Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[PMP]

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Meanwhile the DOGA Journal editor has reported that the new Bullhead points are disconcertingly tight . That may be why the medium and small radius points have taken so long - I'd expect trouble with HJ models especially a 2-8-0 at those radii.

 

The Peco Bullhead large radius points are no problem at all.

They’re the same geometry as the existing streamline CD75/100. I have serious concerns about proficiency if the individual hasn’t even done a cross section check of stock/manufacturers as I have before making such a claim.

 

 

Comments regarding issues that these points are supposedly holding back other types in the range are fantasy. 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

The Peco Bullhead large radius points are no problem at all.

They’re the same geometry as the existing streamline CD75/100. I have serious concerns about proficiency if the individual hasn’t even done a cross section check of stock/manufacturers as I have before making such a claim.

 

 

It depends on what you want to run on them.

Most modern models should be fine. The problem occurs when somebody wants to run a 1980s loco.

Some modellers want to run old stuff on new tracks. Others may prefer the look of finer new track & be happy to either sell, upgrade or just keep their older stock for posterity.

So what should manufacturers do? 

 

Ravenser mentions a review done by DOGA's journal editor. That is me & I would be happy to publish the article here, but the forum won't allow .pdfs. You may find this paragraph interesting though: I used my own caliper to measure the dimensions & compared my bullhead turnout with a concrete bearer turnout, so a fairly recent tooling:

 

Both seemed to have 1.0mm clearance between running rails and check/wing rails. This is consistent across all 4 check/wing rails on both turnouts.
I measured the gauge in different areas. The gauge of the bullhead point is between 16.2mm and 16.4mm, while the flatbottom one was between 16.4mm and 16.5mm. The difference seems slight but consistent.

The clearance between stock and switched rail is also finer on the bullhead turnout, being 1.7mm compared to 2.1mm for the flatbottom.
The overall height of the bullhead turnout is 4.0mm, which compares to 4.2mm for the flatbottom turnout.

Unifrog points - with embedded photos.pdf

[PMP]

6 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

 

It depends on what you want to run on them.

Most modern models should be fine. The problem occurs when somebody wants to run a 1980s loco.

Some modellers want to run old stuff on new tracks. Others may prefer the look of finer new track & be happy to either sell, upgrade or just keep their older stock for posterity.

So what should manufacturers do? 

 

Ravenser mentions a review done by DOGA's journal editor. That is me & I would be happy to publish the article here, but the forum won't allow .pdfs. You may find this paragraph interesting though: I used my own caliper to measure the dimensions & compared my bullhead turnout with a concrete bearer turnout, so a fairly recent tooling:

 

Both seemed to have 1.0mm clearance between running rails and check/wing rails. This is consistent across all 4 check/wing rails on both turnouts.
I measured the gauge in different areas. The gauge of the bullhead point is between 16.2mm and 16.4mm, while the flatbottom one was between 16.4mm and 16.5mm. The difference seems slight but consistent.

The clearance between stock and switched rail is also finer on the bullhead turnout, being 1.7mm compared to 2.1mm for the flatbottom.
The overall height of the bullhead turnout is 4.0mm, which compares to 4.2mm for the flatbottom turnout.

Unifrog points - with embedded photos.pdf 624.25 kB · 1 download

Thank you for that, it puts the context into perspective. Regarding 1980’s stock though this range I’d expect a good number of them to work well. Some types like Lima rolling stock may have problems due to flange depth (pizza cutters). A Lima Class 31 (and by inference) most other Lima diesels works fine through them. I’d expect that most people buying this range of track are very unlikely to be using significant amounts of 80’s stock. It’s a more finescale mindset if using this, therefore the buyers are more likely to be buyers of contemporary equipment.

 

NB, I read you note older stock may have issues due older poorer tolerances, but nothing as you being disconcerted about the product in that PDF.  I’d be grateful if you’d clarify if that’s a correct interpretation of your comments.

Edited April 20, 2022 by PMP
Spellin

[Pete the Elaner]

12 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

NB, I read you note older stock may have issues due older porter tolerances, but nothing as you being disconcerted about the product in that PDF.  I’d be grateful if you’d clarify if that’s a correct interpretation of your comments.

 

When I tried to upload it, I got a message telling me I could only upload ...., but .pdfs were not listed so I was unaware it actually uploaded. 🤔

 

I suspected older models may have issues. There are so many models out there that it is difficult to test all combinations & therefore very bold to suggest that any track will work with all stock or vice versa.

A while back, I had a brand new Hornby class 60 which just wouldn't run through a crossing made from Peco long radius code 75 points. You would think a model of that age would be fine. That is when I started to pay attention to back to backs & found that they were far too tight. Once corrected, it ran fine.

Not all customers are modellers who are willing to fiddle with things like back to backs & expect that trains sold as 'ready to run' OO should work on track sold as 'ready to run' OO, which is why common standards are welcome & the origin of this thread.

[Allegheny1600]

12 hours ago, Ravenser said:

When the BRMSB actually convened (possibly in an air-raid shelter - this was the winter of 1940-41)

I’m reading a certain amount of irony about this.

Okay, the present war is raging fiercely thousands of miles away but it is raging nevertheless whilst railway modellers are debating really serious matters!

 

Anyway, if a new body could be created, what standards would it adopt for 4mm/16.5mm gauge?

Does it have to reinvent the wheel?

Or should it adopt worldwide standards that are currently working?

A while ago, I purchased an RTR Beyer-Garrett from an Australian outfit called Eureka Models - everything on this Australian prototype was built according to (American) NMRA standards.

It was made in China too as are the vast majority of British outline models.

My point here is that anything a group of people (a cabal if you will) can dream up, won’t make a jot of difference when it comes to Chinese production.

Unless it conforms to either of a set of worldwide standards, NMRA or NEM, it won’t happen.

 

Or, are you also proposing to bring production back to the UK where you can ensure standards are adhered to along with their associated costs?

[ejstubbs]

13 hours ago, Ravenser said:

The MRSG had a plan for enforcement and compliance . Unfortunately it blew up in everyone's face. The 4 or 5 of them set up a group called the Protofour Society, which they, the MRSG members, owned. They also set up a company called Studiolith to make approved components to the official standards (there may have been an IP angle here). Studiolith would only sell to members of the Protofour Society, and members of the Protofour Society had to undertake to use only components from the approved supplier (Studiolith)

 

The whole thin g blew up when Studiolith proved unable to meet the needs of a single large exhibition layout, The N London Group's Heckmondwike. The layout leaders stepped outside the approved supply chain in desperation to meet an exhibition deadline, the Management Committee of the Protofour Society (=MRSG) found out, expelled the Group - en mass, and barred them from Studiolith supplies , and in the resulting bust-up the entire senior membership of the Protofour Society resigned or was expelled.

 

It got ugly. The original RM article of Heckmondwike is the only modelling article I have ever seen prefixed by a formal legal disclaimer - because the MRSG sent a solicitors' letter to Cyril Freezer and Sydney Pritchard threatening legal action if the layout was described in print as Protofour.  (That put me off P4 for life). The refugees formed the Scalefour Society. Studiolith I think became Exactoscale in the end - certainly for some years afterwards they required you to sign a formal disclaimer that you were not a member of S4Soc otherwise they would not supply you.

 

If this farrago - and half the other things that you mention in that post - is even close to true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't) then all I can say is how depressing it is to find such petty, stupid and disgracefully self-interested behaviour being exhibited by people whom one might otherwise regard with a degree of respect due to their experience, knowledge and expertise in the subject.

 

On 18/04/2022 at 23:24, Ravenser said:

Although all manufacturers of RTR OO now claim adherence to RP25/110, in practice they deliver their own interpretation of it, which is very often thereabouts rather than there.

 

This kind of thing is far from unknown in other fields as well (data communications protocols, and OSI in particular, being one that I have had experience of in the past - though my memories of the painful details have thankfully faded somewhat over the intervening years).

[Pete the Elaner]

3 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I’m reading a certain amount of irony about this.

Okay, the present war is raging fiercely thousands of miles away but it is raging nevertheless whilst railway modellers are debating really serious matters!

 

Anyway, if a new body could be created, what standards would it adopt for 4mm/16.5mm gauge?

Does it have to reinvent the wheel?

Or should it adopt worldwide standards that are currently working?

A while ago, I purchased an RTR Beyer-Garrett from an Australian outfit called Eureka Models - everything on this Australian prototype was built according to (American) NMRA standards.

It was made in China too as are the vast majority of British outline models.

My point here is that anything a group of people (a cabal if you will) can dream up, won’t make a jot of difference when it comes to Chinese production.

Unless it conforms to either of a set of worldwide standards, NMRA or NEM, it won’t happen.

 

Or, are you also proposing to bring production back to the UK where you can ensure standards are adhered to along with their associated costs?

 

Why create a new body? Harmonising & maintaining standards across OO manufacturers was exactly what the Double O Gauge Association was set up to do & that aim still exists. It was never going to be a magic bullet, but the more support they have, the more influence they will have.

They didn't just invent standards either. They looked at what existing models used & if there was any overlaps between them which could them be adopted as 'standards'.

 

The China aspect is irrelevant. Contractors there build what they are contracted to. Hornby, Bachmann etc tell them what the back to backs should be, not the other way around.

[PMP]

55 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Why create a new body? Harmonising & maintaining standards across OO manufacturers was exactly what the Double O Gauge Association was set up to do & that aim still exists. It was never going to be a magic bullet, but the more support they have, the more influence they will have.

They didn't just invent standards either. They looked at what existing models used & if there was any overlaps between them which could them be adopted as 'standards'.

 

The China aspect is irrelevant. Contractors there build what they are contracted to. Hornby, Bachmann etc tell them what the back to backs should be, not the other way around.

How many (roughly) members are in the DOGA society? I ask as the society doesn’t appear to have much recognition within the core OO RTR sector. 
 

Your comment regarding the contract to build to specifications, is one I absolutely agree with, the downside being those specifications (in some cases they could be standards), aren’t widely known/publicised/demonstrated etc.

[RichardT]

2 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

If this farrago - and half the other things that you mention in that post - is even close to true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't)

The pseudo-academic doings of the MRSG and the subsequent P4/S4 toys out of prams events are a regularly entertaining feature if you read back issues of “Model Railway News”  & “Model Railways” from the mid-1960s onwards. “Railway Modeller” tended not to mention them at all (I think because Sidney Pritchard & CJF didn’t have much time for them, as they hadn’t for the BRMSB), acknowledging only EM - although they did, I think, originally accept adverts from Studiolith.  So I remember when I read the “Heckmondwike” Railway of the Month in the RM, with its disclaimer and allusions to disputes and palace coups,  it all came as rather a surprise to me (I only read RM as a beginner).

 

In fact, it was for that reason that “Heckmondwike” appeared in the Modeller - CJF had isssued a challenge that he’d believe P4 was a reality when he saw a well-stocked mainline modelled in it, not just tiny shunting planks.  Having it as an RM RotM was “proof” that the standard was now mainstream.

 

When CJF moved to “Model Railways” the issue kept coming up as well.*

 

Richard T
 

*Again, IIRC, CJFs objections to the P4/S4 gangs weren’t so much to the standards per se as to the fact that he couldn’t see what value “accuracy” had in that department when the result of adopting such standards would be to rule out anyone building a decent model railway in a normal-sized home because of the space needed to accommodate P4/S4 minimum radii.  You can’t build most of the “50 plans for small railways” in the space indicated using S4!

Edited April 20, 2022 by RichardT
Typo & adding a bit

[DCB]

Given that Railway Modeller was a Peco production and Peco were doing nicely selling 00 gauge models it didn't make much sense promoting finer scale stuff the A) Peco didn't sell, and  B)that  the "Average Modeller" with ten thumbs and a CSE grade 5 in woodwork, couldn't actually make work.

Standards have changed, just look at the Hornby O gauge and Hornby Dublo layouts you sometimes see at shows, and the way the just work and keep working hour after hour.   Then reliability was king now its appearance when static.  I remember RP 25 flanges were only recommended for curves greater than 2ft originally,  Now we wonder why they derail on 2nd radius...
We could do worse than adopt 1950s Hornby Dublo standards, isn't that more or less where we came in.

Edited April 20, 2022 by DCB

[Steamport Southport]

Lima models from the 1980s work fine on PECO track, both Code 75 and 100, as well as Hornby track as you would expect. I have quite a lot of it from the days I modelled "current" in the 1980s, BR Blue diesels and B/G coaches mostly.

 

It's the earlier Lima stuff that has problems with the flanges, most of which was removed from the range by the 1980s and never appeared again.

 

But there is a problem when people suggest modernisation of standards. There are far too many people who shout that the want to run their seventy year old RTR models with the new ones so we get held back.

 

It's 2022 for crying out loud. Retire it to shelves or sling it all in the bin!

 

 

 

Jason

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

How many (roughly) members are in the DOGA society? I ask as the society doesn’t appear to have much recognition within the core OO RTR sector. 

 

Not enough, but it is easy to see why.

OO is the most popular scale. Being a member of an association which supports it provides less immediately obvious benefits as one which supports something less well supported.

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Ravenser's history lesson was most illuminating; I'm old enough to remember the P4/S4 Heckmondwike kerfuffle, but not the BRSMB shennanigans.  Seems reasonable to comment that BRSMB, EM, P4 &c were all attempts by modellers to impose a set of standards on other modellers, with varying degrees of success or otherwise, and were possibly unproductive given the amount of schism and bad feeling caused.  Modellers are by definition obsessed with detail and fidelity to the prototype, something which is needed to produce good models but tends to 'go with' entrenched and robustly held opinions, which no doubt also didn't help matters...

 

 

Actually, I don't think the majority of modellers give, a toss as to exactly what the set of standards are.

If they are buying locos & rolling stock from a variety of manufacturers and track from a couple of manufacturers, what they expect is for it to be fully compatible. After all, you wouldn't want RTR locomotives to have a variety of voltages - i.e. you don't want some manufacturers to use 9 Volts DC, others 12 V DC, more with 21.3 Volts DC, or some such nonsense, no matter how much manufacturers claimed their system was 'better'.

 

You shouldn't NEED to rework the items every time you buy something to make it work out of the box, unless you want to change the track gauge or make other modifications out of the ordinary.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The China aspect is irrelevant. Contractors there build what they are contracted to. Hornby, Bachmann etc tell them what the back to backs should be, not the other way around.

 

Well, yes, but compliance by Chinese contractors then comes down to QC, and the UK RTR company will get the level of QC they pay for.  We are not party to this, but I'm told that Bachmann test run their locos before packing them in the box.  Whether this includes running through facing turnouts I do not know, and suspecct it consists of a brief run in each direction on plain track or rollers to confirm that the  loco picks up current and delivers it to a motor which then drives the driving wheels.  I have commented in another current thread dealing with the reliability or otherwise of models out of the box.

 

I suspect that, when financial times are hard (and one of our major RTR companies is still clawing it's way out of the mire and is not fully clear yet) and costs have to be trimmed in the interests of basic commercial survival, QC is one of the first and obvious things to cut back on.  This is a slightly different subject to the need or otherwise for standards, but the subjects overlap, particularly when it comes to back-to-backs, something which is clearly not the most rigidly applied standard in RTR 00 products!

 

This is relevant, because not all people who purchase RTR 00 products will be even aware of what b2b is, never mind attempting to adjust it themselves.  Why, they will not unreasonably ask, don't RTR models run without derailing on track made by the same company or claimed to be to universal running standards by a 3rd party (Peco), when I've read the spec on the box for the model and am operating it on setrack radii and points that it is suitable for as specified and advised by the manufacturer?

 

There must be many, too many. people who start out in the hobby by building layouts based on setrack and RTR in the belief that they can't go wrong, the layout is bound to work and the trains bound to run satisfactorily, and become disillusioned when the trains derail because the b2bs are off.  They are not cogniscent of b2bs or how to adjust them, adjusting them needs brute force that they are nervous about applying to their delicate models in case they break them, and the models should work properly staight out of the box, ok, we'll allow the recommended running in period.

 

Such newbies are 'sold' the idea that, once they've built a baseboard, or even if they lay out the setrack on a table or floor, RTR models will work, and by and large they will but too often they don't because of b2b discrepancies.  They may well have been of the opinion that model railways were the preserve of skilled craftsmen modellers who have the skillsets to create scale models out of their own resources, and there is s a truth in this; those people exist and most of us find them inspirational but cannot do what they do.  The idea the newbies perhaps buy into is rooted in the RTR companies' marketing, and is the truth, but not the whole truth or nothing but the truth becasue that's how marketing works.  Caveat Emptor!   It's all perfectly legal and normal business practice!

 

We probably don't need a new standards body, as most of what it would need to do can be done at source by better QC, which is what I think we do need, along with better compatibility for tension lock couplings.

 

People like me, by no means expert modellers but having been around the block a few times, can usually dig ourselves out of running problems caused by b2b discrepancies, and my practice is to check and if necessary adjust the b2b on all the wheels of any new or 2h model I acquire or kit build, and b2b is my first port of call if something derails especially on a facing turnout; second port of call is couplings & buffers.  I can deal with the typical issues of RTR models, as I'm sure most of those who hang around on this site can, and unless it's a very serious issue just get on with it because experience, long and bitter, has taught me that this is how things are in the world of Chinese subcontractor produced RTR.

 

It is a sea change from the 'good(!) old days', when the RTR game required you to make a desision between Hornby Dublo, Triang Rovex, and Trix, the decision actually being made by Daddy or whoever bought your first train set.  We went through an apprenticeship in which we learned that HD/Trix didn't run on Triang track or couple to Triang stock or vice versa, that 3 rail stuff couldn't run on 2-rail track or vice versa.  The RTR of those days was crude and basic (though I was in awe of the sewing maching smoothness of HD Walchaerts), and bombproof reliable, and also sometimes surprisingly good but mostly hopelessly out of scale.

 

So we moved on as soon as we could because we'd read about something better in the model railway magazines (Constructor in my case).  We built Airfix and Kitmaster plastic kits, which taught us about quartering and the need to make models that ran square and true, and that whatever proprietary coupling system we were using we might need a rethink.  We steeled our nerves, saved our paper round money, and bought a Keyser 57xx which worked, though not brilliantly, and started rewheeling locos with Romfords and stock with brass bearings, for which we had to rebuild the layout using flexi, mostly Peco, track.  We learned that nothing worked on radii of less than 2 feet, and bigger was better.  We adapted things and and kitbashed.  This learning curve equipped us for anything we would encounter in the future from RTR.

 

Then came the 80s, when several new kids appeared on the block, none of whom survived but they formed the basis of our current RTR scene and some of their models are still available from the companies that took over from them, albeit with retooled and better chassis.  The newcomers claimed that their stock was compatible with Hornby, and to universal standards, a half truth.  Since the adoption of NEM coupling pockets things have improved considerably, not that they are perfect, and standards of scale and detail are usually good enough to have killed off the sort of kit building and bashing that my generation of modellers indulged in late 60s early 70s.  Better scale and better detailed models are now avaialble out of the box.

 

This explains the newbies' 'it should work straight out of the box' attitude, and our high minded dismissal of it.  RTR needs to look to it's QC IMHO, though, 'we' are a minority of their customers and they ignore customer perception of their reliability and compatibilty at their peril!

 

 

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

The China aspect is irrelevant. Contractors there build what they are contracted to. Hornby, Bachmann etc tell them what the back to backs should be, not the other way around.

No, the Chinese will attempt to make the model in such a way, that it saves them money to make the item (business ALWAYS does this).

Hopefully, it is made properly and then they can move onto the next project and thus make items available to a bigger market.

[melmerby]

On 18/04/2022 at 11:02, Wheatley said:

 

 

I can't use Land-Rover spares in my Honda, my lad's Ipad charger doesn't charge my Samsung, the DVD player remote doesn't turn the Freesat box on and off. My boss did once manage to make a CD-ROM fit a 5" disc drive but that's a whole different skill set not usually found in  the general population. 

 

 

USB-C which has been mandated as a standard will make Apple fall in line and use the same system as others. If it gets sorted out.

I'm surprised your DVD remote wont work Freesat as most remotes for the last umpteen years have been multi standard

Anyone of my 5 sitting on the media stand will switch other things, maybe not every function, but most.

I've got a Humax Freesat + box, a Panasonic tuner amp, a Sony TV, a Sony DVD & a Panasonic Blu Ray Freeview + HDD recorder.

 

Not tried a CD in a floppy drive 🙂 but I keep computer DVDs in a 5¼" Floppy cabinet👍🏻

[Pacific231G]

16 hours ago, Ravenser said:

(To the best of my knowledge , GOG and NGS are the largest scale societies . EMGS and OO9 must be among the larger ones)

 

Come to that , the combined weight of GOG , EMGS and S4Soc would heavily outweigh NGS. Why should standards for N gauge RTR be largely driven by the voices of those in other scales, most of whom are committed to non-RTR modelling?

Hi Ravenser

Thanks for the detailed histories. I've long wanted to know more about both the BRMSB and the P4/S4 and you've provided a lot of useful insights. The phrase  "members of the Protofour Society had to undertake to use only components from the approved supplier (Studiolith)" sums up perfectly why such self-appointed rule -setters are best avoided. Some of the MRSG's articles, mainly in MRC as I recall, did have an air of almost religious zealotry about them and basically asserted that every modeller before them had simply  got it all wrong.  Fortunately I don't see too much evidence of such attitudes in current practitioners.

 

I think the BRMSB was a bit different. It was set up to meet a genuine need for interchangeability of track and rolling stock and their standards did seem to have been generally accepted. Peco certainly supplied Pecoway and Individulay track components with BRMSB as the default. Farish were rather disingenuous in advertising Formoway stating that "All sleepers are correct to BRMSB measurements" which most probably took to mean that the points were entirely to those standards. However, according to a table of OO track standards, in the Advice Bureau column in the April 1955 Railway Modeller, Graham Farish's track and wheel standards were, apart from  tyre width and flange depth, consistent with BRMSB (though I wonder about their wheel profiles). Interestingly the same article says "We therefore reccomend that all locomotives and rolling stock be converted, where necessary, to B.R.M.S.B or N.M.R.A standards (these are in practice interchangeable) for two rail pick-up.  

 

BTW I wouldn't classify the OO9 Society (of which I'm a member) as a scale society as it "caters for all aspects of small scale narrow gauge railway modelling". While most members do use 9mm gauge track  in 3.5mm/ft and 4mm/ft scale plenty of us use 12mm gauge (for both 00n3 and H0m) and some use 10.5 mm (for HOn3), 6.5 mm (for minimum gauge railways) and others.    

[Ravenser]

8 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I’m reading a certain amount of irony about this.

Okay, the present war is raging fiercely thousands of miles away but it is raging nevertheless whilst railway modellers are debating really serious matters!

 

Anyway, if a new body could be created, what standards would it adopt for 4mm/16.5mm gauge?

Does it have to reinvent the wheel?

Or should it adopt worldwide standards that are currently working?

A while ago, I purchased an RTR Beyer-Garrett from an Australian outfit called Eureka Models - everything on this Australian prototype was built according to (American) NMRA standards.

It was made in China too as are the vast majority of British outline models.

My point here is that anything a group of people (a cabal if you will) can dream up, won’t make a jot of difference when it comes to Chinese production.

Unless it conforms to either of a set of worldwide standards, NMRA or NEM, it won’t happen.

 

Or, are you also proposing to bring production back to the UK where you can ensure standards are adhered to along with their associated costs?

 

As I keep saying, the DOGA OO Intermediate wheel standard IS RP25/110 .

 

Precisely because there is no point reinventing the wheel in a form that nobody actually makes. Those who originally adopted it were clear on that point

 

So for the last 25 years DOGA has been recommending the OO RTR manufacturers to "adopt worldwide standards that are currently working".

 

There has been lipservice and nominal compliance from the manufacturers. But they end up "thereabouts" rather than spot on.

 

This is why I do not see that there is any great point in "drawing up a new wheel standard for OO" or setting up a new body to do so.

 

We already have a OO wheel standard that says "The OO wheel shall be RP25/110 profile, set to 14.4mm B2B"

 

It's here:  OO Intermediate wheel standard

 

Why on earth do we need a new body to solemnly recreate what already exists???  Is anyone seriously advocating a different wheel profile for OO RTR???  I don't recall seeing anyone doing that.

 

If there is a general consensus that the OO wheel ought to be RP25/110 , why the refusal to accept that there is a OO wheel standard in existance that says exactly that? 

 

The issue is how we secure effective and full compliance with the standard we already have

 

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

On 18/04/2022 at 07:23, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

 

We need a BRMSB law passed in parliament, that might work?

 

Mike.

That being the case we would be lucky if couplings were fitted the right way up let alone line up..........

[Ravenser]

11 hours ago, PMP said:

The Peco Bullhead large radius points are no problem at all.

They’re the same geometry as the existing streamline CD75/100. I have serious concerns about proficiency if the individual hasn’t even done a cross section check of stock/manufacturers as I have before making such a claim.

 

 

Comments regarding issues that these points are supposedly holding back other types in the range are fantasy. 

 

 

I'm sorry , but you have not quite grasped the issue, and your two videos don't prove what you think

 

The first video shows a Hornby Peckett and Sentinel - both very short wheelbase 0-4-0s. The real things were specifically designed to go round horrendous curves in works yards, curves that would have a Pacific or a 2-8-0 throwing a fit. They are coupled to nothing

 

The second video shows a Bachmann class 25, and several Bachmann DMUs plus what is either a Bachmann or Hornby 08 . The 08 is a very short wheelbase 0-6-0. The DMUs and  25  have a bogie wheel base of 8'6" - just 34mm 

 

All those things will go round practically anything. You can get any of them round an 8" radius curve in OO if they aren't coupled to anything. 

 

I very specifically referred to Heljan locos,  Hornby wagons and coaches in my post. Those have B2Bs down at 14.1-14.2mm

 

And I made a very pointed comment about 2-8-0s not going round curves when clearances are reduced to OO-SF levelsThose locos , with their long fixed wheelbase, will find any questionable track you have.

 

I have one dodgy spot on Blacklade , where the semi-professional builder of an SMP point managed to build the thing about 1.0mm tight to gauge in one spot. I cannot unsolder and rebuild it in situ without serious damage to a finished layout, and have resorted to filing at the inside of the rail head to ease the place

 

All types of Sprinter DMU and a 101 and 108 ran through it for years with only very occasional derailments. So did Hornby 31s (14.45mm b2b if you ask) 

 

So did nearly all the kettles.

 

But the ROD 2-8-0 exposed the issue with merciless clarity . That fell off every time , in and out, in platform 3. Of course, it has the longest rigid wheelbase of anything I own - 17' , compared with the 8'6" of your diesels  and the Peckett's 5'6" (I've just measured mine)

 

Even after I eased the spot the ROD still fell off every time in one direction. Everything else is fine

 

I stand by my comments :

 

- Heljan locos and Hornby rolling stock with tight B2Bs around 14.2mm may have problems on these points

- Bachmann models with a B2B between 14.5mm and 14.3mm given factory manufacturing tolerance are not really the issue

- These tight tolerances may be just about ok on large radius points with a substitute radius of about 5', but you may get problems if the same flangeways are applied to medium and small radius points at equivalent to 3' and 2' radius on the curved road

- Problems may well show up with big steam like 2-8-0s , given their long rigid wheelbase

- The specific issue reported by our member with Hornby coaches was shorting out of a DCC layout. Is Shelfie is a DCC layout? 

 

 

As Hornby locomotives normally have a much better B2B than their rolling stock , their locos are not likely to be the main issue.

 

My Peckett has a B2B of 14.45mm. (Just measured). I would not expect that to cause any problems. Rolling stock with B2Bs of 14.1-14.2mm will cause problems

 

Peco are not stupid enough to tool points that nothing will run through. But I think there are going to be some issues with the "hard cases" at the margins

 

If they had tooled for a flangeway of 1.25mm everything would have run very happy under all circumstances

 

P.S Try running an old Airfix 31 through those points and see what happens 

 

Mine will run very happily through SMP soldered points  (1.25mm flangeways, just within the OO Intermediate tolerances) all day long

Edited April 20, 2022 by Ravenser

[MarkSG]

22 hours ago, newbryford said:

So what you're saying is that each of the mainstream 00 [*] manufacturers pretty much tread their own way with the only common factor really being 16.5mm gauge?

 

I don't think that's true, really. In terms of interoperability (which is the only thing that really matters as far as standards are concerned), I think the manufacturers have, pretty much, settled down into some basic standards that do apply across the board. Buy almost any OO model from any of the main manufacturers, and it will...

 

• Have tension-lock couplings in NEM pockets (unless it's not intended to couple to anything else)
• Have wheels that will be OK on code 75 track (even if the manufacturer doesn't have a range of code 75 track!)
• Cope with 2nd radius settrack curves (again, even if the manufacturer doesn't make settrack, or even track at all)

 

When you add to that the one that's been standard for ages:

 

• 12v DC motor powered by two-rail pickup (with, these days, optional DCC)

 

and that is, essentially the only standards you really need. Any current model by any of the manufacturers will work on any train set or any finescale OO layout, out of the box. You might want to replace the couplings (and the NEM pockets will facilitate that), and you might want to chip it if you use digital control and it isn't already DCC fitted (and "DCC ready" is pretty close to being a standard for everything where it's not simply impractical). But, otherwise, you don't need to modify it at all, and you don't need to worry about whether it will run with your existing stock.

 

Everything else isn't about standards, it's about competition. Your £300 Accurascale loco will run on the same layout as your £30 Hornby Railroad loco, and both will haul a rake of wagons from Dapol, Rapido, Oxford and Bachmann. But they are vastly different in almost every other aspect. Once you take interoperability as a given, then the rest is just a matter of "you pays your money, and you takes your choice". There's no need to standardise on quality, any more than there's a need to standardise on price. 

 

 

[Ravenser]

10 hours ago, PMP said:

Thank you for that, it puts the context into perspective. Regarding 1980’s stock though this range I’d expect a good number of them to work well. Some types like Lima rolling stock may have problems due to flange depth (pizza cutters). A Lima Class 31 (and by inference) most other Lima diesels works fine through them. I’d expect that most people buying this range of track are very unlikely to be using significant amounts of 80’s stock. It’s a more finescale mindset if using this, therefore the buyers are more likely to be buyers of contemporary equipment.

 

NB, I read you note older stock may have issues due older poorer tolerances, but nothing as you being disconcerted about the product in that PDF.  I’d be grateful if you’d clarify if that’s a correct interpretation of your comments.

 

Lima consistantly fitted NEM wheels to their models. A horrible steamroller wheel profile with deep pizza cutter flanges - but they had 14.5mm B2B so they would run through BRMSB pointwork . In later years when they toned down the flanges the wheels looked horrible but ran ok. I have a detailed Lima 37 which runs happily enough through Blacklade's SMP pointwork  (It cost 15 quid off the DEMU Showcase secondhand stall , ran nicely and I had the detailing bits in stock.)

 

Pre-1999 Hornby with 13.9mm B2B won't go , period , whatever anyone does. This is no-hoper territory. It's just about possible to ease out the wheels on a 4 wheel motor bogie to run on SMP, and rolling stock wheels can be replaced. otherwise forget it.

 

Airfix and Mainline used a medium-heavy wheel with a 14.1mm B2B. These will go through my SMP points, though it's a shade tight. Dapol still use the plastic wheels with steel axles on their ex Airfix/Mainline coaches and in ex Airfix kits,. I haven't checked the B2B on these curren t Dapol wheels cos I invarably swap them out for Hornby or Bachmann wheels. This stuff is pretty unlikely to go through these new Peco points.

 

Replica were probably very similar

 

Wrenn used a B2B of 14.0mm or 14.1mm and will not normally go through SMP /BRMSB . No chance with these Peco points either

 

Bachmann declared from the start c1990  that their wheels were RP25 . Whether Kadar's interpretation of RP25/110 is exactly spot on is another matter , but today's Bachmann wheels are pretty much the same as 1990s Bachmann and their B2B is 14.4mm nominal , subject to a manufacturing tolerance of about +/- 0.1mm . Those should go through these Peco points, though I think Peco would be well-advised to ease out the flangeways to 1.25mm when they produce the promised bullhead small radius points otherwise we may find WD and ROD 2-8-0s are uncomfortable . Similar comments apply to the forthcoming bullhead OO double slips

 

Basically Peco could have made their new points compatible wirth Airfix/Mainline/Replica/Dapol and still have fully matched RP25/110 wheels by moving to a 1.25mm flangway. I really don't understand what they gain by going quite a bit tighter than that

[McC]

Pretty sure no accurascale loco is £300  

[newbryford]

58 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

I don't think that's true, really. In terms of interoperability (which is the only thing that really matters as far as standards are concerned), I think the manufacturers have, pretty much, settled down into some basic standards that do apply across the board. Buy almost any OO model from any of the main manufacturers, and it will...

 

• Have tension-lock couplings in NEM pockets (unless it's not intended to couple to anything else)

 

 

 

It may have a tension lock, but what's the point if it doesn't easily couple to another tension lock from another manufacturer. There are even some manufacturers that can't standardise within their own products 

Not helped either by having NEM pockets that are mounted at positions that don't even comply with the NEM/MOROP spec?

 

Whilst I accept that DOGA have wheel standards, do they have a coupling standard(s)?

Or is the T/L (which has to be the majority coupling for 00 practitioners even though it is despised by some) beyond the realms of standardising?

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

I'm sorry , but you have not quite grasped the issue, and your two videos don't prove what you think

 

 

If you bothered to read the attached link you’ll see I tested 74 types of RTR motive power through those points, including HJ 01 and other types. The layout and previous test configurations  have used RTR and kit built stock with no problems.

 

So to make it easy the only HJ types (otoh), I’ve not tested through these points are

Met BoBo,

13xx,

76, 86 

dp2, lion

garrett

cl47

 

I tried all the above 74 types as there were concerns raised that some types shorted out on the points.  I found no examples. 
Now which models have you tried which have given problems? I’m guessing you have done nothing like the number of tests or amount of practical ‘everyday useage’ running I have with these products. 
 

I look forward to your list of ‘problem’ models with interest.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by PMP