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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. 7 hours ago, chrissy said:

    eBay is rubbish for most stuff. I buy my clothes from Vinted and anything else on Amazon.


    Christine x


    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

    • Like 2
  3. 15 hours ago, t-b-g said:


    As I have said before, I always test my points with no check rails and I can't recall ever having a point that things wouldn't run through without them. So I don't get wheels "hitting" check rails and lurching over. Having the correct alignment from the wing rails onto the crossing nose seems to do away with such things.


    This thread set out mainly to try to establish what the Manchester EM track standards were and I am happy that the question has been answered.


    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



    • Informative/Useful 1
  4. 7 hours ago, Ravenser said:



    Have you ever used that stuff? I have, on a club project , and I don't have fond memories of it. Rigid sleeper base, needing to be cut and respaced on curves. Rail was a tight force fit. Peco Code 75 concrete sleeper flexibnle track is a better bet


    The comment arose because Philou has already purchased 175 yards of code 75 FB wooden sleeper Streamline. As the deed is done, all recommendations that he use OO bullhead from whoever , or code 75 concrete sleeper are too late.


    The one thing he might do is respace the sleepers on the large quantity of code 75 streamline he has already bought


    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 ?

  5. 6 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:


    True, but not everybody wants to use bullhead.

    Flatbottom rail on wooden sleepers has been common for many years. Re-spacing the sleepers improves the look. It is time consuming but an inexpensive way to improve the appearance of cheaper HO track.



    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.

    • Like 1
  6. 5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

    It's tedious but entirely possible to respace the plain track sleepers with Peco track. Since the sleepers are actually very close to scale for 3.5mm/ft but spaced at 600mm centres which is much closer than most British track (HS1 apart) I'd maybe suggest setting them at 2'6" centres in 3.5mm/ft scale to avoid them looking too spindly. The track itself should then look right  on its own though still underscale when something is running on it. It's fairly easy to make up a spacing jig to help with that and you obviously need to make sure the now loose sleepers remain square. 

    I notice that the sort of discerning modellers in France who want to use double champignon (BH more or less) rather than vignoles (FB) track for those regions (about half the country before SNCF) that had it  seem perfectly happy with Peco bullhead even though it is to 4mm/ft scale in terms of sleeper width and separation (They were/are also perfectly happy with SMP bullhead) so the sleeper width doesn't seem to be a problem and the widder sleeper spacing is about right for lines other than fast main lines . 


    The Peco Simplex coupling, also used by HD who paid to do so, was patented by Sidney Pritchard so couldn't have been adopted as a standard coupling. That was why Tri-ang adopted a rather coarse version of the LaNal coupling which wasn't.  The continental hinged loop coupling is an NEM standard but its still a wretched thing that should have been strangled at birth. 



    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. 

    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, t-b-g said:


    Unless your track and your wheels are to a set of standards which match each other, no amount of getting one dimension exactly right is the answer.






    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. 

  8. 12 hours ago, Ravenser said:


    I'm afraid an awful lot of stuff is now mail-order. Model shops are few and far between - there are just 2 left in London




    12 hours ago, martin_wynne said:


    An email before you buy? In any other business, the assumption if buying a Hornby product would be that it is designed to run on Hornby track. If you know you want to run it on some other track, it would make sense to email and ask first.






    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.

  9. 1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:


    H Pete,


    I don't understand what is unrealistic about it?


    No manufacturer is going to spend thousands of pounds on new tooling while their products are flying off the shelves. No matter how many self-appointed groups write to them in green ink claiming to know all about thous and tolerances.






    44 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:


    Hi Martin,


    Your suggestion is for anyone with models which will not run reliably to take them back. In order for it to have an effect, it would need to be a significant amount of people doing the same. But it seems this is not currently the case & it will not change overnight. I cannot make other people follow me, so it is unrealistic to expect this approach to have an effect.


    The OP was asking if a current BRMSB would be useful & like nearly all threads on here, it has drifted off-topic. I know this should cope with other scales than OO, but who would form it & what would they do? I saw this question asked a while back, but it was very much a relevant comment to the original question.





    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

  10. 2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:



    It would be interesting to know exactly WHO were these people calling themselves DOGA and setting themselves up to define the 00 dimensions for everyone else? By what authority?


    And WHO are you anyway? You have never signed your name in all the years you have been disagreeing with my contributions to RMweb using my real name.


    But Google is my friend: https://www.themodelrailwayclub.org/blacklade-an-oo-gauge-layout-by-stephen-siddle/


    I put all sorts of dimensions in my Templot program, but I have never once suggested that any manufacturer should take the slightest notice of them -- or anyone else if they don't want to.


    Martin Wynne.








    Seems one of their aims is to talk to the trade on behalf of 00 gauge modellers ?

  11. 1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

    Thanks Martin that's very clear.

    There are no stupid questions so Mr. Reichert has nothing to gripe about 😉


    It's interesting that the oft criticised BRMSB standards- at least in the 1950 published version- seem to do more or less what you're suggesting with four dimensions for track. minimum gauge (16.5mm for both H0 and 00), maximum distance over check and wing rails (14.5 for H0 and 14 for 00) , minimum check rail clearance (1mm for H0 and 1.25 for 00) and minimum check gauge (15.5 for H0 and 15 for 00)  (I've not quoted the dimensions for EM and EMF because the gauge changed to 18.2mm and, with the standards taken over by the EMGS, the BRMSB version is probably irrelevant)


    They clearly perceived H0 as a fine scale so, for wheels, the BtoB was 15mm for H0 and 14.5 for 00 and the tyre width 1.5mm for H0 and 2mm for 00. There's no other obvious reason for these being different as, in terms of the rail/wheel relationship the scale is surely irrelevant. The H0 dimensions are only relevant because they're also for 16.5mm gauge.


    The 1950 published standards were far more developed than the original BRMSB 3.5 & 4mm scale dimensions quoted in the MRC in 1943 or 1944. This only gave gauge and check rail clearances for "scale H0" and "scale OO (i.e. EM)  didn't give any such dimension for "standard" 00 and no check gauge or check span for any of them.

    I actually wonder if more than one modeller in a hundred has ever even known what a check gauge dimension is and why it matters (for most of my life I certainly didn't) though there is a clear explanation in the 1950 publication of BRMSB standard dimensions.


    When I was using them in the early 1980s,  the published NMRA standards seemed to be based on the engineering manufacturing practice of quoting  dimensions for individual compoents with a plus and minus tolerance (which could be zero for one or the other)  rather than the relationship between those dimensons - though one assumed they had all been properly worked out.

    Why they hould have had a problem converting inches to mm is curious. The one conversion factor I know by heart is 25.4 mm/inch and it's not an aproximation. They did though also get themselves into awkward maths by using one too many decimal places to convert the British 3.5mm/ft into a scale ratio and ending up with 1:87.1 rather than simply rounding it to 1:87 as MOROP did- at least it's not 1:87.086.











    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 ?

  12. 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

  13. 1 hour ago, fulton said:

    My understanding is that it is an EMGS product, developed by them, with PECO and manufactured by PECO.




    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 

    • Agree 2
  14. 15 hours ago, Ravenser said:



    With the greatest respect, you've show a considerable reluctance to remove yourself from it.


    You and Hayfield are now the second and third heaviest posters in the thread...


    It was Enterprisingwestern wot did it, halfway down P6 on 24/4:



    aphic purposes. A lockdown project, reconstructing a kit bought in my early teens and long dumped in a box



    Perhaps if you stopped both misquoting people and twisting what they say  we would not be forced to reply, and simply just ignore you.



  15. 17 hours ago, Ravenser said:


    Hayfield - nobody knows the proportion of code 100 buyers


    Peco aren't saying. Nor do we know if ther are more collectors than modellers out there.


    There are certainly people who keep buying stock far beyond their realistic needs - which they intend to run oneday.


    I really question whether the vtoy train market exists in a big way . Hornby themselves say that the bulk of their sales are to adults


    Your argument has been overtaken by reality . There are now ready made track items with British 4mm sleepering on sale in most m,odel shops, or promised imminently.


    I've been listening to the claim that there's no market for anything better than code 100 for 25 years. Its false.


    Just like I used tyo listen to explanations why there was no market for high-spec steam and  diesel locomotives in Britain . Completely uneconomic. The market just wants Lima . The importer is right - shut up. 


    And that was totally untrue, as well. we now have RTR of the LMS Twins and GT3. With a decent motor in the loco and all wheel pickups . The things we were told for years we couldn't have, cos there was no market. Shut up and accept your pancake motors...



    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.

  16. Just now, kevinlms said:

    I wonder what the percentage is of Peco's Code 100 is vs. other options is? My money would be on Code 100, judging by what appears appears in various magazines and websites.

    Price is a huge factor.




    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

  17. 5 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

    Peco makes what it can sell profitably into its market. It's just as happy to sell code 75 as code 100 but I don't actually know what  "true 4mm scale 00 gauge track" could possibly be as 00 is inherently not to scale (unless you're modelling a 4ft 3in gauge railway)  I suppose it  could refer to sleeper size and separaton





    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!!

  18. 44 minutes ago, Ravenser said:



    I'm not sure this is posed quite correctly.





    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 !!!





  19. 14 hours ago, martin_wynne said:


    I meant that it was on 00 issues that you referred to me.






    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.

  20. 16 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:


    The trouble is the manufacturers blame each other. I was informed of a conversation between a customer & Hornby about a new loco having issues with some Peco trackwork. One of Hornby's responses was they they should stick to Hornby track! I don't need to tell you the limitations of that.

    I know your solution is to build your own, but this is no longer RTR, which for many is the biggest attraction of OO.




    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 !!

    • Like 1
  • Create New...