Coarse Scale O Gauge

[PatB]

Been a few weeks since anyone added to this thread, so I was going to give it a go by describing my latest interest in postwar Lionel. However the post has grown to unreasonable proportions so I'm going to start a dedicated thread rather than hijack this one.

 

 

[sncf231e]

Ran an ACE Metropolitan Railway train this afternoon and thought it looked like a Morning Train, so added some music:

 

 

Regards

Fred

[Nearholmer]

Very appropriate - I like it.

 

Of course, the Met brings to mind numerous bits of Betjeman, but I’m not sure any of them have tunes, and not all are cheerful.

 

And, I just remembered that I have a photo on my phone, taken recently at Verney Junction, from where, a long time ago, a morning train with Pullman car used to start its journey to London. The line is currently rather weed-grown, but due to reopen soon.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Nearholmer

[sagaguy]

I always wanted an ACE Spamcan & at last,gave in & purchased this.Beautiful model!.

 

                      Ray.

[redbirdpete]

Hi all

 

I have joined this forum because of this topic

 

I am no longer young and the eyesight is not what it was and the hands are a bit shaky. So my ambitions in Z gauge (American short line) and 009 ('Fictitious Caernarfon and Llanberis Railway') are not going to happen. So have reverted to the 30's and good old chunky Meccano/Hornby 0 gauge. Only just started on this adventure but so glad to discover that there is still interest. Although all thye engines I have so far are clockwork. its the 'railwayness ' that I love. Hefty metal things and no plastic - that's what the first 120 years of railways was all about. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by redbirdpete
typing

[brianusa]

Your self description probably could apply to most hereon..  Its a long slippery slope and soon you will be E Bays best customer as you add electric track and trains and spending the children's inheritance.

     Brian.

[sagaguy]

Having restored,repainted & converted Hornby Dublo trains for a goodly part of my life & spent a good few years with N gauge,i seem to have run out of projects so off i go again,this time,0 gauge.It`s a completley new set up for me,I`ve got a DJH 0 gauge tank loco that i`m building in front of me & the ACE Spamcan which means that i now have to buy some track,Maldon track i think although not certain whether to go 2 or 3 rail,it depends as to whether i can operate my kit built loco on the 2 outer rails of their 3 rail track.My wife asked if this Spamcan is a 5 minuite wonder,i replied that if it is,it`s a 75 year 5 minuite wonder.Money in the bank now loses value every day at the moment so i would rather invest it in items i can enjoy & will probably go in value as time goes on.After the track will be some coaches & then perhaps,wagons.Good clean fun though!.

 

                        Ray

Edited June 23, 2019 by sagaguy

[simplex]

On 24/04/2014 at 19:13, Ian Abel said:

This is a new topic (and scale/gauge) to me and I really know squat about it! (Side note: I'm in the US so British outline "ANYTHING" is rather sparse, and therefore this probably more than most! I'm essentially OO DCC)

 

Having said that, there's an opportunity to get a Bassett-Lowke BR Royal Scot (Limited Edition supposedly??) around here and I was half-heartedly considering buying it. Can I run it on regular O gauge track that I could get from the local hobby shop? The loco is described as "course gauge/scale?", so does that make a difference? DO I need anything in the way of some diabolical contraption to actually power/run it? Or is a 12V standard DC controller likely to provide enough ooomph? I do also have a G-Gauge power supply I could use?

 

Just thought I'd stop in and chuck that fuel on your fire, I'm sure it's a nutty idea?

 

EDIT: Is it worth buying as an investment even? Is it worth much/anything? Beats me, just looked nice as it's shiny and new/never run, and a lot bigger than OO

I can confirm that Corgi/Bassett Lowke Ace trains, Darsaed etc will run happily on Peco 0 gauge bullhead rail, some extra clearance is required on point check rails, but everything else is fine. 

As an aside, the Bassett lowke is often referred to as "0 gauge standard" whose wheel standards are sort of halfway between finescale and coarse (ie Lionel) 

[goldfish]

23 hours ago, simplex said:

I can confirm that Corgi/Bassett Lowke Ace trains, Darsaed etc will run happily on Peco 0 gauge bullhead rail, some extra clearance is required on point check rails, but everything else is fine. 

As an aside, the Bassett lowke is often referred to as "0 gauge standard" whose wheel standards are sort of halfway between finescale and coarse (ie Lionel)  

 

The standard answer would appear to be no.

 

The following is the text of a standard letter I received from Len Mills of ACE Trains earlier this year.

 

""The only Peco 2R track that Ace Trains recommend is type SM32.
ACE Trains product is primarily aimed at the standard (coarse) scale 3R market this being a very large percentage of the gauge `O` business in the world.

Peco B.H. (Bull Head) track is strictly a fine-scale track and therefore totally unsuitable for running ACE Trains as they are produced.

ACE Trains product will run on Peco flat bottom rail track but will  not run through the points without wheel / axle or track modifications.
For your info there are two commonly used gauge `O` standards largely arising from standard (coarse) scale usually being associated with 3R, and fine- scale with 2R.
By far the most common in terms of popularity and sales is coarse scale 3R.
There are many customers however that use 2R coarse scale largely in the garden because as the name suggests it allows for a more tolerant approach to undulations that are commonplace because of the elements associated with garden railways and therefore provides much more reliable running.
These are the 2R customers that ACE Trains are largely supporting and supplying.

It is very difficult and some say impossible to mix fine-scale and coarse scale together and this is clearly true when it come to points,  the two standards cannot be combined because of the huge variation in wheel profiles and B-to-B (Back to Back ) dimensions as follows

BRMSB  fine-scale standards are
Flange depth = 1.25mm, O/A wheel width = 3.75mm B - B = 29.00mm

ACE Trains standard (coarse) scale standards since 2006  are  
Flange depth =  2.00mm, O/A wheel width = 6.0mm,  B - B = 27.5mm

Note: there were no strictly laid down and adhered to wheel standards from ACE Trains on items produced prior to 2006

The ACE Trains standard (coarse) scale is not strictly correct to the BRMSB (British Model Railway Standards Bureau) rule therefore does allow the product to actually run on some fine-scale track although as you can see from the huge differences in flange depth and B to B dims. between the two types I doubt that ACE Trains would run successfully on Peco B.H track without the flanges crashing into the track chairs and bumping over the check rails on the frog.
The minimum recommended radius is 2ft – 3ins = 054” dia American standard.
Most items made will negotiate 2Ft radius but the larger locos do look silly on such a small radius.""

 

It is worth noting that The British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau (BRMSB) standard was published in 1950, and that BRMSB ceased to exist in 1960.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by goldfish
Error in text.

[Nearholmer]

If anyone is really interested, and has time on their hands, I went into the history of all this, back to 1909, in pretty fair detail in my thread some while back, and illustrated “universal” points that will allow all (well, nearly all) wheel standards to inter operate.

[sncf231e]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If anyone is really interested, and has time on their hands, I went into the history of all this, back to 1909, in pretty fair detail in my thread some while back, and illustrated “universal” points that will allow all (well, nearly all) wheel standards to inter operate.

I see your point  but will happily leave my track pointless . I have not found anything coarse of fine scale that cannot run on it.

Regards

Fred

[goldfish]

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

If anyone is really interested, and has time on their hands, I went into the history of all this, back to 1909, in pretty fair detail in my thread some while back, and illustrated “universal” points that will allow all (well, nearly all) wheel standards to inter operate. 

 

I have followed your thread with interest for some time. As I recall you failed to mention that the Gauge 0 Guild of all people came up with a Universal Gauge 0 Wheelset  that would run through both course and fine  scale points ( https://www.gauge0guild.com/manual/01_D1_1_1_1.pdf ). Why the R-T-R people did not to use it is beyond me. The wheels ETS fit to their 2-rail products are very close to the Universal standard but the profile is to  NEM311. The 2-rail versions of the Sentinel Shunter by ETS are fitted with them and run through Peco points and on Merkur tubular track with no problem at all.

[Nearholmer]

My intention was to relate the history of track/wheel standards up to the settling of G0G coarse and fine, so doubtless I failed to mention other things which happened thereafter.

 

I will have to look carefully at the dimensions, because I’m highly sceptical that a universal coarse/fine wheel-set can be created. I do know that Darstaed spent a while trying fairly recently, but that the subject gradually disappeared without trace, my assumption being that it was unsuccessful.

 

 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

13 hours ago, goldfish said:

 

 

 

It is worth noting that The British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau (BRMSB) standard was published in 1950, and that BRMSB ceased to exist in 1960.

 

 

At the risk of going a bit OT to satisfy my curiosity,  was there actually a point where the BRMSB formally wound itself up? The name always rather amused me as it gave the impression- no doubt deliberately-  of being some kind of official body with its own oak-panelled rooms and technical experts hurrying to and fro, rather than an ad-hoc and self-appointed committee started during the war by  J.N.Maskelyne (MRN & ME) G.H.Lake (Railways) and RJ Raymond (Model Rly Constructor) with a couple of others joining it and who met each other at various times. That doesn't mean it didn't do good work, it clearly did, but unfortunately it never had the influence over manufacturers that the NMRA did (and does)  

 

I rather wonder what would have happened if the MRC- as the first and largest club  had taken on the role of a standards setter - rather as the Marylebone Cricket Club did for its sport- but apparently Geoffrey Keen wasn't keen on that idea. That's probably really OT though.

 

I thought the BRMSB standards were more or less taken on by META (another organisation that wasn't quite what it seemed). It was META who published "for the B.R.M.S.B." the 1950 Standard Dimensions that I have with standards for O and OF

 

In 1950, EM wasn't regarded as fine scale and had the same wheel profiles and check/crossing clearances as OO but EMF was fine scale. 

It's curious that the BRMSB standard rail heights were the same (0.098 inch BH and  0.089 inch FB- code 98 and 89 in modern usage ) for all four of HO, OO, EM and EMF but different between O and for OF  (0.197 ins. BH and 0.211 ins. FB for O, but 0.154 ins. FB and 0.138 ins. BH. Unless it's a misprint it's also curious that in O  gauge flat bottom rail is taller than bullhead but it's the other way round for the smaller gauges.  

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Pacific231G

[goldfish]

16 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I will have to look carefully at the dimensions, because I’m highly sceptical that a universal coarse/fine wheel-set can be created. I do know that Darstaed spent a while trying fairly recently, but that the subject gradually disappeared without trace, my assumption being that it was unsuccessful.

 

 

 

 

 

It should be possible to to create a universal wheel-set compatible with the major current  standards, but I agree with you that it would be impossible to come up with a truly universal set that was compatible all legacy standards. Combining fine-scale flange and back to back measurements with the coarse scale wheel width should provide a practical solution. The market has changed markedly in the last few years and anybody selling 2/3-rail switchable locomotives has to seriously consider making them compatible with Peco track. Getting rid of those grotesque couplings they insist on fitting would also be a huge improvement.

 

As I understand it, Darstaed was looking at breaking into the fine-scale end of the market, so anything other than fine-scale wheel-sets would have been unacceptable.

[Nearholmer]

“Getting rid of those grotesque couplings they insist on fitting would also be a huge improvement.”

 

Depends what direction you come at it from:  I like the classic drop-link couplers, because they couple with ancient rolling stock, and because they allow propelling moves over tight curves without buffer-locking.

 

 

 

[brianusa]

You can't really complain about couplings on coarse scale models as they emanated from toys...  They are leftovers from another era and due to their longevity can still be found on newly minted models.  Lionel probably have the best example; although a bit large, they work as intended despite being introduced in the forties and the same can be found on the latest models enhanced by remote operation. 

         Brian.

Edited August 11, 2019 by brianusa

[Il Grifone]

On 10/08/2019 at 19:19, Nearholmer said:

My intention was to relate the history of track/wheel standards up to the settling of G0G coarse and fine, so doubtless I failed to mention other things which happened thereafter.

 

I will have to look carefully at the dimensions, because I’m highly sceptical that a universal coarse/fine wheel-set can be created. I do know that Darstaed spent a while trying fairly recently, but that the subject gradually disappeared without trace, my assumption being that it was unsuccessful.

 

Since the wheel/check gauge dimensions are intimately connected, any attempt to produce a universal wheel is doomed to failure. The only way round it is some sort ofl track that does not involve check rails like Hornby tinplate track for instance. Such 'universal' track needs to be laid with precision to allow fine wheels (for which it is not intended of course) to stay on the rails.

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

 

Since the wheel/check gauge dimensions are intimately connected, any attempt to produce a universal wheel is doomed to failure. The only way round it is some sort ofl track that does not involve check rails like Hornby tinplate track for instance. Such 'universal' track needs to be laid with precision to allow fine wheels (for which it is not intended of course) to stay on the rails.

A "universal wheel" for a range of check rail and crossing clearances is indeed doomed (though a wheelset  may get through a range of tracks more or less well depending on how far they deviate from the standards it was designed for) but its's easier the other way round. So long as the actual gauge is the same "universal" trackwork is possible and, faced with the different standards of HD, Trix, BRMSB, NMRA  and so on  firms like Wrenn did make such track by using closing frogs (switches)

This fairly extreme example was hand built by John Ahern - probably in the 1940s when wheels available were anything but standard- and  is at Gammon End on the Madder Valley

 

 

The check rails would be largely cosmetic as, in principle, any wheelset that could run on plain track should run through these.

The catch is that they look decidedly unprototypical for anything other than crude quarry/mine tramway and, with more consistent wheelsets available, by the time of John Ahern's untimely death in 1961,   most of the closing frogs remaining on the Madder Valley had been rebuilt or replaced with normal crossings and check rails.  There are a few more points of this type on the MVR, all in yards I think, but how many of the points on the layout had ever had this type of frog I don't know.

 

 

 

[Annie]

I used to own some of the old Wren track and it certainly worked well even if it looked a little odd.  This was back in my teenage years (so long ago) and I was running the usual Triang along with some Exley coaches with much finer wheels.

From my own experience I found modern 'O' Gauge coarse scale standard wheels would run on Hornby pressed tinplate track and pointwork so long as the track was laid properly.  The Hornby universal system certainly works well, it's just a pity that it doesn't look so good from a visual standpoint.

[Il Grifone]

That's the sort of thing I had in mind. It works well with coarse wheels, but fine scale wheels require it to be laid with the same precision as fine scale track. To digress into 00 for a moment, I seem to recall Wrenn was not recommended for scale wheels (i.e. BRMSB* in this case - hardly anyone thought of anything finer at the time ). It is after all why they had coarse wheels in the first place. They are tolerant of kinked track laid on the carpet (even if it was never recommended). I never went for Wrenn's "Sleepers scaled to match the rail" - it made it look like narrow gauge. I still have a short length of Peco fibre track which was also 'universal', but actually 00 scale and much better. You could actually buy 00 track in the fifties and sixties!

 

* The 2mm H0/EM was a-non starter (I don't think anyone ever made any?) . The NMRA wheel is actually coarser (thicker flanges) despite being intended for H0. (The extra 11 thou is all in the flange).

 

The Hornby tinplate wheel is really an awful thing, but does its job thanks to 'slop'.

.

[goldfish]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

“Getting rid of those grotesque couplings they insist on fitting would also be a huge improvement.”

 

Depends what direction you come at it from:  I like the classic drop-link couplers, because they couple with ancient rolling stock, and because they allow propelling moves over tight curves without buffer-locking.

 

 

 

 

I have no objection to drop link couplings, in fact they are my coupling of choice. What I was referring to was the oversize hooks that seem to be the standard at the moment, LMC pattern couplings are much better in appearance and easier to use.

 

[goldfish]

On 10/08/2019 at 10:09, Nearholmer said:

If anyone is really interested, and has time on their hands, I went into the history of all this, back to 1909, in pretty fair detail in my thread some while back, and illustrated “universal” points that will allow all (well, nearly all) wheel standards to inter operate.

 

The G0G take on universal points is interesting, the 'Swing Nose Crossings' offer an interesting, if over engineered, solution. ( www.gauge0guild.com/manual/02_2_7_Pointwork.pdf )

[goldfish]

The arrival of an ETS Sentinel Shunter and another private owner wagon provides an ideal opportunity to illustrate the improvement that can be made by changing the couplings. The replacement single link couplings are from The Leeds Stedman Trust (usual disclaimer). With the replacement couplings the rolling stock will still negotiate 2ft curves and points with no problem. The reduced length of the couplings means that a rake of ten private owner is roughly the length of a a rake of nine unmodified private owner wagons.

These things are always subjective, but I think the result is well worth the effort. My apologies for the poor images, photography is not my forte.

 

[Nearholmer]

Point well made.

 

I’ve not retro-fitted any of the more discrete ones to newer things, but do have older wagons with them.