How frequent are derailments?

[Michael Hodgson]

13 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

 

It's also worth reiterating that in my experience this only effects single axle rolling stock.

Sorry, but you've lost me there.  0-2-0 wheel arrangements?

[Siberian Snooper]

A couple of chaps in our club built an 'N' gauge layout that had a curved turnout which caused a lot of derailments. I measured it up using verniers, but I couldn't find anything really untoward, in the end I hand built one. I tightened up the wing rail gap a fraction, which reduced the flangeway gaps and thus wheel drop. It's not perfect, but a lot better than the Peco product. Fortunately, the turnout is in the fiddleyard.

 

 

 

 

[AndrueC]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Sorry, but you've lost me there.  0-2-0 wheel arrangements?

Sorry, no. I just meant wagons that don't have bogeys. So coaches and modern freight wagons don't wobble. Even my troublesome spine wagons were fine over turnouts.

[Michael Hodgson]

Interesting - as the worst runners in my experience (in OO and O) tend to be flat-bed bogie wagons - things like bogie bolsters, salmon.  Probably down to a combination of being a bit light and difficult with couplings.

[n9]

1 hour ago, AndrueC said:

Sorry, no. I just meant wagons that don't have bogeys. So coaches and modern freight wagons don't wobble. Even my troublesome spine wagons were fine over turnouts.

I thought so too at first, but not quite true. Bogies are not immune. Dapol's B Set coaches have bogies and they suffer The Peco Wobble quite badly. In contrast my Farish Mk Is and Staniers are pretty smooth. 

[njee20]

3 hours ago, n9 said:

You know I was expecting everyone to say this! And yes, I suspect the unsupported wheels aren't entirely innocent.

 

Hmm, given what's on view I think we'll have to respectfully differ on what the word compromise means 🙂. I do wonder though how all this "accepted" bouncing compares with pointwork from other manufacturers, Arnold, Walthers, Kato, Fleischmann, etc.

 

And I agree, my options are either to lump it, or remove the worst offending pieces, or jump ship.

 

The broad crux is that people care about different things. Plenty of people out there are happy with Kato Unitrack. Many will say you can make it look realistic. I disagree with them, but all power to them. People don’t necessarily actually accept the atrocities you seem concerned with, they’re just not bothered/don’t notice them. Other people may find issue with your signalling not being prototypical, your train formations being unrealistic or your double yellow lines being out of scale. You may not know this, or care. 
 

If you seek fidelity as a key element then mass produced RTR track work, expressly designed to work with literally every item of stock from the last 60 years, probably isn’t the best choice. But then I find it odd using Peco track, as I think the points look poor compared to the real thing. Ironically I’m not bothered about stock bumping through them so much.
 

I’m a bit confused though, as you talk about derailments, but your primary grievance appears to be about items bumping through pointwork.  
 

Finetrax would seem to be a good option for you. 

[jpendle]

Hi,

 

I use Peco code 55 track, laid on 1” thick XPS. I have around 40 short radius points in my storage yards and another 40 long radius points in the scenic section. I have just 1 single slip and no diamond crossings.

 

With the exception of my 2 axle cement PCA’s, all my rolling stock has bogies, and all my locos are either Bo-Bo or Co-Co.

 

I rarely get any track or point related derailments, and any wheel drop in frogs is only really noticeable with the PCA’s.

But that doesn’t cause them to derail.

 

I suspect that the smaller the wheelbase the worse this gets with Peco track, and it is certainly the case that the flangeways have relatively much larger gaps and drops than the equivalent OO track.

 

The reason people “put up with this” depends what they’re layouts are for.

Mine depicts the contemporary WCML, fast, long trains and no shunting in a 36’ x 28’ space. I’ll put up with a few wobbles rather than have to handbuild all the track.

If my layout were meant to depict short wheelbase stock being shunted around in a relatively small space then I too would be pretty upset.

BUT, I probably wouldn’t pick any brand of RTR N Gauge track as my starting point.

 

Merry Christmas,

 

John P

Edited December 26, 2023 by jpendle

[n9]

1 hour ago, jpendle said:

Hi,

 

I use Peco code 55 track, laid on 1” thick XPS. I have around 40 short radius points in my storage yards and another 40 long radius points in the scenic section. I have just 1 single slip and no diamond crossings.

 

With the exception of my 2 axle cement PCA’s, all my rolling stock has bogies, and all my locos are either Bo-Bo or Co-Co.

 

I rarely get any track or point related derailments, and any wheel drop in frogs is only really noticeable with the PCA’s.

But that doesn’t cause them to derail.

 

I suspect that the smaller the wheelbase the worse this gets with Peco track, and it is certainly the case that the flangeways have relatively much larger gaps and drops than the equivalent OO track.

 

The reason people “put up with this” depends what they’re layouts are for.

Mine depicts the contemporary WCML, fast, long trains and no shunting in a 36’ x 28’ space. I’ll put up with a few wobbles rather than have to handbuild all the track.

If my layout were meant to depict short wheelbase stock being shunted around in a relatively small space then I too would be pretty upset.

BUT, I probably wouldn’t pick any brand of RTR N Gauge track as my starting point.

 

Merry Christmas,

 

John P

This is excellent. Great point emphasizing use case. If I only operated bogied diesels, I think I’d be quite okay with the performance of the track because those locos do a great job of avoiding the derailments I’ve seen with my steamers, as well as hiding The Frog Bounce.

 

Also good to hear I’m not the only one that might be upset if running the smaller stuff or with shunting in mind.

 

Your reply also highlights that there’s no substitute for hands-on experience and knowledge. I think I’d have needed to know a lot more about the track and it’s performance before I made the choice I did, and I don’t think I could have gained that knowledge unless I got started somewhere. 

 

I think it’s also true that most of you guys that have been doing this for a while, end up with a very clear picture of exactly what you want from your next layout. And you can choose track accordingly.

 

I’m nowhere near that. I chose Peco on the reputation I perceived and its availability where I live. But it’s only now that I begin to really see what it is and isn’t good at, and what the pros and cons might be for each type of layout.

 

Merry Christmas!

Edited December 26, 2023 by n9

[Chris M]

In my experience of five N gauge layouts mostly using Peco code 55 but also some Peco code 80 is that Peco track is very reliable and does not cause derailments. These layouts include crossings as seen in the video posted earlier and single and double slips. In my experience, if the track is laid well there is absolutely no problem with derails. In over 30 exhibitions running N gauge layouts all day for two days I can honestly say I have never had a problem with Peco points, crossings or slips causing derails. Sometimes Peco points don't naturally lie flat and have to be pinned down to make them flat. I would never use foam underlay as this, INMHO, prevents laying the track correctly and doesn't look all that good anyway.

 

I do recommend avoiding R1 curves and set track points as these items do not mix will with large steam locos. They also look really wrong on a layout. Yes they are great space savers but they can be a cause of running problems.

 

Wagon bounce over the frogs can be an issue but I would say it was an aesthetic one rather than a cause of derails. Because Peco points are designed to be universal some bounce with modern 4 wheel stock will inevitably happen. I expect that building British Finescale points would overcome the bounce issue but also restrict the stock that you can use. The same bounce problem is evident in 00 as well. Because I tend to run quite long trains on  scenic layouts any wagon bounce goes largely unnoticed.

 

You can see the wagons on this train bouncing over the frog as it leaves the platform line but the wagons never come off the track. Also, when just watching rather than filming, the bounce isn't all that noticeable and doesn't "jar". Well it doesn't for me anyway. Yes I could do with fitting new wheels to some of those wagons as they wobble on ordinary track. Again though, it doesn't really show up when  you watch the whole train passing by.

 

 

The only item that does bounce (but never derail) and looks wrong is my Dapol Skipper unit. There again the real ones gave quite a rough ride.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Chris M

[AndrueC]

Yes, from running my coal train the wobble is quite subtle and I only notice it when actually following an individual wagon with my eyes. Like others though I went for N in order to run long trains through the 'countryside'. So I watch the train not individual wagons.

 

I've never thought N was a good choice for shunting anyway. You can get automatic decouplers and I know it's been done but I've always thought it too fiddly and pernickety. For shunting I'd go with OO or O.

[Chris M]

1 hour ago, AndrueC said:

Yes, from running my coal train the wobble is quite subtle and I only notice it when actually following an individual wagon with my eyes. Like others though I went for N in order to run long trains through the 'countryside'. So I watch the train not individual wagons.

 

I've never thought N was a good choice for shunting anyway. You can get automatic decouplers and I know it's been done but I've always thought it too fiddly and pernickety. For shunting I'd go with OO or O.

I am inclined to agree that N is at it's best when running long trains through open countryside. My next layout, which will be for my own entertainment at home will feature shunting. This layout is very much under construction but this video shows a system test of the shunting. The shunting all worked without hands but obviously needs to be done a little slower when running properly. Like I say this was just a system test to prove it would be ok before working on the scenery. I'm using Gaugemaster electro magnets with staples drilled into the shanks of some of the wagon couplings. I like this solution because it is cheap and simple - rather like me!

 

 

 

Bringing in a goods trains, shunting the wagons into the right place and then re-assembling a goods train from the yard into a formation of fitted wagons to the front and non fitted to the rear is satisfyingly hard work. I think I shall enjoy doing this when the layout is finished.

[woodenhead]

I've gone with Dapol Easi-shunts and the Dapol magnets.  Whilst the magnet is unsightly it was more reliable for me that trying to get the little magnets working under the track, I've decided to take reliability over fidelity.

 

I can uncouple arriving trains in the station hands free and drop a loco onto the other end without the need for a big shove which is the problem when still using the elsie style coupling.   But ultimately it comes down to what you are most happy with, there is no right way or wrong way, just the railway haha.

[jpendle]

13 hours ago, n9 said:

Your reply also highlights that there’s no substitute for hands-on experience and knowledge. I think I’d have needed to know a lot more about the track and it’s performance before I made the choice I did, and I don’t think I could have gained that knowledge unless I got started somewhere. 

For better or worse part of the experience is chucking it all away and starting again.

 

My first layout was hinged against a brick wall in a lean-to using code 80 track with a CL47 and some bogie tankers, this lasted about 1 year and then we moved house.

 

Layout 2 was in our garage, again with code 80, plus lots of issues with trackwork as I moved a bit further along the learning curve, that got demolished when we converted the garage.

 

Layout 3, approx 25 years after number 2 was constructed, was in the basement of our old house here in the US. I started from scratch with Code 55 track and new locos and rolling stock, the 1980's vintage stock was consigned to storage. Lots of lessons learned here as well, such as CL66's don't like hauling 20 bogie coal hoppers up a 3% grade on a curve, I don't like crawling around under baseboards to attach point motors, and Peco slips are a nightmare to get working with Peco solenoid motors plus accessory switches.

I bought 2 Tortoise motors and had the single slip wired and working in about 20 minutes, versus the many frustrating hours I'd spent before. 

I then converted it from DC to DCC and swapped all the solenoids for Tortoises (these days I'd take a look at the MTB range of point motors).

 

Layout 4 is the latest and might be the last (famous last words there) and while I've got to a point where my construction methods suit me, I'm still a beginner in many ways. The space I have is actually a detached double garage with a sloping floor. I re-used all the baseboard frames from Layout 3 and replaced the baseboard tops with XPS. 3 or 4 years later I start to expand the layout and I realised that I'd laid the original boards on a slope heading down to the garage door doh! There's now lots of random offcuts wedged under the baseboard legs to get it level again.

 

The point is that it's very big learning curve and I suspect that everyone on this forum has gone through 2 or more layouts before they've thought that they're finally getting there.

 

Regards,

 

John P

[woodenhead]

So here is my single slip with an 04 crawling over it and a mix of makes of stock.

 

I've left in the part where a Dapol wagon drops into the well of one of the frogs on the single slip and sticks, I'm not trying to prove Peco is perfect and I redid the same shunt move off camera with the loco just a little bit quicker and it didn't stick.  When I recently jammed a stay alive into the 04 I had to remove a little weight so what was already a light loco got that little bit lighter so relies on momemtum more than it did pre stay alive.  I will say the Dapol wagons look more problematic than the Farish, they are also probably a decade old at least.

 

 

 

I also found a recent muck about with cupboards under the boards might have disturbed a wire, one of my centre tracks is dead, didn't realise until I had lost control of the loco and thought at first I'd broken something until the stay alive ran out of puff.

 

I am also getting itchy fingers to change the layout, really I must resist otherwise I am never going to do any scenery!

[AndrueC]

Here's a train of hoppers crossing two medium radius code 80 Peco turnouts at the exit of one of my yards. You can see a little bit of wobble but not very much. I've added a couple of grammes of lead to each wagon (front and back) but they still don't weigh very much.

 

That suggests that it's particular combinations of track/rolling stock that don't get on. My stock is all relatively new (bought in the last three years) but those hoppers are old tooling since they don't have NEM pockets.

 

 

BTW - sorry about the focus I wasn't really paying attention when I shot this.

Edited December 26, 2023 by AndrueC

[D9020 Nimbus]

Well, I've used Fleischmann points including 3-way and double slip. The route through the points is never as smooth as it should be even with European stock, but stock from the main manufacturers — Arnold, Fleischmann, Minitrix, etc. — doesn't derail. These points are set to accept NEM standard wheels, whereas most — if not all — U.K. outline manufacturers use NMRA standards, which are somewhat finer.

I haven't got a U.K. prototype N gauge layout yet, although one is planned,  but I have run U.K. stock on the Fleischmann track. I have encountered no problems with any Farish stock — from Poole era to the latest models, nor with Minitrix, Peco, Rapido Trains U.K. or Revolution Trains or Sonic Models.

The only issues I've had are with Dapol. I had a GW 2-6-2T which derailed every time on points. I had that fixed at a model railway exhibition many years ago now by Bob from BR Lines.

I also have a test track of Kato Unitrack. Generally good running is achieved with that too. There is an issue with my Dapol 14xx locos though. I have three — one derails every time on Kato but is fine on Fleischmann, the other two are the opposite way round.

I've had no issues with newer Dapol models, 0-6-0s, or diesels. The Fleischmann tracked is pinned down using either Peco or Fleischmann track pins.  No underlay—plywood baseboard.

Edited December 26, 2023 by D9020 Nimbus
Extra information

[n9]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

So here is my single slip with an 04 crawling over it and a mix of makes of stock.

 

I've left in the part where a Dapol wagon drops into the well of one of the frogs on the single slip and sticks, I'm not trying to prove Peco is perfect and I redid the same shunt move off camera with the loco just a little bit quicker and it didn't stick.  When I recently jammed a stay alive into the 04 I had to remove a little weight so what was already a light loco got that little bit lighter so relies on momemtum more than it did pre stay alive.  I will say the Dapol wagons look more problematic than the Farish, they are also probably a decade old at least.

 

 

 

I also found a recent muck about with cupboards under the boards might have disturbed a wire, one of my centre tracks is dead, didn't realise until I had lost control of the loco and thought at first I'd broken something until the stay alive ran out of puff.

 

I am also getting itchy fingers to change the layout, really I must resist otherwise I am never going to do any scenery!

 

Probably sad, but I could watch videos like this for hours 😁

 

After watching them, the most pressing question I have is: In the second video, is that the sound of a food blender or a Cobalt IP firing? 😁

 

The second most pressing question I have is: If you run the 03 04 on its own, does it also slalom like mine did in my earlier video? Just trying to work out if my slip is more duff than it should be.

Edited December 26, 2023 by n9
typo

[AndrueC]

Dunno if it helps answer your question but at one point this video shows my Class 08 going over two of the turnouts that comprise a cross over. No wobble there.

 

But if you look very closely on the inclined curve just after that you might see a rather abrupt movement of the loco. That was because of a kink where two sections join. I fettled that recently and improved it a bit but it's still suboptimal.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Uu5JkEGRwvProDTP7

 

That was before I tweaked it.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qYZFnbR1s7tN83o47

 

Slightly improved on the bottom rail but it's still poor. The top rail on the right section is noticeably steeper as well so there's quite a kick as wagons traverse left to right. Proof that I'm not a perfectionist and also that our little charges can tolerate a surprising amount 🙂

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The only issues I've had are with Dapol. I had a GW 2-6-2T which derailed every time on points. I had that fixed at a model railway exhibition many years ago now by Bob from BR Lines.

The Dapol small Prairie in early form (I don't know if they ever changed it) was poor on points.  I think it was because the pick ups on the pony trucks reduced their mobility and on sharp bends or the wrong points would cause the wheels to ping off.   I know it took a lot of running in to get them smooth.  I would hope they see a return one day in DCC Ready form with a newer motor, the Ivatt is coming back so the Prairie should follow, the model itself was lovely.

 

1 hour ago, n9 said:

 

Probably sad, but I could watch videos like this for hours 😁

 

After watching them, the most pressing question I have is: In the second video, is that the sound of a food blender or a Cobalt IP firing? 😁

 

The second most pressing question I have is: If you run the 03 04 on its own, does it also slalom like mine did in my earlier video? Just trying to work out if my slip is more duff than it should be.

 

Here's my 04 from a couple of months ago when I was testing it's low speed performance with it's new Stay Alive, it looks quite smooth through the points.

 

For some reason I didn't video the 08 dressed, one thing with the 08 is that the easishunt can droop and when it does it can catch on the trackwork sometimes but I can see only one obvious wobble as it enters the final point at the platform start.

 

[DCB]

8 hours ago, Chris M said:

 

Bringing in a goods trains, shunting the wagons into the right place and then re-assembling a goods train from the yard into a formation of fitted wagons to the front and non fitted to the rear is satisfyingly hard work. I think I shall enjoy doing this when the layout is finished.

That's shunting is that.    You don't need much, a long siding or two, put the fitted stock at  front for a fast freight, or coming back put them in station order, then back the other way fitted at the front, the Southern did a lot of it in North Devon, Yeoford, Okehampton, all with the train engine, no shunters, and you can do it in N or H0 RTR as they have decent couplers, or 00 if you use  Peco or Kadee.   Now back to the thread.. Standardised wheels and shim the bottom of the flangeways is one answer

[n9]

 

17 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

Dunno if it helps answer your question ...

Thanks Andrue, but it's the slip with the 04 that I really want to know about, because if you watch the video I posted a bit further up, in addition to the typical frog bounce, my 03 also swings laterally about 0.5cm as it crosses the slip at a reasonable speed. So if it turns out that the behaviour on my slip is atypical, I may yet attempt to find a way to fix it.

 

Re the kink, I've found asymmetrical joins help, in addition to having something firm underneath to fix to. Code 55 with its embedded rail helps with the former, not sure if code 80 shares that similarity. But yes, there's definitely variety in what different stock can handle.

 

23 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Here's my 04 from a couple of months ago when I was testing it's low speed performance with it's new Stay Alive, it looks quite smooth through the points.

The slow crawl and angle makes it difficult discern lateral movement, but thanks anyway. Does look smooth with its SA though!

[DCB]

22 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Sorry, but you've lost me there.  0-2-0 wheel arrangements?

The Far Twittering and Oysterperch featured in an ancient magazine around 1969 had an 0-2-0 tender engine.  Apparently the French had some 0-2-0 locomotives as well as some 2-3-1 tender locos which boggles my mind.   It was alleged Herbert Gresley told his side kick Ollie  Bulleid that "If you want fame young man design a locomotive with 5 driving wheels."  

[Michael Hodgson]

26 minutes ago, DCB said:

The Far Twittering and Oysterperch featured in an ancient magazine around 1969 had an 0-2-0 tender engine.  Apparently the French had some 0-2-0 locomotives as well as some 2-3-1 tender locos which boggles my mind.   It was alleged Herbert Gresley told his side kick Ollie  Bulleid that "If you want fame young man design a locomotive with 5 driving wheels."  

 

For years we ran an O gauge 0-5-0T.  One the the driving wheels had collapsed from mazak rot, but fortunately it was on the centre axles and the loco still ran fine!  It did eventually get a new wheel - or perhaps it was a complete set of replacement wheels, I forget how we fixed it.

 

And there's always the Patalia State Monorail with its 0-3-0T locos

[F-UnitMad]

35 minutes ago, DCB said:

Apparently the French had some 0-2-0 locomotives as well as some 2-3-1 tender locos which boggles my mind. 

That's the French way they denoted steam locos - by axles, not wheels. So a 4-6-2 Pacific on our side of the Channel was denoted as 2-3-1 in France. Their 0-2-0 is our 0-4-0.

Edited December 26, 2023 by F-UnitMad

[Davexoc]

57 minutes ago, n9 said:

Thanks Andrue, but it's the slip with the 04 that I really want to know about, because if you watch the video I posted a bit further up, in addition to the typical frog bounce, my 03 also swings laterally about 0.5cm as it crosses the slip at a reasonable speed. So if it turns out that the behaviour on my slip is atypical, I may yet attempt to find a way to fix it.

 

I'll have to check mine to see how they perform, but the if you've ever been on the footplate of a steam loco, they can get a lateral wobble on under power even on plain track. Its to do with the quartering of the motion and the drive forces. A diminutive N gauge 03 weighs next to nothing, doesn't have quite the same wheel/flange profile to the prototype, and is certainly living with massive tolerances for B2B and flangeways, so it will to some extent. Notice how when you had wagons in tow it damped it out somewhat.

The only way you are going to get consistent running is to adopt just one wheel profile and B2B setting across all stock, so that you can close up those flangeways towards something more prototypical....