Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[Ravenser]

31 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

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?

 

 

Agree, strongly.

 

Any standard that ignores the variations found in the real world and expects back to backs to be an absolutely controlled 14.4mm or 14.5mm is leaving in a fantasyland, and will come rapidly unstuck when it comes in contact with reality.

 

There had better be tolerances to cope with real-world variatons

 

The claim that people working with had tools can routinely achieve  an accuracy of 0.01mm is another claim of P4 that I'm unable to accept.

 

Not least because I've found an SMP point that was a full 1.0mm tight to gauge in one spot - built by an experienced builder who was doubtless much better at it than I will ever be. Not to mention a Peco code 75 Y point on the Boxfile which also seems to be tight to gauge and which also causes problems (can't replace it without causing irreperable damage to the Boxfile...)

 

And then folk expect me to believe you can consistantly solder to an accuracy of 0.01mm so long as you join the Scalefour Society???

 

Enmterprisingwestern's comments remind me of a remark by Cyril Freezer that the craftsmen in the London Docks could work to a fit of a couple of thou -  so long as you didn't ask them which thou....

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

 

No issues with the locomotive. The tender b2b were adjusted after this video,  [my emphasis added] 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/

 

 

I've highlighted the key bit.

 

You won't have any problems due to tight B2Bs if you rigourously adjust the B2Bs .....

 

But Joe Public won't be doing that.

 

If you regard it as beyond the capabilities of Joe Public to pull out a tensionlock from an NEM pocket and replace it with his own standardised one from a packet sold in a model shop (and you have said that),  then expecting Joe Public to check their B2Bs and rigourously correct any that are out is hopeless.

 

If Peco are relying on their customer base doing that, they're sunk.

 

As far as the medium radius points and slips are concerned , they are still not in the shops at the end of April 2022. Despite EPs being displayed at Warley 2019.

 

And I was paraphrasing James Petts' comments in the Peco Bullhead thread:

 

Quote

but the release of these has again been delayed, the latest information being that they are now expected in Q1 2020. The person on the stand to whom I spoke said that these had proved a "nightmare" to tool, but that they would be worth it when they arrived.

 

 

 

Now why would they prove a nightmare to tool?

 

If excessively tight flangeways were used on sharp curves - and Peco small and medium radius poin ts are extremely small radius by finescale standards - I can see why there might be problems producing  a product that worked reliably.

 

On the other hand the equivalent 5' radius represented by large radius points  is well within expected norms for EM and P4. Provided back to backs are at least 14.4mm you should be ok

 

The issue that has been reported with the large radius points is shorting, not jamming, and shorting specifically on DCC , which is much more vulnerable to momentary shorts. I repeat - if you tested things on Shelfie using DC  , you would not have experienced this

 

And the stock in question is Hornby rolling stock - which we've established fairly clearly is being produced with a B2B well under 14.4mm. The DOGA member reporting problems was reporting shorting, not jamming, caused by Hornby rolling stock, where "Hornby stock in almost every case were not meeting the OO standard of 14.5mm B2B .. in most cases being out by a significant 0.3mm"   That is, the B2B  on Hornby rolling stock as sold was consistantly about 14.2mm  [The DOGA/NMRA B2B is in fact 14.4mm , but the stock was still way out from that)

 

Matters then degenerated into varying conflicting statements from Hornby about what their B2B actually is - all claiming it was more than was actually measured.

 

It's all very well you saying that the B2Bs are wrong, not the points. I am not defending the B2B on Hornbty rolling stock - as I've already said, I adjust all those wheels on the gauge because I know they will be tight.

 

(Hornby locos still seem to be produced with 14.45mm B2B. If you just tested Hornby locos, then again you shouldn't have found a problem)

 

But in practice, as a commercial product Peco's new points had better work with all current commercial RTR as it comes out of the box. If they don't - that's a big problem for everyone, including Peco.

 

And as I've said several times, I accept OO-SF standards will work at a radius of 5' . I don't believe they will work at radii of 2' to 3' (Peco small/medium radius), not if people want to run Pacifics and 2-8-0s through them at speed.

 

The promised smaller radius bullhead pointwork from Peco  is still not in the shops . I believe it needs to use a flangeway of 1.25mm  not 1.0mm to 1.1mm, otherwise the problems wouldn't be confined to shorting . Let's see what flangeways we get when it finally appears

 

And , to be quite explicit , the problem areas in terms of current stock/B2Bs  are Hornby rolling stock and Heljan locos, though the HJ steam may possibly use 14.4mm B2B not 14.2mm.

 

I would also expect the most demanding locos to be 8-coupled steam. I'm politely sceptical whether OO-SF will work with those at 2'-3' radii 

 

A OO track standard that won't work with current production RTR at 2' to 3' radius isn't viable for a commercial track system. 

 

And 90% of modellers will never use handbuilt track

[t-b-g]

Just to add another set of standards into the fray, I am presently building a layout using what I believe to be the "Manchester" EM standards, adopted by their EM group "way back when". They were working at the very dawn of EM, round about the same time that Peter Denny started but the Manchester group were, in truth, much better engineers than Peter ever was. As far as I can tell, the track standards were never published, so I have worked out what I think they were from the wheel standards, which were confirmed in the model railway press of the day.

 

They used 18mm gauge (confirmed) rather than 18.2mm, with their own wheel standard, based on a scaled down worn prototype wheel profile. With a back to back of 16.5mm and a flangeway gap (my calculation) of 0.8mm, it works a treat and any modern wheels (old Romfords and some RTR wheels pulled out to EM are a "no go") pass through the points very smoothly.

 

I have ended up with a good number of carriages and wagons that belonged to the late Sid Stubbs, built to these standards. That is why I am building a small layout to run them on. Those people were highly skilled engineers and I have measured the wheel back to backs. They are all exactly 16.5mm, plus or minus nothing I can measure with my non digital vernier gauge. They made their own form tool and turned their own wheels so all the profiles and wheel thicknesses match exactly. Not everybody wants to model like that or has the skills to do such things but it is interesting to see what can be done with the right tools and skills.

 

I attach a photo of some pointwork done to this standard.

 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

19 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

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"

 

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

 

No. I wasn't seeing things.  Looking again at the 1950 BRMSB standard dimensions, the equivalent figures for 00 and EM wheels are the same apart from the increase in flange depth  and those for H0 and EMF are also the same  (wth a note for EMF that wheels with 0.75mm flanges need to be sprung but, rather oddly, not for H0) 

 

Comparing them with the earlier table in MRC it looks as if the 18mm gauge "scale OO" dimensions became EMF in the later published version and the EM dimensions were simply the "standard 00" ones regauged from 16.5mm to 18mm. It does seem  that Maskelyne in particular wanted 18mm to replace 16.5mm more generally than with finer scale modellers but, in any case, EM seems to have taken its own path rather independetly of the BRMSB's recommendations.  

 

You're quite right that the wartime MRC table doesn't include a flangeway dimension for "Standard 00", presumably they were still debating it, but I think the table in the FFMF/Loco Revue article was just showing an extract of wheel and rail standards to illustrate the three main existing standards that were around before the NEMs were written. 

Given that they started work on the NEMs no earlier than 1954 (the year when MOROP was established) I assume Rabary and his colleagues were using the 1950 published BRMSB standard dimensions and whatever published version of the NMRA standards was available at that time . J Rabary himself, who was an engineer with SNCF,  was the deputy chair of MOROP's  technical committee responsible for developing the NEMs and, from the content of the later articles, it is clear that he was completely familiar with both the NMRA and BRMSB standards. He does though seem to have gone back to first principles in establishing their own standards.  That did include deciding on 1:45 as the correct scale for 0 gauge rather than either 1:48 or 1:43.5 (though in the end most French 0 gauge modellers- and it remained the most popular scale there far longer than it did in Britain- stuck with the British 1:43.5 so both scales now appear in the relevant NEM.)

ADD

I've also been looking at the BRMSB standards quoted in Ernest Steel's 1955 revision of Greenly's Model Railways and that just has EM (no EMF), with a 16.5mm BtoB, 1mm check rail clearance, 2mm tyre width, 0.5mm flange width and 0.75 flange depth, as with other BRMSB standards there are no tolerances given but tyre width apart the figures seem to be based on the earlier EMF standard. Steel does acknowledge assistance from Maskelyne so I assume those were accurate and a  later version of the standards than the 1950 META publication. The 00 and H0 standards seem to be the same as in 1950.

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Pacific231G
addition of figures from 1955

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 hours ago, Ravenser said:

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....

 

Rightly or wrongly I assume I am one of those "some are advocating" PITA's.

Is that what you are doing though?, do you have practical experience of this problem?, if so please explain how you overcome it.

It's what I'm doing and I can assure you it works.

As I have just explained, I work to ish standards, and if a ham fisted bodger like me can get things to work it opens up the field to pretty much everybody else to do the same, ultimately specifications don't come in to the equation.

Yes, I would like to have Ultrascales on every locomotive and Gibsons on every bit of rolling stock, but as my numbers haven't come up yet and I'm a Yorkshireman I need to carry on with plan b, ie, working with what I've got, it may not be "correct", it may not be to "standards" but it works, and at the end of the day, isn't that the idea?

BRMSB wouldn't necessarily help me as much as it might help others, but is it worth the hassle?

A much better solution in my little world would be for all the manufacturers to at least talk to each other to agree some basic principles of OO rtr dimensions, but, is that likely to happen?

 

Mike.

[goldfish]

On 21/04/2022 at 18:20, Galagars said:

Mr Chubb’s contribution was contained in an article entitled “Scales and Gauges”, which appeared in the July 1936 issue of the Model Railway Constructor. This followed the formation of the British Model Railway Standards Bureau (not to be confused with the 1941 organisation) by the MRC in April, which proposed fine scale standards for 16.5mm and 19mm gauges.

 

My apologies for being behind the curve on this, but I have heard that there was a forerunner to the BRMSB founded by the Model Railway Constructor in the days when E.F. Carter was still the editor? Did it achieve anything? A little more information would interesting, if anybody has any.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

 

BRMSB wouldn't necessarily help me as much as it might help others, but is it worth the hassle?

A much better solution in my little world would be for all the manufacturers to at least talk to each other to agree some basic principles of OO rtr dimensions, but, is that likely to happen?

 

Mike.

Maybe, but perhaps the problem is that there is no clear guidance from modellers? If I was a new venture, thinking of manufacturing a new brand of 4mm track - reading this whole thread, would lead me to investing in something else!

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Maybe, but perhaps the problem is that there is no clear guidance from modellers? If I was a new venture, thinking of manufacturing a new brand of 4mm track - reading this whole thread, would lead me to investing in something else!

 

 

 

Clear guidance from modellers is like the tail wagging the dog, and besides, assuming you infer clear guidance to mean a set of dimensions, those of us in 4mm scale can't even model to one gauge let alone one set of standards!

 

Mike.

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

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  

 

I think what you are saying about EM gauge is a bit unfair, simply as even in 00 gauge and some modern stock will show similar issues when sharp radii is used. But I agree 00 (universal) is far more forgiving as its roots are founded in the table top era where most of us started with 6' x 4' table top tail chasers

 

But with EM gauge you are not restricted to large layouts, I am building a small cameo layout 4' x 1.5' (scenic) with turnouts under 1-5. Its designed for small tank locos, as of yet I have not tried long wheelbase vans, but I don't expect any trouble.

 

My take on this thread is not who well 00 works, but have the standards kept up with what is being provided by the RTR retail trade offerings ? This is not a criticism of the gauge or standards, simply compatibility with modern RTR models

 

 

[kevinlms]

1 minute ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Clear guidance from modellers is like the tail wagging the dog, and besides, assuming you infer clear guidance to mean a set of dimensions, those of us in 4mm scale can't even model to one gauge let alone one set of standards!

 

Mike.

But you don't have to worry about EM or P4, both gauges have societies providing for their members needs. I can't see either of those organisations changing their ways. Their total market share, isn't going to make a huge impact on OO.

AFAIK, 7mm also has the same problem with different standards, or is it a bigger still range of standards?

 

Face it, not everyone wants to model to the same set of standards, probably because too much invested.

[Enterprisingwestern]

6 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

But you don't have to worry about EM or P4, both gauges have societies providing for their members needs. I can't see either of those organisations changing their ways. Their total market share, isn't going to make a huge impact on OO.

AFAIK, 7mm also has the same problem with different standards, or is it a bigger still range of standards?

 

Face it, not everyone wants to model to the same set of standards, probably because too much invested.

 

Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly OO gauge?

 

Mike.

[Enterprisingwestern]

9 minutes ago, hayfield said:

But with EM gauge you are not restricted to large layouts, I am building a small cameo layout 4' x 1.5' (scenic) with turnouts under 1-5. Its designed for small tank locos, as of yet I have not tried long wheelbase vans, but I don't expect any trouble.

 

My Span Yard mini layout has 2' radius pointwork and curves, and some Co-Co type locomotives run through it, though admittedly not all, but the over riding issue is buffer lock and 3 link couplings, hence it is operated selectively with 0-4-0 diesels and 9'/10' wheelbase wagons.

 

Mike.

[kevinlms]

5 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly OO gauge?

 

Mike.

I haven't looked for a long time, but that exactly describes the problem, people like to tinker, thinking they've solved the ultimate question. The answer is of course, 42!

[hayfield]

3 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

My Span Yard mini layout has 2' radius pointwork and curves, and some Co-Co type locomotives run through it, though admittedly not all, but the over riding issue is buffer lock and 3 link couplings, hence it is operated selectively with 0-4-0 diesels and 9'/10' wheelbase wagons.

 

Mike.

 

Mike

 

I remember the days when 2' radii points were commonly used and 3' radii were exotic. If you look at how the likes of Hornby Dublo/Triang/Peco achieved reliable running were compromises in both track and stock. But we were happy with both the stock and how it ran

[hayfield]

14 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly OO gauge?

 

Mike.

 

 

Mike

 

There lies the issue, 7 listed but I bet there are more. Some are older standards which have been updated, but in the end its modellers who want something better who decide. Nothing wrong in this as shown by the DOGA having 2 standards which caters for both the main stream using RTR and those looking for something they think is better. Perfectly acceptable to allow those who wish for something they think is better. Its how the hobby develops

 

 

[t-b-g]

The EMGS conducted a review of their standards a while ago. Some members, using more modern wheels with thinner flanges, have been using the back to back advocated by Mike Sharman for his wheels. From memory, this was 16.7mm but it may have been 16.8mm. This allowed narrower flangeway gaps of 0.8mm, while still retaining the gauge at 18.2mm. The results would have looked very similar to the Manchester EM illustrated above.

 

After some discussion and consultation it was decided to keep the existing 1mm flangeway and 16.5mm back to backs simply because they do allow for older wheels and for many RTR wheels to be pulled apart on the axles and not replaced.

 

It doesn't stop anybody tweaking their own models to whatever standards they want, as long as you understand that your track may not be compatible with locos and stock built to the official standards.

 

I have been working on a big OO layout which needed some points building and I used 16.5mm gauge, 1.2mm flangeway gaps and a back to back of 14.5mm and I have found that it works fine with all modern RTR, plus kit built items with Markits wheels. Some quite recent RTR wheels don't go through a 1mm flangeway no matter what back to back you use. The flanges are 1mm thick and with no clearance, they bind if the vehicle is going round a curve.

 

In theory, it would be great if all the RTR people agreed to some track and wheel standards that they all stuck to. My recent experience, using many Peco points and some home made ones, is that there are inconsistencies in the back to backs of RTR products, even a single model having different settings. This seems to be a manufacturing problem rather than a standards issue.

 

When you buy a model and several axles are at 14.4 back to back but one is at 14.1mm, no standards board will resolve that. Once the 14.1mm axle is adjusted to match the others, all of a sudden the problems vanish.

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

When you buy a model and several axles are at 14.4 back to back but one is at 14.1mm, no standards board will resolve that. Once the 14.1mm axle is adjusted to match the others, all of a sudden the problems vanish.

That's a quality control issue. Those that commission these models, should withhold payment for faulty models. Although I suspect that the Chinese factories would tie this up forever.

But the corroding chassis problem has never been resolved, as it keeps recurring, which is far worse than a fraction of a mm out. A back to back can be fixed, but a disintegrating chassis cannot.

[Enterprisingwestern]

22 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

But the corroding chassis problem has never been resolved, as it keeps recurring, which is far worse than a fraction of a mm out. A back to back can be fixed, but a disintegrating chassis cannot.

 

Now there's a thought, a BRMSB standard for the mixing of mazak, where will it all end?!

 

Mike.

[t-b-g]

47 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

That's a quality control issue. Those that commission these models, should withhold payment for faulty models. Although I suspect that the Chinese factories would tie this up forever.

But the corroding chassis problem has never been resolved, as it keeps recurring, which is far worse than a fraction of a mm out. A back to back can be fixed, but a disintegrating chassis cannot.

 

Indeed. It is a factory/production/quality control problem as I said and nothing to do with wheel sizes and shapes or track standards. It is so easy to correct, especially if you have a good wheel pulling tool, that it is not worth the hassle of returning things.

 

The point I was trying to make is that some people, getting a model which bumps through their points, may well start thinking that their track and wheels are not made to compatible standards, when really it is the factory assembly of the components, not the shape or size of them, which is wrong.

 

I think we need to identify exactly where what the problems are before we decide what needs to be done to fix them. No laid down standards will help if manufacturers fail to get all the wheels pretty much the same distance apart on the axles. There will have to be a small working tolerance but having them up to 0.5mm different is never going to lead to good running.

 

I once built some points for a layout and the chap I built them for called me back to "adjust them" as some of his vehicles were bumping and derailing. I went back and check the points, which were fine in terms of gauge and alignment. Then I checked his "straight from the factory" RTR wheels. They were all over the place. Once they were adjusted, all of a sudden his running problems vanished.

 

Yet how many people check the back to backs on the wheels of a new model before it goes on the layout? I bet it is a tiny fraction.

[Ravenser]

11 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly OO gauge?

 

Mike.

 

The same situation exists in 7mm within Templot . At least 4 different standards and 4 different track gauges

 

Martin has expressed the opinion on here in the past that he doesn't agree with standards and standard setting, and that the existence of the NMRA is regrettable and stifling. The plethora of track standards in Templot  for both 4mm and 7mm reflects that view  (it may well be that Templot is deliberately subversive of  GOG standards in 7mm)

 

 I rather suspect he would like the number supported to be even higher in both scales...

 

(Edit : I've just seen this thread OO-MF and OO-IF from which it appears Martin Wynne has recently invented two further track standards for OO, involving two new track gauges.  He is unable to answer whether anyone is actually working to either standard, or whether any OO modeller has asked for them to be added to Templot - but now Templot supports them...  

 

Why???? 

 

Templot is now supporting 4 different track gauges for OO, and I await with sinking heart Martin's invention of track standards for OO to 16.1mm gauge and 16.6mm gauge.

 

This does rather make it look as if Martin believes that there should be as many track standards and as many different gauges as possible in each scale)

Edited April 24, 2022 by Ravenser
Disvovery of 2 new standards/gauges for OO recently invented by Martin Wynne

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I have been working on a big OO layout which needed some points building and I used 16.5mm gauge, 1.2mm flangeway gaps and a back to back of 14.5mm and I have found that it works fine with all modern RTR, plus kit built items with Markits wheels. Some quite recent RTR wheels don't go through a 1mm flangeway no matter what back to back you use. The flanges are 1mm thick and with no clearance, they bind if the vehicle is going round a curve.

 

In theory, it would be great if all the RTR people agreed to some track and wheel standards that they all stuck to. My recent experience, using many Peco points and some home made ones, is that there are inconsistencies in the back to backs of RTR products, even a single model having different settings. This seems to be a manufacturing problem rather than a standards issue.

 

When you buy a model and several axles are at 14.4 back to back but one is at 14.1mm, no standards board will resolve that. Once the 14.1mm axle is adjusted to match the others, all of a sudden the problems vanish.

 

 

You've built it to OO Intermediate, bang on the nail! Not even a tolerance...

 

And it works, just like it should.

 

I pick up one comment:

 

Quote

Some quite recent RTR wheels don't go through a 1mm flangeway no matter what back to back you use. The flanges are 1mm thick and with no clearance, they bind if the vehicle is going round a curve.

 

That's why I'm very disturbed by the dimensions reported by PetetheElaner on the new Peco items . A 1.0mm flangeway is going to end in tears.

 

Commercial pointwork needs to fit all current production RTR. Peco should have stuck to the flangeway dimensions you've used, which work, and we must hope and pray that's what they do on the forthcoming smaller radius items .

 

Your experience of RTR OO wheels is exactly the same as mine. That's what's out there. 

[PMP]

12 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I've highlighted the key bit.

 

You won't have any problems due to tight B2Bs if you rigourously adjust the B2Bs .....

 

But Joe Public won't be doing that.

 

If you regard it as beyond the capabilities of Joe Public to pull out a tensionlock from an NEM pocket and replace it with his own standardised one from a packet sold in a model shop (and you have said that),  then expecting Joe Public to check their B2Bs and rigourously correct any that are out is hopeless.

 

If Peco are relying on their customer base doing that, they're sunk.

 

 

We’ll deal with this one first the bit in bold.

 

I have never said that or implied it. Provide the link to it. Put up or shut up.
 

Peco and any track manufacturers have to rely on their customers on some occasions to adjust b2b’s. That is blatantly obvious, as track manufacturers aren’t making rolling stock, so they aren’t in a position to ensure all stock has correct b2b’s even if there was a manufacturers agreed standard or protocol.

Here’s an advert 80’s/90’s that proves the point.

And here’s the ‘news’ section that mentions it.

 

You tell us Peco are sunk if that’s the case. After 33 years they’ve not yet handed out the life jackets, my guess is they’re better sailors than you are.
 

I await your link back to my couplings comment with interest, or the appropriate apology.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But you don't have to worry about EM or P4, both gauges have societies providing for their members needs. I can't see either of those organisations changing their ways. Their total market share, isn't going to make a huge impact on OO.

AFAIK, 7mm also has the same problem with different standards, or is it a bigger still range of standards?

 

Face it, not everyone wants to model to the same set of standards, probably because too much invested.

The thing DOGA or any other setter of standards is up against is that many if not most people adopting a minority scale or gauge, EM, P4, 3mm, S or even 7mm etc. are likely to join the relevant specialist society because they can't rely on RTR and probably need specific gauges and components as well as proven standards to work to. With the mainstream scale/gauge (00 in Britain) only a smallish minority ever will and I doubt whether more than 10% of modellers even possess a BtoB gauge.

 

AFAIK, when the BRMSB was set up during the war there were no groups establishing standards for their own specialities (apart perhaps from the UK chapter of the NMRA) so there was a need for widely accepted standards for every commonly used scale.

 

For 0 gauge there are three different scales! 7mm/ft 1:43.5 (UK and France etc.), 1/4inch/ft 1:48 (American) and 1:45 (most of Europe and the closest to scale for 32mm gauge track) and several standards. I once had the frustrating experience of being asked to operate a new 7mm/ft layout at an exhibition on which about half the rolling stock simply wouldn't run without derailing because of a mismatch between track standards (Peco) and the wheel standards of some of the stock. Fortunately, being the larger scale, there was relatively little stock so all the wheelsets had been sorted by the next time it appeared. 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

I think what you are saying about EM gauge is a bit unfair, simply as even in 00 gauge and some modern stock will show similar issues when sharp radii is used. But I agree 00 (universal) is far more forgiving as its roots are founded in the table top era where most of us started with 6' x 4' table top tail chasers

 

But with EM gauge you are not restricted to large layouts, I am building a small cameo layout 4' x 1.5' (scenic) with turnouts under 1-5. Its designed for small tank locos, as of yet I have not tried long wheelbase vans, but I don't expect any trouble.

 

My take on this thread is not who well 00 works, but have the standards kept up with what is being provided by the RTR retail trade offerings ? This is not a criticism of the gauge or standards, simply compatibility with modern RTR models

 

 

Realistic rather than unfair John. I did model in EM for about 25 years so have some idea on what is and what is not possible.

You say that you have not tried long wheel base vans and that you do not expect any trouble.

Just place two vans on a scale drawing of your turnouts and see by how much you need to extend the couplings from a scale distance. As I say it has to be a compromise. As has all railway modelling to some extent.

Do we need knew UK standards? Not when there is little in the way of complaints from the general public about what is being produced and even less good will when it comes to being asked to pay for it. 

Bernard

[Ravenser]

16 minutes ago, PMP said:

We’ll deal with this one first the bit in bold.

 

I have never said that or implied it. Provide the link to it. Put up or shut up.
 

Peco and any track manufacturers have to rely on their customers on some occasions to adjust b2b’s. That is blatantly obvious, as track manufacturers aren’t making rolling stock, so they aren’t in a position to ensure all stock has correct b2b’s even if there was a manufacturers agreed standard or protocol.

Here’s an advert 80’s/90’s that proves the point.

And here’s the ‘news’ section that mentions it.

 

You tell us Peco are sunk if that’s the case. After 33 years they’ve not yet handed out the life jackets, my guess is they’re better sailors than you are.
 

I await your link back to my couplings comment with interest, or the appropriate apology.

 

 

 

 

You don't get problems with the Peco large radius points because you've gone through all the stock and adjusted the back to backs to  ensure they are at least 14.4mm . In the post I quoted , you explicitly say "ignore the fact the tender bumps over the points - I've gone back and adjusted the B2Bs"  (that's my paraphrase of the bit I high-lighted. )

 

There are two areas of current production RTR where the B2B is consistantly well under 14.4mm as delivered from the factory:

 

- Hornby rolling stock, where the B2B is never more than 14.3mm, is widely reported as 14.2mm to 14.25mm, and seems on occasion to be as low as 14.1mm

-  Heljan locos, which have been widely reported in the past as 14.2mm, B2B  (from memory, that includes by Peco , at the period when RM was printing wheel data in reviews) . There is some question as to whether the Gresely 01 and Garrett had 14.2mm or 14.4mm B2B as they came out of the factory.

 

Those are not QC errors - they are a different nominal B2B being used at the factory

 

Hornby locomotives seem to have been consistantly 14.45mm B2B  since 2000/1 . In my experience they are much more consistant from axle to axle than Kadar/Bachmann

 

A DOGA member reported at some length problems with electrical shorting on DCC  caused by Hornby rolling stock with B2Bs consistantly around 14.2mm

 

If you only tested locomotives on Shelfie, and did so on plain DC , you would not have seen this.

 

My comment about Peco being sunk related to the two products in question - Bullhead large radius and concrete sleeper code 75 medium. If they are producing commercial pointwork that is incompatible with significant amounts of current production RTR as it comes out of the box, then those products are going to encounter problems in the marketplace.

 

Peco have not been producing pointwork with 1.0mm flangeways over the last 33 years. They have very recently introduced a couple of items like that - and I think there will be problems with those items in the market. I don't wish the bullhead track initiative to fail, but if people's Hornby coaches and wagons cause shorts or jam in them , it might

 

As for couplings , I pointed out that with NEM pockets it's easy to pull them out and fit the tension lock you standardise on, ot of a packet. You wrote this in response:

 

Quote

The standard pocket and mount location is almost an irrelevance, it’s putting the cart before the horse.

 

If Mr smith, returnee to hobby buys a supertrain locomotive he expects it to couple to other supertrains items and wondertrains rolling stock out of the box without any problems.  In an ideal world they would, but they don’t. Telling him to replace his couplings with another type, or try different T/L’s shouldn’t be happening. If there were a UKMRA standard for T/L dimensions and location ’in space’ all manufacturers could aim for that, ensuring within range and inter-range compatibility. Win win.

 

 

 

I think it's fair to summarise that as "it's far too much to expect Joe Public to change a plug in coupler for another one that's sold in a model shop"

 

Yet you expect the same people to adjust the back to back on all their stock, locos and coaches.

 

You may do , I might - but Peco have to work on the basis that a lot of their customers never will. So their commercial points had better be compatible with all current production RTR as it comes out of the factory