Do we need coned wheels?

[AndyID]

BTW, an engineer on another forum told me he had worked on wheel profiles for high-speed trains. IIRC he said that they were using parallel treads and even negative cone angles to prevent hunting. I've looked around the web to see if I can find any references, but nothing obvious popped up.

 

It's also not impossible that I got the wrong end of the stick

[Nearholmer]

Andy

 

You possibly won't find anything much about negative conicity, because, as the "bottom-to-bottom" version of the paper cups game will demonstrate, it is a bad idea.

 

Start with the cups perfectly aligned on a perfectly straight track.

 

Now, Imagine a very slight lateral force coming from the left, maybe from a teeny imperfection on the rail-head, or even the wind blowing on the side of the train.

 

It will push the wheel-set over to the right a teeny bit.

 

Now, look at the respective radii of the two cups at the points of contact with the track. The one on the left is very slightly larger than the one on the right - the pair of cups is now the equivalent of a single paper cup, with its open end on the left.

 

This sets up further lateral force pushing from left to right, and before you know it a runaway action sets in and the cup on the left attempts to climb right over the rail and fall off the track. If it has a little rim (a.k.a. Flange) that might hold it, but as soon as the track curves leftward, flange-climb sets in and a derailment occurs.

 

Parallel treads won't be quite so bad,but they will still permit the flange to attack the gauge-corner of the rail on curves,tending towards flange-climbing derailments.

 

Too great a positive conicity (cups rim-to-rim) will lead to over-correction and hunting, so I guess it is all about keeping conicity, but keeping it as small as the curve radii and general condition of track permit.

 

Years ago, I attended a brilliant lecture by Prof Eric Laithwaite, and all the paper cup stuff is stolen from him - he held an audience spellbound with it, because it feels counterintuitive.

 

Kevin

[AndyID]

And so, I altered all the wheels on the first Lima coach - A BR blue Mk1. I tested it on some 18" radius Atlas snaptrack and it seemed to run perfectly. No indication of climbing on the curves and no apparent "shimmy" on straight track either.

 

Then I selected two more BR Mk1's - this time in early BR livery. The odd thing is the wheels are different from the blue Mk1. They are 11.5 mm versus 11.0 on the blue model. I thought I'd measure the cone angle while I was at it and much to my surprise discovered that THEY ARE NOT CONED!

 

I reduced the flange depth on these coaches twenty plus years ago to allow them to run on SMP track. They were used extensively back then without any trouble. I did not realize until now that the treads were parallel all the time. I think that sort of answers the question, although it might be an idea to also test a mix of long and short wheelbase wagons to see how they perform.

 

My conclusion from this exercise is that coning the wheels on 00 models is not really necessary and if they are coned for cosmetic reasons, it's probably best to make the angle as small as possible. Others will probably disagree

 

(BTW, it would not surprise me if the situation with P4 is entirely different.)

[AndyID]

Hi Kevin,

 

Normal coning can also be thought of as a form of negative feedback that attempts to cancel the difference (the error) between the peripheral velocities of the wheels and keep the axle normal to the rails. Conversely, inverted coning ought to do the complete opposite, so it does seem counter-intuitive.

 

If I recall correctly the negative feedback approach is not very good because it continually tries to cancel the error, and that results in the train taking a zig-zag path along the track which is OK at lower speeds but not at all good at higher speeds, but that's about as much as I can remember .

 

Anyway, at the scales we are talking about here, I think conicity plays a very minor part, if it plays any part at all. Other factors tend to dominate when it comes to reliable operation with 00.

 

Cheers!

Andy

[Nearholmer]

I'm more than prepared to admit that, at the tiny scales like 4mm/ft, with the tiny forces involved, and the flanges doing much more work than they do in reality, it is probably more a theoretical than a practical issue.

 

Here is some very good theory, just in case you are bored: http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:a728ca2a-9fa9-4b0f-959f-2fca6ca25365/shevtsov_20080603.pdf

 

Once one gets to 16mm/ft and G scale, things do get very slightly more like reality, and by the time one gets to, say 3.5" gauge,very much more like reality.

 

I'm a great admirer of LGB's wheel/rail interface design, which lots of people laugh at, because it looks a bit gross. Those German chaps clearly understand the problems and solutions in depth, though.

 

Kevin

[t-b-g]

When using model wheels that are (typically) 10% wider than the 2 x the flange way critical width, the point at which the wheel finally falls off the wing rail will occur when the vee is as wide as that extra 10%. For example code 110 wheels are intended for a 0.050" flange way., code 88 for a 0.040" flange way, etc.

 

If someone looking at your picture example didn't understand that the maximum length of the slope is dependent of the crossing angle, and cuts down the vee height past that point, then the wheel is going to drop down onto the over length cut down part of the vee. I realize that you in particular understand this stuff, but that doesn't mean that everybody learning to build hand made track does.

 

 

Looking at the numbers, one of your "modern kit wheels" that is 2.2 mm wide (0.088") will have only 0.2mm extra width over twice the width of a 1mm crossing flangeway. For a number 6 crossing, the vee width at 0.2mm will occur at 6 x 0.2 mm from the vee theoretical tip., which is only a 1.2 mm distance! For a number 8 crossing, it will be just 1.6 mm.

 

 

So using your posted length of about 5mm, and assuming you made a good linear slope, you have over 3mm distance wheel drop onto a too low vee and a drop depth of between 0.003 and 0.004 thou (almost 0.1 mm).

 

THE IMPLICATIONS HERE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT

 

The 5mm extra gap length of your nearly 0.1 mm vee droop and wheel drop are almost exactly the same as the gap length and wheel drop “Problem” that changing from “00” to “00-SF” is supposed to fix!  (see post #9)

 

ALL THESE YEARS OF USING 00-SF, AND YOU’VE BASICALLY JUST PROVED BY YOUR VERY OWN FROG VEE SLOPING THAT YOU COULDN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXACT SAME SLIGHT BUMPING OF USING “MODERN” KIT WHEETS ON PLAIN “00” AND THE “RUNNING IMPROVEMENT” THAT “00-SF” IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE, BUT WHICH IT GOT BACK, ONCE YOU SLOPED YOUR VEES BY THE AMOUNT YOU POSTED.  

 

In your case, the 00-SF narrow wheel running improvement presumably is just imagined.

 

You have just shown that “00-SF with such sloped vees is basically a “PLACEBO EFFECT” for using narrower wheels on common frog angles, with nothing gained for all that extra work, except a slight reduction in flange way width.  

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I refer back to my initial posting. All the theory and maths is pretty much a side issue. It Martin says that he puts a slight chamfer on the top of his crossing Vs and it works, then everything else matters not a jot. I don't put a chamfer on the top of my crossing Vs and they also work.

 

It doesn't mean that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. All it proves is my favourite model railway rule. There is always more than one way to get a good result and anybody who says that there is only one way (almost always "their" way) is invariably wrong.

 

There is trackwork on Buckingham that would have the theorists getting their knickers in a right twist. The gauge (should be EM) varies from 17.5mm to 19.5mm. There are outside framed and outside cylindered locos that run round 2ft radius curves and wheel standards from Triang plastic wheels and suchlike from the 1950s up to modern Gibson. There are points where the blades roughly go to the centre when you throw them yet all the wheels seem to know which side of the blades to go. There are sections built from soft brass rail which leans outwards quite alarmingly (approximately 1 in 10 angle) round tight curves.

 

It just should not work!

 

Yet apart from a very occasional derailment when the worst wheels happen to get to the worst bit of track in the worst possible way (perhaps propelling in a heavy train) it works pretty well and certainly as well as many a layout laid to meticulous and tight standards with everything measured to a tiny decimal point.

 

It is the best example I know of practicality knocking theory for six!

 

Tony

[Andy Reichert]

I think the two Andy's have got in a muddle here.

 

"Wheel drop" for models calculations are based on the overall width of a wheel with respect to the flangeway gap. The coning angle is disregarded and doesn't come into it.

 

If the wheel is wide enough, it runs properly through the crossing fully supported on the wing rails. There may be a very slight drop due to coning effects, but it is negligible in relation to other variables. Its effect is mitigated by taking a few thou off the top of the nose of the vee, as indicated in my post above.

 

"If the wheel is wide enough", is the reason for using narrower flangeways for better running, not coning.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

I suppose I'm required to make a serious response to Andy R's diatribe, even though I didn't understand a word of it. >>>>> I gathered that years ago - you're an expert!

 

If you don't reduce the top of the vee nose, it is likely to hit it with a bit of a bump as it suddenly jumps back up by 2.5 thou. But only a small bump.

 

p.s. 2.5 thou is about the thickness of a cigarette paper.

 

Martin.

 

So suddenly coning IS significant and saves the day.  (And if it's incredibly accurate, consistent for all wheels and the actually 0.25 mm wide "contact line" is always pressed against the wheel flange). And the vee drop figures you quote now are different. 

 

All you proved in the earlier post was that you couldn't tell the difference between the original 00 "bump" you were trying to fix, and the almost identical "vee droop bump" you replaced it with.

 

But now with the "fag paper" argument, you've done two things.

 

You've shown that the similar just fag paper "bump" for good old original 00 isn't worth worrying about.

 

and

 

No-one needs 00-SF, because a similar sanding of the crossing vee and 00 wheel coning solve the narrow whee problem for 00 even more simply and easily than altering the gauge.

 

Well done!!!

 

Andy

 

Not an expert. Just OK with with first year geometry.

[Andy Reichert]

I refer back to my initial posting. All the theory and maths is pretty much a side issue. It Martin says that he puts a slight chamfer on the top of his crossing Vs and it works, then everything else matters not a jot. I don't put a chamfer on the top of my crossing Vs and they also work.

 

It doesn't mean that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. All it proves is my favourite model railway rule. There is always more than one way to get a good result and anybody who says that there is only one way (almost always "their" way) is invariably wrong.

 

There is trackwork on Buckingham that would have the theorists getting their knickers in a right twist. The gauge (should be EM) varies from 17.5mm to 19.5mm. There are outside framed and outside cylindered locos that run round 2ft radius curves and wheel standards from Triang plastic wheels and suchlike from the 1950s up to modern Gibson. There are points where the blades roughly go to the centre when you throw them yet all the wheels seem to know which side of the blades to go. There are sections built from soft brass rail which leans outwards quite alarmingly (approximately 1 in 10 angle) round tight curves.

 

It just should not work!

 

Yet apart from a very occasional derailment when the worst wheels happen to get to the worst bit of track in the worst possible way (perhaps propelling in a heavy train) it works pretty well and certainly as well as many a layout laid to meticulous and tight standards with everything measured to a tiny decimal point.

 

It is the best example I know of practicality knocking theory for six!

 

Tony

 

I'm thrilled that the heritage and breakthrough of Buckingham are being preserved. It was a milestone in going from train set thinking to a model railway. And always worth watching

 

But this is 2015, whereas Buckingham is of it's time. The sort of model vehicle nearly microscopic jolting, bumping and fast vibrations that subconsciously alert us to the fact that a model railway is not the real thing in miniature, is no longer mandatory. It just takes keeping up with modern progress to move to a higher level of believability. And some of us prefer to work at that end of the modelling spectrum - especially if it costs us nothing but a little forward thinking and understanding simple maths.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

the actually 0.25 mm wide "contact line" is always pressed against the wheel flange

 

Hi Andy,

 

I don't know where your 0.25mm dimension comes from?

 

Nothing in my previous post* specified the position of the flange, or even required the wheel to have one.

 

* see: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102374-do-we-need-coned-wheels/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1996255

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

 

Hi Andy,

 

I don't know where your 0.25mm dimension comes from?

 

Nothing in my previous post* specified the position of the flange, or even required the wheel to have one.

 

* see: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102374-do-we-need-coned-wheels/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1996255

 

Martin.

 

Yes. That's one of your several geometry mistakes.

[Arthur]

 

Andy

 

Not an expert.

Well, for once, we can agree.

[martin_wynne]

Yes. That's one of your several geometry mistakes.

 

Thanks for telling me.

 

Andy, I think you are continuing to muddle up two different things. That's the only way I can make sense of your original post.

 

1. the controlled descent of a coned wheel as it runs along the wing rail and off it onto the nose of the vee. Running on the top of the rail and fully supported at all times. That's something which happens on all* crossings, including the prototype.

 

2. the bump caused when a wheel which is too narrow for the track standard falls off the wing rail entirely, into the crossing gap between the wing rails. That's something which is familiar to all users of kit wheels on commercial 16.5mm track, and which the use of 00-SF avoids. (Or DOGA-FINE, or EM, or P4).

 

* traditional rail-built fixed crossings. It can be avoided by ramping up the wing rail on cast crossings, and by modern swing-nose crossings, switch-diamonds, and similar arrangements.

 

Martin.

[Siberian Snooper]

Only if they own a lathe and have the training to use it. And, critically, have enough money to buy the space in which to have a workshop to house machine tools . That may cost not merely a 5 figure sum, but potentially a 6 figure one in many parts of the country. We have a housing crisis

 

It has always been the case that only a small fraction of the hobby have had access to a lathe. The moment machine tools are required for something, it's been removed from the reach of 95% of the hobby . And that has always been the case.

 

(As an after thought - how are you going to turn down plastic centred wheels??)

I have a lathe and a milling machine in two bed terrace, cost less than £1400 including tooling for the two.

[Ravenser]

I have a lathe and a milling machine in two bed terrace, cost less than £1400 including tooling for the two.

 

The problem is that these days few people under 40 can afford to buy a two bedroom terraced house in much of Britain. House prices in Plymouth are far below what they are in the South East.

 

It's the money you have to spend nowadays to buy a property with a garden in which you can put the workshop-shed that's the big hidden cost

[Arthur]

 

What is the relevance of that? Cone less wheels are not being suggested as a commercial venture nor are they being advocated as the way forward for modellers in general. AndyID has a hankering to experiment with them and the equipment and skills to do so.

 

End of, no more, no less.

 

Furthermore I would suggest that modern low cost lathes are now within the budgets of FAR more people than at anytime in the past, about the cost of two and a half RTR loco's, and that the reason they are not more common is a lack of skills and confidence in using them coupled with the fact that many people's needs are met by the vast range of RTR stock available.

[AndyID]

 

Now looking at the effect of the gap on the standard US HO wagon wheels:

 

 

Here we have the larger circles representing the common US HO scale 33" dia (9.5 mm) wagon wheels trying to drop as low as possible into the frog gaps of the three frog sizes drawn above. (from L to R #6, #8 and #12). The mid size circles are the effect for close to minimum practical size 24" dia wheels (e.g. small trams) and the tiny circles are for a imaginary tiny wheel size the same diameter as the gap, which would actually fall in. The sigle LH and the other RH dimensions iare the measure of the maximum drop of the 33" wheel.

 

The respective rounded up max drops are 0.004" for #6, 0.006" for #8 and 0.014" for #12.

 

To put the #6 drop (,0.1 mm) into perspective, 0.003" is the thickness a single sheet of copy paper .

 

The larger size and scale of a 4mm scale wagon wheel, larger coach wheel and much larger steam loco wheel do of course reduce these drops even more. And using a SWAG, probably cancel out the impact of using PECO's larger flange ways, to come up with comparable or less drop numbers.

 

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

I took another look at this and I see a problem.

 

If the wing rails are doing what they are supposed to do, there is no "gap" as you describe here. The wing rails support the tread until the vee nose supports the tread. If the wheels have a coned profile, the wheel runs down a slight gradient, but it should never drop into a gap.

 

The tread diameter is completely irrelevant, or as we might say out-west, it's a bum steer.

 

Cheers!

Andy

[AndyID]

Here's a pic of a very small wheel (7 mm) showing how the wing rail is still supporting the tread just before the tread encounters the nose of the vee.

 

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Andy,

 

I took another look at this and I see a problem.

 

If the wing rails are doing what they are supposed to do, there is no "gap" as you describe here. The wing rails support the tread until the vee nose supports the tread. If the wheels have a coned profile, the wheel runs down a slight gradient, but it should never drop into a gap.

 

The tread diameter is completely irrelevant, or as we might say out-west, it's a bum steer.

 

Cheers!

Andy

 

I'm so glad that someone here is trying to understand and even check the facts of this.

 

Andy, If you include and re-read the first part of that original post, as included below:- , it should be clear that I'm only talking about (and actually measuring) the unintended wheel drop down gap that only occurs if you use narrow wheels (2.2 mm wide) on a wider wheels track standard (1.25 mm flange way width) that they are not intended for. The unintended gap only happens from about 80% (2.2 mm width) of the overall crossing throat distance up to the 100% distance point (2.5 mm width) where the theoretical  (and full height vee) begins.

 

For a # 6 crossing, that 80% to 100% distance is ~1.8 mm, so a slightly smaller than 4mm scale diameter wagon wheel, can drop in slightly less than 0.1mm. That is only about the thickness of your printer paper. Only if there is a drop in gap, then the wheel diameter does matter, as a larger diameter wheel is supported by it's edges and therefore cannot drop so far. (Just like you can't push a 10P coin down into a slot machine that only accepts 5P coins).

 

The major "better running" justification for 00-SF, if you are using mixing in some "narrow or so called "kit" wheels, along with your RTR, is that it uses a narrower flange way (1mm instead of 1.25 mm) so  the increasing width of the crossing throat never exceeds 2 mm at the vee point and no narrow 2.2 mm wheels can drop down at all, on the way to the theoretical (and full height) vee point.  As you correctly point out, the wing rail supports the wheel continuously all the way in that case.

 

The contradiction Martin has got himself into, is that he first always claims the paper thin drop bump for too narrow wheels is noticeable and significant enough without using 00-SF, to make you need to all the work of changing over to hand laid 00-SF turnouts.  

 

Then second, he wrote that he sanded away far too long a distance (5mm) and depth  (0.2mm) back from his vee tips. This of course goes well past the distance that the 10% extra wheel width can handle even if the vee is correctly (very short) blunted, and so created a second full wheel drop place (onto a now sanded too low vee ). This second wheel drop “hole” is positioned AFTER the wheel cleared the end of the wing rails, when they were no longer supporting the wheel of all his crossing vees. And of course, it’s just as bad and as much a problem as the original drop,  causing some people to want to go to the complications of 00-SF in the first place.   

 

The really awful part, is Martin has consistently claimed that his 00-SF no longer has the bumping that you would get with 00 and narrow wheels, but in reality, it has to be just as bad due to the second bump he has introduced.  But he claims that’s SMOOTH.

 

Of course you can’t have it both ways. Either he can’t notice either bump, and 00-SF is really not doing much and really a waste of time and work,. Or he’s fantasizing that the second bump is somehow not as bad as the original – (but the size and depth are almost identical) – and wants 00-SF to succeed so much, that he is subconsciously able to ignore and justify it.

 

So right now he’s covering up by “not understanding” all the simple geometry that easily proves this, and consequently moving his goalposts  (coning is back, confusion of two drop reasons, etc.) all around the pitch trying to avoid the implications. –  That even he doesn’t notice how insignificant  (paper thin) the “problem” that 00-SF “fixes” is, if you use typical crossing angles on an average size UK layout.

 

Andy

 

 

>>>>>>>

 

Posted 23 August 2015 - 22:29

To save anyone going back to see the diagrams, I've re-posted that info here:

 

Posted 07 July 2015 - 12:16

 

 

First I want to give the back-up data I worked through back in 2011, to find out the extent of the problem of using too narrow wheels when passing over a crossing (frog) of a standard that required full width wheels.

 

 

 

This 2011 drawing shows the length of the frog gap that is wider than too narrow wheels (0.088 wide instead of 0.110 wide)  when using the NMRA HO standard of 0.050" flange ways. In this case this closely matches the DOGA 00 Interim standard, when using DOGA Fine wheels instead, so is appropriate for 00 too. In the case of using PECO's wider flange way, the length of the gap will be slightly longer, but not significantly so.  Sorry about some of the my small dimension texts.  But only the results matter.

 

These are for #6 crossing, 0.073" long

These are for #8 crossing, 0.098" long

These are for #12 crossing, 0.144" long

>>>>

 

 

[Grovenor]

Andy,

Really, you complain of people not reading your posts carefully enough to understand you. Then you write multiple paragraphs totally misrepresenting what Martin says, go and read his posts more carefully, after which an apology would be in order.

Your first two paragraphs would have properly answered the post concerned. There was no added value bringing 00sf into this just to have a rant about Martin.

Regards

[Andy Reichert]

Andy,

Really, you complain of people not reading your posts carefully enough to understand you. Then you write multiple paragraphs totally misrepresenting what Martin says, go and read his posts more carefully, after which an apology would be in order.

Regards

 

Which of the hundreds of 00-SF posts am I misrepresenting?

 

What about the libelous made up crap on the 00-P topic about my supposed money making motives, or the implication that I'm faking a standard, etc. And the various rapidly censored sections of topics, after I point out arithmetic errors.

 

So No, Martin no longer has any technical or moral credibility with me. Nor a few other people whose comments I've recorded. Which is why I post quotes in the situations above.

[Arthur]

 

How about a deal, you let us alone with 00-SF and we'll ignore 00-P?

[t-b-g]

I'm thrilled that the heritage and breakthrough of Buckingham are being preserved. It was a milestone in going from train set thinking to a model railway. And always worth watching

 

But this is 2015, whereas Buckingham is of it's time. The sort of model vehicle nearly microscopic jolting, bumping and fast vibrations that subconsciously alert us to the fact that a model railway is not the real thing in miniature, is no longer mandatory. It just takes keeping up with modern progress to move to a higher level of believability. And some of us prefer to work at that end of the modelling spectrum - especially if it costs us nothing but a little forward thinking and understanding simple maths.

 

Andy

 

It is a shame that you are so far away but if you ever come over here you should come for an operating session on Buckingham.

 

I think it would surprise you as to just how smoothly the all sprung stock negotiates trackwork that looks as if everything should fall off!

 

The real thing can do a bit of a lurch and a bump through poor track. Buckingham is extremely realistic in that respect in a few places, far more realistic than a layout where everything is dead smooth all the time. The rest runs far more smoothly than most modern layouts.

 

I would back the quality of the running of the locos against anything around today, despite the ancient motors and dreadful gears available when they were built.

 

So far from being "of its time" Buckingham is a vibrant, absorbing, complex and immensely enjoyable layout to operate. It makes most modern layouts (including most of the ones I have built) seem like not worth bothering with. The fact that pretty much all of it was scratchbuilt by one person is a bonus that lifts it from being not just a great operational layout but a feast of fine modelling that has, as an overall layout, rarely (if ever) been bettered today.

 

A few snaps. I will leave it up to others to decide if it is really a thing of the past or a layout that can match many a modern one!

 

Tony

[AndyID]

But Andy, I thought this thread was about the need, or lack thereof, for coning wheels at 00 and similar scales. Obviously, no amount of cone angle adjustment is going to be able to prevent wheels with inappropriate tread widths from falling off wing rails before the tread reaches the nose of the vee (or vice versa).

 

Bringing in a discussion about different wheel sizes dropping into gaps is a red herring that is only likely to obfuscate potential answers to the original question.

 

Andy 

[martin_wynne]

That even he doesn’t notice how insignificant  (paper thin) the “problem” that 00-SF “fixes” is, if you use typical crossing angles on an average size UK layout.

 

My red.

 

Hi Andy,

 

1. To hell with "typical" crossing angles on an "average" layout.

 

We want a solution which works for all crossing angles on all layouts. As the prototype does. And 00-SF does.

 

2. You consistently fail to make proper (or sometimes any) allowance for the blunt nose. On bullhead track that is 3/4" wide which scales to 0.25mm. So the total crossing gap on 50 thou flangeways is not 2.5mm it is 2.75mm. That's significantly wider than 2.3mm wheels, and as everyone who has tried it knows full well, they do drop in with a very noticeable and objectionable bump. The more so on long crossing angles, which some folks definitely want to use. Have a look at the Eastwood Town topic (an inspiration for many choosing 00-SF) and ask yourself how that would look if Gordon had restricted himself to using only 1:6 crossings. For curved turnouts on running lines, 1:10 is the usual minimum for sensible radii.

 

3. This topic is about the effects of coning. Which does not create any form of "drop-in" bump because it applies only while the wheel is supported on the wing rail. If you wait until the wheel has fallen off the wing rail, the coning is then irrelevant. The wheel will only fall off the wing rail if you use a crossing flangeway which is too wide for it. 00-SF makes sure you don't do that.

 

4. Have you ever actually built a C-10 curved turnout in 00-BF and another one in 00-SF, and tried Ultrascale wheels on them?

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

It is a shame that you are so far away but if you ever come over here you should come for an operating session on Buckingham.

 

I think it would surprise you as to just how smoothly the all sprung stock negotiates trackwork that looks as if everything should fall off!

 

The real thing can do a bit of a lurch and a bump through poor track. Buckingham is extremely realistic in that respect in a few places, far more realistic than a layout where everything is dead smooth all the time. The rest runs far more smoothly than most modern layouts.

 

I would back the quality of the running of the locos against anything around today, despite the ancient motors and dreadful gears available when they were built.

 

So far from being "of its time" Buckingham is a vibrant, absorbing, complex and immensely enjoyable layout to operate. It makes most modern layouts (including most of the ones I have built) seem like not worth bothering with. The fact that pretty much all of it was scratchbuilt by one person is a bonus that lifts it from being not just a great operational layout but a feast of fine modelling that has, as an overall layout, rarely (if ever) been bettered today.

 

A few snaps. I will leave it up to others to decide if it is really a thing of the past or a layout that can match many a modern one!

 

Tony

 

Hey! How come I didn't get an invite. I'm just as far away as he is. (Exits stage left sulking and muttering to himself.)