Wormdale

[martin_wynne]

But in practice here  he would be setting the check rail off the adjacent running rail

 

He must not do this. It will only make matters worse and probably explains the existing problems. He has just now explained that his track gauge is variable, up to 16.7mm.

 

In every single case when setting check rails, they must be dimensioned from the opposite running rail, not the adjacent running rail. Now and forever and always.

 

If we could get this point across in the hobby we might save folks a lot of trouble. You are making matters worse by suggesting otherwise.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Captain Nick

 

On the face of it the turnouts and crossings do look quite well built, except once you look at the crossings the the wing rails seem to be set to one standard and the check rails and obtuse crossings to another. I would contact the builder for an explanation and at the same time explaining the delay in reporting what may be a fault, but I would give them the opportunity to explain

 

I would buy 2 00sf check rail gauges from C&L plus some chairs, the cure for the turnouts is quite simple, re-set the check rails. If you have ply timbers it is very easy, plastic sleepers just a bit harder. I use one of the curved blades (Swann Morton 10) a chisel blade might be useful as well. If you have ply timbers just put the blade under the chair and they pop off and if careful you may be able to reuse the chairs. If its a plastic timbers cut the rails out then carefully shave off the chairs trying not to tough the timbers (use new sharp blades)

 

Now fit new chairs to the check rails if necessary, you may have to trim the part of the chair that touches the stock rail chairs and using the check rail gauges reset the check rails, this works for what may either be caller 00 universal/DOGA intermediate or 00sf

 

I am guessing that the problems with the diamonds is much the same if so alter the check rails as above. Now what is slightly concerning is that normally the distance between the Vees is different between 00 universal/DOGA intermediate and 00sf/DOGA fine, the main problems would be at the centre (obtuse/K crossing) being straight the coarseness of 00 gauge standards may be working to your advantage

 

As for the 16,6 & 16.7 track gauges again I think the coarseness of 00 standards will overcome this, if you have ply timbers its an easy job to reset the gauge, plastic will be more involved. The one benefit of plastic to plastic is the solvent welding them together, so you can cut the chairs in half and fit them to the rail without keeping them whole and threading them on

 

Back to the builders. If there is a problem that the build differs from the agreed specification they may offer to come and rectify any problems. Or supply the parts required to do so. Worth having a friendly chat at least

[martin_wynne]

As for the 16,6 & 16.7 track gauges again I think the coarseness of 00 standards will overcome this, if you have ply timbers its an easy job to reset the gauge

 

Hi Nick,

 

I don't think you should worry about the track gauge. Trying to change the running rails will be a major task and likely to do a lot of damage.

 

Except in diamond-crossings and slips, the track gauge isn't a very important dimension, providing it is not less than the minimum. Which for 00* is 16.2mm on straight track and gentle curves, increasing to 16.5mm minimum on train-set curves.

 

If the other dimensions are correctly set, the actual track gauge won't matter too much. The wing rail is set from the vee with a gauge shim, and the check rail is set from the vee with check gauges. Where the opposite running rail happens to be doesn't really matter much.

 

*add 0.3mm to those figures for DOGA-Fine.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

What I did forget to say was that if the common crossings are commercial, or made in a similar way they would have to be totally rebuilt if 1.25 or 1,3 mm wing rail gaps were required. Using an 00sf check rail gauge will set the check rail at the correct distance from the Vee for most popular 00 gauge variance except DOGA fine. 

 

I would strongly recommend leaving these well alone, this could cause a lot of problems if done poorly and will be a much longer process to do

[Captain Nick]

Martin, Hayfield and Ravenser.

 

I am extremely grateful and appreciative of your help and comments about my track work and how I may alleviate some of the problems encountered. I realise that both from this thread  and elsewhere on here that Martin and Ravenser don't sing from the same hymn sheet but I have been interested with what both have had  to say. I think I will purchase some gauges from C&L (who I know were suppliers of the raw materials) and see what befalls as Hayfield suggests, however, after such a period from when the track was constructed, I am reluctant to contact the builder although I can't offer any reason for not doing so.

Just one question Hayfield if I may. In view of the various measurements I have supplied, what should be the final check rails gaps be if I were to adjust them.? Would that be the same for the wing rails in the first photo which are wider than elsewhere on the layout.

 

Once again, many thanks for your help and support gentlemen.

 

Nick

[martin_wynne]

Hi Nick,

 

Given that you seem to have 1.0mm crossing flangeways (at the wing rails, frogs), you don't really have an option of converting to 00-BF / DOGA-Intermediate without drastic rebuilding.

 

Your 2 options would seem to be:

 

1. check and adjust the check rails to 4-SF (00-SF), which in theory at least would require returning back-to-backs to their as-supplied setting (14.4mm for RTR), or

 

2. check and adjust the check rails to DOGA-Fine, which means widening all your back-to-backs for DOGA-Fine (14.7mm for RTR).

 

For 1. suitable 00-SF 15.2mm check gauges are available from C&L.

 

For 2. I don't know where you would get DOGA-Fine 15.5mm check gauges. You would think DOGA would supply such essential tools, but apparently not. What you could do would be to obtain DOGA-Fine roller gauges from C&L and file flats on them so that they can fit just 2 of the rails instead of 4. i.e. one running rail and the opposite check rail.

 

Before making a decision you may want to get some response from the track builder about what his actual intentions were.

 

regards.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

In view of the various measurements I have supplied, what should be the final check rails gaps be if I were to adjust them.?

 

Hi Nick,

 

Please don't even think about what the check rail gaps are or should be. Just ignore them. They don't matter, and with the varying track gauge you mentioned they won't all be the same.

 

If you adjust the check rails, the only dimension which counts is the check gauge from the opposite rail. Dimension A in my diagram. The width of the check rail gap doesn't matter a damn.

 

In order to get the check gauge correct you need check gauge tools, as I mentioned just above.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Martin, Hayfield and Ravenser.

 

I am extremely grateful and appreciative of your help and comments about my track work and how I may alleviate some of the problems encountered. I realise that both from this thread  and elsewhere on here that Martin and Ravenser don't sing from the same hymn sheet but I have been interested with what both have had  to say. I think I will purchase some gauges from C&L (who I know were suppliers of the raw materials) and see what befalls as Hayfield suggests, however, after such a period from when the track was constructed, I am reluctant to contact the builder although I can't offer any reason for not doing so.

Just one question Hayfield if I may. In view of the various measurements I have supplied, what should be the final check rails gaps be if I were to adjust them.? Would that be the same for the wing rails in the first photo which are wider than elsewhere on the layout.

 

Once again, many thanks for your help and support gentlemen.

 

Nick

 

 

Nick

 

From memory you supplied plans, if the turnouts were built for you they should have been built to the plan unless alterations to the plan details were agreed. If you used Templot then its easy to look at the plans and work out which standards were used.

 

I am not saying contacting the builder with all guns blazing, but I am certain that they would be just as interested in something which is not right as much as you are, or be able to explain why the turnouts and crossings were built as they have been. They may be in a position to help you in some way, I would just post the questions you have over the problems to them and wait for a reply. Hopefully you might be pleasantly suprised

[Captain Nick]

Martin and Hayfield. Many thanks for your last posts and I shall be guided accordingly. FYI. I was just tootling with an 8F on the bit of track in the first photo. The engine crawls through on the lowest control setting, no bumps etc, very smooth. The tender however (B2Bs about 14.45) bounces over the LH crossing flange way gap and also does the same on the RHS Can't work out whether its climbing over the gap or hitting the nose, I suspect the former as it does it both ways. The Check gauge at this point is 15.25 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Ravenser]

Hi Nick,

 

Given that you seem to have 1.0mm crossing flangeways (at the wing rails, frogs), you don't really have an option of converting to 00-BF / DOGA-Intermediate without drastic rebuilding.

 

Your 2 options would seem to be:

 

1. check and adjust the check rails to 4-SF (00-SF), which in theory at least would require returning back-to-backs to their as-supplied setting (14.4mm for RTR), or

 

2. check and adjust the check rails to DOGA-Fine, which means widening all your back-to-backs for DOGA-Fine (14.7mm for RTR).

 

For 1. suitable 00-SF 15.2mm check gauges are available from C&L.

 

For 2. I don't know where you would get DOGA-Fine 15.5mm check gauges. You would think DOGA would supply such essential tools, but apparently not. What you could do would be to obtain DOGA-Fine roller gauges from C&L and file flats on them so that they can fit just 2 of the rails instead of 4. i.e. one running rail and the opposite check rail.

 

Before making a decision you may want to get some response from the track builder about what his actual intentions were.

 

regards.

 

Martin.

 

Two comments :

 

- As I understand the situation , all Captain Nick's wheelsets have already been pulled out to 14.8mm . At this point avoiding alterations to wheelsets points towards option 2.

 

- Roller gauges for OO-Fine would be available via DOGA . I can't recall whether or not they have flats filed on them (I don't own any - not my standard) but some rollergauges I've seen come with such a flat

[martin_wynne]

all Captain Nick's wheelsets have already been pulled out to 14.8mm . At this point avoiding alterations to wheelsets points towards option 2.

 

Indeed. But it also means committing to widening all future stock which he might be intending to buy or build. Nick has already said that modifying back-to-backs has caused loco problems. Plus it means that any visiting friend's stock also needs so modifying. Plus he is making his stock incompatible with the vast majority of other 00 layouts, so he can't take it to run on a club layout or on friends' layouts.

 

But there you are, that's the DOGA-Fine standard. It beats me why DOGA ever created or published such a standard.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Two comments :

 

- As I understand the situation , all Captain Nick's wheelsets have already been pulled out to 14.8mm . At this point avoiding alterations to wheelsets points towards option 2.

 

- Roller gauges for OO-Fine would be available via DOGA . I can't recall whether or not they have flats filed on them (I don't own any - not my standard) but some rollergauges I've seen come with such a flat

 

The track gauge is not the problem, any 00 gauge roller gauge would do the same. Setting the check rails with a roller gauge is not the way to go. If the DOGA has a check rail gauge and if Nick wants to check/alter all his wheelsets to that standard then fine. No need to worry about flats on roller gauges as a check rail gauge is designed for this situation

 

But the easiest solution as Martin has constantly said is to use a check rail gauge, for 00 universal/DOGA intermediate/00sf which all use the same standard check rail gauge, I only know these to be sold in 00 by C&L within their 00sf range, others may also supply these. As you are so committed to DOGA intermediate standards you should know this

[Captain Nick]

 

This is information taken from my Templot files appertaining to the crossing illustrated in the first photo above. Its all a bit technical for me but others might glean something from it to see what's going on. In the mean time its back to the tweaking of loco wheels. Progress is being made by trial and error!

[Grasshopper John]

Just read this thread from the start, what a fantastic job you have done Captain, although the last few pages escape me Re track problems, but i'm sure you will sort it out, Your layout is worth all the effort it affords Sir.

[hayfield]

Nick

 

The flangeway gaps are clearly stated as 1.25 mm, that means C&L common crossings cannot be used unless they are rebuilt as they have 1 mm flangeways.

 

Problem 1 is that the gap on C&L is 1 mm not 1.25 mm

Problem 2 is if the gap is increased the bend at the knuckle has to be moved further away from the tip of the Vee by 25%.

 

It would have been better if using C&L products to buy the pre-made Vees and building the common crossings using 1.25 mm wing rail gauges.

 

This is the problem faced by 00 gauge modellers, 00 gauge has various variants and the support from the trade is slightly limited. If using C&L 00 gauge common crossings you have to build to either 00sf or DOGA fine standards, C&L sell both sets of gauges

[hayfield]

Nick

 

Am I correct in thinking the turnouts and crossings have been built on the C&L thick (1.6 mm) plastic timbers ?

[Captain Nick]

Nick

 

Am I correct in thinking the turnouts and crossings have been built on the C&L thick (1.6 mm) plastic timbers ?

 

Hi John

 

No, they have been built using the thin ones. The builder used C&L components for the hand built turnouts and crossings but the ordinary track was C&L flexi track in order to cut costs. On another note, I'm slightly perplexed by line in the Templot info above which  states :-

Nominal Gauge : 00-BF  16.5 4mm/ft 1:76.2   00 BRSMSB Fine    There seems to me to be a conflict here perhaps? Just to reiterate, most of my crossing flangeways are 1.00mm or just over but most are 1mm.

 

Brgds

 

Nick

[hayfield]

Nick

 

This is where all the confusion starts, its the BRSMSB fine standards which bears no relationship to DOGA fine, but has the same or similar standards to DOGA intermediate. For the average modeller it is mighty confusing, especially when Peco,s standards are only similar to them. I personally refer these standards as universal as Peco calls their standards

 

The finer scale standards for 00 gauge are DOGA fine and 00sf (4SF) , now the fact that the sleepers are the thinner ones is not a problem.

 

You just have to carefully slice the old chairs from the sleepers (after cutting the check rails out), slide the new chairs on to the check rail, if necessary trim the ends of the chair bases so they fit flush with their counterparts on the stock rails and hold in place with the gauges till set.

 

I would do one nearest the edge of the base board first so you are not stretching across the baseboard, just for the ease being the first one

[Captain Nick]

Nick

 

This is where all the confusion starts, its the BRSMSB fine standards which bears no relationship to DOGA fine, but has the same or similar standards to DOGA intermediate. For the average modeller it is mighty confusing, especially when Peco,s standards are only similar to them. I personally refer these standards as universal as Peco calls their standards

 

The finer scale standards for 00 gauge are DOGA fine and 00sf (4SF) , now the fact that the sleepers are the thinner ones is not a problem.

 

You just have to carefully slice the old chairs from the sleepers (after cutting the check rails out), slide the new chairs on to the check rail, if necessary trim the ends of the chair bases so they fit flush with their counterparts on the stock rails and hold in place with the gauges till set.

 

I would do one nearest the edge of the base board first so you are not stretching across the baseboard, just for the ease being the first one

 

Thanks John, you have cleared that one up for me. Incidentally I have been having more success this morning with 'fine tuning' my locos. I also experimented with a wheel set and found that smother running is afforded when the B2Bs are over 14.6 on rtr wheels. At least I could actually see what was happening in the crossing flangeway.

On a slightly different note perhaps but is it fairly normal with new hand built track to tune out imperfections once laid? For example, burrs and slight miss-aligned rail joins?

 

Brgds

 

Nick

[martin_wynne]

I'm slightly perplexed by line in the Templot info above which  states :-

Nominal Gauge : 00-BF  16.5 4mm/ft 1:76.2   00 BRSMSB Fine

 

Hi Nick,

 

The word "Fine" there is historical. Hence the "F" in 00-BF. What is now called "Intermediate" was once called "00 Fine Scale" (with 1.25mm flangeways) in contradistinction to RTR models which were then made to much coarser standards (with wider flangeways), usually called "00/H0 Universal". Bear in mind that Templot has been in existence for over 30 years.

 

The finer DOGA-Fine standard (with 1.0mm flangeways) is designated 00-D0GAF in Templot.

 

If you employed a professional track builder using Templot, he should have explained all this to you.

 

Obviously the information displayed in Templot applies only to how the templates are printed. It is a matter for the builder whether to follow them exactly.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

There might be the odd bit of fine tuning, rails should align and burrs should have been sanded flat.

 

It is very difficult to comment on these things, Larry Goddard explained the short cuts as a professional builder and painter he used building coaches, that did not mean the quality deteriorated. Also in most cases a professional builder should produce a quality of workmanship that was above that of a competent amateur. Having said that some armatures build to the highest standards, also some customers can be very picky.

 

Building to earn a living is I guess a fine balance of keeping the highest standards whilst controlling the costs, I guess the test is would I be happy buying what I have just built

 

Back to your problems, as I have said you should give feedback on the items you have received and at least receive an answer why the built articles have varied from the plans. There may well be a very good reason, or these matters may have been covered at the time of the build

 

I have only had time to quickly skin the first three pages, your modelling skills look to be excellent and a great advertisement for 00 gauge, pity I live so far away as a few hours work could cure most problems. I guess there are more talented modellers than me near you anyway willing to assist

[martin_wynne]

On a slightly different note perhaps but is it fairly normal with new hand built track to tune out imperfections once laid? For example, burrs and slight miss-aligned rail joins?

 

Hi Nick,

 

With careful use of accurate gauges which are a good fit on the rails, you shouldn't really need to adjust anything after the track is laid. It is much easier to do any testing and adjustments on the bench before laying the track. Obviously if you are building it yourself things can sometimes go wrong, for example the latest batch of rail may be a loose fit in your gauges, or you may be rushing to meet an exhibition deadline, or you may not have all the tools which you would like.

 

If you employ a professional to build it, you should expect it to be finished ready to lay and work without adjustments, unless agreed otherwise. A professional builder will turn his own gauges to match his stocks of rail if necessary, and have workshop facilities to make any jigs or fixtures needed. If it is then faulty you should expect the builder to rectify it. Of course all this assumes that your wheels match the specification (back-to-back, etc.) agreed at the time of ordering, or specified in the builder's documentation.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Captain Nick]

Thanks again Martin and Hayfield for your comments. The reason I asked the question about tuning out imperfections with hand built track was not to decry my builder in any way, especially so as he would seem to have a very good reputation. I did have a few problems with aligning up the boards on which the formations were laid but that was probably down to my inexperience. Also, as I have until now, not been running trains very much, then I really hadn't got to know my track, as it were. The track has been down for about 4 years and I have ironed out a  few small miss-alignments along the way that have caused the locos to wobble a little. Of course, all this has followed ballasting and painting by me.

As for my instructions to the builder, well it may have been that I did say something along the lines (no pun etc. etc.) that I wanted something near finescale but requiring to run my (adjusted) rtr locos. I really can't remember the details as the original commission was way back in 2008 when I was still plying the high seas. Incidentally, I still have 4 boards comprising of a freight avoiding line and freight yard to lay in position. These are still stored in bubble wrap. I won't put these into position until I have constructed the station buildings etc.  

[martin_wynne]

As a retirement present to myself I commissioned Norman Saunders of Just Tracks to build it for me.

 

Hi Nick,

 

Norman Saunders ( http://just-tracks.co.uk) reputation is taking a bit of a knock in this topic. I'm sure he would want to remedy that. Swindon is about 3 hours from Plymouth, but not the opposite end of the country. If you contact him I imagine he would be willing to come down and advise you what actions you need to take, and help you rectify any problems.

 

It is very difficult to advise you from a distance from only photographs, when we are discussing measurements of a fraction of a millimetre.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Captain Nick]

As I pointed out above, It was never my intention to diss Norman reputation, indeed, I have put the problems down to my own poor grasp of all things track standards. If this is how it comes across then I apologise without reservation. Norman's work is well celebrated on a popular layout elsewhere on this site and quite rightly so. If someone was looking for a track builder then I would recommend him without doubt.

This part of my layout thread began last Wednesday when I was somewhat down morale wise. You very kindly came back and offered advice and help for which I am grateful. It was certainly not to decry Norman's reputation. I am actually thinking of asking him to do some further work for me in the future. This is to build a small fiddle yard in place of my un wieldy cassettes. I am extremely sorry if any of my comments have caused offense to anyone and to Norman's craftsmanship in particular.