NFWEM57

On 23/03/2023 at 08:22, rka said:

Does anybody know if the motors used in the various bogies are the same size or dedicated sizes for each type? 

I model in EM gauge and recently tried to convert a Lima HST using a Hornby Railroad Power Bogie - tiny motor and without traction tyres, could only just pull itself.  Undertook the same for a Lima Class 37 using a Hornby Railroad bogie - bigger motor and plenty of pull without traction tyres and hauled 6 coaches with ease.  I don't think there are too many sizes of motor as the Railroad Class 47 bogies are the same as the Class 37 ones.  The motor in the Class 43 HST bogie is quite small, possibly deliberately to steer buyers towards the full fat HST that Hornby also make.  Being small, adding weight to gain traction overwhelmed the motor so in the end I added the full fat bogies and central drive motor to my Lima HSTs and sold on the original Lima bogies.  Overall cost was far less than buying a Hornby full fat HST..!

The only way to find out I guess is to measure the motor you have in the 2bil and ask on this forum.  Provide a side on image with a ruler in the shot and people could give you feedback on sizes of other bogies; happy to do so for Class 37 and Class 47 bogies. 

2 hours ago, polybear said:

Also, is a B-7 Turnout suitable for use with both large RTR and Kitbuilt** Locos without issue (e.g. too sharp/tight etc.)?

A video paints a thousand words...  This is a converted 5MT with Alan Gibson wheels running through B7 turnouts and the 1:7 double slip from British Finescale.  

Update

The last few (available) components have arrived I think I have all I need to scratch build a simple flat bottom rail turnout.  The latest volume on Flat Bottom Rail turnouts (by the PWI) has also arrived to shed some much needed light on modern practices, but only on and after 25th December..!!  I will have to find a solution to distance blocks which are fitted after the moving sections of the switch rails between the stock rails and switch rails where there is no space for L1 and S1 style baseplates.  Similar blocks will be required at the crossing V  to maintain distance between the crossing Vs and wing rails; 1mm high x 2mm wide rectangular black plastic rod will suffice cut to length as required to fill the gap.  A period of research before beginning I think.  Nothing i require on my planned layout in flat bottom rail is below C8, and that is a crossover, so It might be a much simpler D12 as a first attempt; lead around 30m so around 400mm (16") toe to nose and a natural turnout with 5m (16ft) radius for both switch and turnout.

On 06/12/2023 at 14:13, kipford said:

Not sure if this is of help?

Hi,

Thanks for the comments and images you have posted to this thread, I assume it was for me..!  The layout looks impressive.  My layout will not be built until after a post retirement relocation in around 18 months time so I am busy making up various sections of the layout where there is point work in the meantime.   I have settled on the PECO baseplates with EMGS flat bottom rail and wooden sleepers/timbers for the turnouts and the ExactoScale concrete bases for plain track.   The main lines will be flat bottom, the branch lines will be bullhead.  Tried looking up the P4 Track Company, nothing found but the odd link to ExactoScale.  Yes, there is a lot of base material to remove on flat bottom rail but I intend to mill the rail to near size and hand finish.  I will clearly need to design and make a few jigs.  I have British Railway Track - Design Construction & Maintenance (1979) 5th Edition and Santa is bringing me the latest textbooks on track, flat bottom turnouts and bullhead turnouts from the PWI so i should be able to create some meaningful templates.

I live near Waterlooville so I may  be in contact in the via a PM in the new year. 

Patrick

Ah, apologies, forgot to include A7, B9 and B10 but not A6 where switch radius is 482ft and turnout radius is 326 ft.

1 hour ago, Mark Forrest said:

There are certain preferred combinations of switch and crossing which (if I remember correctly) give a better flow through the turnout.

It is where the switch radius is equal or very close to the turnout radius and they are called natural turnouts.  A8, B8, C10, D12, E16 and F20 are the ones according to the 2mm Scale Associations excellent book on Track. 

Hi,

There are many experts on this forum who will give you sage advice, I am not one of them.!  However, from my copy of the 5th edition of the British Railway Track - Design Construction and Maintenance, table 16 indicates the following ranges for bullhead rail:

• A4 to A8 (but not GWR) with a turnout radius of circa 520mm (A4) to 1,928mm (A8)
• B6 to B11 with a turnout radius of circa 1,248mm (B6) to 2,452mm (B11)
• C7 to C14 with a turnout radius of circa 1,664mm (C7) to 3,840mm (C14)
• D8 to D16
• E10 to E16 (but not GWR)
• F16 to F20 (but not GWR)
• 30ft - 13 to 20 (GWR only)

Tables 17 to 29 also gives details for flat bottom rail for a range of switches from A to G

On the other questions (side play etc) I have no idea, but the experts will hopefully advise you.

Solution to tight fit of EMGS Code 83 rail in ExactoScale Concrete Track Base

Curious as to why the rail was a tight fit, I tapered the width of the base of the rail to see what dimension slid easily into the track base.  At around 1.80mm width, the rail slides into the track base with ease; just 0.01mm difference.  On a longer piece of rail, I ran a piece of fine wet and dry along both edges of the base and after a few iterations found the entire rail slid easily through a section of track base.

A little bit of extra work but at least you get a length of concrete track with almost scale rail assembled in just a few minutes.  It would be prudent to do the same on any rail being used for turnouts to avoid stressing the baseplates.

The cost of 1m of EM gauge flat bottom track on concrete sleepers is approximately £8.20 from the EMGS.   The track base is also available in OO and P4 from the EMGS (and others) as is the rail.

Patrick

13 hours ago, hayfield said:

C&L is code 82 not code 83

C&L error corrected, too may 82s and 83s..!

I have discovered that code 82 or 83 indicates nothing about the size of the rail other than its overall height..!  Nothing about rail head width, base width or base thickness.  Is it any wonder we are all confused and meaningful progress on FB turnouts has stalled..! 

According to a previous post elsewhere some time ago, (https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7339) C&L code 82 had a head width of 0.8mm, not 0.92mm, and so is undersize by 0.12mm and not prototypical; have asked C&L what size their current code 82 rail is.  Peco code 83 has a head width of 0.79mm.  EMGS code 83 has a head width of 0.94mm; oversize by 0.02mm. Amazingly, Karlgarin 82 has a head width of 1.12mm but that rail is for a different solution..! 

None of this critical detail is ever listed on most UK websites, just the overall rail height which is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard..! Look at a German website and they provide the key detail, even for PECO code 83.  That is why I purchased the various bits in small quantities to find out the facts and share here.  We need to know the rail head width, the base width and the base thickness (as it might be the correct width but too fat to slide into the baseplates).  We need to know the maximum rail base width height for various baseplates not have to discover - at cost - by trial and error.  

Finally, EMGS code 83 is in fact 0.082", as measured..!

Rail specific dimensions measured or found to date are as follows with prototype (blue), measured (green), on line search (yellow), unknown (red):

Dimensions have been requested for C&L and Marcway rail.

Patrick

An update.

Various baseplates and sleepers have arrived along with rail from 2 sources.  

Rail

One from PECO, code 83, and one from EMGS, again code 83.  PECO unsuitable, way undersize, but EMGS almost spot on wrt prototype, slightly oversize head (+0.02mm)  and undersize foot (-0.02mm) so will require the slightest of adjustments to a spare set of roller gauges (DCC Concepts) but 3 point gauges are just about fine (DCC Concepts).  Alan Gibson check rail gauge is also fine.  The base thickness is 0.41mm, the same as PECO code 83.  

Still waiting for rail from one more vendor and have requested dimensions of code 82 from C&L and code 75 flat bottom from Marcway.

Track Base

The PECO Code 83 rattles around in the baseplates so no good. 

The EMGS Code 83 rail is a very tight fit in the ExactoScale track base but it does fit - just.   It might be a struggle to make up long lengths but see solution in later post.  Sleepers are 1.83mm thick at the edge and 1.24mm in the centre.  Rail head to bottom of sleeper is 4mm; the same as bullhead flexi-track.  Medium grey in colour.  Sleepers are 32.3mm long by 3.1mm wide top and 3.3mm bottom.

The rails have the correct 1:20 incline and measure 18.2mm apart at the top of the railhead.

Sleepers

PECO concrete sleepers are a cream colour, like a milky bar, 1.8mm thick at the edges and 1.5mm in the centre. The sleeper length is 31.7mm long by 3.5mm wide. Sleepers are 32.3mm long by 3mm wide top and 3.6mm bottom. 

C&L Sleepers are a lighter grey than the track base, are 33.65 wide and 3.35mm wide with next to no taper from top to bottom.  1.55mm thick at the ends and 1.25mm in the centre.

PECO timber sleepers for turnout construction are 88mm long by 3.93 wide (scale 11.75 inches wide).  Thickness 1.23mm

Baseplates 

In all cases, as with bullhead rail, a taper must be put on the end of the rail base to ensure the baseplates slide on easily without damage.  All the baseplates fitted the EMGS rail and were easier to install whilst still on the sprue.

PECO baseplates as provided with PECO concrete sleepers.  Might resemble the early  BR baseplates.  Railhead to bottom of baseplate 2.75mm.  (PECO sleeper, 4.55mm overall.  C&L Sleeper, 4.3mm overall, PECO turnout timbers 3.98mm overall)

PECO pandrol baseplates, appear slightly oversize but acceptable detail.  Railhead to bottom of baseplate 2.65mm.  (PECO sleeper, 4.45mm overall.  C&L Sleeper, 4.2mm overall, PECO turnout timbers 3.88mm overall)

C&L baseplates, smaller than the PECO baseplate and detail smaller than PECO   Railhead to bottom of baseplate 2.65mm.  (PECO sleeper, 4.45mm overall.  C&L Sleeper, 4.2mm overall, PECO turnout timbers 3.88mm overall)

Image below, PECO Pandrol top, C&L middle, PECO basic bottom

if making up plain track using the baseplates, sleepers and rail, there would be no 1:20 incline.  So, the baseplates are only of use in turnouts where the FB rails are vertical.

I'll update when more parts arrive and then commence a turnout in the new year as the festive season, with its many distractions, is now upon us...!  I also need to collect more information re baseplates on FB turnouts. 

Patrick

20 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Karlgarin do FB code 82 in HiNi

Thank you.  Martin Wynne told me the same and when I checked the specification, although the correct height, the head and base are too wide, 22% and 11% oversize respectively. 

On 17/01/2018 at 18:53, polybear said:

Here's the rail head info as promised;

Interesting thread and the issue of code 82 and 83 rail head size continues..!  My aim is to scratch build FB turnouts in EM gauge and I am trying to source code 75 or code 82 FB rail with the correct rail head width.  Not easy.  The PECO code 83 is 15% undersize at 0.79mm. Just waiting on code 82 and code 83 rail from 2 other sources to check dimensions.  If the C&L code 82 rail head is still 0.67mm then that is a non starter.  Marcway have code 75 FB listed but no dimensions but, if the head size is as you have listed and the foot is the correct size, bingo, problem largely solved.

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

It's intended for light rail in 7mm scale, but may be ok in 4mm.

Martin, thank you for the link.  Have checked the specification and although the correct height, the head and base are too wide, 22% and 11% respectively.  I'll see what the postman brings over the next few days as I have two rail orders in, EMGS Code 83 and PECO IL-115 Code 82. 

Thank you once again.

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

UK flat-bottom rail (6.1/4") in 4mm/ft scale is Code 82.

I hope I can get some at a reasonable price and which is to scale..!..!

19 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

It’s a pity that fasttrac does not do 4mm building fixtures.

I think I have already worked out I will need to manufacture some gauges for FB rail  whether 82 or 83 variant.  DCC Concepts do not make gauges for EM/P4 FB anymore.  So, some lathe work and some milling work to undertake for a set of code 82 roller and 3 point gauges.  Norman Solomon had a set of adjustable roller gauges on the recent Missenden Abbey track building course I attended.  That might be the best approach.  

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

I always thought code 60 was used for third rail.

 

You learn something every day..! The mystery on why societies sell code 83 continues..! 

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

Good luck

PECO Code 83 has arrived and is, as previously indicated, far too small width wise but a 1/1000 (0.02mm) thicker at the base.  Hopefully the PECO Code 82 I have discovered and purchased is what it says on the packet and my immediate and future needs will be resolved.  If not, I will be after a piece of C&L Code 82 to assess/measure. 

I can only assume the Code 83 is useful for 3rd rail applications which is why the societies stock it.  Otherwise code 83 would appear to be of no use at all for finescale UK track building..!

19 hours ago, hayfield said:

If you have ordered code 83* the rail might be a tight squeeze, C&L code 82 may be  better fit

 

Have ordered Exactoscale concrete track base and Code 83 rail from the EMGS, Code 82 rail from PECO.   The code 82 will fit the C&L and PECO baseplates, the code 83 is for the plain concrete track.

Until I get the samples, the difference in size between the various Code 82 and Code 83 products currently available is unknown.  If the available FB rail is seriously undersize, as is indicated on various internet articles and links, then the whole idea may be a non starter.  Little point modelling FB if the rail head of the only available rail is 15% or more undersize with all the implications that has on using standard gauges and the few available components; it is the HO/OO issue all over again.  I moved to EM to minimise the undersize gauge issue so to have to use seriously undersize rail for FB sort of defeats the object..!  And of course Code 82 no longer available from PECO, I think I managed to find a store which had some remaining stock; unless it is marked Code 82 but is actually Code 83 in the bag as some have previously discovered.  Not sure on C&L Code 82 dimensions and no real way of finding out unless a sample is purchased.  I'll post my findings.

18 hours ago, hayfield said:

I assume the problem is that the market is very small ( I can count on one hand the number of times I have been asked for ST baseplates at shows I have helped Phil out at) and if that is the case for a manufacturer its a simple waste of time as there is no likelihood of recouping their outlay 

I have ordered the base plate components that are are available from C&L and PECO (not all are shown when searching their website) along with some FB rail.  I'll try my hand at a FB B6 and use it on a revamp of my test track. Good thread on Scale Four on making switch blades, crossings, check and wing rails.  https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7455  

Thank you for all the advice.  I will upload my attempt in a few weeks time, have a few Hornby upgrades for the eBay Christmas period to get out of the way first.

I have ordered the PECO Pandrol and Slide Baseplates, the C&L Baseplates, some FB rail and will see what can be made.  There is a good thread on the Scale  Four forum describing how to make the switch blades, crossings and wing/check rails https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7455

I'll try my hand at a B6 for my test track.

13 hours ago, griffgriff said:

The bad news. I found the switch tricky because of the cross section Good news if working in EM or OO the common crossing was a breeze.

Thank you for sharing your experience.  Reading through the 5th edition of British Railway Track - Design, Construction and Maintenance I noted that modern turnouts do not incline track 1:20 but keep it upright thus simplifying matters. But the plaining of switch rails is a bit more involved.. The main sticking point is the chairs!   Why is all this so difficult and seemingly controversial?  

12 hours ago, hayfield said:

The trouble is we all want everything at once going from famine to feast.

Hi , thanks for the comments and I must stress, I take nothing away from those giants who have worked hard to improve track building up to the present.  However, I was surprised at the lack of availability of FB components. 

Wayne Kinney (British Finescale)  )has sold N gauge FB turnouts with concrete bases for years.  Wayne did all the research and produced a viable product.   Not sure stick with BH because that is all that is available in 4mm is quite the  right answer, its sounds awfully like giving up.  In addition, not quite sure my requirement is famine to feast, it will be a journey and you have to start somewhere.  Research will be first and that has already started.

FB has been around for 60 plus years, BH much longer at 100 plus years , but are we really saying we will have to wait another 40 year before we get FB solutions to 4mm scale track building?  What about the youngsters interested in modern finescale track building now?

This is not a criticism on what has gone before, it is a suggestion that we need to up our game to provide for future modeller's.

Regards,

Patrick

On 24/11/2023 at 16:02, hayfield said:

n conclusion, certainly there are components available for building flatbottom track, and the choice is getting bigger

Thank you for the very comprehensive reply.   Alas, the issue remains the same.  I have read the MMRS papers which, although very interesting,  concern plain track only.  I might acquire a packet of the PECO sleepers and clips but they look a little crude looking at the image.  The 3D printed versions using TEMPLPOT look to have a very thick base, and in any case are BH only.  British Finscale have 3D printed easy build track bases for FB rail but, alas, only in N gauge.  What I require is the same easy construction method for FB that is available for BH.  It looks like it will be a bit of a battle but nothing is impossible.  Bit more research on the prototype required and then see what can be obtained or manufactured.  The 5th edition BR Track DC&M does have a lot of information and my need for a switched diamond crossing has been simplified as the FB equivalent is now the much simpler swing nose crossing.

I shall persevere..!

Patrick

12 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

FB

Hi Wayne,  thank you for the offer.  I will email when I get back from sunny cornwall later today.  IT limited at present.

7 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

You're not, but I haven't found the door to Aladdin's cave either.  Colin Craig used to produce a range of flat bottom turnouts on copper clad sleepers, but I don't think these are available anymore.  Hopefully British Finescale may produce some of their N gauge range in 4mm scale in time, but that's no use if you're looking to build now.

Thank you for your reply.  I am not alone then..!