Swiss Mountain Railways

[Guest oldlugger]

Thanks Horsetran,

and your Mastercard number is.................?

 

 

I have not yet given up on buying an HRF triebwagen, although the trouble is that really you need 3 or 4 of them and that REALLY isn't possible.

 

It does seem to me that there is a lot of interest in the WAB and I do wonder if its possible to have a short run of resin cast bodies produced at a truly affordable price.

When you look at some of the limited run resin aircraft models (50-100 examples), I see no reason why a resin body could not be produced for £50.

It should be straightforward to design this to fit onto Bemo power bogies and to produce cosmetic bogie sides.

I know HRF produce the correct pantograph at a price but they might not be prepared to supply significant numbers - is there another source ?

Obviously there are other details which can be provided in resin or etched.

 

Such a model would of course not compare to HRF 's WAB triebwagen but even if you bought a Bemo model as a base, it would cost maybe £300-350 + some work.

At £50 for a body, I would be prepared to buy 3 or even 4. But can we find buyers for another 46 ?

 

I am sure that many will say that an etched brass body is the only way to go but that does require a lot of skill. Today it is certainly possible to produce a resin body in a limited run to almost the same quality as a basic Bemo body and for me that is more than acceptable.

 

If this is a stupid idea then do please tell me. But if it is realistic, then let us try to take it forward.

Paul

 

Hello Paul,

 

What about having a go a scratch building one of these EMUs from plastic card? The body work would be pretty straight forward and the bogie side frames too (I think). Motor bogie wise you might have to use an N gauge continental 0-4-0 wide wheel base diesel shunter, as the wheel spacing on the unit is wide (typical of rack EMUs). Rack wise; well you could have a dummy rack in the track (the HRF sections) but not have rack gearing on the unit... no one would be any the wiser! As long as your gradients weren't too steep the train would work with ease I'm sure. The hardest part would be the resistor banks on the roof with fine meshing. The pantographs could be sourced from Sommerfeldt but they don't make the correct pattern so you'd have to look for something similar. HRF make their own pantographs which are incredibly fine and accurate. I could measure my HRF model to give you the dimensions as close as I can. If you have a look at Colin Parks threads on SR EMUs here on RMweb you can get a good idea of how EMUs can be built from plastic card.

 

Cheers

Simon

Edited October 6, 2011 by oldlugger

[habicht]

Hi Simon,

I looked up the EMU stuff, stunning quality of work. I was familiar with the general approach but I do think its a hair shirt way of doing things and very times consuming.

I prefer the idea of getting sides cnc cut in plastic rather than by hand, as its more accurate.

I am starting to trawl around to see if there are any Swiss coaches which have the same window size as the WAB coaches and triebwagens, as this offers a cut and shut option.

As I would like several triebwagens, I like the idea of using cut and shut to make a master pattern and then getting a few resin bodies cast.

I really like the way the EMU roof was produced - but first you need to make the pattern. Again,the shape of the WAB roofs are better cast from a master rather than hand carved each time, as unlike the EMU roofs, they are 'shaped' at their extremities. This would also give a better finish anyway.

As you say, its resistor banks which are the real challenge.

 

With a station layout, you could avoid having functioning rack - but sadly, functioning rack is for me, what its all about - I sincerely wish that I was not hooked on rack, but we can't help what we fall for.

 

Chrislock,

cutting Fleischmann rack and gluing onto 6mm track is probably possible but maintaining an accurate relationship between the railhead and the rack would be a real challenge because thats the critical factor in getting it all to work.

I imagine that someone who knows how to use a lather would soon figure out how to make metal rack.

 

By all accounts Z gauge locos don't pull well (anyone have first hand experience) and don't do well on inclines.

I doubt that an He 2/2 full of lead would go up a decent incline, simply because there is not much room to put any lead.

 

Having said that, if you can get it to work, I will be your first visitor and the drinks will be on me.

Paul

[Chrislock]

Hi Simon,

I looked up the EMU stuff, stunning quality of work. I was familiar with the general approach but I do think its a hair shirt way of doing things and very times consuming.

I prefer the idea of getting sides cnc cut in plastic rather than by hand, as its more accurate.

I am starting to trawl around to see if there are any Swiss coaches which have the same window size as the WAB coaches and triebwagens, as this offers a cut and shut option.

As I would like several triebwagens, I like the idea of using cut and shut to make a master pattern and then getting a few resin bodies cast.

I really like the way the EMU roof was produced - but first you need to make the pattern. Again,the shape of the WAB roofs are better cast from a master rather than hand carved each time, as unlike the EMU roofs, they are 'shaped' at their extremities. This would also give a better finish anyway.

As you say, its resistor banks which are the real challenge.

 

With a station layout, you could avoid having functioning rack - but sadly, functioning rack is for me, what its all about - I sincerely wish that I was not hooked on rack, but we can't help what we fall for.

 

Chrislock,

cutting Fleischmann rack and gluing onto 6mm track is probably possible but maintaining an accurate relationship between the railhead and the rack would be a real challenge because thats the critical factor in getting it all to work.

I imagine that someone who knows how to use a lather would soon figure out how to make metal rack.

 

By all accounts Z gauge locos don't pull well (anyone have first hand experience) and don't do well on inclines.

I doubt that an He 2/2 full of lead would go up a decent incline, simply because there is not much room to put any lead.

 

Having said that, if you can get it to work, I will be your first visitor and the drinks will be on me.

Paul

 

I agree that constructing stable 5mm track ( as oposed to the 6.5/ 3m I soldered up) would be a challenge indeed.

The only way I could see of including a working rack would be to take the fleischmann track, cut away the chairs and rail, file level and then replace with code 40 rail running in Easitrac chairs, which would be reglued to the sleepers at 5.5mm spacing either side of the rack. Of course this would only be needed on the steep inclines.

However, this is only speculative because I don't have a piece to play with as yet.

As for the pulling power of Z, you are quite right to question. But this is an N scale ( 1:148) body, which is after all mostly an empty box, which can be packed with lead. With tyres attached to the small driving wheels.

I can see the attraction of keeping the ( slightly incorrect) Fleischmann rack and workig in HO though!

[DIW]

I thought that I ought to inform followers of this thread who are within visiting distance of the Bournemouth/Christchurch area that this coming weekend I am taking my Swiss mountain rack railway to the Christchurch model railway exhibition. The model uses the Fleischmann HO system in a representation of metre gauge in the Bernese Oberland region. I'd be delighted to chat with others who have an interest in modelling the mountain railways! All the usual questions about how steep the slope, how severe the transitions from one slope to the next, how sharp the curves can be have answers which can be seen.

 

See the 'Exhibitions' sub-forum or the Calendar for more details of the show.

 

Dave

[habicht]

Hi Dave,

unfortunately, I can't make Christchurch, as other commitments don't leave me enough time to get there and back from Warwick - thanks for the invitation but its darn frustrating.

Without writing an essay, is there any chance that you could jot down some key points, shich as ..............

 

Radius of vertical curve from horizontal to climb -

Is the radius of vertical curve from climb to horizontal, the same minimum as aboove ?

Thoughts on minimum curve radius.

The key thing being curves on inclines ?

 

Chris (Chrislock) and I have been discussing our thoughts on WAB or SPB layouts. We both fancy N scale because that gives one the space to model the vertical landscape of the Jungfrau region but that either requires a huge compromise and accepting the use of Fleischmann N scale standard gauge track or scratchbuilding 5mm track and very, very tiny rack locos.

 

Chris already models in 2mm but I certainly wouldn't try scratchbuilding in that scale but may try the freelance approach in N, to see how I get on with the scenery / eyesight !

 

However, I am definitely going to have a go in Hoe, using Fleischmann N scale track and the N scale locos as drive units because these will fit inside the various Triebwagens as well as the HE.2/2.

 

Before going any further, I need to set up a short test track, to see if the Fleischmann N scale loco will push two Bemo bogie coaches up a 1 in 5. If the power proves inadequate, then I shall use Bemo power bogies instead and commit to HRF track (all donations welcome !).

 

Dutch Master........... can I ask how I regauge Bemo coaches from Hom to Hoe ?? Can I squeeze the wheels on the axles or do I need to but replacement wheelsets ?

 

Paul

[DIW]

Radius of vertical curve from horizontal to climb -

Is the radius of vertical curve from climb to horizontal, the same minimum as aboove ?

Thoughts on minimum curve radius.

The key thing being curves on inclines ?

Hi Paul,

 

Bear with me on this ..... I took some pics while setting up on Saturday, I'll need to see how illustrative they have come out and then write a couple of notes. Got a weekend-load of chores to catch up on first though

 

Dave

[habicht]

Dave,

many thanks, thats really helpful - chores and brownie points come first though - no rush ! I know Chris is most interested as he couldn't get there either.

Paul

[habicht]

Dutch master, did yoyu receive my message ??

Paul

[DIW]

Here are a few notes to share what I have learned regarding fitting rack into a layout.

The most important thing to consider is the transition of slope steepness, because that is where things are most likely to cause problems in the fullness of time. It is possible to have quite a steep slope, but the change from flat to gradient has to be made reasonably gradually. Quite how gradual that needs to be depends on the stock you buy/build to run on the layout.

 

I'll start with the longest slope on my layout - it rises 6" in 42" of track, giving 1 in 7 (9%). That's not that steep as hills go, but the steepest part within the slope rises 2 1/2" in 8" giving 1 in 3.2 (20%). Of course I haven't managed to take a photo of the whole slope! However the following three photos show the slope during the track re-laying back in 2004:

 

Top:

 

Middle to bottom:

 

Very bottom:

 

 

The rack commences at the start of the top turnout and runs all the way to the bottom turnout (there is a rack chair already fitted at the lower point).

The slope transition at the bottom is very gradual, and is at a similar rate to the other rack part of the layout. The next picture illustrates the rack gradient changing next to flat track:

 

 

Once under way the slope can be changed reasonably as you wish - just don't make it too sharp a change. this is fine:

 

 

But this one is really as sharp a change as I can get away with. Prior to the rebuild I had to adjust the couplings to cater with it:

 

You may also notice in the previous picture that the end of the rack is slightly filed down to give some taper. This works well, and is what the practice used to be on the BOB years ago (they have changed to a much more complicated arrangement these days to (presumably) allow for rack engagement at higher speeds than before).

 

So much for rack on the slopes - now how about bends? You will very likely have noticed that the track on which I have fitted the rack is far from straight! The rack is flexible and bends to the required radius perfectly well. The most important thing to remember is to twist the track along the direction of travel while bending it around the corner, so that a spirit level placed parallel to the sleeper shows level across that sleeper. To explain why, I suggest that you find a semicircle of set-track and some straight sections (three straights will do). Fit it together so that there is a straight section. then a 90 degree bend, then a straight, then another 90 degree bend (towards you) then the final straight.

If you lift the curves such that there is a slope up the first curve then down the next, the middle straight will not be parallel to the floor across the rails - can lead to the stock falling off the side! Thus a twist is needed in order to bring the sleepers level.

 

So, while the sharpness of the track is not affected by the rack, there is an impact on the stock. With a 0-4-0 type loco (such as the He4/4) the wheelbase is short enough to not be affected by the twist. Bogie carriages need to have sufficient flexibility in the bogie pivots to take up the twist - the chances are that this will happen anyway if the carriages can cope with slope transition.

 

 

More care is needed though with the chassis for a Bo-Bo or other motorcoach-type arrangement. If the bogies are allowed equal twist, it is very likely that the body will move sufficiently to bring the pantograph out of alignment with the catenary. There are a couple of solutions to this - don't make the curves very sharp (thus the twist compensation needed is reduced) or do some smart stuff in the bogie-body movement. In my motorcoaches I have very little twist allowance in the bogie at the pantograph end (there is of course turn and slope movement), while the other bogie takes up the majority of the twist movement. Be prepared for some experimentation!

 

Right there are some starting comments, no doubt there will be some questions where I've not been as clear as necessary.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Edited July 12, 2022 by DIW
Pictures re-uploaded

[DIW]

Hi,

 

It's in 5mm/ft, which at 1/61 is a metric S scale (which is properly 1/64). Either way, metre gauge comes out at 16.39mm or 15.53mm respectively, which means that the Fleischmann HO rack system is just right for metre gauge. I usually offer the description Sm as the general descriptor. It means of course that the He2/2s are re-gauged from 800mm to 1m, but of course since I also have adhesion sections they need to be recategorised too - presumably HGe2/2, although I'm sure there is also a case for Geh2/2. The motorcoaches would be Beh2/4 (or ABeh2/4 if I make one of the compartments 1st class).

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[Chrislock]

Dave, thanks for the photos and commentary == that really is very useful.

Which line are you modelling - a fictitious one? Looks good.

Sorry you may have said and I just missed it when reading your replies.

Regards,

Chris

[habicht]

Dutch Master,

I did not understand how this PM system worked - I only have experience of PMs in one other forum and that also sends an email automatically.

So I was -incorrectly - waiting for you !!!

 

I have not been able to look at the forum recently because I am selling a house and as part of that deal I have to redecorate certain rooms by a deadline - lots of pressure.

 

Anyway - I have just read your message and accidentally deleted it ! Could you possibly send it again ?

However the answer to your offer is a very definite YES .

 

Later this evening I shall try to contact you via PM to give you my details.

Many thanks

Paul

[habicht]

Dave,

thanks you for going to the trouble of taking some photos of your layout and sharing your experiences.

 

First question - is it Fleischmann Ho rack track you are using ???

I have only seen the N gauge Fleischmann offering, which has the sleepers and rack all moulded together, whereas your rack seems to clip in place - I did wonder if the rack strip was from HRF.

 

The transition slope /vertical radius obviously needs to be gradual - what sort of radius have you used ?

Did you have any problem with the track buckling as you bent the transition slope ? and with that pushing it out of gauge ?

Did you find that a special bending tool was needed ?

 

What is your typical curve radius ?

What is the radius of that really tight curve ?

 

Do you have any problem keeping the correct relationship between rail height and rack height ?

 

Does twisting the track give any problems by loosing electrical pick up contact ?

Is there any tendancy for the loco to lift wheels because its balancing on two wheels on one side and the rack in the middle ?

 

Ooops, sorry about all the questions Dave but it would be great if you can answer these when you have the chance - no rush !

Again can I say thank you for sharing your experiences - this is only the second rack 'article' I have ever seen and the other one really gave no technical information.

Paul

[DIW]

Hi Paul,

 

Here are some answers for you; some others are to follow!

 

First question - is it Fleischmann Ho rack track you are using ???

I have only seen the N gauge Fleischmann offering, which has the sleepers and rack all moulded together, whereas your rack seems to clip in place - I did wonder if the rack strip was from HRF.

Yes it is the Fleischmann HO rack. It is (was?) available in two varieties:

• part number 6411 which is for 'Peco' type track (no integral ballast) - that is the rack version I have used
  
• part number 6412 which is for 'Fleischmann Profi' type track where the ballast is an integral moulding with the sleepers.
  

It would be quite helpful if I post some photos of the two versions; I'll try to do that towards the end of the week (may even be as far away as Saturday).

 

The transition slope /vertical radius obviously needs to be gradual - what sort of radius have you used ?

The true answer is 'as tight as I can get away with', but that of course is not very helpful. The change of slope is about the same as the radius of a Hornby R609 curve; perhaps one of the other readers can enlighten us with what that is as a real radius (please)?

 

Did you have any problem with the track buckling as you bent the transition slope ? and with that pushing it out of gauge ?

No, no problem; just be gentle and ease the track a bit at a time. When I originally built the railway (that was with Peco streamline which of course isn't what it now has since the track was rebuilt) there were enough chairs and sleepers to prevent any out-of-gauge problem. The rebuild used Wrenn track (the really old stuff with fibre sleepers and the track held ever fourth sleeper). You may observe from the pictures that I had replaced the original clip-sleeper with a copper-clad sleeper where the bend required it, and completely copper-clad where the bend is very sharp, changing slope and across the baseboard joint all at the same time. (How many rule have I broken there?)

 

Did you find that a special bending tool was needed ?

No, just my thumbs!

 

What is your typical curve radius ?

What is the radius of that really tight curve ?

Some curves have a radius greater than 48".

But the really tight curves are around 12". It is intended as an exaggeration of the illusion of the curves on the real SPB.

 

Do you have any problem keeping the correct relationship between rail height and rack height ?

No problem; the design of the rack clips sorts out the height.

 

Does twisting the track give any problems by loosing electrical pick up contact ?

No, but I have taken great care regarding the design of pick-ups on the stock. I'll need to take some more pictures to clarify what I have done.

 

 

Is there any tendancy for the loco to lift wheels because its balancing on two wheels on one side and the rack in the middle ?

Curiously enough the only locos which have a tendency to lift wheels on the rack cog axle are the Fleischmann ones! That's why I had to develop sliding pick-ups for those locos. The stock with adapted Hornby motor bogies (yes, really) don't have that problem; neither does the scratch-built chassis.

 

That's a start on the answers; photos etc to follow in a few days.

 

All the Best,

 

Dave

Edited October 31, 2011 by DIW

[habicht]

Dave,

many thanks - thats probably more 'hard information' about model rack railways, than has appeared in one place before - most generous of you to share your experiences and I look forward to seeing the photos. Chrislock is also taking a very active interest as well and hopefully we shall both have some test track sections running soon.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Paul

[DIW]

As promised a little while ago, here are some pictures to help explain what I wrote before regarding scratch-built rack railway using the Fleischmann HO system.

 

As I mentioned there are two versions of rack in HO, the 6411 and the 6412:

 

The version for track which does not have ballast incorporated (e.g. Hornby, Peco) is the 6411.

 

The rack ties slide on to the rack section, then the assembly is screwed to the trackbed. The ends of the rack section are shaped with a nib at one end and a notch the other. The side of the rack piece is grooved so that the rack ties can grip it.

 

 

The type 9412 is for track where the ballast is moulded in, e.g. Fleischmann Profi-track. Of course there is no reason why it can't be fitted to ordinary track too.

 

With this version the rack ties are glued to the sleepers, and the rack piece clips in to the ties afterwards. The ends of the rack sections are designed to clip together; this is more easily done before sitting to the ties but it is not essential to do it in this order. The rack piece is hollow underneath, and there are flanges down each side to clip in to the ties. It is also possible to drill through the ties and screw them to the sleepers.

 

Bear in mind that these are developed for HO scale and are supposed to represent 1:87 scale - they seem rather large for that, especially the 6412. The 6411 is 2.25mm wide (195mm, 8" full size) and the 6412 is 2.5mm (217mm, 8 1/2") across the top of the rack piece and 3.6mm (313mm, 1ft 1/4") across the bottom.

 

The instructions offer some advice about how steep it is possible to go:

 

 

In both cases it is 35% (31.5deg, 1 in 1.91) on the straight and 25% (22.5 deg, 1 in 2.61) on bends. The sharpest bend recommended for 6411 is Fleischmann track part number 6030 and 6630 for 25% slope and 6020 and 6620 for 15% slope.

 

For 6412 the part numbers are 6125 for 25% slope and 6120 for 20% slope. You'll need to look the numbers up to find how sharp they are; I've never tried to find out (there wasn't google.com when I started!).

 

The rack gear is/was available as a spare part in packs of 10:

 

 

A question was asked regarding the rack cog lifting the wheels - I have fitted additional sliding contacts to maintain electrical contact with the track.

 

The contacts are hidden behind the small ploughs on the locos.

 

I mentioned that I had fitted the rack cogs to Hornby motors, here is how:

 

A certain amount of cutting away of some of the motor chassis casting was required. This has been easy in recent years with the advent of 'Dremel' and its look-alikes; my first one was cut out with drill bits and files.

 

Now a note about the chassis for a motorcoach. I mentioned before about the flexibility needed between the pivot axis of one bogie with relation to the other bogie, in order to take up the twist in the track where a bend, slope and slope change occur together. This chassis:

has the non-motor bogie constrained such that its main degree of freedom is to pivot around the bogie mounting screw. There is also a limited degree of freedom for the bogie to take account of change in slope, but hardly any for twist. The motorcoach body is fitted so that the pantograph is above this bogie, which means that the relationship between the catenary, track and pantograph remains the same on the slope as on the flat - i.e. the 'twist' compensation doesn't pull the pantograph out of alignment.

 

The motor is held in by a screw through a bracket:

 

Here there is more freedom for the motor to rotate about the screw-to-bracket interface, resulting in the motor pivot taking up all of the twist compensation and most of the slope compensation. Here is another view:

 

It could be argued that a difficulty is created in having the pivot point for twist and slope compensation so high up in the carraige. Certainly a large chassis cut-out is required at bogie frame level! I have been experimenting with using a gimbol-type motor mount:

 

 

This arrangement has the directional rotation at the top as before, but the slope and the twist pivots are at the sides and ends respectively, and much lower down. Further refinement is needed in the gimbol construction - I need to reduce its width at the ends to allow it to turn fully within the bodyshell, and the plasticard chassis is in dire need of replacement with brass.

 

 

Finally, a scratchbuilt chassis:

This has a different size of rack cog. These were obtained by taking a piece of rack to a local general spares retailer (Techno-Trade in Fareham - are they still there?) and finding gears whose teeth suited the rack pitch. Then, a visit to the model shop (G.M.H.Bunce & Co., sadly long gone) to find some Romford wheels of a suitable diameter. Thus were sized the driving wheels for the Hg 2/3 steam loco. The motor for this is a very reliable 5-pole MW005 (a spare of which I have recently obtained from an RM Web member who occasionally reads this section of the forum - now you know why I bought it). Two gears are used on the axle in order to provide similar width to that of a Fleischmann cog; I'm not so convinced that it is quite so necessary. The loco could very easily be converted to Abt rack though!

 

I hope that has helped to illustrate my earlier replies to your questions.

 

Dave

Edited July 12, 2022 by DIW
Pictures re-uploaded, and some speelling eroors fikst

[DIW]

I realise that the earlier discussions in this thread revolved around the Fleischmann N gauge rack system, in order to model the 800mm gauge lines in HOe scale. Accordingly I've had a rummage in the spares box, and found these pieces of Abt rack, in HOe scale.

 

 

 

They are made in Japan for Ferro Suisse, so wouldn't be cheap! The gauge is 9mm, so are HOe, perfect for modelling the Brienzer Rothorn Bahn. The rack section on each piece is 45mm long, so many would be needed for a layout of any size. They clip together, I have tried to show the little pins and holes at either end of the rack. The long length in the top picture are three of the sections clipped together. The sleeper length is 18mm. The dimension across the pair of racks is 1.4mm, much finer than the Fleischmann offerings.

 

It won't have escaped your notice that there are no rails included - these need to be added.

 

I haven't found any prices for HOe rack; the Ferro Suisse site only offers Om rack systems currently (although there are HOm rolling stock available).

One interesting note for those also following John's (Re6/6) thread - the rack points in the Ferro Suisse Om track system omit the rack entirely across the switch blades.

 

Dave

Edited July 12, 2022 by DIW
Pictures re-uploaded

[Chrislock]

Does anyone happen to know how the coupling rods on the Fleischmann rack loco are fixed to the wheels?

Are they easily and safely removable ( and returnable!)?

Many thanks

[DIW]

Chris, I'll have a rummage in the spares box later, I've got parts of the chassis of one of those in there.

 

Paul, Dutch, I found the following page of rack in HOe and HOm available from HRF while looking for something else.

 

Dave

[DIW]

On 04/12/2011 at 16:32, Chrislock said:

Does anyone happen to know how the coupling rods on the Fleischmann rack loco are fixed to the wheels?

Are they easily and safely removable ( and returnable!)?

Many thanks

 

Chris,

 

Here is the chassis from my spares box:

This is how it was when I got it, with the piston rods missing. The con rods are held to the other wheels with small bolts - the wheels are threaded. They are easy to undo, so it may be wise to use thread-lock of some type when refitting.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Edited July 12, 2022 by DIW
Pictures re-uploaded

[DIW]

On 11/11/2011 at 16:43, DIW said:

Further refinement is needed in the gimbol construction - I need to reduce its width at the ends to allow it to turn fully within the bodyshell

 

So here we are, a revised gimbal frame with the end width reduced:

 

I have also added to the width of the top beam to prevent further any liklihood of up/down hill pivoting happening at the rotational pivot.

 

Here the frame is fitted to the motor:

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Edited July 12, 2022 by DIW
Pictures re-uploaded

[Chrislock]

 

Chris,

 

Here is the chassis from my spares box:

This is how it was when I got it, with the piston rods missing. The con rods are held to the other wheels with small bolts - the wheels are threaded. They are easy to undo, so it may be wise to use thread-lock of some type when refitting.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Thanks for that Dave, though it is nothing like the Piccolo edelweiss loco which I was referring to - sorry if I didn't make that clear.

They certainly don't look like those bolts, but neither do they appear to go right through the wheel, as in crankpins fitted from the rear.

Cheers

Chris

[spurno]

Greetings.

A few of these specialist forums seem to have sprung up recently, semmingly with no or few posts in them.

So I thought I would pitch in and say that my main interest in Switzerland would be the little narrow gauge railways of the Jungfraubahnen, upon which I spent a happy summer recently.

I am thinking that such a line would have to be pretty much scratchbuilt?

I know that rack and pinion track used to be available.

I would love to work on a little narrow gauge version of Schynigge Platte or Kleinne Scheidegg.

 

Regards,

Chris

hi Chris

i don't model swiss railways but i have travelled on the railway to kleinne schiedegg and a few others around Interlaken in the late sixties.a lovely country and very clean trains.

 

cheers

 

alan

[Chrislock]

Hi Alan.

I have only been there once myself, in 2008, but it certainly leaves a lasting impression.

Some folk on here are regular visitors and I wouldn't mind a return trip myself this summer.

Its a pity that locomotives, stock and track is so limited and so expensive ( HRF for instance), as it means a fair bit of conversion and scratchbuilding to achieve a Swiss mountain railway at a realistic price for most modellers.

Chris

[spurno]

hi Chris

i wish you all the best with your layout.it should look stunning when you're finished.

 

cheers

 

Alan