Jump to content
hayfield

7 MM gauge which one?

Recommended Posts

Hi Terry,

 

No it doesn't. The NMRA have wrecked their standards by not understanding the difference. Please read again my previous post. The allowable variation on the check gauge is controlled by the current dimension on the crossing flangeway, and vice versa. One or other dimension can vary by up to 0.1mm but not both if the max check span is to be achieved. There is no way to express this as a simple +/- tolerance on each dimension.

 

 

 

 

Let's be practical. The crossing flangeway is normally set by clipping the gauge shim between the rails while soldering or glueing the fixings. Unless the rail is distorted in some way, the result is a 1.5mm flangeway. If it turns out to be slightly wider, it doesn't really matter, it simply means that narrow wheels may not be so well supported on the wing rail. They may bump down a fraction, but not nearly so much as on GOG Fine. The GOG Fine flangeway is 1.75mm, so you can see that even if the flangeway turns out to be 1.55mm, it is still a big improvement.

 

The reason for saying that it should not exceed 1.5mm is to ensure that 3.5mm wide wheels (the current industry standard) are fully supported when the 3/4" blunt nose (0.4mm scale) is properly modelled on the vee:

 

Gap across in front of nose = 1.5mm + 0.4mm + 1.5mm  =  3.4mm

 

An object 3.5mm wide cannot fall into a gap 3.4mm wide, so the wheel is fully supported through the crossing at all crossing angles.

 

Using your suggested 1.65mm flangeway, the gap becomes 3.7mm, and 3.5mm wheels will fall in with a bump as they run over the crossing. The only way to avoid that would be to use non-prototypical awful-looking sharp-nose vees.

 

I would just repeat that almost everyone who has tried 0-MF is delighted with the results and the improvement in running over the old GOG Fine standard when using modern wheels.

 

 

 

 

Thanks. :)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

The dimensions I have recommended for finescale O gauge do not result in significent wheel drop if the wheel width is above the G0G standard 3.5mm minimum. Is a 3.4mm wide wheel a scale 7 example?. In Australia some of our 0 gauge 'finescale' wheels use NZ made wheels, which have a slightly wider flange compared to the Slaters wheels. Thicker flanges requires the wheel back to back to be set to a tighter tolerance, hence the recommended AMRA values allowing for wheels with a smaller back to back value to work without clearance issues. The AMRA standard  ends up at 1.6mm to 1.7mm  flangeway  using  31.7mm to 31.8mm track gauge (The original 0 gauge,1.25"=31.75mm) and works for all crossings. Sharp crossing V's are common in NSW so having the minimum wheel width =2 x the maximum flange way is OK on paper. The blunt UK crossing V will not produce a noticeable wheel drop using the AMRA flangeway maximum of 1.7mm. I estimate the wheel drop for the extreem case here is less than 0.2mm for a 21mm diameter wheel on a 1:9 crossing.

 

My point is you do not need to be as accurate compared to the 1.5mm flangeway option in building your track, nor do need to be as accurate setting wheel back to backs. Also the wider track gauge and flange ways in the AMRA standard allows for curves through the crossing without extra gauge widening, which could be a problem with the smaller 31.5mm track gauge.

 

In conclusion using the original '0' gauge of 31.75mm (AMRA fine tolerance standard) you get easyer to build finescale track and a wheel back to back that can have a variation of around 0.1mm. Much easier to get right compared to the G0G fine and 0-MF 31.5mm gauge alternatives. I doubt the visual difference would be noticed except in close up photographs designed to see a difference. It's 100% compatible with existing G0G wheels and Slaters fine scale wheels.

 

Terry Flynn

Edited by nswgr1855

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

As an aside.....

 

One has to be careful with claims to precision measurement........

Being in the fortunate (or is it sad) position of owning in excess of 10 digital vernier-callipers (some with extremely high, pro-quality aspirations); I can truthfully say that in reference to a precise known-standard, only two show agreement as to an accurate reading to three decimal places.......the rest, show differing indications at two-decimal places and one (of a very well regarded industry name) can`t repeat any measurement even at two decimal places.

I also have several DRO/CNC machine tools which can`t agree to three decimal places, and others which can repeatably agree to six places!!!!

'Precision' is often not what it claims to be...........

 

Now, just imagine all these various companies` track gauges being batch-manufactured without use of reference-calibrated measuring tools!......for that`s the state of affairs that I discovered when I bought gauges from a wide-variety of suppliers, in an attempt to see the tolerances which were extant in the various scale`s marketplaces.

 

The 0-MF and S7 track standards both perform and look extremely well and are not difficult to correctly execute, the latter of the two is slightly more demanding; but only really in the sense of rolling-stock undercarriage construction, but faced with the discrete choice between 'excellent' or 'brilliant', I can`t see why any 7mm. scale builder would look elsewhere for a track gauging specification, or contemplate any "road less travelled".

 

I am reminded of when, back in the mists of 1980 or so, the Somerset 0 Gauge Group were building out test track. Two of the three circuits were hand built using old, coarse scale rail, cast chairs and wooden sleepers. One of the members brought in half a dozen track gauges, both three-point and roller type, of mixed and uncertain heritage, all of which were, when checked following unsuccessful testing of newly laid track, different and none of which were correct. Some serious diplomatic efforts were required in order to avoid using them without hurting the old boy's feelings :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In conclusion using the original '0' gauge of 31.75mm (AMRA fine tolerance standard) you get easyer to build finescale track and a wheel back to back that can have a variation of around 0.1mm. Much easier to get right compared to the G0G fine and 0-MF 31.5mm gauge alternatives. I doubt the visual difference would be noticed except in close up photographs designed to see a difference. It's 100% compatible with existing G0G wheels and Slaters fine scale wheels.

 

So is 0-MF. And 0-MF is very easy to build -- you just get a set of Debs excellent gauges and use them.

 

Terry, you are muddying the water and causing confusion for UK modellers. I don't know much about NSW track, but I am quite sure that they don't use sharp-nose vees. The tip of the vee would be destroyed by the first wheel which ran over it. Likewise I know little about the wheels used by AMRA members. But I see no reason why they wouldn't work with 0-MF, and certainly all relevant* UK wheels do, without any fuss at all.

 

*Not S7 wheels or the old GOG-Coarse wheels of course.

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

*Not S7 wheels or the old GOG-Coarse wheels of course.

 

But Martin, isn't this the source of the OP and all the confusion?

 

Everyone, even total novice, can accept that S7 is a totally different gauge and is very much like P4 is to OO - OO wheel sets will simply not pass through P4 or even stay on the track. So S7 is really outside this discussion.

 

The problem is that there are many wheelsets around that are of GOG coarse standard? These are still O gauge and no doubt will run perfectly well on RTL track including Peco.

 

Is it just another one of those debates about appearance? Where the advocates of O-MF are taking the position of "it is better than GOG" which it may well be, but sorry there will be some wheel sets that will not pass through. Much the same position as OO-SF takes to OO RTL track?

 

After nearly being convinced that O-MF is the way to go - I am now being put off. I am not going to be changeing any wheelsets simply because the track is so badly designed it doesn't take them, if I wanted to do that I'd go S7. The whole mention of S7 is like talking about P4 on a topic that is discussion OO, irrelevant and OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that there are many wheelsets around that are of GOG coarse standard? These are still O gauge and no doubt will run perfectly well on RTL track including Peco.

 

No they won't. The GOG Coarse standard was for tinplate, clockwork and garden railways of the 1950s. They won't run on Peco pointwork. You will find it hard to buy the wheels nowadays, they are available to order for long-established users. No-one starting in 0 gauge now would dream of using them or even know about them.

 

I mentioned them only for the sake of completeness.

 

 

 

After nearly being convinced that O-MF is the way to go - I am now being put off. I am not going to be changeing any wheelsets

 

You don't need to change any wheelsets. The whole point of 0-MF is that it runs ALL current wheels except S7.

 

(If you do want to go finer there is 0-SF (31.2mm / 1.2mm) which runs only Slater's wheels.)

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenton, just out of interest, how old is your rolling stock with course scale wheelsets? IIRC O fine scale has been around since the '50s and I'm wondering how long it took manufacturers to transition to fine scale wheelsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 different standards !! and I thought 4mm was bad with OO, EM, P4 and now OOSF.

 

or is this a mine field

Sure is!!

 

 

Kenton, just out of interest, how old is your rolling stock with course scale wheelsets?

As you can see I'm even more confused now than when hayfield made the OP.

 

In blind ignorance, I was of the belief there were only 2 gauges in O - being O as in Peco track and S7 - the latter was (and still is to me irrelevant). I had heard of others and vaguely put them into two headings American O and O-(finer) which I believed to be much like OO-SF in nature.

 

I've been building kits in O (usually Slaters wheelsets) for others for quite a while but not since the 50's. However, all is tested on a single length of Peco flexttrack with an old point in the middle - no layout as such. I have another point and an unbuilt slip with the above gauge that were donated to me for a project that never came to fruition.

 

It was the topic on building track kits that increased my interest and had it not been for this topic would have certainly continued blindly building that kit with the gauges provided.

 

The result may just have been scrapped (still may be), sold on ebay, used in aforementioned project either with the Peco track or with a possible new enthusiasm in building track.

 

After the initial posts, it seemed that OO-MF would be feasible with only the additional purchase of a new roller gauge.

 

I am now so confused that nothing much makes any sense and it all seems to be a rather academic argument - I'm back to the original idea of building the kit as it was provided. As with the debate of P4 over EM - I just cannot see it

Edited by Kenton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenton

 

Thanks for helping me out as there still seems to be a bit of confusion. Club night tonight and two of the lads model in O gauge and I think both buy RTR and standard wagon kits'

 

I am still thinking along the 31.5mm track gauge for building turnouts, as chaired track in this gauge looks terrific. I may even build both a 31.5 mm & 32 mm gauge turnouts and check for looks and performance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenton

 

Thanks for helping me out as there still seems to be a bit of confusion.

 

I think Kenton caused most of the confusion.

 

0-MF is an improved version of the GOG-Fine standard.

 

It runs ALL the wheels (except S7) any of your club members are likely to be using, much more smoothly than GOG-Fine.

 

There is no reason not to use it.

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit tangential but it was possible to buy "coarse scale" wheelsets in the late 70s from, possibly, Jacksons. They weren't as coarse as tinplate or Triang/Lima wheels, the flanges themselves being not much bigger than those on wheels sold as "fine scale". Indeed, the only real visual difference from finescale wheels of the day was that the tread width was getting on for double. Not being aware of the importance of such things in those days, I've no idea what the back-to-back was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think Kenton caused most of the confusion.

 

I don't think so Martin. However I am not accusing you either. It is just the way the thread developed from a simple early response from Redgate Models, The Nth Degree, Debs and the first part of your first post. It was a simple answer of go with O-MF unless you are going with Peco. Pretty clear a conclusion. Along with the "if you are fussy about the appearance go entirely with O-MF but build all your own with new gauges".

 

That is pretty clear - even now I have seen nothing to contradict it.

 

What WAS confusing was all the discussion over 31.5 +/- 0.0impossible.

 

I understand the discussion developed into something OT and not for novices like myself .... but sometimes - actually often with topics concerning track gauge wars, I wish they would stay at the level of the questioner and even get locked before they wander off. But that isn't the nature of the way forums do things is it?

 

As I said I may have been tempted to go all O-MF, but now I simply cannot see the point. I'll build the kit as it is and either enjoy the experience or not - it WILL work with the Peco track and just maybe it will all be laid as a project layout. As I said too much like the argument back in the 70's when I built EM and everyone was raving mad about P4. It stopped me building EM then and frankly the debate is putting me off O-MF.

Edited by Kenton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of O gauge is that it is want you want. I'm all for higher standards, better looks etc with compatibility within reason. But if you want your show off engines on other builders tracks, reliably pulling 50 minerals for hours on end outside whilst you sup a beer and equally shunting a single up and down a couple of feet of track then some thought is needed. It depends what you want.Reflect upon yourself and what you want to do cuz a day out on another layout watching others test their locos is a bit boring if yours won't run, not experience but I have frequently observed it. Fine scale covers a broad range of sins and most molded wheel sets (and some that claim to be turned) have eccentricity and run out figures well outside the reliability stakes. (If anyone would like to quote me wheel eccentric and run out tollerences please be obliged, be very interested). Got loads of mates with long stretches of peco? ... then run peco etc.

T

Please don't flame me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got loads of mates with long stretches of peco? ... then run peco etc.

 

What do you mean by "run Peco"?

 

There is NO difference between the wheels used on Peco, GOG-Fine or 0-MF. If you buy or build your 0 gauge models using the wheels as supplied, unmodified, they will run on any of these tracks. There is no problem in taking your models to run on someone else's railway if they have built the track to any of these standards.

 

Some folks seem determined to find difficulties where there are none.

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woooo, steady!

 

"What do you mean by "run Peco"?"

 

It's called an example, eg if all your friends run scale 7, then maybe you should consider scale 7 = greater running possibilities and better evenings.. If all your mates still run coarse scale, it stands to reason that modelling something that doesn't fit may limit those opportunities? The OP asked for alternatives and choice?

 

"There is NO difference between the wheels"

 

A huge and massive assumption that manufactures use any form of good quality control which very undesirably, a lot do not.

 

"Some folks"

I am not some folk. I am someone sick of changing wheel sets that good people have inadvertently spent a lot of money on that are intolerant of even average laid track. Their engines now run straight and true what ever scale or standards they choose to model.

 

"determined to find difficulties where there are none"

 

Please state clearly where I have said there are any difficulties related to O-MF? Please let me know where I have said anywhere that I have said there are any difficulties with any of the standards? Let me know where I have said F/S won't reliably run on O-MF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone now starting in 0 gauge there are just two wheel choices:

 

1. S7 wheels. Not supplied in kits, must be exchanged. Run only on S7 layouts -- a small minority of 0 gauge layouts.

 

2. "industry-standard" wheels, e.g. Slaters wheels or similar. These are the ones supplied in kits and on RTR models. They will run on Peco, or GOG-Fine, or 0-MF without modification -- i.e. the vast majority of 0 gauge layouts. However on 0-MF they will run more smoothly without dropping in the crossings (frogs).

 

All the others are old or obsolete. It's very unlikely that new 0 gauge modellers will come across them, and very inadvisable that they should adopt them because they will soon fade out entirely. It's not fair to beginners to raise all these red herrings and apparent difficulties from the past when in truth there are now no difficulties at all. Just read some of the reports on RMweb from those who have adopted 0-MF.

 

The OP was advised to adopt S7 or 0-MF in the second and third posts, and nothing that has been said since makes any sensible reason to change that advice.

 

Martin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure whether this will clarify or confuse matters so absorb or disregard this post at your leisure.

 

With plain track you can adopt 32mm gauge or 31.5 – it doesn't make too much difference. Some would argue that 32mm gauge accounts nicely for gauge widening in tight curves around your walls. Lovely.

 

However, when it comes to turnouts it appears to me that PECO have not used any standards that I'm aware of (maybe GOG Fine? Probably not) to build their turnouts, which is why finescale wheels (just about every 0 Gauge wheel that you can buy today) drop into the crossings with a bump.

 

If you build your layout with PECO track then you live with it or compensate for it (there is an untidy way to do this) by modifying them – but not the wheels! Alternatively, you build your own track to a proper standard that accounts for modern wheelsets, 31.5 gauge is by far the most popular, without any modifications to wheels at all.

 

In summary, it is easily achievable to have a smooth-running layout without the fuss or bother of altering off-the-shelf wheels or RTR stock in any way – if you build your own track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is 0-MF. And 0-MF is very easy to build -- you just get a set of Debs excellent gauges and use them.

 

Terry, you are muddying the water and causing confusion for UK modellers. I don't know much about NSW track, but I am quite sure that they don't use sharp-nose vees. The tip of the vee would be destroyed by the first wheel which ran over it. Likewise I know little about the wheels used by AMRA members. But I see no reason why they wouldn't work with 0-MF, and certainly all relevant* UK wheels do, without any fuss at all.

 

*Not S7 wheels or the old GOG-Coarse wheels of course.

 

Martin.

 

Martin,

 

In order to have smooth running with 0-MF turnouts, you need to keep your wheels within a back to back of 29.0mm to 29.2mm for a 0.8mm wheel flange thickness. If the wheel flange thickness is 0.9mm, then your wheel back to back needs to be 29.0mm to 29.1mm. If your wheel flange is 1mm wide, the G0G maximum, we see a problem with the G0G wheel standard as the result is no variation in the wheel back to back. In an earlier post you have identified the wheel drop issue with the G0G wheel and flangeway. Considering the G0G wheel back to back issue, you need to be extra careful which wheels you use if you go with the 0-MF standard.

 

My recommended solution is the AMRA fine tolerance standard, which allows a larger range of wheel back to back and is full compatability with the G0G fine wheels. In fact  0-MF can be compatable with the AMRA standard. Note the minimum track gauge in the AMRA standard is 31.5mm. The flangeway sizes recommended in the AMRA standard are not compulsory. They are the best compromise I could come up with between looks and ease of manufacture for K crossings, considering the real worlds variation in wheels and desirable wheel rail clearances. Crossing V's with check rails are easy to get right compared to K crossings.

 

The NSW crossing V's I see these days are sharp, compared to your UK example. The blunt bit is only about 10mm wide. The crossing V's do wear, causing a noticable bump, but interestingly, the wear causing the bump is not at the tip of the V. These are not cast one piece crossing V's so it might have something to do with movement of the various bits.

 

Cheers,

 

Terry Flynn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIn order to have smooth running with 0-MF turnouts, you need to keep your wheels within a back to back of 29.0mm to 29.2mm for a 0.8mm wheel flange thickness. If the wheel flange thickness is 0.9mm, then your wheel back to back needs to be 29.0mm to 29.1mm. If your wheel flange is 1mm wide, the G0G maximum, we see a problem with the G0G wheel standard as the result is no variation in the wheel back to back.

 

Hi Terry,

 

This is just not true. The 0-MF check span is 28.6mm MAX. Any wheel back-to-back more than 28.7mm will therefore run. The GOG standard for 1.0mm flanges is 29.0mm. The current industry-standard wheels with 0.8mm flanges are normally set to 29.2mm. Either way, they will all run just fine with plenty of tolerance for being a bit under. Ask the modellers who are doing exactly that.

 

The OP asked for sensible advice, and it is not fair to post a lot of misinformation and muddle into this topic.

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Terry,

 

This is just not true. The 0-MF check span is 28.6mm MAX. Any wheel back-to-back more than 28.7mm will therefore run. The GOG standard for 1.0mm flanges is 29.0mm. The current industry-standard wheels with 0.8mm flanges are normally set to 29.2mm. Either way, they will all run just fine with plenty of tolerance for being a bit under. Ask the modellers who are doing exactly that.

 

The OP asked for sensible advice, and it is not fair to post a lot of misinformation and muddle into this topic.

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Every dimension that I have used in this subject has been properly calculated to account for practical tolerances for k crossings unlike the G0G standard and various add on standards using the G0G wheel standard. My sensible advice is to use the AMRA recommended fine tolerance wheel and track standard.

 

You have now highlighted another problem with the current 31.5 mm gauge '0-MF standard'. If you use the 28.6mm max check span for the 31.5mm 0-MF standard, (the same check span as the AMRA standard coincidently), then you need to work to a tolerance of only 0.033mm, to maintain the correct check gauge through a K crossing. No gauge is built to the exact size, so the tolerance of the gauge also needs to be factored into the standards calculations. 0.033mm is not a practical track laying tolerance and a tolerance not achievable using simple non clamping roller gauges. The fact is using simple roller gauges, there is clearance between the gauge and rail. Some track could end up slightly under the check gauge of 30mm. Most wheels should be just under the maximum check gauge limit, not a problem however if a wheel is on the limit, usually a good flange profile will hide the track under check gauge issue, no derailment, just a slight bump in this case. This means we do not have a design that is 100%, just mostly OK. For other cases the check span can be over the specified amount to around 28.7mm, not a problem if you keep your wheel back to back around 29mm. This results in a fairly tight wheel back to back tolerance of 29.0mm to 29.2mm for flanges up to 0.8mm wide.

The problem with the 31.5mm 0-MF standard is where is a complete copy of the standard? Without this document modellers and manufacturers will do their own thing, some adjusting one way, and others the other. It’s clear the K crossing case was not properly considered in the development of this fairly new track gauge.

 

The G0G wheel standard is incorrectly toleranced, Consider the following, your maximum wheel back to back is calculated from the formula, check gauge - maximum flange width. Thus 30mm check gauge - 1mm wide wheel flange = 29mm wheel back to back. The problem is the G0G minimum back to back is 29mm also, thus you have an impractical 0mm tolerance to work to. This is probably why the G0G track check gauge is 30.25mm. (Older versions of the standard used 30mm). This excessive difference adds to the wide flange way in this standard.

 

The AMRA standard on the other hand allows for a greater range of fine scale wheels to operate on track built to the AMRA fine tolerance standard, with less wheel drop compared to G0G fine scale track. The AMRA standard sticks with the traditional UK check gauge of 30mm. It is best to use the same value for both track and wheels.

As a bonus the AMRA standard includes the dimensions to make the track roller gauges.

 

Terry Flynn

 

http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the fact that something akin to "0 gauge" has been working successfully for over a century, including some very fine "finescale" layouts for much of that (Norris et al), along with widespread successful running over Peco standards since c1970, I do wonder if everyone's over-thinking this a wee bit :D.

 

That is not to say that improvements in running and appearance are not worthwhile but, for someone starting out in 7mm scale, largely using proprietary equipment, standards which work (as opposed to what may be possible) have been around for decades. As we have seen upthread, anything else can confuse the issue and deter beginners in a scale which should be actively encouraging recruits.

 

In the words of someone much wiser than myself, we must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good :D

 

I have no dog in this fight, BTW, as I don't yet own a layout. When I do, it will most likely be built using salvaged code 100 rail laid using home made gauge blocks and roller gauges to 0-MF standards but with gauge widening to 32 mm o the inevitable sharp curves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not to say that improvements in running and appearance are not worthwhile but, for someone starting out in 7mm scale, largely using proprietary equipment, standards which work (as opposed to what may be possible) have been around for decades.

 

Hi Pat,

 

The difference is that a few years ago Slaters introduced a narrower wheel profile which was not actually compatible with the existing standards. Everyone liked the look of it, and other makers copied it, so that it has become in effect the current "industry standard" wheel. But when running on GOG-Fine track, or Peco track, there is an evident bump through the crossings because it is not quite wide enough to be fully supported on the rails.

 

0-MF is designed to remedy that, while still accepting the earlier wider wheels. If everyone was still using those earlier wheels, there would have been no reason to change anything.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pat,

 

The difference is that a few years ago Slaters introduced a narrower wheel profile which was not actually compatible with the existing standards. Everyone liked the look of it, and other makers copied it, so that it has become in effect the current "industry standard" wheel. But when running on GOG-Fine track, or Peco track, there is an evident bump through the crossings because it is not quite wide enough to be fully supported on the rails.

 

0-MF is designed to remedy that, while still accepting the earlier wider wheels. If everyone was still using those earlier wheels, there would have been no reason to change anything.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Fair enough Martin, I hadn't realised about Slaters' efforts to render earlier standards obsolete. However, as long as the incompatibility only results in a bump through the crossing and doesn't give rise to constant derailments, I would suggest that, for a beginner in the scale, not wishing to construct their own track and points and operating r-t-r and basic kit built locos and stock, Peco and, say, Marcway's quasi-off the shelf offerings (all of which are, I assume, still 32 mm GOG Fine) offer a standard of running which is adequate, at least initially.

 

To offer an analogy with 4mm scale, I doubt if the majority of modellers beginning in the scale start with EM (I leave the 18.83 standards aside as being more akin to S7), regardless of its advantages over 00. Even those not starting from the traditional "train-set" base might, at most, go for Peco Code 70 trackwork and whatever wheel standards Hornby and Bachmann currently offer. Many will find this combination perfectly satisfactory in the longer term too. Some, seeking more consistent running or better appearance may later adopt "finescale" 00, EM or P/S4 standards and enjoy doing so as a progression from their less than perfect beginnings and good for them, but most would not insist that the beginner should plunge into the track construction and level of technical understanding which is required in order to work in these finer standards and gain the advantages on offer.

 

In short, I would rather (and I would emphasise that is my personal view and not an insistence or even recommendation for others) see a beginner in 7mm scale build something which they feel capable of achieving and which works well enough to maintain their interest, even if stock wobbles a bit through the turnouts (on the proviso that it doesn't also constantly derail), than see them put off by being given the impression that they must build all their own pointwork or their layout won't work.

 

As I said, it's nothing to me. As a professional engineer and amateur metal hacker from way back I'm comfortable with the concept of track construction, as I am with stuff like etched brass kits and drivetrains; just don't ask me to work competently with card, styrene, paint or glue :D. But there are others on this board, some of whom I would regard as far more accomplished and competent modellers in general than I am ever likely to be, who find such things intimidating, at least initially. It would be a shame if the world were deprived of their undoubted talents applied to 7mm just because making flanged wheels run adequately through basic track formations seems too hard when it really isn't or because they've been told that having flangeways a fraction of mm wider will ruin the appearance of their pointwork when it really won't for most viewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going back to the questions posed by the OP, and a couple of others on here, if you have the skills to build points and crossings in the first place to 32mm gauge, then there is no real leap in going to 31.5mm through the crossing vee. The discussion has been had with members of the group I am associated with and the only items which have shown any problems were RTR stock from Heljan and Bachman, before they adjusted their wheelsets to conform to a recognised standard.

 

31.5mm gauge will improve running no end, and I can attest to the suitability of said roller gauges from Debs.  

 

_DSC0001_zpscb0c490d.jpg

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian

 

Thank you very much for the vote of confidence on 31.5 mm gauge. I am building up parts to build a couple of test turnouts of my own, having built a turnout for the club in 31  mm gauge. The big test will be the use of a RTR loco on them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it 0MF is the (new) standard.

If I were to build track it is where I would start.

R.T.R. locos, such as the Ixion 0-6-0 ST & 0-4-0 DM are said to be happy running on both Peco & hand built 0MF trackage.

Share this post


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.