Adrian Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 16.5mm gauge is underscale by over 12%, whereas 31.5mm gauge is under by only 4.5%. The first is noticable (especially if modellers do not shorten the sleepers to match); the second is barely, if at all noticable. Agreed if it's just track you're looking at then the differences may be barely noticable. However when it comes to the loco's then the difference can become apparent as the frames are too narrow. On many loco's with a bit of clever work you can hide it to some extent but on other's you can't. On my Ivatt 2 the running plates should be 15.5 mm wide but when I was building it to finescale standards the running plate ended up being 18mm wide to meet the narrow frames, the 16% error is noticable. Scale7 is more than just track standards. Does anyone know, for a start, if MMP kits can be made in S7? Martin finney? David Andrews? Connoisseur? My Connoisseur Jinty has been built to Scale7 standards with relatively few tweaks, just wider frame spacers really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debs. Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Did somebody mention that they were considering going S7? Warning!........There now follows a blatant plug: I machine and sell a range of S7 track gauges should they be reqd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Agreed if it's just track you're looking at then the differences may be barely noticable. However when it comes to the loco's then the difference can become apparent as the frames are too narrow. On many loco's with a bit of clever work you can hide it to some extent but on other's you can't. On my Ivatt 2 the running plates should be 15.5 mm wide but when I was building it to finescale standards the running plate ended up being 18mm wide to meet the narrow frames, the 16% error is noticable. Scale7 is more than just track standards. I wouldn't dispute that, and designing modern locos with frames that run right through to the front can be tricky. I had that problem when designing both the WD 2-8-0/2-10-0 kits and a forthcoming kit for the Ivatt 4 2-6-0. It can be done with a cunningly placed step in the frames, tight behind the cylinders, so that the visible frames are correct, but the functional ones will accommodate the underguage wheels. It's a compromise, but then so is the choice of going for commonly available off-the-shelf wheels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckjumper Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Does anyone know, for a start, if MMP kits can be made in S7? Yes. Martin finney? Like this? S7 spacers are included in the kit. David Andrews? Did one of his Schools. Lots of work involved to fit wider spacers as various bits of the running gear and inside cylinder hang from the ones in the kit which are very intricate. Connoisseur? Like this? (Annoying, but I only had a length of 32mm track to hand that day!) And what of a Metalsmiths turntable? No doubt, but I don't know how much work would be involved. Phone them, or ask Ozzy for his opinion as he's had one apart for Stephen Fay's loco depot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Thanks very much for the reply, Buckjumper and the excellent pictures, which show what can be achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Why is the track gauge so important to you? That's a serious question. One of the mysteries of model railways to me is why this one dimension is raised above all others as sacrosanct? Building a practical working model railway means making all sorts of compromises on many different dimensions, but for some reason this one -- the distance between the rails -- is given priority and importance over all others. Why? Is it simply that it makes a good banner to muster under? You know, like setting off on the crusade gauge wars Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Hi Jeff, Why is the track gauge so important to you? That's a serious question. One of the mysteries of model railways to me is why this one dimension is raised above all others as sacrosanct? Martin. Is it simply that it makes a good banner to muster under? You know, like setting off on the crusade gauge wars In all of the gauge wars that have gone on before all that matters is that the wheels and the track work together, OK. But one dimension that should not be changed is the wheel base of the loco, some kit makers will / have done this so when you get a 'scale' set of rods for the loco they will not fit the kits wheel base. Track that's OK to move as long as all the dimensions work. But the wheel base of the loco?????????????? OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Natalie Graham Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 and that ONE manufacturer has, by their actions, forced everyone to take a backward step, It is worth recalling, though, in Slater's' defence, that at the time they were introduced Slater's wheels were a great and significant step forward. Before that you turned your iron casting to finished size on the lathe so things like back-to-back and wheel profiles were what the individual managed to get them to. Often to coarse scale and the fact they were uninsulated, solid cast iron didn't matter as the modeller was probably using stud contact anyway. I would think Slaters probably had more influence than anyone in resurrecting O Gauge from a small group of modellers working with products that in many cases were like a visit back to the earliest days of the hobby, and had often been in production, unchanged, since then, to a viable, popular and flourishing scale. I can recall going into a well known and long established specialist model railway shop some 30+ years ago and asking if they had any O Gauge wagon wheels. The staff looked universally blank until one of them had a moment of inspiration and asked if I meant 'those big ones'. They still didn't have any though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Track that's OK to move as long as all the dimensions work. But the wheel base of the loco?????????????? Sure, why not? Welcome to the whole new world of NG, where you can dream up just about anything and somewhere in the world it will be prototypical ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 In all of the gauge wars that have gone on before all that matters is that the wheels and the track work together, OK. But one dimension that should not be changed is the wheel base of the loco, some kit makers will / have done this so when you get a 'scale' set of rods for the loco they will not fit the kits wheel base. Track that's OK to move as long as all the dimensions work. But the wheel base of the loco?????????????? OzzyO. Sure, why not? Welcome to the whole new world of NG, where you can dream up just about anything and somewhere in the world it will be prototypical ... Hello all, all I was saying is as long as the wheels and track work together all should be well. I cannot see that the track gauge for O gauge will be changed from 32mm to lets say 31.5mm or that we'll get the wheels changed to better suit 32mm track. But the one dimension that should not be changed is the wheelbase on the coupled wheels. That was all I was saying. I have seen a couple of layouts that have used 31.5mm track on the point work and 32mm on the plain track and the difference the point-work makes really helps make it look more to scale. Although the point-work track is now more out of scale. The main thing about 31.5mm point-work is that you can still use standard wheel sets bought off the shelf. I think that people have problems with Heljan wheels though. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 So, just to set myself straight: the best combination if I want prototypical looking track is to use 32mm track and build my pointwork to 31.5mm? Or should I use Deb's gauges and build BOTH to 31.5mm? (Does Debs do a B to B gauge?) And what WOULD be the effect on Heljan/Dapol etc wheels if I do the latter? Does anyone do ready to lay plain track in 31.5mm ? What about 32mm, apart from PECO? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debs. Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Does Debs do a B to B gauge? P.M sent. I have seen layouts where people have simply handbuilt the turnouts and crossings to 0-MF (31.5mm x 1.5mm) and used Peco metre lengths for the runs of other trackwork......the constructed turnouts can spread gauge slightly at the transition joints; which is almost undetectable to the naked eye (or the wheel-set) and MUCH faster, cheaper and easier to accomplish, than trying to make-up lengths of track using chairs, stained-sleepers and rail etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike G Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 At Newport we've been using 31.2 for years, accompanied by Slaters wheels on all stock. No problems with running and the point work looks great. Judge for yourself: http://www.newportmrs.com/frecclesham7mm312mmgauge.htm We used this gauge on our previous 7mm layout Hazelhurst. regards Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold queensquare Posted November 28, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2012 I've just read this thread with great interest as I am dabbling in 7mm and what strikes me above all is that some people must struggle to get past a reflective surface without arguing with themselves. For myself, I have built a S7 loco and there is no doubt that the wheels in particular look excellent. There are also a couple of members of my club that have extensive S7 layouts so I will have somewhere to run it on but, after having given it a great deal of thought, I have decided that I will stick with O fine on 31.5 with 1.5 mm flangeways as it gives me the greatest flexibility. Jerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 It's what I'm leaning towards. So far the only track I have is two metre lengths of PECO, but I dislike the look and will avoid using it if I can. Sorry, but, to me it looks like a toy. So far I have only built four wagons, two Parkside and two Slaters, none of which are painted, or really complete, so any layout is in the future. I would love to get on, but find motivating myself difficult because of my medication, (STRONG painkillers) which leave me groggy all day, only really feeling like doing anything at night...when it's dark and cold in the loft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 28, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2012 David Jenkinson widened the check gauge on his layout to suit the Slaters wheels the values and his philosophy were expounded in an artical for the 0 gauge gazette 'A matter of detail' if I remember aright. The problem with that approach is you can have trouble with visitor stock. The 31.2 or 31.5 option has the advantage of accepting 32mm stock but with narrower flangeways. To my mind the overwide flangeways of 32mm show more than the difference to 33mm. However one thing to watch if you are using tight turnouts you may have some problems the 32mm acts like a bit of gauge widening. So if you adopt 31.5mm use gentle turnouts B6 minimum makes sense with B7s for crossovers. I thought about S7 but adopted 32mm because most of GLOSGOG used it and I could run on friends layouts. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stringfingerling Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Hi Martin, thanks for this, clear succinct description of the various options. From this information, I agree with you that 31.5mm gauge OM-F, appears to give the best compromise between scale appearance and achievable smooth running, while using standard wheel sets. Looks like I'd better get out my cheque book and place an order with Debs! Best wishes Dave Has anyone got suggestions for how to achieve a smooth transition to 31.5mm for pointwork from 32mm plain plastic sleepered track - for example by slitting a few sleepers next to the join and squeezing the gauge gradually? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Or why not, if you are building your points, build in a smooth transition at either end to 32mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stringfingerling Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Good point. No pun intended. I think without studying my templates I assumed that there may not be enough length of rail at the toe end, but on reflection, each rail only needs to deviate by .25mm, so why not indeed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted March 13, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2013 Jeff my recommendation would be to build all the track work in the station area particularly between the various turnouts to 31.5 . If you insert a bit of Peco or even C+L between two turnout the lack of keys it noticeable. However on longer sidings or stretches of open track using C+L flexi will save time. If you do build plain track and have a tight curve revert to 32mm on the curve to ease the locos round. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 OK, I'm getting there. But it would appear that we are getting this back to front. SURELY, we want to get as close as possible to scale track? So, if the wheels are wrong B to B, why don't we do something about that, instead of narrowing our track gauge? Is it beyond someone to come up with better axles? Slaters, for example? It just seems odd to me that in a scale when we can get so much RIGHT, we are willing to move to 4' 6" track gauge........ First I will nail my colours to the mast. Dock Green is 7mm finescale and all the track is Peco. The wheel drop and overwide flangeways don't worry me - an acceptable compromise I think - but I can see the advantage of 31.5mm and if I was building my own points I would go for that. Pointwork does look better, you can see the difference. S7 is a further improvement over that but it does force a lot more work. Personally I would not be swayed by the arguement that S7 is 100% accurate - for me it would involve too much extra money and effort - I don't think it's just a question of axles - and anyway the standard of the rest of my modelling doesn't justify it. This is a well rehearsed arguement in 4mm and we are in danger of saddling ourselves with the same in 7mm. I would just add that I have seen some fine 00 models and some dreary uninteresting P4 ones. I'm not sure the accuracy of the track gauge is that important when viewing a layout. Still, as always, Rule One applies. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 One good thing about the 31.5mm etc is that any stock that is built to normal 32mm track gauge will run on it. If you go to 33mm (S7) that will be the only stock that will be able to run on it. Let's not down the gauge wars in 7mm, please. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted March 13, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2013 One good thing about the 31.5mm etc is that any stock that is built to normal 32mm track gauge will run on it. If you go to 33mm (S7) that will be the only stock that will be able to run on it. Let's not down the gauge wars in 7mm, please. OzzyO. This was a bit of an issue when I was editing the gazette the stance I took was that articles about S7 and 0F were equally welcome but unecessary critism of either wasn't. They are just different approaches. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Agreed, wholeheartedly. My only criticism of the whole lot is that once you start varying from a standard, it becomes unnecessarily complicated. Imagine what would have happened if some folk had decided the CD could be improved on...and attempted to do so? What makes the CD SO useful is that ANY CD will play on ANY player. And that's what I thought 7mm was going to be like..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Agreed, wholeheartedly. My only criticism of the whole lot is that once you start varying from a standard, it becomes unnecessarily complicated. Imagine what would have happened if some folk had decided the CD could be improved on...and attempted to do so? What makes the CD SO useful is that ANY CD will play on ANY player. Quite right too - it's a good job there is only one CD standard. Hang on a minute which standard are you referring to? Audio CD, Super Audio CD, CD-mini, CD-ROM, VCD, Super VCD, Photo CD, CD-i or Enhanced CD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.