martin_wynne

I'll be ok providing I don't put one foot on the ground.

Hi Ron, Looking good. But don't forget the 3 remaining check rails: regards, Martin.

A shop front in Bromyard.

4ft-8.1/2in

We don't know how many people were involved in this incident. We know only the words in the report.

It implies (not infers) that the man arrested was the one who put it on the track. It doesn't say that man was the driver.

"The car was destroyed but nobody was inside. The driver was found unhurt in nearby Meadow Lane. British Transport Police arrested a 35-year-old man on suspicion of obstructing the railway." Doesn't say the man arrested was the driver.

Hi Andy, I think you would have done much better to start this topic with such photos. The comparison people want is between your 00-P conversions, and the same model converted to P4. Because each of those conversions will involve exactly the same amount of work, and the same amount of work building the track for them to run on. In fact P4 will give you more room for gearbox and springing/compensation, and easier pointwork with full prototype designs. Of course the argument changes if you or someone else is intending to market ready-to-lay 00-P track. But without that, it seems blindingly obvious that P4 would be easier and look better, for exactly the same amount of work. If your intent is to run 4mm models with scale P4 wheels on Peco turnouts with check rails removed and converted to "universal" moving wing rails, as a homage to 1960s fibre-based track, it's easy to understand why they are laughing at the back. It would also negate your frequent efforts to get trackwork treated as a model in its own right, on equal par with the rolling stock. That's the whole ethos of your web site, and I'm much puzzled why you seem willing to abandon that with this daft P4 on 16.5mm concept. regards, Martin.

Andy I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and find some rhyme or reason in your posts. But if your 00-P standard is solely for running P4 wheels on 00 gauge track and no other wheels, then I believe that in wanting to do that you are in a minority of 1. That's a fine place to be, but not if you are developing a commercial product. regards, Martin.

Hi Quentin, Andy wants to run RTR and scale wheels at the same time. The only way to do that is to use swing-nose crossings or moving wing-rail crossings. In both cases check rails are not needed, because the wheels see no break in the rail. If an RTR turnout has check rails they can be left in place to look the part, but they won't play any part in the running. If an 00-P turnout has check rails, they must be moved or removed to allow RTR wheels to run. regards, Martin.

Hi Andy, My layout in 1960 also had Wrenn turnouts with moving wing rails. And similar Welkut track. And Peco spiked track. But I think I have moved on in more than half a century since then. With hindsight it soon became clear that those tracks were toys -- they were not models of anything recognisable on the real railway. They would certainly look silly on a P4 layout or running P4 wheels. Nowadays the prototype has caught up with swing-nose crossings. But only on the fastest main lines. Not on the vast majority of lesser lines -- the ones most modellers want to model. And certainly not in goods yards and motive power depots -- also popular model subjects. I don't understand why you are so set against that. Handbuilt track seems to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance in the UK recently, with many posts on RMweb from modellers trying it for the first time, and reports of record sales by C&L. I thought the whole intent of your product range was to provide parts for handbuilt track? regards, Martin.

Hi Peter, Forget the search box on here. Go to Google instead, and enter: "class 50" site:rmweb.co.uk Top of the results. regards, Martin.

That depends on what sort of Y-turnout you want. If one road is a running line, and the other road is into a siding, set a curviform V-crossing and then just bend an ordinary turnout to fit (F6 mouse action). That's called "contraflexure" or negative curving radius: If it is part of a curved crossover, set a regular V-crossing instead. In most cases Templot will do it all for you if you click tools > make ordinary crossover menu item. If you want a symmetrical Y-turnout with the switch deflection split between both roads, it is more work (also it is quite rare on the prototype). There is a tutorial on the Templot web site all about Y-turnouts (sorry it is a bit out-of-date). See: http://www.templot.com/martweb/y_symm.htm regards, Martin.

Hi Ray, No problem with that at all. Andy could simply convert his 00 RTR models to Proto-87 and run them on his Proto-87 layout. But in that case there is no need for this topic or anything called 00-P. The Proto-87 standards already exist and work fine. This topic could consist instead of some practical posts about fitting Proto-87 wheels to various 00 models. Several modellers might be interested in the techniques involved, even if they don't plan to do the same. regards, Martin.

I don't find it clear or simple to understand. What ready-to-lay turnouts are available with scale flangeways? Having the same track gauge as RTR achieves nothing if the flangeways are not compatible. While you are hand-laying the turnouts with scale flangeways for scale wheels you may just as well be using the scale track gauge. Because RTR models won't run on them either way. Admittedly, your idea of hot-swapping crossings (frogs) and check rails for an evening's running and swapping them back the next day gets round that objection. But you still can't run RTR models and scale wheels at the same time. I find it difficult to take that idea seriously for a finished scenic layout. Please provide some evidence of a layout where that is being done. Thanks. Martin.

Hi Andy, It doesn't matter. RMweb is a forum for anyone to post their ideas. But I was hoping for an explanation of where you are trying to get to, because at present I'm baffled. I think I'm not the only one. I don't have a track gauge idea. If you are referring to 00-SF, it is not my idea. It was invented by Roy Miller in the 1970s and rediscovered by Dave Smith 30 years later. My only interest is to ensure as far as I can that it is properly explained and not misrepresented. It is of no consequence to me whether anyone adopts it -- there are equally good arguments for 00-BF, EM and P4. It is all a question of choice to suit a modellers requirements. My own modelling has been in EM, Irish P4, and nowadays in 7mm scale. By the way, topics do not have an owner on a forum. It is not your sole topic. If that's what you want, you should be using the blogs section of RMweb. Martin.

I've completely lost Andy's intentions with his latest topics. Here in the UK some folks are happily running RTR models on Peco track. Some are using handbuilt track to build P4 layouts, EM layouts, 00-SF, and 00-BF layouts. As far as I know everyone modelling at 4mm/ft is happy. No-one is complaining about a problem with wheel and track standards. There is a choice to suit everyone's requirements. It's a mystery what the problem is that Andy is trying to solve? The main grumble is not about the track standards, but the dimensions of Peco timbering. If Andy was to address his innovation skills to that problem, there are many here who would be grateful. Martin.

But they don't work in the dark.

I said a boiled-egg timer, not a boiled egg-timer.

link: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100943-some-model-wheel-dimensions-that-affect-standards-and-running/

Where is the disagree button when you need it? It may be true that a locomotive with large narrow wheels running at 50mph over short train-set style crossings will do a hop, skip and a jump over the crossing with hardly anyone noticing. But if a wagon with much smaller narrow wheels is being slowly shunted into the goods yard, the fact that each wheel falls into the crossing is very noticeable. The fact that it rolls down into the hole and then rolls back up out of the hole doesn't change the fact that it is in a hole, and that the wagon will appear to lurch in the process. Anyone who has tried to run Ultrascale wagon wheels over a Peco turnout is well aware of this. It's no good trying to pretend it doesn't happen. RTR flangeways require wide RTR wheels. Andy, you normally insist on mathematical rigour in these matters. But not on this apparently. Martin.

Hi Jeff, On a Peco turnout the flangeway size is 1.3mm. That means the gap across between the wing rails just in front of the nose of the vee is 2.6mm wide. Kit wheels typically comply with the EMGS profile or the NMRA RP25/88 profile, and are 2.3mm wide or in some cases a bit narrower. If you place an object 2.3mm wide over a gap 2.6mm wide, it falls in. With a bump. If you want to have smooth running you can either make the gap narrower -- that's what 00-SF and DOGA-Fine and EM do. Or you can make the wheels wider -- that's what RTR models do. regards, Martin.

How many more times -- not everyone wants to "stick with RTR". I know that may seem a strange idea on your side of the pond, but in the UK lots of 00 modellers like to build kits. And the kit wheels do not work "just fine" on Peco -- they bump. 00-SF track was called 00 because it's intended for 00 trains to run on it. No-one is under the slightest obligation to use it or have any contact with it or knowledge of it if they don't want to. p.s. I do not have a "gang". Martin.

Hi Giles, That's looking very neat. You may not realise that the blade tips (points) are usually supported on a slide chair, not free in fresh air between the timbers. Typically the tip overlaps the centre of the chair by 3.1/2 inches. Here are a couple of pics showing a GWR joggled switch at Kidderminster: Of course there are exceptions, mostly on light railways, industrial and narrow-gauge. For conventional standard-gauge these pics are typical of the normal practice. regards, Martin.

Here's a pic of Devil's Bridge showing the track spacing. Generally when creating narrow-gauge crossovers you should expect to need a length of plain track between the turnouts, rather than having them back-to-back as for most standard-gauge. Martin.