Mike Harvey

The problem with back to back standards is that they need to relate to track standards, notably flangeways and check rail positions  at points and crossings. I honestly do not expect there to be a single back to back answer to suit all the various track systems. On the other hand whilst we might expect consistency for all the wheelsets on a particular piece of rolling stock, a variance of 0.2mm can be make or break for smooth running but may be acceptable in a production environment. I have tried to QC this post for spelling but not grammar and that has taken longer than I would have expected because there were correctly spelled words which were not the word I intended. QC has a time cost which translates to financial cost in a production environment.

I have had some dialogue with my contact at Oxford Diecast, and fans of a bog-standard MkV Cortina will not be disappointed. Look closely at the next Oxford new items announcement on Friday 15 September on their Facebook page and  their other social media channels.

If the N gauge market is mainly railway modellers then I would be surprised if a souped up version would put most of them off. Authenticity of road traffic is very much a secondary consideration on most layouts. The launch Cortina model is supposed to be Cardinal Red and the original artwork did not include the go-faster fitments. Having said that, for once it would be good if Oxford has tooled a standard version hiding inside the spoiler etc. The Cortina is the only one of the new Fords not available in 1/76 so there is no guide from a larger scaled version. 

Interesting research. One general observation is that couplers fixed rigidly to a bogie are much less magnet friendly than ones with pivoting couplers or kinematic couplers. On a curve the contact face between magnets becomes much smaller and couplers can part or easily misalign, especially when propelling. Not surprised that the NEM couplers were not ideal for bogies without NEM pockets. Almost all of my stock is equipped with NEM pockets in either pivoting mounts or in kinematic self-centring close couplers and I do not have derailments on curves or unplanned uncoupling incidents. I am careful how I use vehicles with couplers rigidly mounted to a bogie or underframe whether fitted with magnetic or mechanical couplers.  I am working in N but the laws of physics apply equally well to 00 gauge.

@Luke Piewalker I had forgotten about the diagonal disc brakes on the HAA fleet. A high proportion of the 2 and 4 axle PO wagons had the same configuration. I remember doing some extended field trials on a PGA in the Peak District which produced some interesting results  namely that having disc brakes all round rather than diagonally extended disc pad life by a factor of 4  which was not so surprising. There was also negligible disc wear. What was surprising was discs all round also extended the miles between tyre turning by a factor of 4, and the wear pattern was such that overall wheel life went up by a factor of six by comparison with a diagonal disc set up. It is hard to imagine the financial benefit across the whole HAA fleet if they all had disc brakes on every wheel. Installing from new must have been an option rejected in favour of lower initial outlay, but running costs over 40 years might have been much lower.

@njee20 Looks like a convincing print of a wagon type I have a soft spot for. These were originally hired to Rugby Cement (15 wagons) and Blue Circle Cement (52 wagons). At the time of the Railfreight Exhibition in 1989 we had one spare which was put into an all white livery and carried red CAIB logos on the tank sides and ends. All of our vehicles for the exhibition were white with red lettering. Keeping them looking clean in a still sooty Cricklewood atmosphere was a major overnight undertaking and needed to be done after the dew had settled. So if you have a problem with finding the right grey, one in white would be authentic.

3 hours ago, Crepello said:

Thank you Mike. You are quite right. Where I got 4’ from I don’t know! Anyway, as you say, 3’6’’ will be fine, especially as they’re the only Farish alternative.  Do you happen to know the size for the HBA and HEA types too?
 

HBA and HEA were 952mm diameter = 37.5inches

Oxford Rail is showing 45 items in stock, excluding 2 bundles and 9 Oxford Diecast items. The rest are sold out or for future release. No indication of quantities but they alone are not going to account for the end 2022 stock bulge at Hornby because they were almost all already in stock at that stage.

https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/collections/oxford-rail?pf_t_availability=In+Stock

And the future unreleased models:-

https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/collections/oxford-rail?pf_t_availability=Future

1 hour ago, brushman47544 said:

I've just seen on The Model Bus website that Rapido's Leyland National project has been suspended indefinitely due to the lukewarm response. http://www.modelbuszone.co.uk/tmb/index.html

Previously reported on 28 July 2023 on the other National thread on here.

On 14/08/2023 at 11:56, Crepello said:

I found that the undersized wheels can be replaced with nearer to scale size 3’6’’ coach wheels without any problems, even on canted track. The prototypes had wheels of 4’, as demanded by the civil engineer.

The wheels were 1092mm diameter so 3ft 7in, not 4ft 0in. 3ft 6in wheels would be a good approximation in N for a worn wheelset.

Oxford Diecast has posted on the Facebook Oxford Diecast Collectors Group that it is planning a live broadcast in September for its next round of new model announcements.

When I was involved in the catering provision on a group of loco-hauled InterCity services, we used to diagram Mk 1 catering vehicles by coach number such was the variation inside the cars even when they were nominally identical. This dictated what they could produce. Catering needs varied considerably by route.

On 04/08/2023 at 11:24, ianmianmianm said:

Mike - does this mean the new bus no longer automatically restarts once it has stopped. IE do you have to flick the swithc to get it moving again??

 

Yes this bus is just a dumb terminal. Motor, battery, on/off power switch and reed switch. You will need to slide the bus stop switch to the GO position to restart it. When I get the inclination I might look at how to automate the restart with an Arduino timed circuit and servo, but not high on my priority list. I have plenty of the smarter chassis for my needs.

I thought I had replied to your question on Youtube as well.

3 hours ago, Covkid said:

Is there a "printo" with the Welsh slate wagons ?  2 x 730 and 1 x 700 - should all three be different ?

Those are tare weight figures not running numbers.

A topic on the Forum du N includes equally scarce photos of a road vehicle delivery of milk in churns to a creamery.

https://cdn-s-www.lejsl.com/images/4882F8D4-1137-4823-8759-4FAFC95784C0/JSL_v1_02/1-a-l-epoque-(ici-en-1940)-la-beurrerie-etait-approvisionnee-par-des-camionnettes-qui-allaient-recuperer-les-bidons-de-lait-chez-les-producteurs-2-le-pdg-thierry-molle-explique-l-arbre-genealogique-de-la-bressane-photos-dr-et-g-b-1462194157.jpg

http://

Interesting that of the four major brands, Corgi does not feature in the “capsule” development. Perhaps that is another signal that a bundling of Corgi and Oxford Diecast into a disposable unit is on the cards. 

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Let's expose the slum that are current (non)-"standards" in N gauge: actual wheel and track dimensions in current British N

 

It is quite untrue that "I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile."

 

When I actually measure them , I can't find any consistancy between wheelsets on N gauge models from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. And as I said in the original posting, none of these wheel sets comply with either of the wheel standards printed in the back of the NGS manual , or with the NEM values 

 

The idea that they do  is a comfortable but unfounded delusion. And I'm making a song and dance about it in the hope that once the stone is lifted and the creepy crawlies wriggle out something might actually be done to clean up the mess. Which would result in N gauge being rather better than it currently is..

 

The technical name for the bumping and lurching at pointwork is "drop-in" . It is the result of the gap at the crossing being larger than can be spanned by the wheel tread - which therefore drops into the gap. It is a well-known issue to anyone familiar with wheel and track standards. And since Peco code 55 points date from the late 80s (so I'm advised by a well-known modeller in  N) they are engineered to take the very coarse N gauge wheels of the 1980s with a big gap at the crossing. Consequently "drop-in"  occurs with all modern N gauge wheels , and especially the much finer profile used by the likes of Revolution. I am certainly seeing this with all stock as it runs across all Peco code 55 pointwork. It is not the result of some "personal negative force-field" of mine : it comes from a fundamental incompatability in the wheel/track interface

 

This sort of thing will do nothing for electrical contact to the wheels of a short-wheelbase loco crossing a point

 

(The ghastly MOROP/NEM bodge traditionally used on the Continent to get round "drop-in" is to make the flanges so deep that the wheelset "grounds" at the point , and runs through the crossing supported on the tips of its flanges, instead of on the wheel tread. Hence the notorious "pizza cutter" flanges on Continental RTR in HO and N)

 

And while we are about it - West Hill Wagon Works sell "Back to Back Gauges for N/OO9" which come with no stated value on the packet. When I measure them, they appear to give a back to back setting of 7.85mm, which is way outside even the current NMRA back to back , that nobody attains on any British N gauge RTR. At that extreme value you will certainly render the check rails on all pointwork completely ineffective , which won't help reliable running either. (That was a couple of quid down the drain at DEMU Showcase...)

 

I'm afraid the "Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Move along now, nothing to see here"  attitude has not served N well , in allowing this mess to come into being while everyone assures each other "It's all fine, fine, fine"

 

Since Hornby are sticking to the established NEM standards for 12mm gauge, and so are Peco, TT:120 comes with a consistant coherent wheel/track package so that the components of the wheel/track interface actually work properly together. That is a distinct advantage.

 

At the  moment I can't do anything myself to try and sort out the issue in N , because I haven't even been able to identify a source of a back to back gauge that complies with any known standard....  (DCC Concepts advertise their N gauge B2B gauge as setting at 7.65mm. That is again outside the latest NMRA value of 7.54mm , never mind the NEM value or the "old" standard of 7.2mm)

 

I can't even set the rolling stock wheels at a correct or sensible back to back value...

 

It is a complete mess

Thank you for quoting my reference to NMRA wheel profiles..... and then ignoring it. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about N gauge standards and maybe, just maybe, restating your displeasure at intervals in the Hornby TT:120 thread is not going to give it the airing you desire.  After 50 years modelling in N, but only the past 15 or so years modelling British N,  I am surprised that I do not have the operational issues you seem to.  All of my previous layouts have used Fleischmann Profi track (with lots of flexible track) and only in the past year have I switched to Kato Unitrack for a post-bereavement project where I was seeking quicker progress. And just to be clear I use a standard back-to-back of 7.45mm whether using Fleischmann or Kato track. I will resist responding the next time you bring up the N standards in this TT:120 thread.

13 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

The wheel and track standards are considerably better than N .

 

Firstly , if you use the same code rail in a scale 25% larger, the effect is finer. Ditto the same flange/tread dimensions...

 

Secondly - for the first time ever we have a scale launched with a coherent consistant wheel/track standard. A wheel /track interface that actually works properly.  N gauge is a horrible mess in that respect: I can't find much commonality in wheel standards between different items from the same manufacturer, never mind different manufacturers. Consequently N gauge bumps and lurches all over the shop. TT:120, with a coherent wheel/track standard should run smoothly

 

We've just had SIX new locomotives for this scale confirmed as moving forward for production , 6 months ahead of the date when I timidly suggested Hornby might announce a couple of new items.

 

And you are arguing that nothing is happening? The page upon page of frothing and politics we'd have had if anyone had announced a new Class 37 in any other scale.... But it's TT:120 , so there's not even a new thread about the announcements

Whilst I accept that some of the N scale standards are coarser than TT:120, I am surprised that you question the consistency of standards in N gauge. I accept there is no worldwide N standard but for users with less eclectic tastes than mine, the local standards for any given market are just that - standard. For about the past 15 years almost all the makers of UK rolling stock have switched wheels to NMRA profile. Almost all the continental manufacturers have continued with the coarser NEM profiles, although several are now offering their latest production with NMRA wheel profiles. As to running standards, I am using N powered and non-powered rolling stock from Arnold, Fleischmann, Minitrix, REE, Roco, Kato, Bachmann Farish, Peco, Revolution Trains, Rapido, NME, N Gauge Society, AFAN, Lemke, Artrain, Hobbytrain and several smaller producers.  Running these several times a day on Kato Unitrack (horribly Code 80!)  with 19 turnouts and a minimum curve radius of 282mm, I haven't experienced the bumping and lurching you mention, and I really cannot remember the last time I had a derailment or unintended uncoupling. Shunting uses the Dapol Easishunts (using permanent magnets under the track) and N Gauge Society, Bachmann Farish and Arnold shunting locomotives.

I do understand that some people struggle with making N work, as they may well struggle with making TT, 00 gauge or 0 gauge work, but even with my shaky 75 year old hands and dodgy eyesight, I seem to have managed very well with the layout built over the past 12 months. I wonder what I am doing wrong. I really do not expect to have a problem with a TT:120 shunting plank when Hornby produce some modern freight rolling stock.

On 22/07/2023 at 11:21, DavidMcKenzie said:

 

All very interesting stuff for someone like me who loves the railway, but has no practical knowledge of the everyday running. Do you know why two electric locos were needed in place of one diesel? It's always intrigued me. This seemed to be especially true of 86s, but 90s were also double headed at times during my spotting days as a child in the late 90s. Often a similar looking (to my untrained eye at least) working required only one 47 (and later 66). Was it simply power? Or reliability? Or could two electric locos run more efficiently in parallel than alone? 

Just echoing what Robert Shrives has written. The main factor was adhesion on the steeper gradients. A Co-Co diesel had better adhesion than a single Bo-Bo electric - 12 wheels gripping the track against 8 wheels. Two Bo-Bo electrics had better adhesion than one Co-Co diesel - 16 wheels against 12 wheels.  Adhesion translated into running speed. So to achieve a workable path for the train, two Bo-Bo electrics could produce a path slightly faster than a single diesel, and at the time at much lower energy costs. Two electrics had significantly more power potential on tap than a single diesel but that needed to translate into real tractive effort on a rising gradient and with a damp rail. Too much power and wheelslip soon fails to allow the locomotive to maintain momentum. Two electrics were certainly more reliable than a single Class 47. The BR policy was not to run diesels for long distances under the wires if it was avoidable.

8 minutes ago, DavidMcKenzie said:

An interesting thought Simon, I wasn't aware of workings with a double header 87s/86s line up until reading your message. A quick search on the internet and it looked to be a common sight at the end of the 80s, especially on the mosend to dee marsh steel working. 

 

 

 

Photo from Flickr (not mine).

I was involved in the original train planning for the Ravenscraig - Shotton  HRC services. As well as 2 x Class 86 traction we did look at a single diesel throughout which although running slower gave a better end to end time by avoiding the traction changeover from electric. In the end we followed the policy of not planning for diesels under the wires.  Class 87s were not included in the picture as they were preferred for passenger services, Freightliner and the Class 4 Speedlink trains in that order.

I am obviously on Hornby’s list of market targets. I just received an email from Saga Travel  “in association with Hornby TT:120 “. I am in the upper half of Saga’s normal target age range. I suppose I will be buying for the great-grandchildren.

16 minutes ago, Ed-farms said:

Great news, I will definitely be getting a few of these. 

 

Going to put my cynical head on for a moment, was anyone else intrigued by the timing of the announcement? 8am on a Friday morning was a weird time to me. Why not show it off at TINGs?

They are saving an even bigger WCML announcement for TINGS. :-)

10 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

Interesting that many of these in 2 and 4mm are using my photos downloaded from the site - they have the copyright on them so not even paid 85p. The TUAs appeared to use a lot of my photos for inspiration as well. I would expect an ex Journalist to understand copyright as other manufacturer's do. 

 

Paul

Bit surprised by this comment as it seems to me that Revolution have been meticulous in quoting the source of photos and referencing the author's name and the permission. Been back through this topic and cannot find any in it at all.

2 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

* tampo-printing for example is a process have zero understanding/knowledge of, other than have heard of it on this forum.

This what it looks like in action, although not in a model railway context. https://youtu.be/sMzj6du4gX8

On 09/06/2023 at 23:13, Gordonwis said:

 

SNCF's batch of Eurofima coaches were orange initially - as were all the others (Belgian, Italian, Swiss) but SNCF repainted them into Corail colours.  It's presumably a through train to Germany or Belgium

It is almost certainly a Paris-Bruxelles (Amsterdam) working, These incorporated SNCB Eurofimas in orange C1 livery, and a selection of SNCF Eurofima  and Corail Vu and Vtu coaches also in C1 Livery.  I have a photo somewhere taken in Amsterdam when I saw the Vu/Vtu stock in orange for the first time, and in a wholly orange set. The SNCF Eurofima A9 fleet contained the first 8 coaches out of 100 in orange livery (900-907), and the following  Corail Vu/Vtu coaches also in C1:- 10 A4B6u Vu75 composite compartments (063-072); 11 B6Dd2 Vu75 Second class compartment baggage (not air-conditioned) (269-279), 35 B10tu Vtu75 second class open (291-325).  Usually the trains were hauled by SNCF CC40100. The SNCB Class 18 was generally diagrammed for the Paris-Köln and Oostende-Köln services. The Köln services from Paris generally did not contain orange coaches and in the late 1980s one of the Parsifal sets was wholly SNCF stock in Corail grey livery. Details sourced from the Le Train Corail archive Tome 2.