Bethesda Sidings - Western Region in rural Mid-Wales

[The Johnster]

He's not looking at the prairie tank.  Perhaps he's looking at something made at Derby out of shot to the right..

[Enterprisingwestern]

On 23/08/2023 at 18:44, 2ManySpams said:

 

Answer the question man. Is that a Manor? For all I know it could be a Grange, Hall, County, King, or Saint. 

 

Disgusted of East Midlands.

 

Can't be anything GWR, unless the pannier tanks are awaiting attachment?

 

Mike.

[Captain Kernow]

12 hours ago, Mark Forrest said:

Apparently not a fan of Prairie tanks though?

No, he's simply make the gesture for 'more beer'...

 

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

No, he's simply make the gesture for 'more beer'...

 

 

Or "Designer coffee is overrated" ?

[Oldddudders]

16 hours ago, Mark Forrest said:

Apparently not a fan of Prairie tanks though?

"We'd never have had one of those on Treneglos!"

[Captain Kernow]

4 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

Or "Designer coffee is overrated" ?

Or... I'm gagging for a herbal tea and a piece of vegan chocolate...

 

[MrWolf]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Or... I'm gagging for a herbal tea and a piece of vegan chocolate...

 

 

Yes, he looks the sort, not to be trusted, probably superglue himself to the loco as a form of protest / futile gesture....

[46444]

4 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Or... I'm gagging for a herbal tea and a piece of vegan chocolate...

 

 

Are we in Totnes per chance?

[Captain Kernow]

On 25/08/2023 at 20:14, 46444 said:

Are we in Totnes per chance?

Most definitely not! Back in the day when CTMK worked in a shop in the town, she said that some of the locals had a distinct pungency about them on wet days...

 

[Captain Kernow]

2538 peeps from behind the shunters cabin:

 

[Graham T]

Very nice.  I should know this, and could go back through the thread (but if asked to describe myself in three words I would reply "lazy"), so could you tell me what track you've used there please CK?

[Captain Kernow]

No problem, Graham - the plain track is C&L flexitrack. The points are scratchbuilt using copperclad sleepers with Exactoscale (formerly P4 Track Company) chairs glued on (cut in half and cut down slightly to ensure flanges don't bump on them).

 

[Captain Kernow]

Prominent in the above photo is also a Peco fishplate. Whilst the under-part of the fishplate isn't really prototypical, the actual physical joint is so good that I'm happy to use them. Before they came on the scene, I used to use Peco 'N' gauge fishplates, cut in half lengthways and then shaped to the bullhead rail profile using a pair of pliers.... it took ages!

 

[Graham T]

Perfect - thanks.  I'm considering options for CR Mk II.  Pretty much settled on OO-SF for the points, but still wondering how to fill the gaps in between!

[Graham T]

3 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Prominent in the above photo is also a Peco fishplate. Whilst the under-part of the fishplate isn't really prototypical, the actual physical joint is so good that I'm happy to use them. Before they came on the scene, I used to use Peco 'N' gauge fishplates, cut in half lengthways and then shaped to the bullhead rail profile using a pair of pliers.... it took ages!

 

 

Yes I've added those to the Peco flexitrack on the current Chuffnell R.

 

[St Enodoc]

33 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Prominent in the above photo is also a Peco fishplate. Whilst the under-part of the fishplate isn't really prototypical, the actual physical joint is so good that I'm happy to use them. Before they came on the scene, I used to use Peco 'N' gauge fishplates, cut in half lengthways and then shaped to the bullhead rail profile using a pair of pliers.... it took ages!

 

I use Minitrix fishplates. They have a vertical part that supports the web of the rail not just the foot. Not sure whether you can still get them though.

[Rugd1022]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Prominent in the above photo is also a Peco fishplate. Whilst the under-part of the fishplate isn't really prototypical, the actual physical joint is so good that I'm happy to use them. Before they came on the scene, I used to use Peco 'N' gauge fishplates, cut in half lengthways and then shaped to the bullhead rail profile using a pair of pliers.... it took ages!

 

 

Fishplates are probably one of the least noticed and modelled items when it comes to P/Way in any scale / gauge, it's nice to see you've added them CK. I've tripped over a few stray ones at work but never really thought about adding them to any model!

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

4 hours ago, Graham T said:

I'm considering options for CR Mk II.  Pretty much settled on OO-SF for the points

Hi Graham,

 

May I offer you my experiences of OO-SF at this point - which may be less that you have already have, of course, but anyway...

 

When building 'Bethesda Sidings', most of the pointwork was already built to 'conventional OO finescale' standards (originally intended for other projects) but I built the A5 crossover outside the goods shed specially for the layout and decided to build it to OO-SF standards.

 

All went well with the construction - I was very careful and used the correct OO-SF gauges throughout, checking frequently as I went and test the crossover thoroughly, using all the then available locos that I thought I might use, before laying the crossover on the layout, painting, weathering, ballasting etc.

 

A few years later, certain new RTR prototypes appear, which I decided could find a home on the layout. It is at this point that I found that some (but not all) of the new RTR locos didn't like the OO-SF points. They were all fine with the 'conventional' pointwork, however.

 

Further investigation revealed that all of the affected locos had wheel and flange profiles that differed from the locos that ran through OK. These differing profiles were not consistent or uniform with each other, however, but what they did have in common was that they were different from those that worked OK.

 

In summary, the following locos don't like the OO-SF pointwork (even running through on the straight):

 

- Hornby B2 0-6-0ST Peckett (but W4 0-4-0ST Peckett is fine - different profile to the B2). Solution - sell the B2.

 

- Planet Industrials 0-6-0T Kerr Stuart - quite wide flange width. Really doesn't like the OO-SF points. Solution - obtained replacement Markits wheels and 3mm axles for future fitting.

 

- Accurascale Manor - same 'wide' flange width as the Planet Industrials loco. Not sure what to do about this one, but long term conversion to P4 is most likely outcome

 

- Heljan Class 33 and Hymek - solution was to replace all wheels with 'Black Beetle' wheels from Branchlines - both glide through effortlessly now.

 

- Hattons Andrew Barclay 0-4-0ST - jury is out on this one at the moment (not as bad as some of the above), possible conversion to P4 or otherwise selling on.

 

The jury was also out on the Oxford Rail Dean Goods but I've just finished giving that a new chassis with Markits wheels, as the Oxford one didn't run as smoothly as I wanted.

 

There have also been problems with flanges bouncing along on the top of C&L chairs on their plain track - including inconsistencies within the same manufacturer and even differing wheel and flange standards on the same loco - for example - the Bachmann WD 2-8-0 - the driving wheels are fine on C&L plain bullhead track but the bogie and tender wheels needed replacing with Markits examples, as the flanges were too deep.

 

Bachmann Class 5MT 4-6-0 and Crab 2-6-0 - all wheels on these had flanges that were too deep. Solution was to buy Alan Gibson replacement wheels for both locos, but by the time I might have done something about it, my interests had moved on, so both locos were sold.

 

This level of inconsistency between the wheels of even the same loco, let along the same manufacturer is one of the advantages that I find with P4 (not that I'm trying to peddle P4 propaganda here).

 

RTR locos that are OK on the OO-SF crossover:

 

- Bachmann 57XX/8750 pannier (more recent chassis)

- Hornby W4 Peckett

- Dapol 05 diesel shunter

- Hattons 'P' class 0-6-0T

- Bachmann 08 and 03

- Hornby 08

- Bachmann Class 20 and 24 diesels

- Dapol Class 22 diesel

- Model Rail/Dapol Sentinel 0-4-0

 

Also (obviously) anything with Markits, Alan Gibson or Ultrascale wheels is absolutely fine.

 

People reading this may well think that I have somehow made a mistake when building the crossover and introduced clearances that are too tight, but I can assure you that this is not the case. Great care was taken and several OO-SF gauges were used and the points carefully checked with the then loco roster.

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Captain Kernow

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

There have also been problems with flanges bouncing along on the top of C&L chairs on their plain track

Shades of the old Lima profile there.

[RodneyS]

I found your comments about 00-SF interesting.  I had no idea of the standards so did an internet search and came up with the link below.

I now know that SF stands for Special Fine but there are references to 00-BF, 00-MF and 00-IF with no explanation (that I could find) as to what they stand for.

Confusing.

 

The history of 00-SF (at the top of the link) is fascinating,  I was involved with a large club layout many years ago built to the original EM (18mm ) gauge and we had many problems with the loco wheels available at the time.

 

I agree with your comments about P4 but it's all a matter of choice.

 

Having been inspired by Bethesda Sidings and the Sheep Man's layouts I am planning a small layout in 00 with hand made points.  I like making points !  

I would hope to run my collection of 00 locos without the bother of re-wheeling them.

Hence my interest in your comments and the standards,

Rodney

https://www.85a.uk/00-sf/

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

8 minutes ago, RodneyS said:

I found your comments about 00-SF interesting.  I had no idea of the standards so did an internet search and came up with the link below.

I now know that SF stands for Special Fine but there are references to 00-BF, 00-MF and 00-IF with no explanation (that I could find) as to what they stand for.

Confusing.

 

The history of 00-SF (at the top of the link) is fascinating,  I was involved with a large club layout many years ago built to the original EM (18mm ) gauge and we had many problems with the loco wheels available at the time.

 

I agree with your comments about P4 but it's all a matter of choice.

 

Having been inspired by Bethesda Sidings and the Sheep Man's layouts I am planning a small layout in 00 with hand made points.  I like making points !  

I would hope to run my collection of 00 locos without the bother of re-wheeling them.

Hence my interest in your comments and the standards,

Rodney

https://www.85a.uk/00-sf/

Thanks for your comments, Rodney and good luck with your project. Like you, I also enjoy making points and have made many over the years, both for myself and for others.

 

The profusion of OO 'standards' is indeed confusing. When I refer to 'conventional OO finescale' standards I am really thinking of point work that is on a par with the original SMP bullhead point kits from the 1970s, as this was the OO finescale goal to aim for me and friends in my formative modelling years (teens and early 20s).

 

Quite apart from the various differing wheel and flange profiles that now exist amongst the various RTR manufacturers, there is also the question of consistent back-to-backs, especially where the manufacturer sends products out with errors. My first Bachmann 94XX had to go back to the retailer, as the back-to-backs varied between the wheelsets on the same loco (the widest being 15mm). The second 94XX was consistent at 14.5mm all round and that works fine now.

 

 

[St Enodoc]

28 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

SMP bullhead point kits from the 1970s, as this was the OO finescale goal to aim for me and friends in my formative modelling years (teens and early 20s).

Still is for some of us!

[Graham T]

19 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Hi Graham,

 

May I offer you my experiences of OO-SF at this point - which may be less that you have already have, of course, but anyway...

 

When building 'Bethesda Sidings', most of the pointwork was already built to 'conventional OO finescale' standards (originally intended for other projects) but I built the A5 crossover outside the goods shed specially for the layout and decided to build it to OO-SF standards.

 

All went well with the construction - I was very careful and used the correct OO-SF gauges throughout, checking frequently as I went and test the crossover thoroughly, using all the then available locos that I thought I might use, before laying the crossover on the layout, painting, weathering, ballasting etc.

 

A few years later, certain new RTR prototypes appear, which I decided could find a home on the layout. It is at this point that I found that some (but not all) of the new RTR locos didn't like the OO-SF points. They were all fine with the 'conventional' pointwork, however.

 

Further investigation revealed that all of the affected locos had wheel and flange profiles that differed from the locos that ran through OK. These differing profiles were not consistent or uniform with each other, however, but what they did have in common was that they were different from those that worked OK.

 

In summary, the following locos don't like the OO-SF pointwork (even running through on the straight):

 

- Hornby B2 0-6-0ST Peckett (but W4 0-4-0ST Peckett is fine - different profile to the B2). Solution - sell the B2.

 

- Planet Industrials 0-6-0T Kerr Stuart - quite wide flange width. Really doesn't like the OO-SF points. Solution - obtained replacement Markits wheels and 3mm axles for future fitting.

 

- Accurascale Manor - same 'wide' flange width as the Planet Industrials loco. Not sure what to do about this one, but long term conversion to P4 is most likely outcome

 

- Heljan Class 33 and Hymek - solution was to replace all wheels with 'Black Beetle' wheels from Branchlines - both glide through effortlessly now.

 

- Hattons Andrew Barclay 0-4-0ST - jury is out on this one at the moment (not as bad as some of the above), possible conversion to P4 or otherwise selling on.

 

The jury was also out on the Oxford Rail Dean Goods but I've just finished giving that a new chassis with Markits wheels, as the Oxford one didn't run as smoothly as I wanted.

 

There have also been problems with flanges bouncing along on the top of C&L chairs on their plain track - including inconsistencies within the same manufacturer and even differing wheel and flange standards on the same loco - for example - the Bachmann WD 2-8-0 - the driving wheels are fine on C&L plain bullhead track but the bogie and tender wheels needed replacing with Markits examples, as the flanges were too deep.

 

Bachmann Class 5MT 4-6-0 and Crab 2-6-0 - all wheels on these had flanges that were too deep. Solution was to buy Alan Gibson replacement wheels for both locos, but by the time I might have done something about it, my interests had moved on, so both locos were sold.

 

This level of inconsistency between the wheels of even the same loco, let along the same manufacturer is one of the advantages that I find with P4 (not that I'm trying to peddle P4 propaganda here).

 

RTR locos that are OK on the OO-SF crossover:

 

- Bachmann 57XX/8750 pannier (more recent chassis)

- Hornby W4 Peckett

- Dapol 05 diesel shunter

- Hattons 'P' class 0-6-0T

- Bachmann 08 and 03

- Hornby 08

- Bachmann Class 20 and 24 diesels

- Dapol Class 22 diesel

- Model Rail/Dapol Sentinel 0-4-0

 

Also (obviously) anything with Markits, Alan Gibson or Ultrascale wheels is absolutely fine.

 

People reading this may well think that I have somehow made a mistake when building the crossover and introduced clearances that are too tight, but I can assure you that this is not the case. Great care was taken and several OO-SF gauges were used and the points carefully checked with the then loco roster.

 

 

Hello CK, thanks for that really useful and informative post.  I have no experience of OO-SF at all, yet, but want my next layout to have finer looking trackwork than the Peco stuff on the present Chuffnell Regis.  On your list of problem locos the only two I have are the Accurascale Manor (well, strictly speaking, I don't have it yet!) and the OR Dean Goods - which was a problem child for all sorts of reasons, never mind the wheel profiles - but that, as they say, is another story.

 

I've got quite a collection of locos from all the usual manufacturers.  I still plan to press ahead with OO-SF, and myst remember to use the gauges as you mentioned - thanks for that too.  I don't really like the idea of re-wheeling locos to be honest, so I guess the way ahead is (1) do a much better job with the track on CR Mk II than I managed first time around, and (2) keep everything crossed that the locos play nicely!

 

[Siberian Snooper]

My only advice to good track building is not to rush and test at every stage. The 1st test will probably be a wheel set and then a bogie, followed by a short wheelbase wagon and progress upwards. An 0-6-0 chassis without a motor is a good test, that is one that tends to highlight problems. 

[Nick C]

23 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

OO-SF ... A5 crossover 

....

- Heljan Class 33 and Hymek - solution was to replace all wheels with 'Black Beetle' wheels from Branchlines - both glide through effortlessly now

 

Interesting to hear that - I've got a layout with an OO-SF A5 crossover (BF kit), and a Heljan 33, but I've not yet tried running the latter on the former - I shall have to dig it out of it's box and try it...

 

I don't have any of the other locos on your list, so can't comment on those - but Hornby Terriers and a Bachmann 08 are quite happy over said crossover.

 

To add another answer to @Graham T's question, I've used British Finescale OO-SF pointwork with Peco bullhead plain track.