Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

The terminology is commonly used and indeed widely advertised in the wider model railway world where most of us will presumably have started, using fixed rather than flexible trackwork, so I must confess I’m slightly surprised by finding it apparently so unknown on here.
 

It may have originally been a Hornby-ism, but it is certainly used in the Peco world. Their current catalogue defines their Code 100 Setrack Unit trackage system as:

 

No. 1 radius curves : 371mm

No. 2 radius curves: 428mm

No. 3 radius curves: 505mm

No. 4 radius curves: 571.5mm

 

And, as I say, I believe the usual trackage supplied with a current train set is No. 2 or Second Radius, so there is an “expectation” in the Trade that even model express locomotives should be able to negotiate such curves (though they may look odd doing so). If a model R-T-R design can’t do that (by whatever compromises it necessitates), then it won’t get made, or if it could do that but the compromises destroy the general realism of the model, it will be critically panned and will therefore lose the makers money.

 

 

I'm trusting my memory here, so don't shoot me down.

 

Hornby and Peco certainly use the same 1st/2nd/3rd/4th radius designations (I think there's a typo above by the way - 2nd radius is 438mm not 428mm )but I'm not sure which came first - probably Hornby, as I'm sure System 6 track predated Setrack.

 

I do seem to recall that at one time, before 4th radius was introduced (possibly even earlier, with Super 4), Hornby described their track as small/medium/large radius.

 

PS - interesting that Peco 4th radius is described as 571.5mm not 572mm, thereby breaking the 67mm track centres rule slightly - I wonder why?

Edited May 8 by St Enodoc
PS

[Woodcock29]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Andrew Woodcock29 is staying with us for a few days while over here from Oz.

 

He brought this..................

 

 

 

Much-altered, and very nice ex-K's J3 with him.

 

It complements my own J3s rather well............

 

 

My own K's one.

 

 

And my LRM one. 

 

Today we ran Bytham's sequence, and it was 5-all in operating mistakes! 

 

 

My much modified J3 only uses the Ks footplate (with its over large splashers), boiler (albeit marginally under the correct diameter) and cab. Still it looks the part. The chassis is the Iain Rice designed scale J52 chassis marketed under the Mainly Trains label (available from Wizard Models) which has the correct wheelbase. The tender is the LRM Stirling tender and the boiler fittings come from my spares boxes. I know the safety valve is from a Premier kits D2/D3 kit. The tender looks a bit low at the rear. I think I had the chassis out of the tender quite recently and it looks like I might have lost a spacer I had fitted to level it!

Andrew

Edited May 9 by Woodcock29
Added comment

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I'm trusting my memory here, so don't shoot me down.

 

Hornby and Peco certainly use the same 1st/2nd/3rd/4th radius designations (I think there's a typo above by the way - 2nd radius is 438mm not 428mm )but I'm not sure which came first - probably Hornby, as I'm sure System 6 track predated Setrack.

 

I do seem to recall that at one time, before 4th radius was introduced (possibly even earlier, with Super 4), Hornby described their track as small/medium/large radius.

 

PS - interesting that Peco 4th radius is described as 571.5mm not 572mm, thereby breaking the 67mm track centres rule slightly - I wonder why?

 

IIRC, Super 4 was first released under the Tri-ang regime, and curves only came in 1st and 2nd radius. 1st radius, at least, was increased over the preceding Series 3 geometry, thereby reducing double track spacing, but I think 2nd radius may have been the same or very close to "large radius" Series 3.

 

I'm fairly sure that 3rd and 4th radii were only introduced after the rebranding to Hornby, and I'm not certain whether Hornby or Peco did it first. I'd certainly switched to using Streamline before it happened, so probably wasn't taking too much notice! 

 

System 6 retained the geometry of the Series 4 range, with a reduction in rail height to Code 100. I disposed of all my old catalogues years ago but ISTR the larger two radii were added some time after initial launch of the range.

 

John

Edited May 9 by Dunsignalling

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

II'm not sure which came first - probably Hornby, as I'm sure System 6 track predated Setrack.

 

The basic geometry and dimensions go back to Triang's Super 4, introduced in 1962; System 6 was introduced in 1970, along with the rebranding to Triang-Hornby. 

 

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

PS - interesting that Peco 4th radius is described as 571.5mm not 572mm, thereby breaking the 67mm track centres rule slightly - I wonder why?

 

Simply because the metric dimensions usually quoted are conversions of the original imperial dimensions, rounded to the nearest millimetre:

• track spacing 2⅝" = 66.675 mm ~ 67 mm
• 1st radius 14⅝" = 371.475 ~ 371 mm
• 2nd radius = 17¼" = 438.150 mm ~ 438 mm

hence

• 3rd radius 19⅞" = 504.825 mm ~ 505 mm
• 4th radius 22½" = 571.500 mm 

In the late 70s Hornby had a range of, I think battery-operated, play-trains that came with a circle of grey plastic moulded track that looked like System 6 and fitted the geometry, being effectively 0th radius, 12" = 304.8 mm.

 

NB. 1" = 25.4 mm by definition.

Edited May 9 by Compound2632

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

IIRC, Super 4 was first released under the Tri-ang regime, and curves only came in 1st and 2nd radius. 1st radius, at least, was increased over the preceding Series 3 geometry, thereby reducing double track spacing, but I think 2nd radius may have been the same or very close to "large radius" Series 3.

 

I'm fairly sure that 3rd and 4th radii were only introduced after the rebranding to Hornby, and I'm not certain whether Hornby or Peco did it first.

 

John 

Yes, Super 4 was still Tri-ang and had a completely different geometry from Series 3.

 

I have a June 1993 Peco Setrack Plan Book, which only includes no 1 and no 2 radius but includes a reference to "other manufacturers' No 3 radius" - obviously Hornby - with regard to curved points.

 

I thought I also had some Tri-ang and later books but apart from a January 1966 Triang-Hornby Super 4 book they seem to have gone AWOL at the moment.

[St Enodoc]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Simply because the metric dimensions usually quoted are conversions of the original imperial dimensions, rounded to the nearest millimetre:

• track spacing 2⅝" = 66.675 mm ~ 67 mm
• 1st radius 14⅝" = 371.475 ~ 371 mm
• 2nd radius = 17¼" = 438.150 mm ~ 438 mm

hence

• 3rd radius 19⅞" = 504.825 mm ~ 505 mm
• 4th radius 22½" = 571.500 mm

Obvious! Thanks.

[Dunsignalling]

17 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes, Super 4 was still Tri-ang and had a completely different geometry from Series 3.

 

I have a June 1993 Peco Setrack Plan Book, which only includes no 1 and no 2 radius but includes a reference to "other manufacturers' No 3 radius" - obviously Hornby - with regard to curved points.

 

I thought I also had some Tri-ang and later books but apart from a January 1966 Triang-Hornby Super 4 book they seem to have gone AWOL at the moment.

 

Thanks, now I've had a cuppa and a few more minutes to think about it, a sneaking half-memory emerged that Hornby may not have introduced 3rd and 4th radius simultaneously, with 3rd being strategically intended to replace 1st because their increasing number of larger locos required too much to be compromised to go round the latter. 

 

The scale-length Princess Royal may have been the trigger.

 

John

Edited May 9 by Dunsignalling

[Compound2632]

While we're still on set track geometry, the length of the standard straight, usually quoted as 167.5 mm, is dictated by the geometry of the standard second-radius points to be:

second radius x sine (1/16th of a circle) = 438.15 mm x sin(22.5°) = 167.673 mm; 

which is just 1.2 thou over 6.6", so I strongly suspect this decimal inch dimension is what was originally used.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

My much modified J3 only uses the Ks footplate (with its over large splashers), boiler (albeit marginally under the correct diameter) and cab. Still it looks the part. The chassis is the Iain Rice designed scale J52 chassis marketed under the Mainly Trains label (available from Wizard Models) which has the correct wheelbase. The tender is the LRM Stirling tender and the boiler fittings come from my spares boxes. I know the safety valve is from a Premier kits D2/D3 kit. The tender looks a bit low at the rear. I think I had the chassis out of the tender quite recently and it looks like I might have lost a spacer I had fitted to level it!

Andrew

 

It is a superb example of what can be done with a fairly poor kit with the input of some time and work. I would never have guessed that it started life as the Ks model. The late Dick Tarpey did a similar job on one that I used borrow for exhibitions many years ago. That was in full GNR green livery. People would ask us the origin of the kit and be surprised at the answer.

[MikeParkin65]

13 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

What constitutes a tight curve will depend on circumstances and personal standards. To get a reasonable layout into my room, I have to work with Peco curved points which I believe are about 30" radius on the tighter route. This then becomes my ruling minimum radius throughout the layout, although I accept that there may be tight spots here and there. 

Ah - I do exactly this so it seems the minimum radius in my attic is 30 inches rather than 36 too. Good to know!

[Barclay]

Tight curve anyone ? To be fair the rest of my layout is 3' minimum, which is more appropriate for non - main line stuff in EM. Otherwise I must admit that I really don't like seeing 'train-set' curves on model railways.

 

[Izzy]

I think this tight curve problem is why so many of us with limited space just stick to straight layouts rather than circular ones. With the way housing is being ever more ‘efficiently’ designed I do think that in the longer term, if they can stick with it, Hornby’s decision to explore TT120 might be a clever move. 
 

Bob

[stewartingram]

My (late) mate acquired a load of track, he also had some Marklin H0  AC stud contact locos (with the centre stud pickups). Having built a roundy layout with the track, which was ancient fibre based, I helped to convert it to 3- rail operation. I had also converted his locos from AC to DC operation. Looking at the layout there was a very tight curve, which we measured at 8". I have to say, his big Marklin 0-8-0T took that curve with no problem whatsoever!

[Tony Wright]

17 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

What constitutes a tight curve will depend on circumstances and personal standards. To get a reasonable layout into my room, I have to work with Peco curved points which I believe are about 30" radius on the tighter route. This then becomes my ruling minimum radius throughout the layout, although I accept that there may be tight spots here and there. 

 

All this comes into play when "commissioning" new locos into service, especially kit-built ones which may have been made to operate to different standards. I accept that a few tweaks may be necessary here and there, and in a way such modifications help impart a small degree of personal association to the models which wouldn't otherwise be the case.

 

Here a few examples acquired via Tony, which I'm now in the happy process of pressing into service. Hopefully a few notes are of interest.

 

First up is a Brian Lee DJH 7F with a Portescap motor. 

 

 

This is a very nice loco in quite early condition, representing the first batch of 7Fs with small boilers. As far as I'm aware, this is a right-hand drive loco with the steam ejector (?) on the other side of the boiler, so I presume the reversing gear should also be on the right side, rather than on the left as shown here. The model needed no adjustment to get around my anti-clockwise loop, which is the tighter of the two main running lines (and where a loco is obligated to run through the tighter route of a Peco turnout).

 

Next is another DJH 7F, this one from Paul Bromige in BR condition:

 

 

This is a lovely model with a fair bit of added detail. Again, it depicts one of the first series of small-boilered 7Fs and is correctly modelled as a right-hand drive loco. It's interesting to note some detail differences to the firebox and smokebox compared to the Brian Lee one - I'm not sure if these reflect different castings, or loco-specific modifications made by Paul Bromige. The loco has the extended cab roof which was eventually applied to all 7Fs. Again, this 7F needed no mods to go around my curves. It's a little noisier in forward gear than reverse, but not obtrusively so.

 

Going back a decade or so, I acquired my first DJH 7F from a second hand sale:

 

 

This one also had the reversing gear on what I took to be the wrong side, so (rightly or wrongly) I rebuilt it. This one was much less happy on tight curves when acquired. I made a few adjustments to the chassis, and also swapped the original Portescap for a much quieter DJH motor, and it now runs nicely. However, I made no changes to the boiler details, so after examining the Paul Bromige example, I may want to revisit it.

 

Moving on from 7Fs to Western territory, the next two (for now) are from the Peter Lawson sale and both very nice models. Broughton Castle is another Portescap-powered model but a very quiet runner, and no adjustments were necessary for my tight curves. It ran like a treat straight out of the box.

 

 

It needs a tiny bit of touch-up work here and there, but the weathered green finish is lovely.

 

The last one for now, Bearley Grange, is the only one that was a little bit troublesome. On the tighter route, it seemed to bind and stop at certain points. Although I got to the bottom of the problem, I must admit to going down quite a few rabbit-holes before I eventually cracked it...

 

 

When the loco halted, it seemed (to me) that the deflection of the drivers on tight spots was causing the rear set of drivers to bind against the body. I cleared as much metal from the insides of the splashers as I could, but nothing did the trick. I then turned my attention to the bogie-cylinder clearance and again spent a fair bit of time removing metal and adding araldite insulation - but again to no avail. Finally, I realised that the problem was with the centre drivers shifting slightly on curves and contacting a brake shoe that was the live to the opposite polarity. A tiny tweak of the brake shoe was all that was needed to resolve the issue - but this in itself was somewhat tricky due to the close proximity of the pickups. It affirms my general preference for building electrically-dead chassis, when making my own locos.

 

However, once this issue was resolved, the loco proved itself to be a beautifully smooth and powerful runner, able to just creep around at a crawl if necessary. As with the Castle, the weathering is very nice.

 

All of the locos in BR condition will be in line for DCC conversion, in due course. At least where I've examined one (the Grange), there's ample room for a decoder.

 

Many thanks to Tony and Mo for their sterling work in helping pass these and other models on to new homes. It's greatly appreciated.

 

Al

 

Good afternoon Al,

 

I'm glad you're happy with your purchases.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Willie Whizz]

12 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I'm trusting my memory here, so don't shoot me down.

 

Hornby and Peco certainly use the same 1st/2nd/3rd/4th radius designations (I think there's a typo above by the way - 2nd radius is 438mm not 428mm )but I'm not sure which came first - probably Hornby, as I'm sure System 6 track predated Setrack. ….

 

You’re quite correct; a simple typo on my part (I do hate trying to write anything more than a sentence or so on a mobile phone, but my laptop is under repair at the moment!). 
 

Glancing through the latest Peco Catalogue to  check that, I was also amused to see their listing for “Tracksetta” templates for laying flexible track, which do show “metric” sizes but also “inches”, and it is clear they are still after all these years manufactured in the Imperial units and the awkward metric numbers (533mm, 762mm etc.) also marked are just conversions. 
 

Notable too that the Tracksetta curve sizes bear no relationship to the Setrack curve sizes. A “Third Radius” curve in the latter is 505mm but the nearest Tracksetta you can get to that is 533mm (21-inch), so mixing and matching with flexible track for someone fairly new to the hobby may be rather less straightforward than Peco would have us believe. 

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

I think this tight curve problem is why so many of us with limited space just stick to straight layouts rather than circular ones. With the way housing is being ever more ‘efficiently’ designed I do think that in the longer term, if they can stick with it, Hornby’s decision to explore TT120 might be a clever move. 
 

Bob

Without a continuous loop so I can just let a train run if the mood takes me and get a bit of speed up I think my interest and investment in the hobby would a lot less than it is. I appreciate of course that others are motivated differently. 

[Bernard Lamb]

Regarding long wheelbase locomotives and sharp curves. Gutzold have made their model of BR19 class Pride of Saxony able to negotiate toy train set curves and still look reasonable. They also fitted close coupling cams between locomotive and tender back in the last century. See current discussions in Hornby and Bachmann areas.

Bernard

 

[maico]

Any sort of streamlining is clearly a challenge that involves compromises. I have a maroon red Brawa BR06 that I have not properly photographed yet, an all metal bruiser weighing in at 840 grams.

To negotiate curves the front streamlining panel has to come off. The panelling is also wider over the drive wheels than the prototype. It can get around R2 fine. 

First marketed in 2001. Note the tight kinematic tender coupling. This is perhaps easier to achieve than on something like a Hornby 9F which has detailing under the open cab area.

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by maico

[Steamport Southport]

I think it was more the way a B16s front bogie, cylinders and connecting rods align than long wheelbases which is the problem.

 

Much larger locomotives than a B16 are available in British RTR that can easily go around Second Radius track.

 

 

 

Jason

[maico]

Hornby 9F sample.

 

Another forum member posted a great comparison of the drive wheels.

 

On R2 the frictional loses must be high due to the long wheelbase

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by maico

[Tony Wright]

Geoff Haynes dropped off some models this morning he's painted/weathered for me. Including..............

 

 

 

 

 

This DJH A3 I built. This is splendid painting, with just a touch of weathering.

 

Now with glazed cab, lamps fitted and a crew installed, she's taken up duties on LB. 

 

Another of my builds was..........

 

 

 

 

 

This (yet another) DJH A1, featuring the same add-ons as the A3.

 

 

 

He also further weathered the 'budget' BR Standard 4 4-6-0 featured of late.

 

It's much more subtle and realistic.

 

This has now been sold to a friend, but will be at the Stamford show over the weekend where I've got my usual stand. One of the above Pacifics will be there as well.

 

 

I'm amazed at how Geoff's subtle weathering has transformed this budget Bachmann B1.

 

Thanks Geoff for such high-standard work. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Readers might recall my series on 'Budget Modelling', featured in BRM earlier this year.

 

I worked on five guinea pigs.

 

 

And here they are; a Hornby Pullman car, brake van and PO wagon, a Lima small prairie and a Hornby pannier tank. 

 

The original intention was to offer them as prizes in BRM, but now the decision has been taken for me to sell them, all proceeds going to CRUK. 

 

I'll have them with me for sale at the Stamford show over the weekend, should anyone be interested. They're all 'famous'!

 

 

Edited May 10 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Barry Ten]

I mentioned a while ago that my Nu-Cast 2-4-0 was missing a rear cab step (two of the same one had been packed). With the news that Nu-Cast has ceased business and no spares can be supplied, I thought I might as well have a go at making my own steps.

 

 

The one on the left is the casting, which I used to measure out the shape on some scrap nickle-silver salvaged from EM and P4 frame spacers. The footrests were from brass strip off the side of another etch, reinforced with brass wire on the inside of the join. Finally, I added little fillets of thin brass to the corners, which are supposed to blend in to the footplate when the steps are mounted. I'm reasonably happy with the outcome - they're a bit rough but they are more or less the right shape and size so I think will look ok once in place.

[Keith Turbutt]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

I'm amazed at how Geoff's subtle weathering has transformed this budget Bachmann B1.

 

Thanks Geoff for such high-standard work. 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Very nice weathering but I think I would have painted out the boiler lining. I attach a couple of my prototype photos for comparison. The first two are of a loco cleaned up for the LCGB GC Farewell tour in September 1966. Despite being cleaned up for the special the boiler lining is hardly noticeable. The next photo was taken at Dunfermline shed August 1965. The loco is quite dirty and the boiler lining is just about visible. Most models, both RTR and kits, have boiler bands which are much too thick and should only be barely the thickness of the transfers.

 

 

Looking through some of my other photos, this one of A2 60530 shows the most prominent boiler lining. Also taken in August 65 at Dundee Tay Bridge.

[Chas Levin]

On 10/05/2024 at 19:26, Barry Ten said:

...With the news that Nu-Cast has ceased business and no spares can be supplied, I thought I might as well have a go at making my own steps...

 

Very nice job, but I thought the new Nu-Cast management were able to supply spares now? Mind you, thoroughly in keeping with the oft-stated principles of Wright Write to make things ourselves! 😊