's a big IF ?) then 14.8mm is the wrong back-to-back. This may be why you are having troubles.

 

For 15.2mm check gauge, you shouldn't need to change many back-to-backs from the original as-supplied setting:

 

RTR wheels: 14.4mm back-to-back.

Romford/Markits wheels: 14.5mm back-to-back.

Kit wheels such as Alan Gibson, Ultrascale: 14.6mm back-to-back.

 

Wheels set as above will run on both 00-BF and 4-SF (00-SF) tracks, but not DOGA-Fine track.

 

For DOGA-Fine the check gauge should be 15.5mm, and the above back-to-backs 0.3mm wider.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Thanks Al. I was just having a whinge. I know I have one perfect loco and my stock is fine so that's a start I suppose. It's my fault for not running trains this last couple of years and concentrating on scenery and buildings instead. Changing the B2Bs on non loco (modern) stock is easy. I just use a brass 'hammer' gauge and they run perfectly. I will. however get my locos working no matter what it takes. The Black 5 is a joy to watch moving very slowly through the formations and so it becomes my gold standard. As for changing wheels on the locos with the 'older wheels' then I will need further advice so I may have to post in the "HELP" sub forum. I certainly don't want to get embroiled in one of those gauge standard arguments hereabouts although I read Martin Wynn's posts with interest as the 'Godfather' of all things track. After all, I have good looking track and it does work so when my morale improves........I'll get back to work on it but if anyone else out there in RMWeb Land can offer me advice then I'll welcome it. Now.....Time for a Prosecco!!

 

I'm sorry to hear of your problems , and even sorrier if I'm the bearer of any bad news

 

Basically your track is OO-Intermediate (except for the bits that aren't). All your RTR stock started out with OO Intermediate wheels, and therefore should have run perfectly on your Intermediate track with the wheels left as they came

 

Pulling out RTR wheels to increase the B2B does not make them OO-Finescale wheels I'm afraid. It just makes them Intermediate /RP25/110 wheels with an excessive B2B.The OO-Finescale wheel standard is for a different profile wheel, thinner with thinner flanges

 

In effect, all that pulling out the B2B to 14.8mm has done is to make the check rails on your points useless, and this is almost certainly the cause of most of your running problems.

 

Put simply, as the wheelset slides across, the check rail hits the back of one wheel before the front of the flange on the other wheel hits the opposite rail (or any gap in it at the frog) . Thus "checking" it - hence the name. By widening the B2B to more than 14.5mm on RTR wheels, you've defeated this protective action (given a 1.25mm flangeway)

 

At the moment you are in no-man's land : the wheels don't comply with any known wheel standard, or match any known track standard properly . And the track isn't consistently to one standard either

 

At this stage there are - in theory and in an ideal world - 2 ways you could go:

 

a) You could close up all your wheels to 14.4mm B2B. And open out the "tight" 1.0mm flangeways to 1.25mm, which means modifying your track. You would then be working consistently  to OO-Intermediate, the check rails would work perfectly, and I would expect running to improve significantly

 

B) You could modify all your points to 1.0mm flangeways throughout . That would "take up the slack" you've created by widening the B2B to 14.8mm , and the check rails should work properly - so I would expect the running to improve significantly.

 

There are a couple of caveats with option B).

 

Firstly you may well find that the RTR locos with untouched wheels now jam in the modified point (because the width across the check /wing rails is now too great for them).

 

Secondly, it may impose restrictions on your radii and your stock. Because the flangeway clearances are tighter in EM and P4 , you have to use larger radii than are needed in OO. I've seen a minimum of 4'0 radius quoted for "mainlines" in EM in one of Iain Rice's books. I take that to be the minimum workable radius for an 8-coupled loco in EM . If you are using RTR wheels forced out - well these have rather thicker flanges than EM wheels (ie Gibsons and Ultrascales - which are what the DOGA OO-Finescale mandates ) . These thicker flanges erode the working clearances in the flangeway even more, and that would mean that radii would need to be even larger than for EM. You might be talking about something around 5' radius to get an 8F or Super D to run reliably, though practical experience of this on the ground has not been cited by anyone.

 

In practice both of these options have obvious problems. I can imagine you balking at shifting the wheels of all your locos on their axles for option a) , though the rolling stock would be easy enough. Modifying pointwork for B) may seem daunting too.

 

However you are definitely going to have to make some modifications to your points. Either you are going to use 1.25mm or 1.0mm : you can't mix and match - at least not for the check rail /check flangeway.

 

If you really want to stick with 14.8mm B2B , then you have no option but to move all your check rails closer to the running rail (in order to reduce the check flangeway to 1.0mm) . You haven't said whether your points are soldered construction or plastic/solvent construction with moulded chairs . Either way, it should be possible to take out the existing check rails and reinstall new ones, to a reduced flangeway of 1.0mm . Suitable gauges to set the check rail are available from C+L or from DOGA  (OO-Finescale roller gauge) though in the latter case it won't fit the wing rail side.

 

This will make your check rails functional, and hopefully will resolve the running problems

 

It would be very difficult to rebuild the crossing/frog area. Fortunately you don't need to . With RTR wheels ("RP25/110 profile") you will not get drop in at a 1.25mm flangeway - and anyway this is a vastly smaller problem than check rails that don't do anything

 

The result will not be to any known track standard, and the loco wheels won't be either - but the thing should work better than now. (You might be quite close to the NMRA's S3 HO track standard though)

 

You may find that stock requires a more generous radius to run - but the 1.25mm flangeway on the frog side will give you a bit of leeway, and should mitigate this to a degree

 

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the OO-SF concept , OO-SF is the one place it's not practical to go from where you now are. You'd have to close up all the wheels to 14.4mm and you'd have to modify all the points. And you'd have to do it by moving the running rail in by 0.3mm - not by repositioning a little bit of checkrail . I don't think that would be possible in practice

 

Hope this helps

 

(P.S. - I work to OO Intermediate myself, with 1.25mm flangeways, and leave RTR wheels as they come. I also avoid Gibson and Ultrascale wheels. I've been very satisfied with results. But that's my choice.

 

The wretched smiley was meant to be  b      )

Edited October 28, 2015 by Ravenser

[Captain Nick]

Thanks Martin and Ravenser for your thoughts and advice. I have spent a lot of time today really looking at and measuring a selection of turnouts out of the sixty or so on my layout.  It would appear that most crossing flange way gaps are 1.00mm gaps with some at just under 1.1mm, not the 1.15 I said earlier.

 

Below is what I have gleaned :

 

Wormdale Track Dimensions.doc

 

Notwithstanding other problems with my locos such as poor running, servicing requirements and cv issues, most locos, that is to say those with modern rtr wheel profiles, run well with B2B of 14.8mm. The turnouts are all fairly largish radii and my second best runner, a WD 2-8-0, runs well through the formations with increased B2Bs

 

I should be grateful for your further comments based on the measurements above.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

[martin_wynne]

 

I should be grateful for your further comments based on the measurements above.

 

Hi Nick,

 

It seems you have non-symmetrical gaps -- 1.0mm for the crossing flangeways and 1.3mm (15.2mm check gauge) check rail gaps.

 

What this means is that in effect you are using 4-SF (00-SF) but with permanent gauge-widening, which is normally only needed on sharp curves.

 

It would be interesting to know how that came about? It is workable for plain turnouts, and necessary on sharp curves, but it goes wrong for more complex formations such as diamond-crossings, slips, tandem turnouts, etc.

 

With those dimensions, your 14.8mm back-to-backs are strictly speaking too wide. You may get some bumpy running with wheel flanges hitting the nose of the vees. This is most likely when propelling (pushing) long trains, especially if the crossing (frog) is on the outside rail of a curve.

 

However, I can't recommend reducing the back-to-back without knowing what is happening at the centre of your diamond-crossings and slips? If the gaps on both sides at the centre are only 1.0mm then you need the widened back to backs*. If they are 1.3mm on both sides you could revert to the original back-to-backs (i.e. 14.4mm for RTR wheels).

 

Whatever, the 14.8mm dimension is too wide for RTR wheels. Even on DOGA-Fine the best back-to-back for RTR wheels is 14.7mm. Use 14.8mm for Markits/Romford wheels, and up to 14.9mm for Alan Gibson/Ultrascale kit wheels.

 

*edit: unless the track gauge through diamonds is 16.2mm?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited October 29, 2015 by martin_wynne

[cbeagleowner]

HI Nick, great to see the progress on Wormhole. I really love it and the idea. 

 

I'm sorry that you're frustrated with it. Since I last posted on your thread, I abandoned Hassop and started again because I couldn't get the track to work. Then I managed to build a layout loosely based on Chapel which was situated at Stoney Middleton (where a MML was joined by LDECR from the East turning right at New Mills junction) and due to unreliable running, curves that were too tight and gumming things up by paying too much attention to scenery have recently ripped it up and started again with just a two track section of the MML with a lie by. Every time I've have moments where I've come down from the loft and felt like I'd bin the lot, but as time goes by my resolve increases again. So maybe give it time and things will feel a bit better :-)

 

Just a question for you if I may? I love the whole Sheffield - Stafford and Buxton to London idea. It might be that I should know this, but in your fictional universe, do trains to Manchester run via a Buxton Station siutated above Ash Terrace / near the engine shed site and continue up the LNWR to London Road? Or some other way? And what is the crack train that a Coronation works? I'm dead interested to know! If you want a bit more fun, using the LDECR you could have GC stuff coming through too? 

[hayfield]

Captain Nick

 

If you have common crossings set with 1 mm wing rail gaps, but the track gauge is 16.5 but with 1.3 mm check rail gaps I have a theory of what may have occurred

 

The common crossings were commercially made product (C&L?). However the standard 00 track gauge has been used and the check rails have been set either with an 00sf check rail gauge or using a 1.3 mm gauge to match 00 universal standards

 

As Martin has said it seems a cross between 2 sets of standards, perhaps it may be worth contacting the builders for clarification. As Martin has said if the turnouts have been built to a gauge widened 00sf/4sf most modern RTR stock will run through them OK. Its the crossings that may cause a problem

 

Still you are now in a position of starting to understand the cause of the problems, which in turn will allow you to find a solution.

[Captain Nick]

HI Nick, great to see the progress on Wormhole. I really love it and the idea. 

 

I'm sorry that you're frustrated with it. Since I last posted on your thread, I abandoned Hassop and started again because I couldn't get the track to work. Then I managed to build a layout loosely based on Chapel which was situated at Stoney Middleton (where a MML was joined by LDECR from the East turning right at New Mills junction) and due to unreliable running, curves that were too tight and gumming things up by paying too much attention to scenery have recently ripped it up and started again with just a two track section of the MML with a lie by. Every time I've have moments where I've come down from the loft and felt like I'd bin the lot, but as time goes by my resolve increases again. So maybe give it time and things will feel a bit better :-)

 

Just a question for you if I may? I love the whole Sheffield - Stafford and Buxton to London idea. It might be that I should know this, but in your fictional universe, do trains to Manchester run via a Buxton Station siutated above Ash Terrace / near the engine shed site and continue up the LNWR to London Road? Or some other way? And what is the crack train that a Coronation works? I'm dead interested to know! If you want a bit more fun, using the LDECR you could have GC stuff coming through too? 

 I know how you feel when things don't go quite to plan. Time is a great healer. I always reckoned that if a job wasn't going well  then it was wise to walk away for a while, have a cup of tea, do something else and then go back to the job. I am kind of doing that this week!

 

As for your question; my universe still has the Midland main Line running up to Peak Dale (Forrest) and on through to Chinley. Buxton junction is still in situ but a diverging line just further on takes a secondary main line past Longnor and into Cheshire past Rudyard lake, joining the CLC somewhere west of Congleton. So in theory we could have GC freight at least running through Wormdale to the Notts and Derby coalfields. As for the Duchess? Well, I just fancied seeing my favourite loco thundering through non stop on a named express; a forerunner to the Midland Pullman perhaps?

[Ravenser]

Looking at the table , you have possibly the worst of all possible worlds.

 

They have interpreted your request for 1.0mm flangeways to apply to the crossing side , and have simply built the critical check flangway (D) to normal BRMSB OO / OO-Intermediate with the traditional 1.25mm flangeway.

 

Hayfield's suggestion that they have used ready-built C+L crossing units to achieve this sounds horribly plausible.

 

My option B assumed the crossing flangeway  B was 1.25mm , and you would then have closed up D to 1.0mm. It's D that decides whether the check rail stops the wheelset before the flange on other side hits the crossing, or whether the whole lot keeps sliding across till it bounces of the rail or the gap at the crossing 

 

As the track was built, RTR with the wheels left as they came should have been held clear of the gap by the check rail, while the narrower flangway at the crossing  B would prevent drop in. The price of  this is eroding the working clearances by 0.25mm overall (1.0mm flangeway instead of 1.25mm)

 

As it is you have 2 options:

 

- Move the check rail out to reduce D to 1.0mm . You then have track to OO-Finescale standard, and the checkrails will be more or less effective with your 14.8mm B2B

 

(As Martin points out, RTR wheels to RP25/110 have thicker flanges than true OO-Finescale wheels , and this means that the front of the flange is further out than it would be with Gibsons set to 14.8mm B2B. Hence his proposal that you compensate for this by reducing the B2B to 14.7mm)  You will also have any issues that arise from forcing a "fat" RTR flange through the constricted 1.0mm flangway . That would manifest itself as locos requiring a  minimum radius larger even than for EM

 

- Move the wheels back in to 14.4mm and leave D as it is. That will mean that the check rails do their job again, but leaves you with one relatively tight flangeway

 

As I work to OO-Intermediate myself I have an innate bias towards the second option. But it's your layout, and your call which way you go 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Ravenser

[martin_wynne]

It's D that decides whether the check rail stops the wheelset before the flange on other side hits the crossing, or whether the whole lot keeps sliding across till it bounces of the rail or the gap at the crossing

 

Not so. Gap D is largely irrelevant and varies with the track gauge. Where there is gauge widening for example, D widens too. As it does on the prototype.

 

The critical dimension is A, the check gauge. Far and away the most important dimension in any pointwork, and the reason for using separate check gauge tools.

 

I'm really disappointed that as a spokesman for DOGA you haven't understood this fundamental difference. It sometimes seems not surprising that the 00 standards are in such a muddle.

 

I will just repeat that a few times:

 

The critical dimension is A

 

The critical dimension is A

 

The critical dimension is A

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Captain Nick]

wormdale_dims.png

 

 

Hi Nick,

 

It seems you have non-symmetrical gaps -- 1.0mm for the crossing flangeways and 1.3mm (15.2mm check gauge) check rail gaps.

 

What this means is that in effect you are using 4-SF (00-SF) but with permanent gauge-widening, which is normally only needed on sharp curves.

 

It would be interesting to know how that came about? It is workable for plain turnouts, and necessary on sharp curves, but it goes wrong for more complex formations such as diamond-crossings, slips, tandem turnouts, etc.

 

With those dimensions, your 14.8mm back-to-backs are strictly speaking too wide. You may get some bumpy running with wheel flanges hitting the nose of the vees. This is most likely when propelling (pushing) long trains, especially if the crossing (frog) is on the outside rail of a curve.

 

However, I can't recommend reducing the back-to-back without knowing what is happening at the centre of your diamond-crossings and slips? If the gaps on both sides at the centre are only 1.0mm then you need the widened back to backs*. If they are 1.3mm on both sides you could revert to the original back-to-backs (i.e. 14.4mm for RTR wheels).

 

Whatever, the 14.8mm dimension is too wide for RTR wheels. Even on DOGA-Fine the best back-to-back for RTR wheels is 14.7mm. Use 14.8mm for Markits/Romford wheels, and up to 14.9mm for Alan Gibson/Ultrascale kit wheels.

 

*edit: unless the track gauge through diamonds is 16.2mm?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

I have spent more time closely looking at the track. Contrary to what I had posted above reference the track gauge, I now find that some parts of the track are as much as 16.6 and even 16.7. I have to say that you, Ravenser and Hayfield are being most kind by not actually saying that my track is a crock of S.H. One. T.. However this is the conclusion I'm coming to.  

On the bright side, I am starting to understand what is possibly going on and I do have locos running satisfactorily due to tweaking on my part. There are continuing problems such as this mornings exercise whereby I have two identically converted 4Fs with Romford wheels and loco drive. One goes through the diamond crossing below okay whilst the other hits the nose in the bottom left and invariably turns to the right as if it were a turn out. The flange ways here are up to 1.6m wide for some reason. The second crossing shown seems to be okay with locos running through okay.

The third picture is of one of two single slips that I have. Although not tried with all of my stock, it does seem to work satisfactorily.

 

 

The diamond crossing in the first picture is the only one where the loco referred to above hits the nose. Occasionally I have a coach in the middle of a formation coming to grief too but adjustment seems to cure this.

[Captain Nick]

Looking at the table , you have possibly the worst of all possible worlds.

 

They have interpreted your request for 1.0mm flangeways to apply to the crossing side , and have simply built the critical check flangway (D) to normal BRMSB OO / OO-Intermediate with the traditional 1.25mm flangeway.

 

Hayfield's suggestion that they have used ready-built C+L crossing units to achieve this sounds horribly plausible.

 

My option B assumed the crossing flangeway  B was 1.25mm , and you would then have closed up D to 1.0mm. It's D that decides whether the check rail stops the wheelset before the flange on other side hits the crossing, or whether the whole lot keeps sliding across till it bounces of the rail or the gap at the crossing 

 

As the track was built, RTR with the wheels left as they came should have been held clear of the gap by the check rail, while the narrower flangway at the crossing  B would prevent drop in. The price of  this is eroding the working clearances by 0.25mm overall (1.0mm flangeway instead of 1.25mm)

 

As it is you have 2 options:

 

- Move the check rail out to reduce D to 1.0mm . You then have track to OO-Finescale standard, and the checkrails will be more or less effective with your 14.8mm B2B

 

(As Martin points out, RTR wheels to RP25/110 have thicker flanges than true OO-Finescale wheels , and this means that the front of the flange is further out than it would be with Gibsons set to 14.8mm B2B. Hence his proposal that you compensate for this by reducing the B2B to 14.7mm)  You will also have any issues that arise from forcing a "fat" RTR flange through the constricted 1.0mm flangway . That would manifest itself as locos requiring a  minimum radius larger even than for EM

 

- Move the wheels back in to 14.4mm and leave D as it is. That will mean that the check rails do their job again, but leaves you with one relatively tight flangeway

 

As I work to OO-Intermediate myself I have an innate bias towards the second option. But it's your layout, and your call which way you go 

Hi Ravenser. Many thanks for your comments. It will take a little thought to get my head around what the way forward will be. The main problem by far were rtr locos 'climbing' over or binding in the crossing flange ways and the cure for this was opening out the B2Bs. With the rolling stock there were never any problems following this route.

[Ravenser]

Not so. Gap D is largely irrelevant and varies with the track gauge. Where there is gauge widening for example, D widens too. As it does on the prototype.

 

The critical dimension is A, the check gauge. Far and away the most important dimension in any pointwork, and the reason for using separate check gauge tools.

 

I'm really disappointed that as a spokesman for DOGA you haven't understood this fundamental difference. It sometimes seems not surprising that the 00 standards are in such a muddle.

 

I will just repeat that a few times:

 

The critical dimension is A

 

The critical dimension is A

 

The critical dimension is A

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Given a gauge of 16.5mm (*or any other fixed gauge) , the check gauge will be set by the measurement of D.

 

Captain Nick will not be moving his running rails. For all purposes in this discussion they are fixed.  Moving the check rail to reduce D is an option (of course that will increase A, and move the wheelset away from the other rail).

 

But in practice here  he would be setting the check rail off the adjacent running rail, and explanations need to be simple and obvious.

 

I don't think this is a thread for political pointscoring or theological disputation - it's simply a matter of applying a practical fix to make those check rails operative . Whether  by closing up the wheels or by moving the check rail away from the crossing.

 

Either the wheels need to be made to fit the track , or the check rails need to be made to fit the wheels