Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[hayfield]

31 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Of course, the people concerned were almost certainly behaving like this because they genuinely thought it was for the best, for both the hobby and for 4mm scale modellers.  Self appointed rule setters always do this, and their well intentioned tryanny always fails to take account of methods of achieving the desired end that are not canon to the cabal, but before we criticise them we should take into account that we owe them much.  They could and should have managed things better, but humans are imperfect, and it is arguably a reaction against them that has produced the very good RTR models of the current time, a response to a market demand for better scale and detail without having to accept the iron rule of the cabal. 

 

Of course, it's faulted; 00 scale was a fractured compromise from the outset, but it has become like it or not the established standard for UK outline RTR in 4mm scale.  LIma attempted to introduce a range of H0 RTR when they first began selling UK outline models , and had the detail and scale been better, or at least on a par with what Airfix and Mainline were turning, things might have been different and the main scale have been H0 at 3.5mm/ft and a close enough for jazz track gauge.  The opportunity, if there really was one, was lost and we must live with the resultant compromise; it won't come again and those who developed EM, P4, S4, &c don't care, as they've ploughed their own furrow regardless.  I've no problem with that except that I can't model to that standard, which is my problem not theirs.

 

Our RTR firms are still quite firmly wedded to the train set, by which I mean a layout based on setrack geometry of overall small enough size to be erected in a room in an average British home, and capable of a multitrack layout with sidings on a dining room table.  This is unacceptable to me and many other 'proper' modellers whatever they are when they're at home because of the unfeasible curves, gaps between the buffers, and other compromises involved; I want something I can convince myself is a small version of the real thing, and 64' coaches bendind at 30 degrees between each other on curves does not fit in with that. 

 

Nevertheless, my curves (Peco Streamline medium radius 30" turnouts) are insanely and unfeasibly sharp for even a South Wales colliery branch, and I use tension lock couplings because I cannot manage scale.  I live with these anomalies because I don't have the space to build the layout that I want in terms of the shunting movements I wish to represent and perform (the operational aspect that is the fundamental core of why I built the layout in the first place) to any sort of scale dimensions, and will not until my lottery money is avaialble.  I'm resonably happy with the imperfect layout I've created, but aware that RTR could be even better than it is if the requirement to negotiate setrack radii could be abandoned.  It'll never happen because sales for setrack layouts are higher than for 'our' attempts at reasonable looking 4mm in 00 using mostly RTR and some kits...

 

Johnster

 

I can accept your summing up and reasons for staying with the gauge

 

However your reasons for staying with the gauge because "I can't model to that standard" with modern advances perhaps this is now not quite true

 

RTR EM gauge track is readily available, RTR turnouts are now available, the range of drop in wheelsets is increasing every month. The average modeller in 4mm scale in 00 gauge in building a layout will make items far harder to build than swap over a set of wheels

 

I do accept for most that the cost of moving gauge will be the barrier and or the time involved. But "its above my skill set" is diminishing quickly

 

The biggest issue is the ever improving models the industry is providing, the buyer wants to buy even more true to scale/detailed models, they will not put up with the wheels that are designed to run on BRMSB track standards

[The Johnster]

As for wheel diameters and RTR manufacturers getting them right, wheel diameters are a surprisingly moveable feast, and there is good reason sometimes to model them a tad under the scaled down prototype specifcation.  The prototype wheels were usually a tad under the prototype specifcation due to flange wear from shoe brakes, and to a lesser extent from railhead grip wear on vehicles with disc brakes.  The difference could easily be nearly 2 inches off a driving wheel diameter on a high mileage locos, and this was a known featured; Canton, for example, in the 50s, used high mileage Brits for 'down line' work to Swansea and further west because the smaller driving wheels gave better performance on the steeper banks that were more common in that direction, and better accelleration from the more frequent stops.

 

On top of that, on a 00 model, the flange is oversized, which means that if you model the wheel with the flange to the scale prototype size the wheel looks too small, and if you model the wheel without the flange to the correct size the flange is too big and will foul on the inside of splashers or at other places where clearances are limited.  The argument dynamic is and has been for many years between those who want better scale models and are able to build layouts that can accommodate them, to P4 or similar standards and incorporating full compensation (which in itself is desireable for better running), and those who need to get 00 layouts to function reliably despite the compromises with rigid chassis, coupling in the wrong places, and cosmetic buffers. 

 

00 locomotives with rigid frames get around 00 curves by the cheat of using excessive sideplay in the axles, taking advantage of the extra room provided by the underscale track gauge, which means that the wheel faces, and consequently the outer faces of the couping rods and crankpin heads, can be modelled as being a greater distance towards the longitudinal centre line of the loco (by nearly 2mm per side) from the rear face of the crosshead. 

 

But you then have to design the motion with sufficient slop and play to cope with the sideplay at the driven axles, and that means that at the turnouts the outer driving wheels are running through the flangeways at an angle to the channel that they must run in; in fact on an 8-coupled chassis not even the central driven wheels are at the correct angle.  If the wheels are of a large diameter and the fixed wheebase is long, the leading and trailing flange rims are the most out of line, so the flangeway has to be designed to accept a P2 as easily as a W4 Peckett, because smooth running will be interfered with if the flange contacts the flangeway at all. 

 

This is of course one of the factors in limiting the radius that an RTR loco can negotiate, and when a different style of track is used, such as Peco code 75, and if the flangeways are tighter for the purpose of realistic appearance, there may be problems even though the turnouts are much larger radii than setrack.  P4 layouts are predicated on the adoption of and adherance to the same standards for the wheel/rail interface across the layout. 

 

Build it to dead scale and build the track to dead scale tolerances, get the b2b dead on, alllow the chassis to flex prototypically with full compensation, use scale flanges, and it is bound to work, properly and prototypically.  You'll have to write up a Sectional Appendix for the layout delineating prohibitions for certain locomotives (potato siding again) but this is in itself prototypical!   But it won't work in 00, because the compromises demand a different approach to allow sharper curvature so that layouts can be built in normal domestic spaces.  Very, very few of us have enough space to model even a modest country terminus to anything remotely approaching scale, never mind a through station, with scale curves and full length trains.  So we don't, not even the P4 chaps, we compromise, live with it, and get on with it.

 

If 00 is about anything it's about accepting compromises, and successful modelling in 00 is about minimising the amount of compromise that is acceptable.  It is anathematic to anyone who cannot accept that any set of standards is in fact a framework withing one can creatively work, not a rigid rule book to follow.  In a sense we have workable standards (not that they couldn't be improved on to everyone's benefit) in the world of RTR 00 without a standards body, that function being performed by the demands of a market that will not tolerate incompatibilty such as we had back in the 50s and 60s; everybody's stuff will run on everybody's track and will couple to everybody else's.  Not perfect, improvable especially in terms of couplings as we've discussed, Peco code 75 is miraculours in the amount of RTR stock it will accept.  Very good layouts can be produced using 00 RTR stock to 00 RTR standards; KNP's ovine series and Ladmanlow being examples.

[The Johnster]

30 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Johnster

 

I can accept your summing up and reasons for staying with the gauge

 

However your reasons for staying with the gauge because "I can't model to that standard" with modern advances perhaps this is now not quite true

 

RTR EM gauge track is readily available, RTR turnouts are now available, the range of drop in wheelsets is increasing every month. The average modeller in 4mm scale in 00 gauge in building a layout will make items far harder to build than swap over a set of wheels

 

I do accept for most that the cost of moving gauge will be the barrier and or the time involved. But "its above my skill set" is diminishing quickly

 

The biggest issue is the ever improving models the industry is providing, the buyer wants to buy even more true to scale/detailed models, they will not put up with the wheels that are designed to run on BRMSB track standards

Fair (and true) enough, but I would be concerned that simply replacing wheelsets on steam locos with outside cylinders and motion; a lot of the space betwixt the outer face of the leading crankpin and the inner face of the crosshead,  which must be maintained as a clearance across the range of axle sideplay, is lost in the gauge widening.  If I were starting a layout now I would certainly consider EM and restricing myself to inside cylinder locos, feasible with my chosen prototype, but the cost is prohibitive with an existing layout; track, a large number of wheelsets, possible Comet chassis rebuilds.

 

What I am considering for appearances' sake is relaying in bullhead chaired Code 75 00.  I am on a very tight budgie, but could manage a turnout a time and building a sufficient stock of plain track to do it in one hit, over a weekend perhaps, so that I was not layoutless for too long!

 

OTOH it ain't broke and I'm reluctant to fix it...

Edited April 21, 2022 by The Johnster

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 In a sense we have workable standards (not that they couldn't be improved on to everyone's benefit) in the world of RTR 00 without a standards body, that function being performed by the demands of a market that will not tolerate incompatibilty such as we had back in the 50s and 60s; everybody's stuff will run on everybody's track and will couple to everybody else's.  Not perfect, improvable especially in terms of couplings as we've discussed, Peco code 75 is miraculours in the amount of RTR stock it will accept.  Very good layouts can be produced using 00 RTR stock to 00 RTR standards; KNP's ovine series and Ladmanlow being examples.

For me the real revelation of what RTR to common standards should be was building a small N. American themed layout back in the 1970s. Even with stock from different manufacturers, ranging from almost scratchbuilt craftsman to shake the box  kits, everything just worked. Even with my rather indifferent track laying I had smoother running through turnouts than I'd ever experienced before. Turnouts were RTL Shinohara plus a couple I built from scratch myself using NMRA gauges (track spiking was not though my favourite activity) and what I couldn't get over was seeing cuts of cars going through pointwork smoothly with no lurching, striking check rails or dropping into the crossing gaps. The reason of course was that everything followed the same NMRA standards which I guess then meant RP25/110  wheelsets (but referred to then simply as RP25)  Though not finescale, the flanges and wheel profiles were finer than anything I'd seen in 00 and far closer to what I'd seen on the prototype even though most of the stock could have been used with a trainset. I think I had just one BtoB gauge, a couple of track gauges and a home made tie spacing template and that was enough.

 

When my interests changed to French H0 it was back to incompatible wheel sets with pizza cutter flanges and pointwork that had to be manufactured with enough slop to handle manufacturers' rather varying ideas about both BtoB and wheel profiles. MOROP standards (NEMs) seemed to be honoured more in the breach than the observance, something I'd almost never encountered from US manufacturers apart from the occasional draft box set at the wrong height, and NEM coupler boxes were still only fitted by a few manufacturers. It's better now but far too many wheelsets still lurch as they pass over crossings and it's not only suppliers to the British market that  don't understand how to mount coupler pockets that don't droop at a standard height or presumably understand why that's important (not everyone uses the horrible NEM hinged loop coupler whose only virtue,  I long ago concluded, was to make TLs look good in comparison)  Since I use Kadee couplers that's actually a major bugbear.  

Edited April 22, 2022 by Pacific231G

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

What I am considering for appearances' sake is relaying in bullhead chaired Code 75 00.  I am on a very tight budgie, but could manage a turnout a time and building a sufficient stock of plain track to do it in one hit, over a weekend perhaps, so that I was not layoutless for too long!

 

OTOH it ain't broke and I'm reluctant to fix it...

 

Johnster

 

If you are going down this route and I do accept costs can quickly add up, is to look at what you really want from a better looking trackwork.

 

The first thing is do you require physically better looking track, or better looking performance from your stock. Or a combination of the two

 

Is it the geometry of the turnouts, un-prototypical bent timber at the heal of the turnout, and of equalised timbering rather than square on with the straight road that is the objective

 

Are you looking for finer flangeways through the crossings ?

 

Or perhaps is it the better performance of the stock through the crossings? Or a combination of all these things

 

I do accept using RTR items is far easier and quicker and requires less skills, but there is a half way house. Wayne makes extremely easy to build turnouts in his British Finescale range, strangely enough mirrors Peco's entry into 00 gauge track back in the 50's/60's. If you can build an Airfix kit then you can build one of these (very) easy self assembly turnouts.

 

On these pages it has been confirmed they are so easy to build .On the looks front in my opinion they are first class and there are two ranges in 00 gauge to chose from, financially they are 2/3rds the cost of RTR. A bonus is they are easier to curve to your chosen radii than modifying a RTR item, if your needs require.

 

I understand that this may be a step further on, but if you are looking for appearances this may be a better and cheaper alternative. 

 

They also give you the alternative to stick with the BRMSB standards, or something which works better with both kit wheels and the finer RTR wheels now available  

[Ravenser]

12 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Johnster

 

If you are going down this route and I do accept costs can quickly add up, is to look at what you really want from a better looking trackwork.

 

The first thing is do you require physically better looking track, or better looking performance from your stock. Or a combination of the two

 

Is it the geometry of the turnouts, un-prototypical bent timber at the heal of the turnout, and of equalised timbering rather than square on with the straight road that is the objective

 

Are you looking for finer flangeways through the crossings ?

 

Or perhaps is it the better performance of the stock through the crossings? Or a combination of all these things

 

I do accept using RTR items is far easier and quicker and requires less skills, but there is a half way house. Wayne makes extremely easy to build turnouts in his British Finescale range, strangely enough mirrors Peco's entry into 00 gauge track back in the 50's/60's. If you can build an Airfix kit then you can build one of these (very) easy self assembly turnouts.

 

On these pages it has been confirmed they are so easy to build .On the looks front in my opinion they are first class and there are two ranges in 00 gauge to chose from, financially they are 2/3rds the cost of RTR. A bonus is they are easier to curve to your chosen radii than modifying a RTR item, if your needs require.

 

I understand that this may be a step further on, but if you are looking for appearances this may be a better and cheaper alternative. 

 

They also give you the alternative to stick with the BRMSB standards, or something which works better with both kit wheels and the finer RTR wheels now available  

 

 

I think you've missed the point that space constraints impose serious curvature on the Johnster... EM won't work at those kind of radii

 

As it happens BRMSB OO track works perfectly with modern RTR wheels to RP25/110 . It is a fully compatible match.

 

Go tighter and it isn't a full match with modern RTR wheels, and it doesn'#t work better 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Ravenser

[Pacific231G]

57 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I think you've missed the point that space constraints impose serious curvature on the Johnster... EM won't work at those kind of radii

 

As it happens BRMSB OO track works perfectly with modern RTR wheels to RP25/110 . It is a fully compatible match.

 

Go tighter and it isn't a full match with modern RTR wheels, and it doesn'#t work better 

 

I'm confused Ravenser. Hayfield was pointing to a OO (16.5mm gauge) range from Wayne (which I'd like to know more about) .

One thing I've just noticed  looking again at the 1950 BRMSB standards is that there were actually two standards for 16.5mm gauge and those for H0 were finer than those for OO with a 1mm rather than a 1.25mm check rail clearance, an 0.75 mm rather than 1.00 mm flange depth, a 1,5 rather than 2mm tyre width (the flage width was the same) and a 15mm rather than 14.5mm back to back.  Apart from gauge, the clearances and wheel profiles for EM were the same as OO and those for EMF were the same as HO.  Rail sections of effectively Code 90 for FB and code 100 for bullhead were the same for all four.

 

It's clear that the BRMSB regarded "standard OO"  as an inherently coarse scale so, unlike EM, or O gauge there was no reason for a fine standard (BRMSB's "scale OO" meant 18mm gauge in 1944)  but H0 was obviously regarded as fine scale. So, what I'm wondering is how widely the finer H0 standards were used and were they much used for 4mm scale  (not sleeper sizes and spacing obviously)? 

As we know, history moved in such a way that H0 became largely the rest of the world's scale with NMRA and MOROP's NEM standards (though the latter didn't emerge until later) and EM standards were taken on by the EMGS (based on the EMF standards?) but presumably these finer 16.5mm gauge standards were perfectly usable. Oddly, for EMF the 0.75mm flange depth was specified as being sprung but that wasn't the case for the same flange depth in H0.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm confused Ravenser. Hayfield was pointing to a OO (16.5mm gauge) range from Wayne (which I'd like to know more about) .

One thing I've just noticed  looking again at the 1950 BRMSB standards is that there were actually two standards for 16.5mm gauge and those for H0 were finer than those for OO with a 1mm rather than a 1.25mm check rail clearance, an 0.75 mm rather than 1.00 mm flange depth, a 1,5 rather than 2mm tyre width (the flage width was the same) and a 15mm rather than 14.5mm back to back.  Apart from gauge, the clearances and wheel profiles for EM were the same as OO and those for EMF were the same as HO.  Rail sections of effectively Code 90 for FB and code 100 for bullhead were the same for all four.

 

It's clear that the BRMSB regarded "standard OO"  as an inherently coarse scale so, unlike EM, or O gauge there was no reason for a fine standard (BRMSB's "scale OO" meant 18mm gauge in 1944)  but H0 was obviously regarded as fine scale. So, what I'm wondering is how widely the finer H0 standards were used and were they much used for 4mm scale  (not sleeper sizes and spacing obviously)? 

As we know, history moved in such a way that H0 became largely the rest of the world's scale with NMRA and MOROP's NEM standards (though the latter didn't emerge until later) and EM standards were taken on by the EMGS (based on the EMF standards?) but presumably these finer 16.5mm gauge standards were perfectly usable. Oddly, for EMF the 0.75mm flange depth was specified as being sprung but that wasn't the case for the same flange depth in H0.

 

 

I  think the HO standards rapidly became a dead letter. The finescale HO modeller in the BRMSB (Michael Longridge ) had gone over to EM by 1946-7. He was responsible for a book "Modelling 4mm Rolling Stock" published in 1948 - he must have gone to 4mm a few years before that to produce the stock shown in his book

 

Galagars reports that the BRMSB EM standard didn't actually work properly, and had rapidly to be altered by modellers working in EM. I have a nasty suspicion the BRMSB HO standard may have had similar issues , though it may ultimately derive from EF Carter's 1936 efforts

 

[hayfield]

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I think you've missed the point that space constraints impose serious curvature on the Johnster... EM won't work at those kind of radii

 

As it happens BRMSB OO track works perfectly with modern RTR wheels to RP25/110 . It is a fully compatible match.

 

Go tighter and it isn't a full match with modern RTR wheels, and it doesn'#t work better 

 

 

I don't think so, please when quoting me do so in the context I was replying to

 

On 21/04/2022 at 18:52, The Johnster said:

 

What I am considering for appearances' sake is relaying in bullhead chaired Code 75 00.  

 

 

I think what was in my reply was correct and why bring in very tight radii to the reply is wrong when the OP was quoting specific action with nothing in common with tight radii. my comment was promoting one of the two 00 gauge variants offered by British Finescale, which I believe was in line with his statement. Also the OP was alluring to track with better appearance

 

Again you twisted what I wrote, EM gauge will work on turnout sizes similar to Peco's bullhead track, the OP quoted it might have been an option for him!!

 

The problem I am hearing with modern RTR locos (unless I am mistaken) is their wheels are outside RP25/110. Certainly many of the most popular wagon kits which come with wheels, which use wheels designed for EM gauge compatibility. Modellers should be more aware of the relationship between wheel and track standards to maintain faultless performance. 

[hayfield]

8 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Galagars reports that the BRMSB EM standard didn't actually work properly, and had rapidly to be altered by modellers working in EM. I have a nasty suspicion the BRMSB HO standard may have had similar issues , though it may ultimately derive from EF Carter's 1936 efforts

 

 

 

Quite ironic, I wonder what Galagars would wright about modern 00 gauge if a new report was instigated into 00 gauge standards, as used by the current group of manufacturing businesses ? Perhaps 00 gauge could learn some lessons on how EM gauge evolved, or perhaps it has !!

 

Certainly the quality of the latest crop of models can only be applauded, as we have many outstanding scale models on offer RTR, sadly track/(wheel standards) as always is the Cinderella of the hobby

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I  think the HO standards rapidly became a dead letter. The finescale HO modeller in the BRMSB (Michael Longridge ) had gone over to EM by 1946-7. He was responsible for a book "Modelling 4mm Rolling Stock" published in 1948 - he must have gone to 4mm a few years before that to produce the stock shown in his book

 

Galagars reports that the BRMSB EM standard didn't actually work properly, and had rapidly to be altered by modellers working in EM. I have a nasty suspicion the BRMSB HO standard may have had similar issues , though it may ultimately derive from EF Carter's 1936 efforts

 

The BRMSB H0 standards were certainly finer than the contemporary NMRA standard and also the MONO standards later established by West German clubs.

I found this table of the then existing standards in a series of articles in Loco Revue in 1972 introducing the new NEM standards. The table covered gauges from TT to 1 but I've extracted those for   16.5mm and 18mm gauge.

Unfortunately, it doesn't give the crossing and check rail clearances but I think he only included it to show what had gone before. He does say though that when MOROP started its work in the mid 1950s there were only two widely accepted standards, NMRA's from 1936 and BRMSB since 1941 "established by the industry" (The later developments of EM with the EMGS wouldn't have been relevant to him) He refers to other national standards including the French AFAC standards from 1948 revised in 1954 for 0 & H0 but doesn't give their actual dimensions. He does also say that, at the start of the 1950s, model railways in continental Europe had not yet completely separated from the "chrysalis" of toys. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I  think the HO standards rapidly became a dead letter. The finescale HO modeller in the BRMSB (Michael Longridge ) had gone over to EM by 1946-7. He was responsible for a book "Modelling 4mm Rolling Stock" published in 1948 - he must have gone to 4mm a few years before that to produce the stock shown in his book

 

Galagars reports that the BRMSB EM standard didn't actually work properly, and had rapidly to be altered by modellers working in EM. I have a nasty suspicion the BRMSB HO standard may have had similar issues , though it may ultimately derive from EF Carter's 1936 efforts

 

I'd be curious to know what standards modellers in H0 like Jack Nelson worked to. There were a number of British H0 layouts after the war though they may have gradually fallen away as EM became better established (British H0 does still exist of course)   Anyone using H0 as a more fine scale option than 00 (rather than just to get the gauge right) probably wouldn't have used the then NMRA standards for it as they were no finer than BRMSB's standard 00 standards.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

I don't think so, please when quoting me do so in the context I was replying to

 

 

I think what was in my reply was correct and why bring in very tight radii to the reply is wrong when the OP was quoting specific action with nothing in common with tight radii. my comment was promoting one of the two 00 gauge variants offered by British Finescale, which I believe was in line with his statement. Also the OP was alluring to track with better appearance

 

Again you twisted what I wrote, EM gauge will work on turnout sizes similar to Peco's bullhead track, the OP quoted it might have been an option for him!!

 

The problem I am hearing with modern RTR locos (unless I am mistaken) is their wheels are outside RP25/110. Certainly many of the most popular wagon kits which come with wheels, which use wheels designed for EM gauge compatibility. Modellers should be more aware of the relationship between wheel and track standards to maintain faultless performance. 

 

The Johnster noted that he couldn't achieve better than 2'6 minium radius. I'm not clear whether he has used any Peco small radius points in siding etc - those are tighter still. He has not used the bullhead points - I believe he's used traditional Streamline

 

The traditional "minimum radius" in EM is 3' radius

 

The "Substitution radius"* for the curved load of a large Peco point is, I understand,  5' radius . Clearly that poses no problem in EM - or in the two OO standards which amount to EM with X.Y mm chopped out of the gauge/back to back to reduce the whole thing to OO

 

*(For the general reader - the curved diverging road of a point is not actually a simple curve. The substitute radius is the radius of a simple curve that would start and finish at exactly the same locations as the diverging road of the point)

 

Equally , those two "EM minus"  standards for OO will require minimum radii just as large as those in EM gauge. That's obvious - they are just EM gauge with a bit chopped out of the middle

 

Since a lot of folk - like the Johnster - are in OO because in EM gauge their layout simply would not fit in the space they have got, given the minimum radius demanded by EM - those "EM Minus" standards are not suitable for them. That in practice means they aren't workable for a majority of OO modellers.

 

Nowhere in his posts did the Johnster say he wanted a British Finescale track standard. He was explaining why he has built his layout using Peco track . It is you who have decided that he ought to build his track by hand , to a standard derived from EM gauge...

 

There is a well supported , widely used , and entirely coherent OO track standard designed specifically to match RP25/110 wheels on modern RTR . It is completely and fully compatible with them.  It is here : OO Intermediate track standard

 

(And as previously noted, track built to the old BRMSB OO track standard falls within the envelope of the OO Intermediate standard . It is therefore compliant) 

 

You are ignoring the existance of a OO standard specifically designed to match RP25/110 wheels properly, and implying that the only available standards for OO track are those derive from the EM standards. That is not an accurate statement of the position. We've been here before, and I can't help quoting AA Milne:

 

As I was going down the stair

I met a man who wasn't there.

I saw him there again today.

I wish, I wish he'd go away.

 

What you are promoting is something rather like Martin Goodall's notorious "EM P4" - take the track standard from a finescale gauge, run wheels to a coarser standard through it , and tell the world it's much better.

 

By doing that, you've stripped out working clearances from the EM standard , and the actual workable minimum radius is going to be even higher than for EM using EM wheels . PMP's tests suggest it doesn't push it as high as 5' radiuds, but it may well be somewhat higher than 3'

 

I am really quite nervous about the implications of the dimensions  of the medium radius concrete sleeper point that Iain reported in the DOGA Journal . I can see some things starting to bind or jam

 

Buried under all this is a continued attempt (from outside the gauge) to divide OO modellers into an Acceptable Minority and an Unacceptable Majority (acceptable that is, to 4mm finescale modellers);  and to  then split off the Acceptable Minority and absorb them within the Finescale Movement, whilst dumping the Unacceptable Majority as in some sense not really part of the hobby. It is no longer 1970, that is not the world we live in.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Quite ironic, I wonder what Galagars would wright about modern 00 gauge if a new report was instigated into 00 gauge standards, as used by the current group of manufacturing businesses ? Perhaps 00 gauge could learn some lessons on how EM gauge evolved, or perhaps it has !!

 

Certainly the quality of the latest crop of models can only be applauded, as we have many outstanding scale models on offer RTR, sadly track/(wheel standards) as always is the Cinderella of the hobby

 

Galagars was reporting that the original EM standards were flawed to the point that locos started binding on plain curves.  That is certainly not happening (yet!) in OO

 

Peter Denny accidentally solved the problems by mistake. He built track with his home-made gauges using what he thought was 18mm square wooden batten. Years later he found it was actually 18.2mm square.

 

For curves , he made a batten with a series of deep slots cut in it, that allowed it to be bent to the necessary radius. This - although he didn't realise it - automatically gave a degree of gauge widening on curves , a necessary refinement that the BRMSB forgot

 

As a result , Buckingham GC worked very nicely

 

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

The BRMSB H0 standards were certainly finer than the contemporary NMRA standard and also the MONO standards later established by West German clubs.

I found this table of the then existing standards in a series of articles in Loco Revue in 1972 introducing the new NEM standards. The table covered gauges from TT to 1 but I've extracted those for   16.5mm and 18mm gauge.

Unfortunately, it doesn't give the crossing and check rail clearances but I think he only included it to show what had gone before. He does say though that when MOROP started its work in the mid 1950s there were only two widely accepted standards, NMRA's from 1936 and BRMSB since 1941 "established by the industry" (The later developments of EM with the EMGS wouldn't have been relevant to him) He refers to other national standards including the French AFAC standards from 1948 revised in 1954 for 0 & H0 but doesn't give their actual dimensions. He does also say that, at the start of the 1950s, model railways in continental Europe had not yet completely separated from the "chrysalis" of toys. 

 

 

I'm afraid those figures don't seem to be correct for BRMSB 

 

Notice that the OO and EM figures are identical all the way down

 

I suggest  Loco Revue has misread a BRMSB table showing two columns "Scale OO" = 18mm , EM  and "Standard OO" = 16.5mm OO

 

They've extracted their OO figures from the "Scale OO" column - in other words they are EM ...

 

I would be surprised if Loco Revue had access to the June 1943 Model Railway Constructor , p93 for obvious reasons.... But that is how the 3 columns were headed when the standards were first published: "Scale HO", "Scale OO" , "Standard OO"

 

I'll swear they have used an identically headed table and misread it.

 

Further evidence of the source is the lack of a flangeway figure . No flangeway figures were quoted for "Standard OO" on publication in 1943

 

The EM /HO figures were 1.0mm on straight/1.25mm on curve

 

In 1943 the rail height/width  for EM/HO was 2.0mm/ 0.75mm ; for OO 2.5mm / 1.0mm

 

in 1943 EM/HO wheels were 1.5mm tread / 0.5mm flange thickness (total 2.0mm); OO wheels were given as 2.0mm tread/0.5mm flange  thickness (total 2.5mm)

 

 

Today's RP25/110 is 1.99mm tread / 0.75mm flange thickness  , total 2.75mm . Flange depth is now 0.64mm

 

My dial calipers give a stray set of Romfords as 2.44mm thick on one side and 2.56mm thick on the other side

Manufcturing issues are evidently not confined to RTR! Another wheelset suggests 2.56mm is the correct figure.

 

And a Hornby carriage wheel , 2.44mm  thick. 

 

Bachmann spoked wagon wheels 2.80mm thick

 

Measuring flange thickness with the equipment I have is not an exact science - dial calipers, curved profile and small values = uncertainty.

 

But the Romford flange appears to be about 0.5mm to 0.6mm

 

The Hornby flange 0.46mm thick , and quite possibly as deep as 1mm. That's by eye, but certainly deeper than Romfords.

 

Bachmann flanges seems to be 0.75mm thick , and a little deeper than Romfords - not nearly as deep as Hornby

 

(And if you want a laugh - a pair of old Hornby wheels off a Margate era Ringfield loco , 4.4mm thick on 13.9mm B2B)

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

Now the practical implications of those seemingly eyeglazing numbers....

 

A. The total width of an RP25/110 wheelset, at correct 14.4mm Back to Back:

 

2 x 2.75mm + 14.4mm   =  19.9mm total span from wheelface to wheelface

 

B. The total width of a  Romford wheelset, at correct 14.5mm Back to Back:

 

2 x 2.55mm + 14.5mm   =  19.6mm total span from wheelface to wheelface

 

C. The total width of a Hornby wheelset, at correct 14.4mm Back to Back:

 

2 x 2.45mm + 14.4mm   =  19.3mm total span from wheelface to wheelface

 

D. The total width of a Hornby wagon/coach wheelset,  as supplied in packets at  14.1mm Back to Back:

 

2 x 2.45mm + 14.1mm   =  19.0mm total span from wheelface to wheelface

 

The net result is that straight out of the packet Hornby roliing stock wheelsets are nearly a millimeter narrower than Bachmann overall. The broader the spread , the less slop between wheel and track - and also the more of the tread will be on the rail.  (*Of course a bit of slop is useful on sharp curves)

 

All these wheels have 2.0mm treads . But some wheelsets will have a lot less of that tread sitting on the rails

 

Anyone with Hornby rolling stock wheels would be well advised to get a 14.5mm BRMSB back to back gauge , and adjust the back to backs to widen the wheelsets (Even a 14.4mm DOGA/NMRA gauge will help a lot)

 

 

and just for interest - 

 

E. The total width of an EM profile wheelset,  as supplied by Gibson/Ultrascale set at  the traditional 14.5mm BMRSB Back to Back:

 

2 x 2.285mm + 14.5mm   =  18.77m total span from wheelface to wheelface

 

That is the scenario that arose when kitbuilders started fitting Gibson wheels to steam locos , using the hallowed 14.5mm BRMSB back to back.

 

Great for clearances around the valve gear . 

 

But the wheelset is now a whopping 1.23mm narrower than RP25/110 to standard

 

Suddenly you can see why the OO-SF people peddled the idea of chopping a bit out of the track gauge to compensate. Even increasing the B2B up to 14.8mm leaves you with an issue

Edited April 23, 2022 by Ravenser

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

lot of folk - like the Johnster - are in OO because in EM gauge their layout simply would not fit in the space they have got, given the minimum radius demanded by EM - those "EM Minus" standards are not suitable for them. That in practice means they aren't workable for a majority of OO modellers

Spot on, sir!
 

My minimum radius is 30”, in the form of Peco streamline medium turnouts.  All my track is traditional Streamline, code 100 to what I regard as the current commercial RTR standard.  Running is pretty good but I’ve had to pay close attention to the coupling bars to achieve reliable propelling.  Incidentally I use insulfrogs for all bar one of my turnouts in the interests of wiring simplicity (simplicity = reliability IMHO), and have no issues with stalling in slow running, even with a Hornby W4. 
 

I’ve been surprised a little by what will run through Peco Streamline turnouts once b2bs are established to the layout’s standard 14.1mm.  No problems with ‘current’ (defined as anything with NEM pockets) RTR, or kits so long as they are square and all 4 wheels touch the ground simultaneously (I use Lego as formers when I build them) but my eyebrows raise when a show stall bought Triang ‘shorty’ clerestory dating from the 1960s and nowhere near BRSMB sailed through!  
 

My layout works, a vital necessity for my core purpose, the operation of trains to the 1955 Rule Book and the Cardiff Valleys Sectional Appendix with plausible prohibitions to a reasonably plausible WTT, at realistic speeds.  I am the fat side of 70 years old and while my health is not bad it is not perfect; this is intended to be my last layout before my descent into senility, decrepitude, and the final, merciful release of death; I am happy to take on loco building projects but feel the time for anything needing more commitment than that is probably gone.  I try to discipline myself with projects; one at a time and don’t start the next one until this one’s finished. 
 

I don’t think of this as bleak or morbid, I think it’s a rational assessment of my situation, but it sort of ‘informs’ my attitude.  Current RTR is pretty good, way better than I can manage from kits or scratch.  It is time to enjoy operating my trains and chilling out, and while I am not trying to say that RTR 00 is perfect and can’t be improved, and it probably will be in time, it’s nothing I can’t live with comfortably enough…
 

 

[hayfield]

I am not going to thake the thread off topic

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by hayfield

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

You are ignoring the existance of a OO standard specifically designed to match RP25/110 wheels properly, and implying that the only available standards for OO track are those derive from the EM standards.

 

 

Please show me where I have said this

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

The traditional "minimum radius" in EM is 3' radius

 

 

However that will put a severe restriction on what stock you can run.

Anything with more than a 10' rigid wheelbase will give problems.

Overscale couplings will be needed and probably sprung buffers.

Not to mention the need for the accurate building of stock with far less slop than in standard 00.

Been there and went back to 00. Partly because I can run my UK 00 stock and my German H0 stock on the same track.

A large scale EM layout requires a lot of extra work or a limited choice of stock unless you have a very large available space. Unless you are willing to accept compromises. If you are then I fail to see the point. Of course the small BLT that was favoured in the 1950s is a very different matter. That is as far as I got before deciding that 00 was a better option for me. Funnily enough my older German stock with Gibson leading and trailing wheels replacing the deep flanged originals runs very well on Peco code 75 track.

Bernard  

[PMP]

On 21/04/2022 at 11:56, Pete the Elaner said:

 

FYI, Ravenser was invited to contribute on this thread by an admin because of his knowledge of track & wheel dimensions, so it is unfair to accuse him of just throwing theory.

 

 I don’t  doubt his knowledge of various dimensions. I specifically asked him to provide practical examples of issues with the bullhead points in question. We know of at least three types that have had issues one regular, and two intermittent, and those have only been reported by a few people. If there were significant problems with many products(as Ravenser has claimed), after three years useage we’d have heard about them by now. I’ve at least  run in excess of 70 types through these points, with varying b2b’s, how many have you tested with the review sample you bought as a comparison, and how many caused problems?

 

Ravenser has stated that the wheelbase of those in that original list was too short to cause problems, therefore it wasn’t representative. That 74 was a snapshot, I’ve run more types both prior and subsequently. Here’s an example of one of those not listed. Kit built rigid chassis, no side play, with rigid rods.

No issues with the locomotive. The tender b2b were adjusted after this video, and again exhibited no problems. Also through these points had been a WD 2-10-0 with no problems. So I’ve (and no doubt others) got significant experience of these points being satisfactory. So telling me I’m doing it wrong needs backing up with some real world evidence, not theory. Presumably he’s done at least the same level of basic testing I have? If not just how much has he or the association done?

He’s also commenting that the delay in other items on the product line are possibly due to clearances. That’s simply untrue. Why make up something like that? There’s images of production slips and crossing items here l,and the medium radius EP’s https://albionyard.com/2022/04/09/peco-bullhead-crossings-and-slips/

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Galagars was reporting that the original EM standards were flawed to the point that locos started binding on plain curves.  That is certainly not happening (yet!) in OO

 

Peter Denny accidentally solved the problems by mistake. He built track with his home-made gauges using what he thought was 18mm square wooden batten. Years later he found it was actually 18.2mm square.

 

For curves , he made a batten with a series of deep slots cut in it, that allowed it to be bent to the necessary radius. This - although he didn't realise it - automatically gave a degree of gauge widening on curves , a necessary refinement that the BRMSB forgot

 

As a result , Buckingham GC worked very nicely

 

 

Sorry but your Buckingham history is quite wrong.

 

Peter Denny started building his first loco in 1946. He started it in OO but then found out that Romford had introduced axles for EM and decided to give it a try. He built his first loco and tried it on 18mm track. He found that due to the very thick flanges on the wheels of the day, by the time you had a 16.5mm back to back plus two thick flanges, they were tight between the wheels at 18mm gauge on straight track, let alone on curves. So he deliberately opened up the gauge "a bit". He never measured it, just experimenting with slightly wider gauges until the loco would go round his tightest test curve. Later, having been asked about it, he measured his gauge at "about 18.25mm".

 

His gauge did give widening on curves but on the tightest curves, it overdid it a bit. The widest I have found on the layout is 19.5mm. Some of his more recent vehicles, built with more modern wheels, can fall in between the rails at some places but luckily (or was it planned?) the timetable doesn't send them there, so it isn't a problem unless the operators deviate from the timetable.

 

So it was no accident or mistake. Just a practical cure for a problem he encountered.

 

Incidentally, having run his 4-6-0 outside cylinder tender loco and 5 corridor carriages many hundreds of times without problems over the 2ft radius curves in the fiddle yard, I would also disagree with those who make the assertion that 3ft is a practical minimum. I don't think it would look good on a scenic section but it is very practical at that radius. I was astonished when a visitor brought a WD 2-10-0 he had built in EM and asked if he could try it on the layout. I was sure it would fall off everywhere but it didn't, even on the 2ft radius.

[Galagars]

Peter Denny did not introduce gauge widening by accident. His article: “Permanent Way on the Buckingham Branch Line”, which appeared in the Ocyober 1950 issue of the Model Railway Consytuctor includes the following: “I planed my own up from two pieces of stripwood 1ft. 6 in. x ¾ in. square, cutting slits in the “curved” section 1 in. apart so that it can be bent to any radius. … This type of gauge has the advantage of automatically increasing the gauge on curves from 18 mm. to 18.5 mm.” However, the increase was not quite as intended as Tony Gee stated that he found the gauge to vary by quite a bit more than 0.5 mm!

 

I am presently converting some Hornby coaches to EM, using the original wheels. Some were recently purchased new and others – low window Maunsells – are older. It occurred to me to check the back-to-back measurements before adjusting the wheelsets. I found the measurements were quite consistent at 14.25 – 14.3mm. This is less than the DOGA standard, but would seem to be satisfactory on Peco points with 1.39mm flangeways, although smoother running with less wheel drop at the frogs could be obtained with a slightly wider back-to-back. Why does The Johnster feel it is necessary to reduce the back-to-back to 14.1mm? Am I missing something? Or is it that my experience of EM simply does not transfer to OO gauge? A back-to-back of 14.1mm risks jamming on check rails to DOGA intermediate standards if the check gauge approaches the upper limit.

 

Galagars

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

My 2 cents worth;

Personally, I find the quotations of exact measurements to 2 decimal points a bit, well, pointless!

As @t-b-g will confirm, I play fast and loose with EM gauge standards, although I supposedly model in EM gauge, anything I have built/converted had the ultimate test of being able to traverse the big Thorne EM train set, and, having stock with a myriad of wheel combinations, nothing has defeated me yet, from all the rtr manufacturers to the extreme of a bogie tank wagon with Exactoscale P4 wheels, although initially set to the fixed measurement of a b-t-b gauge, many have been tweaked to ensure that they run satisfactorily, and do you know what, I haven't got a scooby what a lot of the measurements are, but stock runs without falling off, and not just at Thorne, everything has so far traversed Wibdenshaw successfully.

Now of course this sort of cavalier approach won't work with the tighter requirements of P4/S4, but working even in this scale to 2 decimal points is pretty difficult due to simple things like temperature expansion and contraction, so I don't think it's worth getting uptight about.

With relevance to the BRMSB discussion, what I think it proves, apart from getting me Shanghaied by the EMGS, is that unless you are working in the perfect world and everything you touch is equally perfect, there is no need to get uptight about a rigid set of dimensions created by an official committee/society or whatever, most of us are inveterate bodgers and just like to get on with enjoying the hobby and playing trains.

 

Mike.

Sat with petrol can at the ready, who's first in with the match?

[Ravenser]

9 minutes ago, Galagars said:

Peter Denny did not introduce gauge widening by accident. His article: “Permanent Way on the Buckingham Branch Line”, which appeared in the Ocyober 1950 issue of the Model Railway Consytuctor includes the following: “I planed my own up from two pieces of stripwood 1ft. 6 in. x ¾ in. square, cutting slits in the “curved” section 1 in. apart so that it can be bent to any radius. … This type of gauge has the advantage of automatically increasing the gauge on curves from 18 mm. to 18.5 mm.” However, the increase was not quite as intended as Tony Gee stated that he found the gauge to vary by quite a bit more than 0.5 mm!

 

I am presently converting some Hornby coaches to EM, using the original wheels. Some were recently purchased new and others – low window Maunsells – are older. It occurred to me to check the back-to-back measurements before adjusting the wheelsets. I found the measurements were quite consistent at 14.25 – 14.3mm. This is less than the DOGA standard, but would seem to be satisfactory on Peco points with 1.39mm flangeways, although smoother running with less wheel drop at the frogs could be obtained with a slightly wider back-to-back. Why does The Johnster feel it is necessary to reduce the back-to-back to 14.1mm? Am I missing something? Or is it that my experience of EM simply does not transfer to OO gauge? A back-to-back of 14.1mm risks jamming on check rails to DOGA intermediate standards if the check gauge approaches the upper limit.

 

Galagars

 

 

The Johnster is using Peco Streamline code 100. The normal Peco flangeway on Streamline has been 1.39mm as you note . That was done to get pre 2000 Hornby with it's back to back of 13.9mm through Streamline points.

 

Such pointwork is frankly too coarse for modern RTR wheels - at 14.4mm or 14.5mm back to back. The check rails become inoperative. For that reason DOGA have spent about 15 years lobbying Peco to tighten up their flangeways to   the outer edge of OO intermediate , as well as supplying points with 4mm sleepering. The argument has been that after nearly 2 decades when all RTR production has been based on 14..3-14.5mm B2B , compromising new Peco points to match vintage Hornby no longer makes sense.

 

Peco have now tightened up Streamline , on new tooling. Unfortunately they seem to have over-cooked it - PetetheElaner is reporting flangeways of 1.0mm-1.1 mm on the large radius bullhead and medium radius concrete sleeper points. I fear that the Hornby Maunsells you had , if run through the new Peco points as they came out of the factory , also risked jamming. Personally I wouldn';t have dared tighten beyond 1.25mm flangeways. I'm geniunely worried some current RTR may not go through the new Peco points - and that would be a disaster all round

 

(BTW thanks for quoting measurements. I've not had any Maunsells through my hands, and the first thing I do with any Hornby wheels, either out of the packet or on stock, is pull them out to fit over the B2B gauge, so I'm short of unmodified wheels to check. My recollection is that it was 14.1mm the last time I measured wheels from a packet  as they came. A Hornby wagon wheel with whitemetal discbrake inserts found in my box this afternoon was 14.1mm - I obviously haven't put that one over the gauge. It is clear that Hornby are working with different B2Bs on different items - Hornby locos still seem to be 14.45mm B2B)

 

The Johnster is not working to OO Intermediate - by tightening up the back to back the Johnster is adjusting his wheels to the coarser track of Peco Streamline.  I agree a 14.1mm B2B is chancing it a bit with anything to OO Intermediate . I get away with it, just, on a detailed Airfix 31 running on my SMP points. But if you go to the bottom limit of OO Intermediate (the lower limit for flangeways is 1.15mm ), you would certainly be in trouble at a 14.1mm B2B

 

To turn to T-B-G's comments about Buckingham - I stand corrected. In my defence, I was quoting from Peter Denny's Wild Swan book:

 

Quote

(Vol1 p10)

In the October 1950 Model Railway Constructor there was an article I had written on my method of track construction and what follows is the gist of that article.....

I began by saying how I made two track gauges which I planed up from two pieces of 3/4" hardwood to 18mm, at least what I thought was 18mm but which in fact was just over. In one of the pieces, slits were cut so that it could be bent for curved track, holes were drilled between each slit and 1" panel pins inserted so that the gauge could be fixed in place with a few taps of a hammer. This type of gauge had the advantage of automatically increasing the gauge very slightly on the curves and it was also very useful for building up transition curves

49 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

He found that due to the very thick flanges on the wheels of the day, by the time you had a 16.5mm back to back plus two thick flanges, they were tight between the wheels at 18mm gauge on straight track, let alone on curves. So he deliberately opened up the gauge "a bit".

 

 

Tony;s comments are highly relevant in the present discussion.

 

By forcing thick RP25/110 flanges through narrow EM -style flangeways as some are advocating you reduce the clearances below those specified for EM, and you are likely to hit the same problem at Peter Denny encountered- binding. The basic engineering principles of the wheel/track interface haven't changed since 1946....