nswgr1855

I have not cleaned my driving wheels for 40 years. I apply a small amout of Inox Mp3 on the track. It spreads around and cleans the wheels as you run your models. The dirt becomes conductive on the track and can be wiped off if to much builds up. 

As others have rwplied, it depends on the size of the equipment you wish to use. The AMRA minimum radius standard gives the answers for minimum radius. https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AMRA-Minimum-track-radius-standard.pdf

We have had the same problem in Australia, no commonly agreed standard and Free-Mo /Fremo in Australia has gone nowhere.  Now my local model railway club decided, instead of building a new exhibition layout, it would build a Fremo layout for exhibiting, with the club starting to build some useful modules as a start. The old chessnut about standards raised it's head, and after a quick discussion with the interested members I suggested we could get the AMRA standard improved, as I am on their standards comittee. We all had many years of modular layout design and exhibiting, and in a short period of time the AMRA standard was improved, updated and adopted by my local club. The new standard is basically a throw back to the early Fremo simple end board, 500mm wide and using close to the US Free-Mo depth 150mm. We decided to make jumper cables instead of using tethered plugs, as experience shows these can be damaged if the are not properly secured. Also the module wiring was simplifed, using DCC and Wifi allows this. With the support of both my local club and AMRA, this time we should get things going.  Here is the link to the AMRA freeform standard, to get an idea of some alternative ideas.  https://amra.asn.au/about/standards/

My experience is the lighest method of module construction is 3mm plywood for facias, bracing and track support. Scenery using  using foam to support glue shell. 17mm or thicker plywood end boards are required for clamping strength. Seperate legs make the module lighter, though extra space for storing seperate legs is required.

On 21/10/2022 at 09:16, martin_wynne said:

 

In the real world it needs a running clearance. For 4mm/ft scale that is usually taken to be 0.1mm (4 thou) min.

 

So in this EM-SF topic, with a check span of 16.4mm max, the minimum realistic back-to-back is 16.5mm.

 

With a check gauge of 17.2mm min, back-to-flange 17.2mm max, that means the maximum flange thickness is 0.7mm.

 

Which means Romford/Markits wheels, with 0.7mm flanges, are marginal for EM-SF because they must be spot-on 16.5mm back-to-back. The only possible tolerance is to go fractionally under that, which eats into the running clearance over the check span.

 

Finer wheels such as Alan Gibson / Ultrascale with 0.6mm flanges have a bit more leeway with back-to-back in the range 16.5mm min - 16.6mm max. But in practical modelling terms that's a tight tolerance to maintain, so anyone adopting EM-SF has got to be prepared to check back-to-backs carefully.

 

Martin.

Martin,

Have you  picked up a problem in the EM standard, that is the maximum span of 16.4mm? If you use a maximum track span of 16.3mm it all adds up nicely for 0.7mm wide wheel flanges. 

On 14/10/2022 at 19:02, hayfield said:

 

You seem to ignore that the DOGA have a fine standard using 1mm flangeways and 16.5 track gauge, which requires widening the BTB of all wheels, now your argument stacks up when you have to alter the BTB of your wheels, also it stacks up for coarser RTR wheel sets in 00 gauge. BUT why you even mention NMRA, MOROP or AMRA is beyond me, they have nothing to do with mainstream UK railway modelling. By all means comment about USA standards to those who model the USA scene, but it has nothing to do with the UK scene 

 

Your argument falls down at the first hurdle, those who model in EM gauge will either use aftermarket wheels or re-gauge suitable RTR wheels, 00SF is designed for those of us who use after market wheels which are too fine for good running through 1.25mm flangeways. The issue in 00 gauge is the standards have not kept up with modern products, especially those made for kit builders. Slowly those who demand higher standards in 00 gauge now require better looking and working track.

 

There is no one body in the UK who sets the standards for manufacturers to use / or listen to, several set standards for their own gauge and within those groups there are to some degree two or more camps regarding standards used. 

Ther is a good reason whi I dismiss the DOOGA finescale standard, that it it is not used by many, if any one. It's a copy of the NMRA finescale standard, it's support is only on paper. OO-SF is designed so most RTR models run without modification. Peco code 75 usually complies to NEM standards and AMRA standards, that why I mention relevent standards. It's manufactures that set RTR track standards, RTR wheel dimensions follow the RTR track. Clubs can at best provide a set of standards so the goal posts don't move in the wrong direction.

On 11/10/2022 at 00:52, t-b-g said:

 

You seem to have gone off the beaten track (just noticed the pun!) with your own standards. I would have thought that with your skills, proto87 would have been your choice but you have chosen your non mainstream midway house between H0 and proto87.

 

We are just doing the same with ours.

 

When you make as slow a progress as I do in EM, the thought of changing 40 years worth of modelling to P4 has no appeal. It would take the rest of my lifetime to convert about half my stuff.

 

Building a "better" EM layout that I can run my existing stock on does appeal, very much.

 

I can also run the same stock on some very nice EM layouts that some of my friends have.

 

So hopefully not such a strange thing to try.

When developing the AMRA fine tolerance standards I did consider flangeways finer than 1mm for H0 and EM. You can make 0.8mm flangeways and be within the limits of the AMRA standard on simple turnouts, however as agreed by all, it tightens building tolerances, and restricts wheels that are suitable. Also it should be noted standard DOGA 00 track uses 1.25mm flangeways as does NMRA MOROP and AMRA medium tolerance standards.

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree completely that such things as radius and difference in rail height from one side to the other will make a big difference to what works and what doesn't.

 

As I mentioned on the other thread, I have run a 6 wheeled vehicle successfully on Buckingham through slightly dodgy tight radius points but that has a flexible mechanism. The rigid 4 wheelers are not so happy and derail quite badly, mostly due to the poor levels of the rail tops. The small flanges just ride up and over the rail too easily.

 

I am not sure that running really fine wheels on rough track is a recipe for successful running, especially if your underframes are rigid.

 

My experiments have involved running flat, well made vehicles, which have superb consistency in wheel profile (they used their own form tool and turned all their own wheels), back to backs (The Manchester guys had a back to back of 16.5mm plus or minus nothing that I can measure) on flat, (I don't usually blow my own trumpet but!) well made track.

 

It is a combination that should work well in P4 and it works well in EM-SF too.  

Fortinately the wagons with the 0.6mm deep flanges are only on short 4 wheel wagons. Most models I have use 0.7mm deep flanges. I use curves suitable to the models I run, and where trains derail due to rough track I adjusted the track so the transition to superelevated track is gradual. My wheels typically can have a back to back that can vary up to 0.1mm. I do get reliable running, (most of the time) and to prove the point here is a lima TGV, with narrow NEM flanged wheels turned down to 0.7mm flange depth on all cars except the trailing non powered 'power car' with H0 finescale 1.23mm wide wheels, 0.7mm flange depth doing a H0 scale speed of 265 km/h. Track is a mix of 1mm flangeways and old 1.25mm flangeways. 

49 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Terry,

 

Thanks for your kind words about Templot.

 

Are you a friend of Andy Reichert? It's strange that those carping about what we are doing in the UK always turn out to be H0 modellers from the other side of the planet.

 

Every time we experiment with something interesting, there seems to be an assumption from afar that we are trying to change the existing standards, or suggesting that everyone should follow the same course.

 

We are not. In the UK modellers do whatever they want to do. We don't have an NMRA telling them what they should do.

 

EM-SF is for EM modellers who know what they are doing and want to tinker with new ideas. They are quite capable of using good-quality kit wheels with 0.6mm flanges, and setting the back-to-back within the limits 16.5mm - 16.6mm needed to run them on EM-SF. They also know that on tight curves there will need to be some gauge-widening, as in prototype practice.

 

The payback for taking such care with their wheels is an improvement in the appearance of pointwork, with flangeways narrower than the rail width, as they are on the prototype. The narrower flangeways also allow for a fully scaled blunt nose on the vee without any loss of support on the wing rails, for very smooth running. Allowing for a front chamfer on the wheels and the corner radius on the rail-head takes the support close to the limit on standard EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Hello Martin,

I found it strange that there is a interest in making EM with finer flangeways when there is a well established finer P4 standard. The difference in appearance between 1mm flangeways and 0.8mm flangeways is only noticeable when looking close or with the magnification that results from photography. Also EM allows most 00 wheels regauged to be used. I find no noticeable wheel drop using 1mm flangeways with any  00 or H0 wheels in the market. On the other hand P4 flangeways are easily observed from typical viewing distances. Of course it's harder to build to  P4 standards and get it to work. Each to his own. My H0 track is basically the same dimensions as 00-SF, just H0 scaled sleepers and spacing. I only know Andy from his posts in RMweb. 

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Please don't bother yourself with the quality of the Manchester wheeled (all rigid) vehicles and my EM-SF track.

 

It all works just fine. I wouldn't have posted details on here if I had any doubts about it. As it was a bit of an experiment, it has been thoroughly tested and checked before I was willing to let anybody else see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im sure your Manchester wheels work fine on your well built, nicely flowing non superelevated prototype curved turnouts. The finest flanges I have on my layout are about 0.6mm deep and these now stay on my rougher HO track with superelevation of 1mm on 914mm curves. They are the wheels that find any problems in my trackwork. 

21 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

You are being silly. Have you actually tried it?

 

Many 00 modellers are now using 00-SF very happily, running 0.8mm RTR flanges in 1.0mm flangeways.

 

EMGS-profile wheels, and 00/EM kit wheels to the NMRA RP25/88 profile or similar (Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, etc.), have flanges 0.6mm thick, and will run very nicely in 0.8mm flangeways.

 

Those who have tried EM-SF have reported good results. Do you not believe them?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Hello Martin,

I have built quite a few H0 scale Turnouts and crossings with 1mm flangeways using your excellent program Templot as a guide and track gauges made to the AMRA fine tolerance standard which is the Australian H0 equalevent. My experience of testing and caculations indicate if I use 0.8mm flanges, I need to set the back to back to an exact value, with no tolerance to maintain track clearances at track limits. Most track is not at the limits and peoples methods of measuring wheel flanges and track are not perfect. If the 0.8mm wheel flange profile is a good shape, then the flange shape will compensate for a frog interference error of up to about 0.1mm without any noticeable problem if the turnout radius is not to sharp. The same will go for 0.6mm flanges with 0.8mm flangeways. My point is 0.5mm wheel flanges are the widest flanges you should use for EM-SF 0.8mm track flangeways without going to extra tight tolerances in setting wheel Back to back dimensions . Otherwise you cannot  gaurantee smooth reliable derailment free trains. 

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am not sure that it would be classed as easy to rebuild all my locos and stock to P4 standards, so I will stick with EM-SF.

 

My response was about having wheels of different profiles, standards and back to backs and expecting them to run through track that they were not designed for.

 

EM-SF is designed for a 16.5mm back to back and a wheel profile which is a scaled down copy of a prototype worn wheel profile. Working to those standards cannot be any easier or more difficult than working in P4 except that the wheels have a slightly deeper flange to help them stay on the track.

 

The fact that some other wheel profiles work well through the points is a bonus.

 

So EM-SF has wheels with deeper flanges that will stay on the track better than P4 and will accept other wheel profiles with no difficulty as long as they have a B2B of 16.5mm and a flange thickness of less than 0.8mm..

 

How can P4 be "easier" than that?

 

 

Looking at the numbers you need to build to simililar or tighter tolerances compared to P4 to get your trains to run as smooth or as reliably if you use typical EM wheels. Ideally wheels with a maximum  0.5mm flange thickness are required to get practical  clearances and back to back tolerance for your wheel sets using 0.8mm flangeways. Your Manchester wheels should have a flange width around 0.46mm, and that is ideal for your track and flangeways. However if your flanges match the Manchester profile, then your flanges are only 0.55mm, and without working suspension or compensation like P4, your track will need to be built to a higher level of flatness compared to wheels using the deeper EM flanges.

18 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

P4 means starting again from scratch.

 

EM-SF can be mixed with standard EM on the same layout, and runs your existing EM stock with their existing wheels unmodified (except widened RTR wheels).

 

Your stock still runs on other EM layouts, and friends with EM stock can run it on your layout (except RTR wheels).

 

Martin.

Clearly this new 'standard has not been properly designed. EM wheels are designed for EM track, that is a 1mm flangeway, so most of todays mass produced wheels can be used if you obtain longer axles and regauge them, or buy 3rd party EM wheels. 1mm flangeways can handle 0.7mm wide flanges, wider than this means clearances become less than scale if you consider practical wheel  and track tolerances. Therfore using a 0.8mm flangeway means the widest practical wheel flange is 0.5mm to retain proven required clearances between the wheels and flange ways. Most of Existing stock will probably need to be re gauged to a precission of at least P4 wheel sets or have their wheels remachined to achieve reliable, smooth and derailment free results.

On 17/06/2022 at 07:38, t-b-g said:

 

William, you saw the smooth running I was getting with Manchester EM wheels, plus Maygib, Gibson, Sharman and Ultrascale wheels set at 16.5mm B2B on EM-SF.

 

By my sums, if you have a flange of 0.65mm thickness, set at 16.6mm B2B, with one flange hard against the check rail, the other flange can hit a crossing nose. So if you want to go for a 16.6mm B2B your flange thickness must be 0.6mm maximum.

 

I have measured some flanges, on Ultrascales, Gibsons and Markits. The first two were as near as makes no difference 0.6mm thick and on the Markits they were 0.65mm thick. So with a 16.5mm B2B you have a margin of error of 0.1mm on the finer wheels and 0.05mm on the Markits. With a 16.6mm B2B you have a margin of error of zero on the finer wheels and Markits wheels won't work.

 

If you have a flange that is 0.61mm thick, it will not be checked properly by the opposite chack rail and could hit a crossing nose.

 

If you are happy working to those tolerances and can lay track and set wheels that accurately, then good luck to you. 

 

 

It looks like its easier to get P4 to work compared to EM-SF.

On 22/09/2022 at 07:48, ianb3174 said:

I had a play with some bits and pieces tonight using EM-SF standards. Usual construction methods with ply sleepers, exactoscale chairs and such. I’ll try and get a wagon rolling tomorrow and see what it runs like. I’m loving the fine flangeways though I’ve always been a sucker for finescale whatever the gauge. 

EM is already a 'fine scale' standard. Surely if you want to go finer you would choose P4  standards.

On 14/09/2021 at 09:10, jim.snowdon said:

Except that 0-MF is 31.5mm gauge, with a check gauge of 30.0mm (giving a nominal flangeway of 1.5mm) - somewhat finer than the AMRA fine standard.

 

The AMRA standard track has the same check gauge, and a nominal flangeway of 1.65mm. The difference in appearance is minimal (I cant see a 0.15mm difference),  but the extra clearances allows sharper curves in turnouts and crossings plus it's easier to make gauges and complex track as they do not need to be as accurate compared to the finer narrower gauged track to get it right. It also means the wheel back to back can vary more before derailments happen.  

On 15/08/2020 at 05:18, Andy Reichert said:

 

From the 4-SF website:

Using RTR 0.08mm effective flange width wheels on 16.2 mm gauge requires a BB setting of 14.4 mm MAX to ensure that the wheel next to the check rail,"kisses" the CHECK RAIL, but does not strike it. The BB must also be not less that 14.3 mm MIN to avoid jamming across the wing and check rails.

The distance between the wing rail and the stock rail on a 16.2 mm gauged turnout is 16.2 mm (the gauge)- 1mm (the crossing flangeway). = 15.2 mm

From simple addition and substraction:

Using RTR 0.08mm effective flange width wheels on 16.2 mm gauge requires a BB setting of 14.4 mm MIN to ensure that the opposite wheel can only  "kiss" the WING RAIL, but cannot strike it.

Consequence.

For RTR 0.08mm flanged wheels, smooth running through a turnout without striking either the check rail or the wing rail ACTUALLY requires a BB setting of 14.4 mm +/- 0.00 mm.  I.e MAX and MIN must impossibly be the same.   Anyone who understands mechanical tolerance will confirm that's not a practically possible tolerance for RTR wheels, whether manufactured or hand "tuned".

Therefore 16.2 mm gauge with RTR wheels set to 14.4 mm BB with a practical tolerance will suffer degraded performance due to sudden sideways movements when running through turnouts, even through the straight road.

While the 4-SF website only gives dimension for single wheel sets running in a straight line, the situation for the center wheels of six coupled or greater wheelbase steam locomotives and six wheel diesel and coach bogies is worse, if the BB setting is less than 14.4 mm. In that case the smoother sideways movement of the center wheel(s) due to the track curvature is suddenly increased as the wing rail is struck and further increases the already increased minimum radius of the vehicle, due to narrowed gauge.

HO gauge  and to some extent 00 gauge, avoid this poor performance issue by just having the larger wing rail flange width. The dramatic sudden sideways movement of the front wheels of the GWR tank loco exiting the platform near the beginning of the oft quoted "Excellent 4-SF running" video shows that flaw very convincingly.

 

Most RTR 00 wheels have flanges les than 0.7mm. Your claim that the wheels through 00-SF trackwork has a problem is incorrect.  Many layouts are using a minimum track gauge of 16.2mm with excellent results. I have throughly tested the AMRA fine tollerance standard, which only has a 0.05mm difference in turnout dimensions compared to the 00-SF dimensions. It works for my high speed  H0 TGV, power car pushing at a scale 240Km/h, my Hornby 2-8-2 LNER P2, my NSW 4-8-2 58 class, pushing 30+ 4 wheel wagons through curved diamond crossings. The sharpest turnout I have buils is curved with a minimum  600mm radius and works for models that comply with the AMRA minimum radius standard for 600mm radius. Check out my viedo channel.  You can see the Hornby P2, with unmodified original Hornby wheels first goes through old Shinora turnouts, with 1,25mm flangeways, 16.5mm track gauge, then along peco code 75 track, track gauge of 16.6mm, then into AMRA fine tolerance turnouts and a curved diamond crossing, 16.25mm track gauge, and facing turnouts, 16.25mm track gauge, all at express speeds.

On 14/08/2020 at 07:44, Andy Reichert said:

 

I'm not proposing any theories. I'm concerned about the 14.4 mm numeric value for RTR BB setting stated on the 4-SF web site. It appears to require a tolerance of +/- 0.00 to avoid a wheel striking and being bumped sideways by either the check rail or the crossing wing rail.

 

Check the arithmetic yourself.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy,

 A wheel back back of 14.4mm to 14.5mm works out as a practical range for wheels with flanges less than 0.7mm wide. 00-SF works fine, as does the AMRA fine tolerance alternative. https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AMRA-Fine-tolerance-wheel-track-standard.pdf Here is a viedo of my H0 TGV at speed going through my AMRA fine tolerance track including a curved diamond crossing at speed. 

On 20/08/2020 at 14:32, Andy Reichert said:

 

Technical compromises are either necessary or voluntary. In either case they may cause limitations or restrictions on the function or the performance of the system designed. Those limitations or restrictions should be clearly stated in the specification and promotional materials for the design. For example, 4-SF imposes an at least 33% increase in minimum operating radius for a fairly typical modern Hornby RTR 2-6-4T.  From 17" to almost 23".  8 coupled and 10 coupled locos are likely to have even larger differences. Also the tolerance allowances on dimensions are such that a perfect set of all dimensions needed cannot be readily achieved by an average modeller, if at all. The often claimed common gauge widening solution for too tight radius turnouts is fundamentally not available in 4-SF.

 

No such statements are on the 4-SF website.

 

Actual fundamental technical errors that stop a system performing as claimed should be fixed before publishing any claims. They are not excusable as compromises, whether disclosed or unmentioned.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andy,  The AMRA minimum radius standard  works for 00-SF /16.2mm track gauge.

On 06/07/2022 at 15:02, miles73128 said:

If you look at the service sheet for the APT on the Hornby website, it shows the ‘22 announced versions will have magnetic couplings. I’ve fitted Hunt’s to mine-which has transformed it. 

Good to hear, I hope Hornby will have the magnetic couplers as a spare part.

On 19/10/2021 at 00:47, St. Simon said:

 

I think that this comment is at best harsh and at worst down right insulting to the designer and doesn't need to be said. 

 

I accept it isn't the best of designs and it might need changing. However, to imply that it is purely down to the apparent stupidity of the designer is an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. We don't know the requirements or restrictions the designer was working to, so it could be that it is simply the only option due to restrictions imposed by someone / something. I'm not saying that it is the case, I'm saying that we don't know the full story to pass full judgement.

 

The fact is, designers don't get it right all the time, but that doesn't mean they are stupid. I've had my signalling designs criticised on this forum without knowing the full extent of the restrictions etc. that was I working under, so it is quite hurtful to people to read comments like the above.

 

Simon

This model shares many poor mechanical and electrical design features Hornby has used on other models. It does this to save tooling costs or assembly costs. Not using pinpoint bearings on the dummy power car is one, and using wipers on the backs of wheels is the worst solution for increased rolling resistance. The end result is a  7 car APT-P that cannot go up grades typically used on model railways. It just makes it up my 1 in 70 grade on a 914mm radius curve. Another poor design is the excessive axle endplay on the 4 wheel bogies of the power cars. All it does is increase the chance of derailments and stops the tilt mechanism working consistently on sensible curves. I also note Hornby uses one of the worst flange profiles on the market, and has no coning on the APT wheels. These last issues cost no extra to get right. It's about time Hornby started to use magnetic couplers for fixed train sets, the couplers supplied on the APT are terrible to put together and pull apart and can easily be damaged.

If you are using Slaters wheels, then the AMRA fine tolerance wheel and track standard  has suitable  roller gauge drawings in it.   https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AMRA-Fine-tolerance-wheel-track-standard.pdf

On 26/08/2021 at 19:19, atom3624 said:

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I said before.

 

There are many underweight locomotives, and PERSONALLY (my own preference) is to establish a proportion of each in relation to each other at full scale, within reason.

I fully understand the extra wear considerations and aspects, but you'll have to be circulating several hours every day for months to see anything major happening.  I know that, as when in use mine, I generally have the same locomotives circulating for 30-90 minutes at a time - regularly monitoring motor, etc., and 'the nose test' as well!

 

Weight does make a difference to the hauling capacity, when still within the 'bounds' of what seems reasonable with 'mechanical sympathy', in my mind.

Having a 350-400g locomotive, with a 75g tender just seems wrong.  It should at least weigh the same as a super detailed coach - as it would in the real world, as I operate.

 

Considerations and concern for wear are justified.  There's a new H-Dublo Coronation owner on the Hornby site who's just confirmed the Coronation alone (without tender) weighs 666g.  My guess is the running gear - chassis - is the same as the standard plastic one.  That's at least 300g lighter!

 

There is a very good modern image diesel, which whilst it hauls well, is ridiculously underweight, both relatively (to other similar class locomotives of the same manufacturer and others) and to what I feel it should be, and is easily out-hauled by locomotives which wouldn't touch it with a barge pole in 'real life', that's the Bachmann Class 70.

Ugly as sin, but REALLY powerful - not the Bachmann one.  450g or less I believe, whereas even 37's are 100g heavier out of the factory.  There's very little space remaining to add additional weight - I know, I've tried on mine - got perhaps 40g in.

 

Al.

All you are achieving is wearing out your models quicker than necessary. You might have no trouble with pulling ability, but it is clear you do not have typical steep model railway grades and curves. If you have model railway grades then prototype proportional weights are not of any benefit. Weight is invisible.

14 hours ago, atom3624 said:

We'll agree to disagree here.

I understand and agree in principle that there's little / no need and that drawbar pulling ability will be reduced - additional coaches.  I just know in 1:1 the locomotive's ~110 tons, tender loaded ~55 tons, so target up to 50% of locomotive weight.

Taking 'the compromise' into consideration, that there may be a risk of pulling off a light tender (can happen, but rare), and also a tender doesn't stay full for long, closer to 35-40% of locomotive weight is what I target generally.

 

Al.

In theory the locomotive mass scaled down will only be about 167g and the full tender 86g.  Scaling down does not produce a practical solution. My experience from experiments resulted in the AMRA minimum carriage mass standard https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AMRA-Carriage-Mass-standard.pdf  Any extra weight for tenders compared to the standard is unnecessary, and only causes models to wear out quicker and not able to pull full length trains. My  Hornby Princess Elisabeth has no weight added to the tender or locomotive yet and can pull or push the 9 car set (after adjusting brake shoes and wipers) with the carriage weights removed, at maximum speed without derailment along flat track. My Hornby LNER P2 is 100g heavier @  390g (as delivered) and can just pull the train up a 1 in 70 grade on a 914mm radius curve, no derailments. I now know how much extra weight is needed for my Hornby Princess Elisabeth to pull the 9 coach train on my layout. Nothing to do with prototype weights.

On 21/04/2021 at 05:52, LNER4479 said:

OK, so had a bit of a play with mine ...

 

Most of the seven passenger coaches would roll away down my 1-in-90, some more freely that others. For those less free running, easing off the pick-up pressure improved their running.

 

Bogies can be eased out of their pivots ...

 

... sufficient to rotate them like so. Obviously the wires for the pick ups are still attached so can be removed no further without more intrusive work. Actually, as it turned out, didn't end up needing to do this, but good to know.

 

Adjustment of pick-ups is work of a moment. Was going to use tweezers but actually can be done with a small screwdriver. Just apply pressure immediately beyond the 90degree bend (ie the non-wheel end). Doesn't need much.

 

The Kitchen cars wouldn't roll away at all. Definitely the 'problem' vehicles. The wheelsets are noticeably more 'sloppy' in their bearings, ie more side-to-side movement ... which means that they are likely to be rubbing on the brake blocks. I even wonder if the axle is rubbing on the plate beneath it? When I applied gentle pressure to push the two opposing axleboxes together, then it all trued up and ran freely (other than the braking effect of the pick-ups)

 

For tonight, the only other thing I've done is to tweak the brake blocks away like so - note the brake block above - you should be able to see it angled back slightly.

 

This made some difference but still not able to freely run away down the gradient. Anyhow, I gave it all a try and this was the result:

 

 

Did you like the bit where the loco went and retrieved its coaches?

 

More work to improve the free running of the RKs may be possible but I'm not sure how much difference it would make overall. It's quite a heavy set as it is, just feeling the pull on the lead coupling. What I haven't told you is that I also quickly added a piece of lead underneath the 'bath tub' before this piece of filming, as it still wasn't making too much of an impression. Might try it with my 46256 just to see - from here on in I think it's the loco that needs working on!

Hornby make their carriages to heavy in my opinion. Removing the weights will mean you do not need to add much weight if any to the locomotive to get the train up a scale grade.  After removing the carriage weights, the carriage weight very close to the NEM Norm / AMRA mass standards.