MartinWales Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 A quick perusal of C&L's website this afternoon has unearthed the distinct possibility of RTR Finescale pointwork. www.finescale.org The provision of ready made turnout kits in Bullhead and Flat Bottomed rail available straight from the box. A shot-in-the arm for potential Finescale modellers? Mods-If this is posted in the wrong section please feel free to relocate! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Am I missing something? That link is to continental 2mm finescale. How will that help the 00 modeller who wants UK sleeper spacing and code 75 rail? Do you mean this page, but still a kit of parts in 2mm finescale. http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=754 The chance of RTR track in 4mm finescale would certainly be of interest as an alternative to Markits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tase Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 In the news section on this site about half way down the page. http://www.finescale.org.uk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapford34102 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Interesting potential development but I'll be curious as to the cost. Stu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tase Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 My thoughts exactly Stu. The kit prices are high so unless they are going for some updated tooling and manufacturing process rather than get somebody to assemble the kit I can't see that they'll ever be 'cheap' enough to worry the RTR people, either Peco/Hornby or end users. Anyway, we'll find out in a couple of months! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWales Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 Indeed! Let's wait and see! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted February 16, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 16, 2015 Considering how much Mr Wizard knocks his RTP etched brass signals out for, I think we "could" be in for a surprise. Unless of course.......................... Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSB Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I seem to remember that they used to do RTR points but dropped them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37114 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Interesting development, if this had been announced a year ago I would have given them a whirl, but now hooked on building my own! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mark Forrest Posted February 16, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 16, 2015 Very interesting development; provision for both flatbottom and bullhead could be useful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 IIRC Theyvwere available RTR years ago, Martn Welch had some in the Blue Peter in Plymouth. Prob somewhere around the mid 90's? Approx £45 a pop. But I might be wrong.........? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I have always found that marchway ready to lay points to be very reasonable in price I know that there isn't the detail as in C&L but lets wait and see Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 16, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 16, 2015 If these are simply made-up versions of the existing C&L turnout kits they can't properly be called "RTR". That's because the crossings have 1.0mm flangeways and the supplied C&L roller gauges are for the DOGA-Fine standard. RTR models won't run on them as supplied. The wheels back-to-back must be increased to 14.6mm - 14.7mm. To be called "RTR" turnouts they should presumably work with all RTR models as supplied? For that they need to be to the 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate standard with 1.3mm flangeways. With 1.0mm flangeways they could be assembled to 16.2mm gauge using the 00-SF gauges and then the vast majority of RTR models would run, subject to the wheels being within tolerance (14.3mm - 14.4mm back-to-back) and good manufacturing quality control. It will be interesting to see exactly what these turnouts turn out to be. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 To be called "RTR" turnouts they should presumably work with all RTR models as supplied? For that they need to be to the 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate standard with 1.3mm flangeways. Martin, please do not misrepresent and misquote these standards. The relevant DOGA datasheet is here. http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialtrack.htm 1.20mm +/- 0.05mm is not, under any form of rounding , 1.3mm The BRMSB OO standard is 1.25mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 16, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 16, 2015 1.20mm +/- 0.05mm is not, under any form of rounding , 1.3mm The BRMSB OO standard is 1.25mm And the NMRA H0 standard, to which the Far East factories work, is 0.050" = 1.27mm. That's 2 out of 3 which can be reasonably rounded to 1.3mm as one place of decimals, and I shall continue to do so. Whatever it is, it is not 1.0mm. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 If these are simply made-up versions of the existing C&L turnout kits they can't properly be called "RTR". That's because the crossings have 1.0mm flangeways and the supplied C&L roller gauges are for the DOGA-Fine standard. RTR models won't run on them as supplied. The wheels back-to-back must be increased to 14.6mm - 14.7mm. To be called "RTR" turnouts they should presumably work with all RTR models as supplied? For that they need to be to the 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate standard with 1.3mm flangeways. Fortunately they are not calling them "RTR" turnouts - on the website they describe them as 'ready made' ... to use 'straight from the box'. So as long as they accurately describe the standard they have been made to I can't see the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 17, 2015 Fortunately they are not calling them "RTR" turnouts - on the website they describe them as 'ready made' ... to use 'straight from the box'. So as long as they accurately describe the standard they have been made to I can't see the problem. I didn't say there was a problem. I was responding the the subject line of this topic, which refers to "RTR" turnouts. Perhaps a better term would be "RTL" -- ready-to-lay. Nevertheless I imagine many of those attracted to them in 00 would want to run unmodified RTR models over them, and if they are simply made-up versions of the existing 00 turnout kits they are going to be disappointed. At present it is all speculation anyway until we actually see them. Perhaps C&L will start with the EM versions, just for a quiet life. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I'm finding the quote on the C&L page a little difficult to interpret: including the provision of 'ready made' turnout kits (in both bullhead and flat bottom rail versions) that will be available to use 'straight from the box'. the use of quotation marks usually indicates when something is not as stated, for ironic effect, and the phrases ready made.... kits and use straight from the box seem to be contradictory. A kit can't be ready made, and a kit can't be used straight from the box - it has to be assembled, surely? If we're talking a ready to lay, bull head rail B8, fully assembled and wired (like a Peco turnout) then I'm in. If it's just an assemblage of bits that have to be glued and soldered together, then I'm out. edit - actually, if they come ready to lay in EM I'm definitely in. I've tried making my own turnouts, it wasn't fun and they didn't work! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The kit prices are high so unless they are going for some updated tooling and manufacturing process rather than get somebody to assemble the kit I can't see that they'll ever be 'cheap' enough to worry the RTR people, either Peco/Hornby or end users. Comparison to RTR (Peco/Hornby) is surely irrelevant as they only make RTR pointwork in O/OO/N The cost of anything, as always, is relative. To someone who hasn't the time, skill, or simply cannot be bothered to build their own this could be the simple answer to move to a finer scale gauge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAustin Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Am I missing something? That link is to continental 2mm finescale. How will that help the 00 modeller who wants UK sleeper spacing and code 75 rail? Do you mean this page, but still a kit of parts in 2mm finescale. http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=754 The chance of RTR track in 4mm finescale would certainly be of interest as an alternative to Markits. Good though these are, they're not quite 2mm finescale. They're designed, as the website says, they are design ed around recent (c10 years) commercial wheel standards. Much better than the RTR standards, which have to occommodate anything, but not quite 2mm. The 2mm Scale Association is working on something similar using cast crossing and chairs with pins locating in pre-drilled sleeper bases. MarkAustin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 And the NMRA H0 standard, to which the Far East factories work, is 0.050" = 1.27mm. That's 2 out of 3 which can be reasonably rounded to 1.3mm as one place of decimals, and I shall continue to do so. Whatever it is, it is not 1.0mm. Martin. Actually - and this is something well worth highlighting - the NMRA standard is not 1.27mm , in any simple way http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-3.2_2010.05.08.pdf The metric figures are on page 2 . The head hurts quite enough reading this lot without having to do metric/imperial conversions in it The NMRA datasheets aren't exactly obvious in what they are saying , but it seems they are trying to set upper and lower parameters by the interaction of different dimensions.t the HO And it seems that these are meant to give asymmetric flangeways - that is, the check rail flangeway would be 1.12mm (set by G-C) and the wing rail flangeway no greater than 1.27mm , nominally 1.22mm and potentially as little as 0.89mm. Not exactly what you'd expect, and I'm not sure I like the idea of the check and wing flangeways being different, but that does seem to be what the HO line is saying. 1.22mm nominal is not 1.3mm , and there seems to be a huge permissable tolerance below nominal standard but not much tolerance above it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The normal situation is to have equal crossing flangeways and checkrail flangeways at the nominal gauge and to allow the checkrail flangeway to be wider when the gauge is widened for sharp curves. Such an arrangement is possible within the NMRA standard but the figures given in the standard are not very helpful in working out what the dimensions should be! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 17, 2015 The NMRA dimensions have been an utter mess since they were changed about 5 years ago to individual "target" dimensions with often unequal +/- tolerances. This replaced the previous sensible working system based on interdependent dimensions where some are specified as MIN (such as the track gauge) and some as MAX (such as the check span). The traditional H0 crossing flangeway was 0.050" (=1.27mm) on 0.650" track gauge. The flangeway gap at the check rail should never be specified -- it is the instantaneous difference between the check gauge and the track gauge and it varies. With the track gauge on MIN and the check gauge on MIN it is normally symmetric with the crossing flangeway gap. If there is some gauge-widening the check rail gap increases by the same amount. If the check gauge is above MIN the check rail gap decreases by the same amount. The actual width of the check rail gap doesn't matter a damn, providing it is wider that the thickest wheel flanges in use. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted February 25, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2015 The flangeway gap at the check rail should never be specified -- it is the instantaneous difference between the check gauge and the track gauge and it varies. With the track gauge on MIN and the check gauge on MIN it is normally symmetric with the crossing flangeway gap. If there is some gauge-widening the check rail gap increases by the same amount. If the check gauge is above MIN the check rail gap decreases by the same amount. The actual width of the check rail gap doesn't matter a damn, providing it is wider that the thickest wheel flanges in use. Apologies for going off topic slightly but how is this achieved on the prototype? I thought the checkrail chairs for the real thing came cast with a fixed gap - is that an erroroneous assumption, or are there loads of chairs in order to get the required gauge to the check rail? I look forward to the day where the more I think I know the less I actually know is no longer true on this subject! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 25, 2015 Apologies for going off topic slightly but how is this achieved on the prototype? I thought the checkrail chairs for the real thing came cast with a fixed gap - is that an erroneous assumption, or are there loads of chairs in order to get the required gauge to the check rail? Hi, Yes, the prototype uses special chairs with a widened flangeway gap. The check gauge is always 4'-6.3/4" and the standard gap is 1.3/4", but where there is gauge-widening special check chairs are made in 3 wider sizes, with the gap increased by 1/4" or 1/2" or 3/4" respectively. These are not often used within pointwork, but they are commonly used on plain track where a continuous check rail is needed with gauge-widening on sharp curves. Here is chapter and verse from the bible (BRT3): ( 1 chain = 66ft ) regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.