Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

hayfield

Members
  • Posts

    13,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hayfield

  1. There are many items on eBay even in model railways that may not be good value or even overpriced. Like any other commodity you should be aware of how much items usually cost. Where I can, I support my local model shop, which is a great place to buy run of the mill items. However they can only support the most common parts of the hobby. Simply know what you want and its value. With items on eBay just think, Am I buying a new item from a retailer or am I buying a second hand item from a member of the public ?. 99% of what I buy on eBay is via the auction method. This morning there are 1.15m items listed under Model railways, only 54k are via the auction method, more often than not this is where the good value items can be found, but like any auction its buyer beware !!!!
  2. I think you could make this statement for most online sites and shops. I could say Lidl is rubbish as I buy few of their food items, but for inexpensive DIY items my first choice. I am not interested in most of Amazon products, but they are great for next day (free) delivery of inexpensive gardening items. Who else would hand deliver the next day an item costing £3 ? As for eBay here are 2 recent purchases Example :- A Perseverance as new un-started GWR twin rail car, the bonus was it cost me £56 + postage as they usually sell for over £100 on the rare occasions they turn up. Or an as new Craftsman GC A5 loco kit with a set of Romford wheels, for about the same cost a new set of Markit wheels would set me back today. Un started kits go for at least £80 I like many others find eBay a great way to buy older model railway kits and parts that are almost impossible to buy anywhere else, usually at great prices. However I virtually never buy anything else from them
  3. I also find if you take time in setting out exactly where the bends on the common crossing sit stock will run through the common crossing freely, its easier said than done especially when common crossings are made as subassemblies. This is not unique to and single gauge or scale. Its simply getting the alignment correct Thanks for this thread as its very interesting and many of the issues raised can be used with other scales and gauges. Clearly wheel profiles and settings are equally important for good running of stock
  4. I am reading this thread with interest, but I am getting a bit confused, please confirm if I am understanding the topic correctly The wheel BtB is the standard 16.5 Standard Gibson EM wheelsets are OK Romford wheels flanges are too wide What about P4 wheelsets ? are the flanges too small and does the BtB need opening up a tad ? Thanks
  5. What a great thread, not only interesting and informative, but no standards wars, just a group of folk who are interested in others views Thanks to all
  6. Yes and still do so until I use my stock up, then its on to C&L. It looks great using bullhead rail has chairs the correct size sleepers and spacing. Visually there is no contest against H0 scale track Peco to me looks awful, under scale in all aspects and has no chairs let alone flatbottom rail. Totally wrong for the era I am modelling its a bit like having Triang locos against a modern detailed loco The rail I used which is C&L HiNi fitted easily, it must have been the rail you were using that caused the issues !!! Certainly with the flatbottom track Peco code 83 does not fit, it needs to be code 82 Its very easy to use straight (much easier than standard) flexitrack. Curving I faced no issues with spacing on curved track, I simply cut out the spacers on the inside, spacing was maintained and infact far better than alternating the cuts either side, which if you look very closely can form minute doglegs Clearly it will not help Philou but the thought of respacing H0 scale sleepers on 175 yards of track feels me with dread, what a waste of time as you still end up with H0 scale track (as advertised by the company). However it may help others from falling into the same trap. As for Peco concrete code 75 track, its both H0 scale and modern era, even if you model this era I would suggest you look at the Exactoscale fastrack flatbottom bases with code 82 rail (not Peco code 83) as its to 4mm scale Would you mix HO scale British stock with 00 scale stock, I think the answer is no !! why treat track differently ?
  7. Exactoscale has also been supplying flatbottom code 82 track in 4mm scale, probably the only true 4mm scale flatbottom track as far as sleeper widths and spacings are concerned.
  8. For years proper bullhead track has been on sale with (4mm) scale width sleepers and sleeper spacing let alone chaired track SMP has been around as long as I can remember, but many dislike the thin thickness of the track bed Exactoscale have been supplying thick based 00 gauge flexitrack with their fast track bases C&L uses to sell thin track bases, but the new track base is the same thickness as Peco and Exactoscale, its in 60' track panels with 12" sleepers at each end and narrower sleeper spacings at the ends, not only are there chairs but the chairs have keys in them, and like SMP and Exactoscale C&L use bullhead rail, not modified flatbottom Why reinvent the wheel, scale bullhead has been with us for years and it just gets better. Now with British Finescale there are (very) easy to assemble prototypical looking turnouts. Two types available one fully compatible with ready to run stock, a second version for those wishing to go that step further with finer flangeways.
  9. TBG You have hit the nail on the head, wheel and track standards must be compatible The third thing that comes into play is the legacy of older models where wheels are not as fine scale as modern wheels. Most RTR track systems are designed for use with the latter. But many are stating they want better looking track, with plain track its simple as the gauge remains the same its just having 4mm scale sleepers and spacings Its turnouts and crossings that cause the issue, if we are simply talking geometry (A5/B7 etc) then its a simple job of using one designed RTR gauge compatible standards, others though want finer gaps between check and wing rails, personally reducing the check rail gap at the expense of the wing rail gap just looks wrong.
  10. I have in the past used rattle can primer, if coloured plastic is more of an issue perhaps the etched primer may be of use ?
  11. Gents Distance selling rules actually give you far more rights that buying in person, this can be further enhanced by using a credit card. This has nothing to do with the topic, but using mail order you can return any item you have decided is unfit for use.
  12. As a customer I expect any item I buy to work as advertised, if it fails in use I contact/go and see the retailer and expect them to honour the guarantee. For all electricals I keep the box it came in including all the packing and it goes into the loft with the sales receipt also inside. If an item goes wrong I take it back to the retailer packed up as new with the receipt. Most times the item is just replaced. If I bought a new loco and it failed to work properly it would be returned to the retailer. That includes if a loco's wheels back to back measurements are outside that which is specified for the gauge. Given the price charged for locos these days I would expect it to work correctly in every way straight out of the box. There is a confusion as to what is 00 gauge specifications? I would use 00BF and or BRMSB others might have a different idea but the principai is the same
  13. Martin https://doubleogauge.com/journal/ Seems one of their aims is to talk to the trade on behalf of 00 gauge modellers ?
  14. Pacific231G Thanks for a very informative reply. I don't think anyone was complaining about the BRMSB standards issued in 1950, they were of their time Fast forward 70 years and look at the quality of ready to run models now available against those of 1950. Given modern wheelsets bear no comparison to those of 70 years ago I assume the question asked "Do we need a current day BRMSB" is one that simply states the obvious, do we need a set of standards which takes into consideration modern day design and manufacturing advancements in our hobby ?
  15. Looking at the two tables, which seem concise and simple to read, this could be copied by any gauge/scale so that there are no ambiguities over standards I am not saying use 00SF, just have a clear set of standards for chosen standard. Perhaps if the manufacturers stated what set of 00 gauge standards they used might move things forward
  16. Fulton Quite right a project funded by the EMGS but using Peco's knowledge and skills. My point being is that it proves it can be done in RTR, forget the gauge its a prototypical looking turnout which could be replicated in other gauges
  17. Perhaps if you stopped both misquoting people and twisting what they say we would not be forced to reply, and simply just ignore you.
  18. Here we go again miss quoting me, please stop doing so Nowhere have I said there is not a market for anything other than with code 100. Unlike yourself like many others I have proved finescale 00 gauge works and can be built to a standard equal to EM gauge if not P4. Some modellers do want something better where not only do they want something with finer tolerances, but built to finescale designs with the correct chairs being used, however they still want to use RTR stock without modification. For many 00SF has been the solution and with British Finescale providing the 00 gauge modeller 2 products in very easy to assemble kits the future looks bright Peco have made a try at the bullhead market, Personally the bent end timber is totally non prototypical, the check rail gap has been reduced at the expense of a larger wing rail gap, The geometry of the timbering is wrong for the majority of uses, interesting to see the EM gauge track they make for the EMGS differs in these areas.
  19. Kevin I seem to remember quite a few quotes stating this over the past few months or longer. And as for buying new RTR stock there are as many collectors as modellers out there if not more, then you have the toy train marked, all of a sudden the number of enthusiasts who want a better looking and performing track looks quite small
  20. Pacific Great points made here but you are Moving on from just BRMSB standards In my view the the same with a turnout as a loco !! For instance what makes an A3 look good in 4mm scale but to 00 gauge, is that its accurate visually in all things except in the wheel gauge What makes a turnout look as good is for it to accurately represent a turnout, is exactly what makes the A3 looks like its prototype visually, but the same as the model with a reduced gauge But the visual looks also like the loco wheels have to take the gauge specification into consideration. A simple task is to obtain a plan designed on prototypical practice but to a standard 00 gauge. Visually you will have a better looking turnout Looking at Peco's own bullhead template which I have printed out, clearly shows the check rails being finer than the 1.25mm check gauge, but the wing rail gap being quite a lot over the 1.25mm wing rail gap (which to me looks wrong!!
  21. As far as I am concerned, it has been correctly written. Pecos main business is set track and code 100 according to all of the posts I have read on this forum. Fact not assumption Those wanting a true 4mm scale 00 gauge track are in a small minority, but thankfully its growing. But the issue we are talking about (BRMSB) will never be solved until we take all things into consideration, wheels and track !!!
  22. Martin The main problem I can see is that the average 4mm scale modeller or collector who buys RTR stock is ever hungry for more detailed models. There is nothing wrong with this I think this is something we all strive for, but too little thought has been put into wheels and their gauging. Some buy models which are destined never to run, so they don't care, others just blame the track if their are issues. To complicate matters further there is a small and growing band who want better looking track to compliment the stock they have bought Those of us who understand track building realise the importance that both track and wheels need to adhere to the same standard. The problems with wheelsets nonconforming can derive from the design process and or manufacturing issues. The blame game at the moment is on the gauge and or its standards, which is wrong. Its seems to be a lack of a consistent standards used either in design or manufacture Perhaps if the manufacturers of locos and stock actually published the wheel standards they used, it would be a start to addressing the problem.
  23. Pete We all acknowledge that the hobby is a very broad church and at both extremes we are poles apart, I have numerous friends within the hobby ranging from at one end 1 A friend who uses set track radius 1,2 & 3 with tail chasing stock with no regard to region or era, and no scenery. He just loves playing trains 2 At the other extreme a friend who models to P4 standards and uses all types of new technology to scratch build items Both love the area of the hobby they are involved it. For some building their own track is the right route, others are reliant on buying existing RTR items. Whatever part of the hobby you enjoy you expect items you buy to be of an acceptable standard, yet we are constantly hearing of inconstancy in both design and quality control where wheels and mechanism's are concerned. Admittedly those who use coarser 00 gauge standards may tend to suffer less, however those wanting something both better looking and performing suffer the most. The more you pay for an item, you rightly expect it to be far more accurate and reliable. Its in everybody's benefit that that models comply with an acceptable quality in looks, performance and reliability. Build your own in this context is a red herring !!
×
×
  • Create New...