"00" Gauge wheel/track standards
Anthony New
The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
one that seems to have cropped up every now and then for most of my life
(and probably before I was born!) without any apparent resolution. My
thoughts this time are prompted by the question of compatibility of rtr
stock with Peco track, specifically current track using either code 75
or code 100 rail and older Peco code-100 track.
I certainly have a large quantity of Peco points made at various periods
over the last 30 years, and am continually surprised at the variation
between them. I have also seen numerous problems with 00-gauge vehicles
failing to negotiate Peco points properly, both on my own layouts and on
many others. OTOH I have also successfully run trains of mixed stock on
code 75 rail with few failures. What's going on?
It's quite obvious to me that a large proportion of the track
(specifically Peco points) and many of the vehicles running on them are
basically incompatible - some of them will run most of the time and
most of them will run some of the time, but little allowance is made for
production tolerances or even slight wheel wobble.
[Note: modellers in EM, P4 are S4 entitled to giggle here, but not too
much, please, since similar derailments are by no means unknown in these
scales]
There seem to be several different viewpoints on this (basically one for
each manufacurer I suspect). Peco's appears to be that they make the
track and it's up to everyone else to meet THEIR standards (whatever
these happen to be at the time, and esp is useful here); Hornby seem to
think they are entitled to go their own sweet way since they are the
market leader and make their own track; and a few people think the whole
problem would disappear if everyone threw their Hornby stuff in the bin
. . .
In an effort to find out "once and for all" I have (a) obtained a
leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
Airfix, Mainline, Dapol, Bachmann, and perhaps another or two. I will
present the results in a longish post in day or two (and you may find
them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
to?
PS. The basic measurements I'm concerned about are flange depth and
wheel back-to-back, as these appear to be most variable, most at
dispute, and most critical in 00.
--
Anthony
The biggest problem today is that people don't recognise
a reductio ad absurdam when they see one.
--------------------------------------------
Swap "no junk" with "co uk" for e-mail reply
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>In an effort to find out "once and for all" I have (a) obtained a
>leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
>staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
>most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
>including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
>Airfix, Mainline, Dapol, Bachmann, and perhaps another or two. I will
>present the results in a longish post in day or two (and you may find
>them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
>00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
>to?
I've got a copy of the BRMSB Handbook of 1958(ish) with the BRMSB
standards in it . I could scan it when I get home if that's of any
use to you - so that you can see what standards manufacturers should
have been working to.
Jim.
--
Jim Guthrie
Progressing (maybe) in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Dick Ganderton
really are! There are no workable standards for 00. In fact there are NO
standards! That's what prompted the development of P4.
For vehicles running on 16.5mm gauge track the NMRA standards are the
most used outside of the UK. (The European ones are probably worse
looking than UK ones, but at least are standardised.) The RP25 set of
profiles works tolerably well and doesn't look too bad. Why not try to
get the NMRA standards accepted?
Flange depth (FD) and back to back (BB) are only two of the dimensions
that are critical. Effective flange (EF) is just as important. The
critical wheel set measurement is actually
EF + BB
This then gives you the Check Gauge (CG) which is measured from the
opposite running rail. (Check rails on turnouts are gauged from the
crossing vee not the adjacent running rail!) EF determines the minimum
Crossing Flangeway (CF). The flangeway gives the width of the gap
between the nose and the knuckles which then determines the minimum
tread width of the wheel. Twice the tread width plus twice the effective
flange plus the back to back gives the dimension over the wheelset and
this determines the minimum width between axleguards.
So, you need to add Effective Flange to your list of basic measurements.
Anthony New wrote:
>
snip
>
> In an effort to find out "once and for all" I have (a) obtained a
> leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
> staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
> most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
> including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
> Airfix, Mainline, Dapol, Bachmann, and perhaps another or two. I will
> present the results in a longish post in day or two (and you may find
> them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
> 00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
> to?
>
Chris White
...
> For vehicles running on 16.5mm gauge track the NMRA standards are the
> most used outside of the UK. (The European ones are probably worse
> looking than UK ones, but at least are standardised.) The RP25 set of
> profiles works tolerably well and doesn't look too bad. Why not try to
> get the NMRA standards accepted?
Speaking from a position of blissfull ignorance this sounds perfectly
reasonable to me. Of course we'd have to persuaded the NMRA to become the IMRA,
I standing for 'International' :-)
...
> Anthony New wrote:
> >
> snip
> >
> > In an effort to find out "once and for all" I have (a) obtained a
> > leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
> > staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
> > most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
> > including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
...
> > them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
> > 00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
> > to?
...
> >
> > --
> > Anthony
--
Chris White
Nigel White
>Hello All.
>The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
>one that seems to have cropped up every now and then for most of my life
>(and probably before I was born!) without any apparent resolution. My
>thoughts this time are prompted by the question of compatibility of rtr
>stock with Peco track, specifically current track using either code 75
>or code 100 rail and older Peco code-100 track.
[snipped]
>In an effort to find out "once and for all" I have (a) obtained a
>leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
>staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
>most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
>including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
>Airfix, Mainline, Dapol, Bachmann, and perhaps another or two. I will
>present the results in a longish post in day or two (and you may find
>them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
>00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
>to?
>
>PS. The basic measurements I'm concerned about are flange depth and
>wheel back-to-back, as these appear to be most variable, most at
>dispute, and most critical in 00.
I am delighted to see the Internet used to try and resolve this
frustrating issue! It is remarkable that there are still no clearly-
defined standards for RTR stock, and must be a significant reason why
4 mm modellers opt for finer standards, such as EM and P4. I know that
the Double 0 Gauge Association was holding talks with various
manufacturers in order to define an "RTR standard", but I've not heard
of any recent developments.
At the present time, I work to (Double 0 Gauge Association) "Finescale
00" standards, which are simply EM (Fine/18.2 mm) standards adapted to
16.5 mm gauge track. See
http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~nwhite/standards.html
I looked at Iain Rice's "Bathtub 00 standards" in his Wild Swan
Finescale Track book, did the arithmetic/algebra and decided the 00-EMF
combination was simpler. To be honest, it would have been easier
to convert to EM, but I like a challenge...
I have been exclusively using Gibson/Maygib wheels set at 14.8 mm
back-to-backs, although I have some Sharman wheels now for new projects.
(I think the latter may need 15.0 mm back-to-backs, as the flanges
seem to be finer.) I don't know what the flange depth ("height"?)
is, but the Gibson flange thickness should be around 0.65 mm.
--
Nigel White
<nwhite at robots dot ox dot ac dot uk>
Tony Polson
<cwhit...@lucent.not.com> wrote:
> Speaking from a position of blissfull ignorance this sounds perfectly
>reasonable to me. Of course we'd have to persuaded the NMRA to become the IMRA,
>I standing for 'International' :-)
Why?
If the standards are good, then accept them for what they are. Who are
you to tell the NMRA to change its name? You have far more need of the
NMRA (whether you admit it or not) than it will ever have of you.
The NMRA does have a British chapter. If you can overcome your Little
Englander tendencies you may gain something from joining up!
;-)
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Jim Guthrie
Polson) wrote:
Tony,
>If the standards are good, then accept them for what they are. Who are
>you to tell the NMRA to change its name? You have far more need of the
>NMRA (whether you admit it or not) than it will ever have of you.
I think the problem is persuading British RTR manufacturers to
recognise NMRA standards, especially when they weren't all that
successful in following BRMSB ones - such as they were :-).
Now that most of our RTR production seems to be originating from the
Far East, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that UK models
to our "standards" and models to NMRA standards could be being
produced under the same roof :-)
Jim.
Chris White
...
> Why?
>
> If the standards are good, then accept them for what they are. Who are
> you to tell the NMRA to change its name? You have far more need of the
> NMRA (whether you admit it or not) than it will ever have of you.
I suspect I've been misunderstood here. I'm coming out in favour of adoption
of the NMRA standards in order to ensure compatability in RTR equipment.
>
> The NMRA does have a British chapter.
I know, the 'IMRA' suggestion was just a joke. Of course the NMRA could
approach the ISO :-)
--
Chris White
David Breeze
>I am delighted to see the Internet used to try and resolve this
>frustrating issue! It is remarkable that there are still no clearly-
>defined standards for RTR stock, and must be a significant reason why
>4 mm modellers opt for finer standards, such as EM and P4.
The American NMRA standards work well and look good. Why re-invent the
wheel, so to speak?!
--
Dave Breeze
Glasgow,
Scotland
Anthony New
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:26:29 +0000, Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk>
> wrote:
>
> Anthony,
>
> >leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
> >staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
> >most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
> >including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
> >Airfix, Mainline, Dapol, Bachmann, and perhaps another or two. I will
> >present the results in a longish post in day or two (and you may find
> >them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
> >00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
> >to?
>
> standards in it . I could scan it when I get home if that's of any
> use to you - so that you can see what standards manufacturers should
> have been working to.
>
> Jim.
> --
> Jim Guthrie
> Progressing (maybe) in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Thanks - that would be interesting.
Anthony New
I'm not familiar with the NMRA standards in detail (can anyone provide
them?) but suspect the same problem may exist as with Nigel's suggstion
of EM/00 finescale standards aren't suitable - none of the existing rtr
models will run on them. Without wishing to prejudge the issue I'm
raising, I'm interested in finding out what track standards (if any)
will accommodate the vast majority of rtr models being made now and in
common use from past production.
It's all very well issuing a fiat that "all 00-gauge wheels should have
back-to-back measurement of 14.8mm", but all don't (in fact very few
do). [A very large proportion fail even to meet Peco's recommendattion
of 14.5mm back-to-back! But I'll present the evidence soon and we can
see.] What is needed IMHO is a clear agreement between track and model
manufacturers of a set of tolerances, which will allow most of the
latter to run properly on all of the former.
David Bean
Anthony New wrote in message <383BAF...@wsi.no.junk>...
>Hello All.
>The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
>one that seems to have cropped up every now and then for most of my life
Anthony,
I agree with you but for years modellers have been trying to get the
manufacturers to agree on standards. In UK this never seems to happen but
in Europe and the USA they do produce to a standard.
I suppose it's the same logic that makes Lima produce British outline
diesels with that pancake motor when their Continental models have centre
can motor, flywheels and all wheel drive. I wouldn't even know where to
start with an answer.
I believe Bachman produce their wheels to RP25 standards and I run their
products on Peco Code 75 without any problem. New Hornby needs the back to
back setting and then they run perfectly. Lima, or rather the later Lima
also run well, that's locos not stock.
Regards,
David
Jonathan Hall
>
> In article <383BAF...@wsi.no.junk> a...@wsi.no.junk writes:
> >The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
> >one that seems to have cropped up every now and then for most of my life
> >thoughts this time are prompted by the question of compatibility of rtr
> >stock with Peco track, specifically current track using either code 75
> >or code 100 rail and older Peco code-100 track.
>
> [snipped]
>
> >leaflet from Peco on track/wheel standards and spoken to one of their
> >staff on the subject, and (b) measured a large number of wheelsets from
> >most of the rtr manufacturers whose 00 products can still be found,
> >including Hornby Dublo, Triang/Hornby (all periods), Wren, Grafar, Lima
> >Airfix, Mainline, Dapol, Bachmann, and perhaps another or two. I will
> >present the results in a longish post in day or two (and you may find
> >them surprising), but for now wanted to ask people modelling in either
> >00 or H0 what wheel/trackstandards they either know of, or try to adhere
> >to?
> >
> >wheel back-to-back, as these appear to be most variable, most at
> >dispute, and most critical in 00.
>
> frustrating issue! It is remarkable that there are still no clearly-
> defined standards for RTR stock, and must be a significant reason why
> the Double 0 Gauge Association was holding talks with various
> manufacturers in order to define an "RTR standard", but I've not heard
> of any recent developments.
>
> At the present time, I work to (Double 0 Gauge Association) "Finescale
> 00" standards, which are simply EM (Fine/18.2 mm) standards adapted to
> 16.5 mm gauge track. See
>
> http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~nwhite/standards.html
>
> I looked at Iain Rice's "Bathtub 00 standards" in his Wild Swan
> Finescale Track book, did the arithmetic/algebra and decided the 00-EMF
> combination was simpler. To be honest, it would have been easier
> to convert to EM, but I like a challenge...
>
> I have been exclusively using Gibson/Maygib wheels set at 14.8 mm
> back-to-backs, although I have some Sharman wheels now for new projects.
> (I think the latter may need 15.0 mm back-to-backs, as the flanges
> seem to be finer.) I don't know what the flange depth ("height"?)
> is, but the Gibson flange thickness should be around 0.65 mm.
Whilst we are at it how about a standard for coupling pockets so that we
can all drop in a Kadee #5 and know that it sits at the right height and
will couple to everthing else.
Jon
--
Jonathan Hall
Thames Ditton
My railway website is at http://www.jonhall.mcmail.com/Railways.htm
Dick Ganderton
However, before you can decide on exactly what back-to-back dimension to
use you will need to know the Check Gauge of your turnouts.
There is a empirical way of determining the back-to-back needed. Take a
wheelset and place it on a turnout so that the flange of the wheel on
the vee is hard up against the rail head, but not climbing it. Now
measure how much clearance you have between the back of the opposite
wheel and the check rail. The wheelset will probably foul the Check Rail
if set to 14.5mm BB so set the BB to, say, 15mm before testing. Move the
wheels so that this clearance becomes zero and then move them in a
"couple of thou" more. Now measure the BB and make up a gauge so that
you can set all the wheels of this make to that measurement.
Repeat for every different make (or profile) of wheel you are using!
Of course, you should really make use of the thinner EF and close up the
Crossing Flangeway, thus reducing the gap the wheel tread has to cross.
Also increase the Check Gauge as well and you should improve your
running and the appearance of your turnouts, even though it's still very
much narrow gauge:o))
Nigel White wrote:
>
snip
> I am delighted to see the Internet used to try and resolve this
> frustrating issue! It is remarkable that there are still no clearly-
> defined standards for RTR stock, and must be a significant reason why
> 4 mm modellers opt for finer standards, such as EM and P4. I know that
> the Double 0 Gauge Association was holding talks with various
> manufacturers in order to define an "RTR standard", but I've not heard
> of any recent developments.
>
> At the present time, I work to (Double 0 Gauge Association) "Finescale
> 00" standards, which are simply EM (Fine/18.2 mm) standards adapted to
> 16.5 mm gauge track. See
>
> http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~nwhite/standards.html
>
> I looked at Iain Rice's "Bathtub 00 standards" in his Wild Swan
> Finescale Track book, did the arithmetic/algebra and decided the 00-EMF
> combination was simpler. To be honest, it would have been easier
> to convert to EM, but I like a challenge...
>
> I have been exclusively using Gibson/Maygib wheels set at 14.8 mm
> back-to-backs, although I have some Sharman wheels now for new projects.
> (I think the latter may need 15.0 mm back-to-backs, as the flanges
> seem to be finer.) I don't know what the flange depth ("height"?)
> is, but the Gibson flange thickness should be around 0.65 mm.
Dick Ganderton
course, realise that Peco track is H0 and not 00, didn't you?)
The big problem will be persuading the UK manyfacturers to adopt a
common standard - or even a standard! They have had 50 years of being
able to do anything they want, so I cannot see them conforming to any
standards that are capable of being checked for conformity.
Anthony New wrote:
>
snip
Dick Ganderton
Jonathan Hall wrote:
>
snip
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>I'm not familiar with the NMRA standards in detail (can anyone provide
>them?) but suspect the same problem may exist as with Nigel's suggstion
>of EM/00 finescale standards aren't suitable - none of the existing rtr
>models will run on them. Without wishing to prejudge the issue I'm
>raising, I'm interested in finding out what track standards (if any)
>will accommodate the vast majority of rtr models being made now and in
>common use from past production
The full NMRA specs are on their web page at www.nmra.org and follow
the menus to "Standards & RPs".
I remember buying an Athearn HO caboose kit from Bernie Victor in the
60's and being very impressed with the RP25 wheels supplied with the
kit. I decided to go with N scale shortly afterwards so my HO
NMRA venture stopped after that purchase.
For somebody else's ideas on HO standards, you could look at Terry
Flynn's web site
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/trainstandards/index.html
I would add a slight warning here since Terry has been carrying on a
one man campaign against the accepted NMRA standards for a year or so
now in rec.models.railroad and aus.rail.models, so he has achieved a
certain notoriety :-).
Harry Mantheakis
jon...@mcmail.com wrote:
> Nigel White wrote:
> Whilst we are at it how about a standard for coupling pockets so that
we
> can all drop in a Kadee #5 and know that it sits at the right height
and
> will couple to everthing else.
Jon, I second that!
Harr
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Janos Ero
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:19:57 +0000, Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk>
> wrote:
>
> Anthony,
>
> >I'm not familiar with the NMRA standards in detail (can anyone provide
> >them?) but suspect the same problem may exist as with Nigel's suggstion
> >of EM/00 finescale standards aren't suitable - none of the existing rtr
> >models will run on them. Without wishing to prejudge the issue I'm
> >raising, I'm interested in finding out what track standards (if any)
> >will accommodate the vast majority of rtr models being made now and in
> >common use from past production
>
> The full NMRA specs are on their web page at www.nmra.org and follow
> the menus to "Standards & RPs".
You can find the NEM (European) standards at
Note the new 311.1, this is the "European RP25".
Janos Ero
Karen and Kevin Martin
This is a major cause of failure to run over points properly. The extent of
the problem is revealed in EVERY ISSUE of Railway Modeller. Yes, I know RM
have their problems with the net, but they do sometimes provide useful info!
Each issue contains "Latest Reviews" where amongst the latest paint jobs
from the R-T-R suppliers, PECO give details of the Wheel Data. This info
appears to be an average of those reviewed as the review I'm looking at now
covers 5 Locos, 1 HST P/C & dummy & 4 Mk3 coaches from the Lima range! The
data panel makes no comment on whether or not all wheel set dimension are
the same. Any way, the back to back (E on diagram) is given as 14.4mm.
In the same issue a Hornby loco & Mk4 coaches show this same dimension as
13.8mm or 0.6mm difference. This is equivalent to 55.2 inches & 57.6 inches!
- No wonder stuff does not run though points properly!!!!
Bachmann & Dapol are usually around 14.2mm.
Note that the NMRA & BRMSB standards are both wider than ALL the British
r-t-r market. Moving wheel sets out on their axles solves some of these
problems - but watch out for spur gears coming out of mesh!!!
Q. Why do Code 75 points seem to work better? A. The gaps through the
frogs are much smaller & so the sloppy wheel sets have less distance to
wobble through & go the wrong way at the frog. No other reason IMHO.
Anthony New wrote:
> Hello All.
> The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
> one that seems to have cropped up every now and then for most of my life
> (and probably before I was born!) without any apparent resolution. My
> thoughts this time are prompted by the question of compatibility of rtr
> stock with Peco track, specifically current track using either code 75
> or code 100 rail and older Peco code-100 track.
>
Anthony New
depth and back-to-back measurements. I haven't measured the flange width
for various reasons, including the belief that the two basic
measurements are the key to most of the problems I have encountered, but
I accept that these should ideally be considered as well to ensure
satisfactory frog hopping, so to speak. The table was formatted without
tabs for a constant-width font in 77 cols.
I have also repeated the Peco specifications and recommendations for
their 00/H0 track.
Measurements are all in mm, and were measured by a (Draper) vernier
caliper, cross-checked against a a good engineering micrometer, which
agree within 0.02mm at 14mm. Although the calipers have a resolution of
0.02mm, I don't consider the measurements to be reliable/meaningful to
better than around 0.1mm in this application. I have measured several
wheels/axles of each type and any with severe warp were discounted,
however a small amount of warp is inevitable on plastic axles.
The results are interesting in several ways:
Firstly, as far as flange depth is concerned this isn't really an issue.
Only the very early Triang (pre-1960?) stock such as the early knurled
wheels fails to run properly on code-100 rail, and all except some of
the other Triang/Hornby (ie pre-1970?) has flanges within 1.2mm and
should run on code-75 rail (as indeed it seems to in my experience).
Even Hornby-Dublo and Wren are ok on this by measurements, though I have
heard reports that some Lima items may have problem flanges (can anyone
provide measurements for these?).
In back-to-back measurements (BB) the situation is more complicated;
Peco recommend a nominal BB of 14.5mm and a minimum BB of 14.3mm, which
on my tests only the GRAFAR, Mainline, Bachmann, and some Dapol would
just about meet (ie a few probably wouldn't). The NMRA spec of 14.4mm
min BB and 0.71mm flange depth would exclude *all* current uk-outline
rtr locomotive manufacturers (Bachmann for flange depth, the rest for
BB); Of the stock I've tested only the Mainline and Dapol would pass and
they aren't made any longer! For the EM-based finescale standard of
14.8mm suggested, none of the items tested would pass except (amusingly
enough) the early Triang split-axle type which can be easily set to
14.8mm and if necessary held there with a spot of glue!
Let me restate here that I consider for "00" gauge any standards *must*
be suitable for the majority of rolling stock in existance without
large-scale modification (this is the only purpose of rtr "00" gauge
after all), and therefore any finescale standards which require complete
re-wheeling have no_value_whatever in "00" gauge - anyone prepared to go
to this length would be better off changing to EM, P4, etc.
It is all very well to re-wheel old coaches and wagons to finer scale
wheels (I've been doing this myself for 25 years), but large changes in
BB are IMHO simply neither practicable or desirable for a locomotive
fleet, though the odd gentle tweak may be possible.
So what can we say about BB for rtr stock?
A minimum BB setting of 14mm dead (14.0mm if you prefer) would appear to
be suitable for all except Hornby but would leave little margin for
error - 13.9 would be preferable IMHO. I note that most of Hornby
products will meet a 13.9mm BB, the exceptions being mainly the square
axle wheels used in wagons for a while. A minimum BB of 14.3mm would
just about suit Bachmann, but no-one else. I could add that the
finer-scale wheels that Bachmann produce look nice but might suffer from
problems at point frogs if the large BB prevents the check-rail from
operating correctly when the point is constructed to accept other rtr
stock.
Whatever finescale modellers may think, I don't think a spec for rtr
products which excludes all of the products of one of the leading
manufacturers can be acceptable. ISTM therefore that the manufacturer
that is out of step is not Hornby but Peco - if trying to produce track
to a standard that simply does not suit a large proportion of all the
rtr "00" stock in existance.
As for the NMRA - get real!
OK, I've had my say - what do you think?
Table follows:
Make Wheel/Axle Type Flange Depth Min BB
Max BB
Hornby Dublo 2-rail, loco 1.2 14.2
14.4
Hornby Dublo plastic 1-piece 1.0 13.9
14.2
Triang-Wren metal, loco 1.2 14.3
14.3
Wren plastic 1.1 14.1
14.2
Triang, 1950's solid wheel, loco 1.5 13.7
14.0
Triang, 1960? early knurled, loco 1.5 13.7
13.9
Triang, 1970 late knurled, loco 1.1 13.9
13.9
Triang, 1960's early split axle 1.1 13.9
14.8
Hornby, 1970's late split axle 1.0 14.0
14.3
Triang-Hornby plain tyre loco, spoked 1.3 13.7
13.9
Triang-Hornby early coarse 1.2 13.4
13.8
Triang-Hornby early white rim 1.1 14.1
14.5
Triang-Hornby late white rim 1.0 13.8
14.1
Hornby, 1980's square axle, metal tyre 1.0 13.4
13.4
Hornby, 1990's plastic 1-piece 1.0 13.9
13.9
Hornby, 1990's loco (tender drive) 1.0 13.9
14.1
Grafar metal, loco 1.0 14.3
14.4
Grafar plastic 1.0 14.3
14.4
Ratio plastic 0.95 13.9
14.4
Lima metal, loco 0.9 14.2
14.3
Airfix plastic 0.9 14.0
14.1
Mainline metal, loco 0.7 14.5
14.5
Dapol plastic 0.7 14.4
14.5
Bachmann plastic wheel 0.8 14.3
14.4
Bachman all-metal spoked 0.85 14.3
14.4
Peco Track Track nom. depth Flange rec depth min BB
max FF
Code-75 1.346 1.143 14.3
15.2
Code-100 1.6 1.397 14.3
15.2
Recommended nominal back-back setting: 14.5
Track nominal depth is the height between the top of the rail and the
top of the chairs. The BB and FF for code-100 rail is not stated
separately in the leaflet and is assumed to be the same as for code-75
points.
David Breeze
>As for the NMRA - get real!
It's all very well saying that, but it *works*!
Get yourself a load of Athearn, Kato or whatever American HO models and
just watch how well they run. I used to run mine at walking pace through
points etc just to enjoy watching the wheels track neatly through frogs
and around curves, just like the real thing.
Harry Mantheakis
David Breeze <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Get yourself a load of Athearn, Kato or whatever American HO models
and
> just watch how well they run. I used to run mine at walking pace
through
> points etc just to enjoy watching the wheels track neatly through
frogs
> and around curves, just like the real thing.
Dave, were you using Peco track?
Harry.
Londo
David Jackson
from David Breeze <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Get yourself a load of Athearn, Kato or whatever American HO models and
> just watch how well they run.
Yes, yes, I'm sure they're very good, but do they do a decent Black
5, or a Standard Tank?
I'm sure they make a nice range of GP40s sprayed in Technicolor, but
BR didn't run many of those in 1957 . . .
> I used to run mine at walking pace through points etc just to enjoy
> watching the wheels track neatly through frogsand around curves, just > like the real thing.
Standard test for tracklaying: push a train of unweighted goods
wagons through the cross-over. If any wagons derail: start the remedial work.
--
Dave,
Frodsham
Dick Ganderton
Dick Ganderton
essential Effective Flange measurement!
However, looking through your results and measuring a Peco H0/00 Fine
Standard Code 75 Electrofrog SL-E195 Medium Radius RH turnout that i
just happen to have showed that the diverging track measured 16.49mm
track gauge in the crossing area and the distance across the check rails
was 13.95mm. This would mean that 12 of your wheelsets would not clear
the check rails as their BB was smaller than this. The flangeways of the
straight track were both too wide at 1.29 and 1.31mm and the track gauge
was also 16.49mm through the crossing area.
I also checked the turnout with an NMRA gauge and it confirmed that the
track gauge was tight and half of the flangeways too large.
From your incomplete measurements it looks as if the last four wheelsets
in your chart might be somewhere near NMRA standards.
I seriously suggest that you visit
http://users.vnet/paulrver/s-2.html
and download the NMRA Standards Sheets. You will find Sheet No. S2
particularly helpful - it covers Track & Wheel Standards.
Peco make their track to suit the American & Continental H0 markets and
it's probable that the turnouts fall between the NMRA and NEM standards.
The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
Elliott Cowton
>
> The full NMRA specs are on their web page at www.nmra.org and follow
> the menus to "Standards & RPs".
>
HEALTH WARNING:
The NMRA also sponsor a gauge called OO. From memory it is the same
scale ratio as our OO but the track gauge is 19mm! To get standards
compatible with UK OO Gauge (16.5mm) you need to look at the HO
standard.
If you go to look just make sure you know what you are looking at.
BTW. After advertising here for anyone who was operating modular
layouts, the Fareham & District MRC have basically settled for the NMRA
HO modular standard.
Elliott Cowton
Visit the F&DMRC website at http://www.hants.org.uk/fadmrc/
Elliott Cowton
> Whilst we are at it how about a standard for coupling pockets so that we
> can all drop in a Kadee #5 and know that it sits at the right height and
> will couple to everthing else.
Yes Please!
Jim Guthrie
<di...@graskop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Dick,
>The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
>workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
>enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
Apart from all the arguments that there might be about the exact track
and wheel standards applied to the various scales, the underlying
advantage in all of them is that the modellers (through their
respective societies) have *complete* control of the standards, and
manufacturers of products have to "toe the line" with standards if
they want to make any sales.
Jim.
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> writes
> >As for the NMRA - get real!
>
>
> points etc just to enjoy watching the wheels track neatly through frogs
> and around curves, just like the real thing.
> Dave Breeze
>
Sorry - I shouldn't have been so cryptic. I wasn't meaning to suggest
there was anyting wrong with the NMRA standards as finescale standards
for H0 modellers, merely implying that they weren't relevant for UK
4mm:foot scale on 16.5mm gauge.
--
Anthony New
>
> Your results for the wheels are meaningless as you haven't included the
> essential Effective Flange measurement!
>
yourself point out below, the common failure is due to back-to-back
measurement. Secondly, if rolling stock with a wide variety of different
measurements is to use the track - as I insist it must if it is to be of
any use to the general user - then the check rails *cannot* work as
intended on the real railway (and on finescale models) unless the
crossing flangeways are made very large.
> However, looking through your results and measuring a Peco H0/00 Fine
> Standard Code 75 Electrofrog SL-E195 Medium Radius RH turnout that i
> just happen to have showed that the diverging track measured 16.49mm
> track gauge in the crossing area and the distance across the check rails
> was 13.95mm. This would mean that 12 of your wheelsets would not clear
> the check rails as their BB was smaller than this.
Exactly my point! The track doesn't suit the majority of the vehicles
which people expect to run on it.
The flangeways of the
> straight track were both too wide at 1.29 and 1.31mm and the track gauge
> was also 16.49mm through the crossing area.
>
> I also checked the turnout with an NMRA gauge and it confirmed that the
> track gauge was tight and half of the flangeways too large.
I don't doubt you are entirely right in your own terms, Dick, but ISTM
you have entirely missed the point. For rtr "00" gauge on 16.5mm it is
simply *not* appropriate to define an arbitrary standard and criticise
any manufacturer that doesn't meet it. The rolling stock exists already,
and runs perfectly well on suitable track (Hornby for instance). The
problem is, one of the leading makers of track is making track that
doesn't suit it, and the majority of people who buy and use it
(including myself until very recently) don't realise it!
ISTM that the NMRA standards are a red herring - fine for scale H0, but
in the UK we have (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) separate gauges
for the finescale modeller. What on earth is the point of trying to put
finescale wheels on a 4mm:foot model with a 16.5mm gauge? You wouldn't
be happy with it, and neither would I. The great virtue of 16.5mm coarse
scale is that anything runs quite happily even if it has been dropped on
the floor a few times.
>
> From your incomplete measurements it looks as if the last four wheelsets
> in your chart might be somewhere near NMRA standards.
>
> I seriously suggest that you visit
>
> http://users.vnet/paulrver/s-2.html
>
> and download the NMRA Standards Sheets. You will find Sheet No. S2
> particularly helpful - it covers Track & Wheel Standards.
I've had a look at the NMRA standards - as I commented in my post they
appear to exclude anything made in the UK (how surprising).
>
> Peco make their track to suit the American & Continental H0 markets and
> it's probable that the turnouts fall between the NMRA and NEM standards.
>
> The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
> workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
> enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
That's one point of view, which has some merit even though it is
contradicted to some extent by the existance of EM, P4, etc. The other
point of view is that the problem is that the leading manufacturer of
rtr track used by "00" modellers in the UK (Peco) appears not to be
interested in designing the track to meet the needs of the majority of
the UK "00" modellers, but has decided to sell track dsigned to suit
modellers in different scales (H0), principally in other countries.
--
David Lester
In article <383E5D...@wsi.no.junk>, Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> writes:
> David Breeze wrote:
> >
> > Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> writes
> >
> Sorry - I shouldn't have been so cryptic. I wasn't meaning to suggest
> there was anyting wrong with the NMRA standards as finescale standards
> for H0 modellers, merely implying that they weren't relevant for UK
> 4mm:foot scale on 16.5mm gauge.
... and the rest of us are suggesting that perhaps it would be a good
thing if NMRA standards _were_ in widespread use for OO.
In practice this might mean re-wheeling locomotives with: Ultrascale
wheels for Diesels, and Romfords for Steam locomotives.
If one were to criticize Peco for their track, I would suggest that gauge
narrowing (Dick has measured 16.49mm, where I would expect perhaps 16.7mm
on a medium turnout) would be a more legitimate gripe.
The problem is that no track can be designed that will allow different
wheels [1] to all run smoothly through point-work. Narrowing the crossing
flangeways and check rail gaps gives better/smoother running, but
excludes those wheel sets with too narrow a BB dimension. Widening these
dimensions means poorer running for a larger set of wheel sets, up to
and including widely spaced wheels going the wrong way at a facing
crossing nose.
... You pays your money and takes your choice...
Or you nail down your own track and wheel standards very firmly.
---
David Lester.
[1] Technically wheels of a different profile (Dick's effective flange
dimension) or back-to-back measurement.
David Breeze
>The message <gxOrkVAm...@sdscom.demon.co.uk>
> from David Breeze <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> just watch how well they run.
>
>5, or a Standard Tank?
Of course not, but that's not the point is it, I can't see any reason
why the companies who would make a Standard tank couldn't make it run
just as well as the US stuff.
David Breeze
>and
>through
>> points etc just to enjoy watching the wheels track neatly through
>frogs
>> and around curves, just like the real thing.
>
Yes. Code 75 and 100.
Tony Polson
<da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>David Jackson <dija...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>The message <gxOrkVAm...@sdscom.demon.co.uk>
>> from David Breeze <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>>
>>> Get yourself a load of Athearn, Kato or whatever American HO models and
>>> just watch how well they run.
>>
>>Yes, yes, I'm sure they're very good, but do they do a decent Black
>>5, or a Standard Tank?
>
>Of course not, but that's not the point is it, I can't see any reason
>why the companies who would make a Standard tank couldn't make it run
>just as well as the US stuff.
I agree 100%.
And the irony is that the *same* manufacturing plants (in China) make
the superb quality stuff for the US market *and* the Bachmann and Hornby
stuff for the UK market.
I really didn't need reminding why I chose to model US HO, but thanks to
all contributors in this thread for reminding me anyway.
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Tony Polson
<da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Dave, were you using Peco track?
>
>Yes. Code 75 and 100.
Peco is the top brand in the USA.
After all, Peco is, and has always been, HO.
Tony Polson
<a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>Sorry - I shouldn't have been so cryptic. I wasn't meaning to suggest
>there was anyting wrong with the NMRA standards as finescale standards
>for H0 modellers
They look realistic, and they work, giving US RTR models the best
running qualities - even better than German IMHO.
>merely implying that they weren't relevant for UK
>4mm:foot scale on 16.5mm gauge.
I believe realism and good running *should* be the UK's priority, but as
so many exhibition layouts prove, fanatical fine scale standards do not
make layouts run any better than the UK's sloppy standards in RTR.
The 1:1 "hand from the sky" is equally necessary for both approaches.
It was conspicuous by its absence from those model railway exhibitions
I've been to in the Netherlands and Germany.
Harry Mantheakis
a...@wsi.no.junk wrote:
> (snip) ... the problem is that the leading manufacturer of
> rtr track used by "00" modellers in the UK (Peco) appears not to be
> interested in designing the track to meet the needs of the majority of
> the UK "00" modellers, but has decided to sell track dsigned to suit
> modellers in different scales (H0), principally in other countries.
Anthony, it would be good to get Peco to comment on all of this. But I
would rather you wrote to them, because I cannot hold my own in this
debate. Send them a snail-mail?
Also... Is there a society in the UK which could (should) take on this
task of setting standards? If so, what do they have to say? (Another
snail-mail?)
Regards
Harry.
London.
David Breeze
>ISTM that the NMRA standards are a red herring - fine for scale H0, but
>in the UK we have (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) separate gauges
>for the finescale modeller. What on earth is the point of trying to put
>finescale wheels on a 4mm:foot model with a 16.5mm gauge? You wouldn't
>be happy with it, and neither would I. The great virtue of 16.5mm coarse
>scale is that anything runs quite happily even if it has been dropped on
>the floor a few times.
You seem to be assuming that NMRA RP-25 is a standard for finescale
modelling. It's not, it's the Recommended Practice for ordinary HO
trains. Manufacturers such as Athearn, Atlas, Bachmann, Kato, etc who
are the equivalents of Hornby, Lima, Bachmann, etc in our market, all
use it for their ordinary off-the-shelf models.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea seems to be to produce coarse-
scaled track so that the various manufacturers can continue to produce
wheels of widely differing dimensions. There is no reason for Peco to do
that. I would imagine that the US is their biggest market (just open a
copy of Model Railroader and see how many of the layouts use Peco
track...) so why should they change it to suit British models in
particular?
Surely it makes more sense for the manufacturers of British models to
conform to a standard that suits the existing track. They are after all
in the minority here. And if we're looking for a standard, why invent a
new one when a perfectly good one was developed over the last 50-odd
years by the NMRA?
The fact that the models are just about all made in the same factories
in china can only make it easier.
Nigel White
>As I said in my last posting, Effective Flange is a critical dimension.
>However, before you can decide on exactly what back-to-back dimension to
>use you will need to know the Check Gauge of your turnouts.
>
>There is a empirical way of determining the back-to-back needed. Take a
>wheelset and place it on a turnout so that the flange of the wheel on
>the vee is hard up against the rail head, but not climbing it. Now
>measure how much clearance you have between the back of the opposite
>wheel and the check rail. The wheelset will probably foul the Check Rail
>if set to 14.5mm BB so set the BB to, say, 15mm before testing. Move the
>wheels so that this clearance becomes zero and then move them in a
>"couple of thou" more. Now measure the BB and make up a gauge so that
>you can set all the wheels of this make to that measurement.
>
>Repeat for every different make (or profile) of wheel you are using!
[snipped]
A compromise (as suggested in Iain Rice's Wild Swan track book) is to
make up a "front-to-back" gauge, which acts on the back of the flange
of one wheel, and the front of the flange of the other -- in the same
sort of manner as a check-rail. Like this:
Back of flange Front of flange
goes here goes here
| |
|
+-+
| +--------+ +-+
| +-+ |
+--------------+
This permits an assortment of makes of wheel to be used, provided that
their flanges fit in this gauge. You need to adjust the back-to-backs,
of course.
I have seen this used on a (finescale) 00 layout, and the improvement
in quality of running was quite remarkable.
--
Nigel White
<nwhite at robots dot ox dot ac dot uk>
Nigel White
>Nigel White wrote:
>>
>> In article <383BAF...@wsi.no.junk> a...@wsi.no.junk writes:
>> >Hello All.
>> >The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
[snipped]
>Whilst we are at it how about a standard for coupling pockets so that we
>can all drop in a Kadee #5 and know that it sits at the right height and
>will couple to everthing else.
>
>Jon
Once again, the Double 0 Gauge Association was encouraging British
manufacturers to do exactly that. I think it is the NEM coupling
pocket. Maybe only Bachmann has responded so far...
Anthony New
>
> Anthony New wrote:
> >ISTM that the NMRA standards are a red herring - fine for scale H0, but
> >in the UK we have (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) separate gauges
> >for the finescale modeller. What on earth is the point of trying to put
> >finescale wheels on a 4mm:foot model with a 16.5mm gauge? You wouldn't
> >be happy with it, and neither would I. The great virtue of 16.5mm coarse
> >scale is that anything runs quite happily even if it has been dropped on
> >the floor a few times.
>
> You seem to be assuming that NMRA RP-25 is a standard for finescale
> modelling. It's not, it's the Recommended Practice for ordinary HO
> trains. Manufacturers such as Athearn, Atlas, Bachmann, Kato, etc who
> are the equivalents of Hornby, Lima, Bachmann, etc in our market, all
> use it for their ordinary off-the-shelf models.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea seems to be to produce coarse-
> scaled track so that the various manufacturers can continue to produce
> wheels of widely differing dimensions.
... to produce track on which all current and recent "00" makes will run
on it, while looking as good as is possible consistant with the primary
requirement.
There is no reason for Peco to do
> that. I would imagine that the US is their biggest market (just open a
> copy of Model Railroader and see how many of the layouts use Peco
> track...) so why should they change it to suit British models in
> particular?
>
Fine if they want to do that. But they can't claim it's suitable for UK
"00" stock as well - or shouldn't do.
> Surely it makes more sense for the manufacturers of British models to
> conform to a standard that suits the existing track. They are after all
> in the minority here. And if we're looking for a standard, why invent a
> new one when a perfectly good one was developed over the last 50-odd
> years by the NMRA?
Why change all our models that have been running happily for 30 years
just to suit the standards invented in a foreign country who don't even
model in our scale?
>
> The fact that the models are just about all made in the same factories
> in china can only make it easier.
But not better!
> --
> Dave Breeze
>
> Glasgow,
> Scotland
--
Anthony New
>
> In article <383E5D...@wsi.no.junk>, Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> writes:
> > >
> > > Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk> writes
> > > >As for the NMRA - get real!
> > >
>
> > there was anyting wrong with the NMRA standards as finescale standards
> > 4mm:foot scale on 16.5mm gauge.
>
> thing if NMRA standards _were_ in widespread use for OO.
>
> In practice this might mean re-wheeling locomotives with: Ultrascale
> wheels for Diesels, and Romfords for Steam locomotives.
So let me get this straight: Your solution to the "00" gauge problem is
to redesign the track so that none of the rtr stock will run on it
without modification?
>
> If one were to criticize Peco for their track, I would suggest that gauge
> narrowing (Dick has measured 16.49mm, where I would expect perhaps 16.7mm
> on a medium turnout) would be a more legitimate gripe.
>
> The problem is that no track can be designed that will allow different
> wheels [1] to all run smoothly through point-work. Narrowing the crossing
> flangeways and check rail gaps gives better/smoother running, but
> excludes those wheel sets with too narrow a BB dimension. Widening these
> dimensions means poorer running for a larger set of wheel sets, up to
> and including widely spaced wheels going the wrong way at a facing
> crossing nose.
I can't accept that. If the outside check rail is positioned just wide
enough to let all the flanges through, and the crossing flangeway is
made_very_wide to cope with the narrowest back-to-back measurement
conceivable, then ISTM that *all* rolling stock will run through it.
>
> ... You pays your money and takes your choice...
>
> Or you nail down your own track and wheel standards very firmly.
>
No - just make sure the track will suit the rolling stock (rather than
vice versa).
> ---
> David Lester.
>
> [1] Technically wheels of a different profile (Dick's effective flange
> dimension) or back-to-back measurement.
--
David Jackson
from David Breeze <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> >> Get yourself a load of Athearn, Kato or whatever American HO models
> >> and just watch how well they run.
> >
> >Yes, yes, I'm sure they're very good, but do they do a decent Black
> >5, or a Standard Tank?
> Of course not, but that's not the point is it,
Yes. I need locos which I can use, so I'm not going to spend cash on
equipment which I won't be able to use.
> I can't see any reason
> why the companies who would make a Standard tank couldn't make it run
> just as well as the US stuff.
That's a different side of the coin, and one with which I can agree,
but I have few complaints about the locos on my line, most of which
will run at almost a scale walking-pace when required.
--
Dave,
Frodsham
Anthony New
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:11:54 +0000, in uk.rec.models.rail David Breeze
> <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Dave, were you using Peco track?
> >
> >Yes. Code 75 and 100.
>
> Peco is the top brand in the USA.
>
> After all, Peco is, and has always been, HO.
>
> Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Looks like I shall have to sell up my Peco track and switch to Hornby!
--
Nigel White
>Dick Ganderton wrote:
[snipped]
>ISTM that the NMRA standards are a red herring - fine for scale H0, but
>in the UK we have (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) separate gauges
>for the finescale modeller. What on earth is the point of trying to put
>finescale wheels on a 4mm:foot model with a 16.5mm gauge? You wouldn't
>be happy with it, and neither would I. The great virtue of 16.5mm coarse
>scale is that anything runs quite happily even if it has been dropped on
>the floor a few times.
Er, to confound and confuse people at exhibitions, who think it must be
EM, or even (gasp!) P4? :-)
Why do people climb Everest?...
[snipped]
>> Peco make their track to suit the American & Continental H0 markets and
>> it's probable that the turnouts fall between the NMRA and NEM standards.
>>
>> The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
>> workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
>> enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
>
>That's one point of view, which has some merit even though it is
>contradicted to some extent by the existance of EM, P4, etc. The other
>point of view is that the problem is that the leading manufacturer of
>rtr track used by "00" modellers in the UK (Peco) appears not to be
>interested in designing the track to meet the needs of the majority of
>the UK "00" modellers, but has decided to sell track dsigned to suit
>modellers in different scales (H0), principally in other countries.
Dick's final paragraph probably sums it up fairly well. Many people
assume that RTR 00 should work as well European (and US?) H0, but then
they find -- as you have -- that Peco makes H0 track, and all the
British manufacturers seem to have their own ideas of 00 "standards".
Which does go some way to explaining why continental and US practices
enjoy quite a following in the UK.
I think it is clear that 00 is long overdue for a workable set of
standards; and as I have mentioned before, the Double 0 Gauge
Association was working on various fronts. (I am sure they would
appreciate the support of some more members!) The Gauge 0 Guild has
standards for both "coarse" and "fine" scales, so why not the same for
00?
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>I can't accept that. If the outside check rail is positioned just wide
>enough to let all the flanges through, and the crossing flangeway is
>made_very_wide to cope with the narrowest back-to-back measurement
>conceivable, then ISTM that *all* rolling stock will run through it.
As soon as you advocate unequal flangeway measurements, then you run
into problems. The basic one is that the flanges of wheelsets
with smaller back-to-back measurements will always make contact with
the check rail when, in practice, they should only make contact when
necessary - say a long wheelbase vehicle going though a sharp radius
curve of a turnout. This contact will cause rough riding through
check railed formations and could cause derailments at higher speed
when it might be easier for the flange to jump upwards rather than be
deflected laterally.
The second problem is that the gap at the crossing nose becomes quite
wide, allowing wheels to drop in to quite an extent. Some of the
coarse scale manufacturers got round this in the past by building up
the level of the flangeway at the crossing so that a wheel rode on its
flange and didn't drop in, but if you are dealing with many makes of
wheels you can't control the flange depths to the extent that they
could.
The third problem is the one of geometry through any track formation
which includes a diamond crossing with "K" crossings. The optimum
condition for laying out this formation is equal flangeways. I've no
doubt that you could design a crossing with unequal flangeways, but
the inequality would have to swap from one end of the formation to the
other, and I'm not quite sure what you would do in the middle :-)
Jim.
--
Jim Guthrie
Progressing (maybe) in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Anthony New
I bow to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject, but would
comment that
(a) the problems you point out would presumably be less serious than
those which do now occur due to insufficient b-b clearance on points,
and
(b) ISTM that Peco points already appear to have unequal flangeways,
though I haven't measured them.
Roger L. Traviss
David Jackson wrote:
> > >> Get yourself a load of Athearn, Kato or whatever American HO models
> > >> and just watch how well they run.
> > >
> > >Yes, yes, I'm sure they're very good, but do they do a decent Black
> > >5, or a Standard Tank?
>
> > Of course not, but that's not the point is it,
Perhaps not a Black Five or a Standard Tank but Bachmann do make a superb
2-8-0 (I've got four) and damned good 2-8-4 and have just released a 2-8-8-2
for about list price of US$395. Athearn have introduced a 2-8-2 that's
also getting good reviews. Other than the 2-8-8-2, the list price for all
the locos is under US$200 and the 2-8-0 and 2-8-2 can be found for under
US$100.
All our leading diesel model manufacturers, except Kato, have announced new
steam. We've Bachmann to thank for setting new standards with the
introduction of the 2-8-0. In ready to run plastic, before Bachmann, there
was only poor quality, toy like junk. And yes, that includes every other
plastic steam manufacturer, bar none. Either that, or you had to pay
sky-high prices for brass. Explains why, in serious modelling circles,
steam was a non issue.
--
Cheers,
Roger T
Wet, windy, rainy,
Victoria, BC
C eh n eh d eh.
Roger L. Traviss
Some people have mentioned that PECO track is "HO" and not "OO".
While this may be true for the sleeper spacing, as PECO ads in the '60s used
to say in order to justify the sleep spacing in the UK market, "It gives that
more track look", it's not true for the points/turnout geometry.
PECO points/turnouts are definitely based on UK track practices and not North
American. IIRC, they have a constant curve through the point/turnout from
the point of the switch blades and on through the crossing (frog) where as,
North American switches/turnouts have straight switch blades, then curving
closure rails and then a straight crossing (frog) and the curve continues
only at a point past the point of the crossing.
It's fairly obvious if you compare two turnouts/points/switches. One by PECO
and say one by Shenohara(sp). I hand lay all my own trackage so I the above
was written from memory.
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>(a) the problems you point out would presumably be less serious than
>those which do now occur due to insufficient b-b clearance on points,
>and
Who can say. :-) I've got the feeling we've just come full circle on
the problem.
Years ago, track manufacturers, including Peco, did produce
"Universal" pointwork which overcame the variety of standards in
existence then (50's/early 60's). These points had moving wing rails
which gave a gapless path through the crossing nose, and check rails
were unnecessary and only provided for show. These points were, in
effect, glorified versions of the old Hornby 0 gauge tinplate point
and they did work after a fashion and did get over the problem of
handling everything from BRMSB wheels to the old Trix Twin steam
rollers.
But I think you would have to rule out anything like this today since
these points immediately lost out on lack of realism. They also
have to be made with quite a high degree of precision if they are to
work well, and this was the Achilles heel in some of the designs of
yesteryear, where the precision was lacking and operation could be
poor.
>
>(b) ISTM that Peco points already appear to have unequal flangeways,
>though I haven't measured them.
I've just had a look at an advert in the Modeller, but the pictures
aren't large enough for me to confirm or otherwise. I haven't used
a Streamline point for about 30 years.
I suspect you might have to come round thinking about setting a track
standard, then changing the wheels if necessary. Whatever happens
to sort out the 00 gauge mess in the UK, there's going to have to be
a transition period which will no doubt cause a certain amount of pain
and anguish. Re-wheeling stock might cause less pain than
establishing a compromise track standard which might live to haunt us
again for years :-)
Jim Guthrie
<roge...@islandnet.com> wrote:
Roger,
>PECO points/turnouts are definitely based on UK track practices and not North
>American. IIRC, they have a constant curve through the point/turnout from
>the point of the switch blades and on through the crossing (frog) where as,
>North American switches/turnouts have straight switch blades, then curving
>closure rails and then a straight crossing (frog) and the curve continues
>only at a point past the point of the crossing.
UK prototype track practices aremuch the same as the North American
ones you describe, but switch blades are usually semi-curved with the
planed section straight, or could be fully curved on the GWR.
Peco points conform to Peco practices :-).
Jonathan Hall
>
> In article <383C2E...@mcmail.com> jon...@mcmail.com writes:
> >Nigel White wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <383BAF...@wsi.no.junk> a...@wsi.no.junk writes:
> >> >Hello All.
> >> >The subject of standards for 00 gauge (or rather the lack of them) is
>
> [snipped]
>
> >Whilst we are at it how about a standard for coupling pockets so that we
> >can all drop in a Kadee #5 and know that it sits at the right height and
> >will couple to everthing else.
> >
> >Jon
>
> Once again, the Double 0 Gauge Association was encouraging British
> manufacturers to do exactly that. I think it is the NEM coupling
> pocket. Maybe only Bachmann has responded so far...
Certainly a start, but having discussed this on the Southern Email
Group, the conclusions seemed to be that:
1) NEM couplers were less common and therefore more expensive than #5 US
style couplers.
2) Kadee NEM pockets did not fit bachman tension lock couplers.
I would be happy to fit all of my stock (and there is a lot of it) with
NEM pockets and then Kadee couplers for my own use and still retain the
option of swapping back to tension lock if the need ever occured.
As far as I can tell you still need to choose the correct shank Kadee
NEM to fit the Bachman coupling pocket to ensure that the head lines up
with the standard gauge that kadee supply.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Hall
Thames Ditton
My railway website is at http://www.jonhall.mcmail.com/Railways.htm
Jonathan Hall
>
> Tony Polson wrote:
> > Peco is the top brand in the USA.
> >
> > After all, Peco is, and has always been, HO.
>
> Looks like I shall have to sell up my Peco track and switch to Hornby!
Which IIRC is made in the same Austrian factory as the Peco, by Roco.
David Jackson
from "Roger L. Traviss" <roge...@islandnet.com> contains these words:
> 2-8-0 (I've got four)
A Stanier 8F? or an ex-WD? I could certainly use a WD 2-8-0.
> and damned good 2-8-4 and have just released a 2-8-8-2
IIRC the LMS Garratt was a 2-6-6-2, and I can't remember what the
LNER Garratt's wheel arrangement was . . . I don't have a reason for
running a Garratt.
--
Dave,
Frodsham
John Sullivan
Guthrie <j...@sprockets.co.uk>
>
>The second problem is that the gap at the crossing nose becomes quite
>wide, allowing wheels to drop in to quite an extent. Some of the
>coarse scale manufacturers got round this in the past by building up
>the level of the flangeway at the crossing so that a wheel rode on its
>flange and didn't drop in, but if you are dealing with many makes of
>wheels you can't control the flange depths to the extent that they
>could.
Don't the real railways have this problem, which is why they invented a
frog that was moveable, and that gives no gap for a wheel to cross?
There are plenty of examples of this type of point at Canary Wharf
station on the DLR, for example.
>
>The third problem is the one of geometry through any track formation
>which includes a diamond crossing with "K" crossings. The optimum
>condition for laying out this formation is equal flangeways. I've no
>doubt that you could design a crossing with unequal flangeways, but
>the inequality would have to swap from one end of the formation to the
>other, and I'm not quite sure what you would do in the middle :-)
Don't the real railways have this problem, which is why they invented
the switch diamond? There are plenty of examples of this type of diamond
crossing outside London Bridge station (for example).
>
>Jim.
--
John Sullivan
-------------
Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
Keith Norgrove
<elliot...@newnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonathan Hall wrote:
>
>> Whilst we are at it how about a standard for coupling pockets so that we
>> can all drop in a Kadee #5 and know that it sits at the right height and
>> will couple to everthing else.
>
>Yes Please!
>
>Elliott Cowton
>Visit the F&DMRC website at http://www.hants.org.uk/fadmrc/
>
If you want to use American couplers use the American standard that
exists already, ie the NMRA. And for couplers, unlike track you do
want to use the '00' standard for coupler height, not the H0 one. The
Bachman Blue Riband wagons are to this std if you substitute a Kadee
NEM shank coupler in the pocket provided.
Make friends in the hobby.
Keith
Visit <http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~keithn>
for info on fitting an Athearn chassis to a class 37.
Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Keith Norgrove
wrote:
>
>Why change all our models that have been running happily for 30 years
>just to suit the standards invented in a foreign country who don't even
>model in our scale?
>
If they were all running happily we would not be having this
discussion. This problem has been with 00 for the last 40 years at
least. The 00 scale association was, I thought, set up with the
objective of setting 00 standards but there is no sign of any success
as, like the BRMSB 40 years ago, they don't represent a significant
fraction of the market so the manufacturers can happily ignore them.
Roger L. Traviss
>
> If you want to use American couplers use the American standard that
> exists already, ie the NMRA.
There is -no- NMRA standard coupler. The horn hook coupler is frequently,
although mistakenly, referred to as an "NMRA coupler". The defacto "standard"
for scale model railways in North America is the Kadee coupler and its various
clones.
--
Cheers,
Roger T
Partially cloudy,
Mick Bryan
Tony Polson wrote in message
>I believe realism and good running *should* be the UK's priority, but as
>so many exhibition layouts prove, fanatical fine scale standards do not
>make layouts run any better than the UK's sloppy standards in RTR.
>
Surely the basis of "sloppy standards" and probably also the reason that us
British Railway modellers don't get nice fine wheels and big can
motors/flywheels is that the British ready to run model railway industry
still caters for the toy market.
I hope I get good running on my layout. I would call it "OO" finescale. I
know it's a compromise, but I use Peco code 75 track, some code 100 in the
fiddle yard because I had a load spare, wheels from all the major
manufacturers, Hornby, Lima, Bachmann, Dapol, kit builts normally with
Romfords and one or two DJH loco kits with RP25 Romfords (and the odd bit of
gauge widening on my 2 foot radius curve to get DJH locos round!) As far as
I'm concerned a minimum back to back of 14.2 appears to allow pretty good
running. Most, if not all derailments are caused by the stock not being put
on correctly on the finer scale track with finer scale flanges.
Big track and big flanges are perfect for the small hands of the toy market.
Unfortunately, most manufacturers producing for the British market are still
in that rut.
Mick
"Those who ask questions will conquer the world"
Dick Ganderton
need to scroll down to get to the new bits. However, this time I have
added them throughout Anthony's posting as near as I can get to the part
of his posting being commented on.
Anthony New wrote:
>
> Dick Ganderton wrote:
> >
> > Your results for the wheels are meaningless as you haven't included the
> > essential Effective Flange measurement!
> >
Back to back is simply a convenient and easy measurement to make.
However, it is meaningless without specifying what the effective flange
is! The critical dimension is (EF + BB). If you want to just state the
BB measurement then you have to assume that the effective flange has
been fixed. (EF + BB) must not be greater than the Check Gauge - as EF
becomes smaller then BB must increase to maintain (EF + BB) to just
under CG. So, the check rails can still work with different wheel
profiles, but only if the BB is adjusted to suit.
> I don't think they are meaningless, Dick, for two reasons. As you
> yourself point out below, the common failure is due to back-to-back
> measurement. Secondly, if rolling stock with a wide variety of different
> measurements is to use the track - as I insist it must if it is to be of
> any use to the general user - then the check rails *cannot* work as
> intended on the real railway (and on finescale models) unless the
> crossing flangeways are made very large.
>
> > However, looking through your results and measuring a Peco H0/00 Fine
> > Standard Code 75 Electrofrog SL-E195 Medium Radius RH turnout that i
> > just happen to have showed that the diverging track measured 16.49mm
> > track gauge in the crossing area and the distance across the check rails
> > was 13.95mm. This would mean that 12 of your wheelsets would not clear
> > the check rails as their BB was smaller than this.
>
But the whole point is that there should be a set of standards that all
manufacturers work to!
> Exactly my point! The track doesn't suit the majority of the vehicles
> which people expect to run on it.
>
> The flangeways of the
> > straight track were both too wide at 1.29 and 1.31mm and the track gauge
> > was also 16.49mm through the crossing area.
> >
> > I also checked the turnout with an NMRA gauge and it confirmed that the
> > track gauge was tight and half of the flangeways too large.
>
It's you that have missed the point, Anthony! Follow my earlier
suggestion and go away and read everything you can lay your hands on
about track and wheelsets. (NMRA Standards Sheet S2 particularly
explains wheelsets and track, but if you can find copies the original
Protofour articles in Model Railway Constructor are good) When you
understand what it's all about then come back and argue - but not
before!
> I don't doubt you are entirely right in your own terms, Dick, but ISTM
> you have entirely missed the point. For rtr "00" gauge on 16.5mm it is
> simply *not* appropriate to define an arbitrary standard and criticise
> any manufacturer that doesn't meet it. The rolling stock exists already,
> and runs perfectly well on suitable track (Hornby for instance). The
> problem is, one of the leading makers of track is making track that
> doesn't suit it, and the majority of people who buy and use it
> (including myself until very recently) don't realise it!
The NMRA managed to set some standards that are workable and the
manufacturers in the end did comply with them. The BRMSB set some
standards that were so ill-defined that they were not workable and the
UK manufacturers went their own sweet ways!
You haven't even looked at the NMRA Standards Sheets S2, S3 and S4, have
you, just the General Sheet?
>
> ISTM that the NMRA standards are a red herring - fine for scale H0, but
> in the UK we have (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) separate gauges
> for the finescale modeller. What on earth is the point of trying to put
> finescale wheels on a 4mm:foot model with a 16.5mm gauge? You wouldn't
> be happy with it, and neither would I. The great virtue of 16.5mm coarse
> scale is that anything runs quite happily even if it has been dropped on
> the floor a few times.
>
> >
> > From your incomplete measurements it looks as if the last four wheelsets
> > in your chart might be somewhere near NMRA standards.
> >
> > I seriously suggest that you visit
> >
> > http://users.vnet/paulrver/s-2.html
> >
> > and download the NMRA Standards Sheets. You will find Sheet No. S2
> > particularly helpful - it covers Track & Wheel Standards.
>
> I've had a look at the NMRA standards - as I commented in my post they
> appear to exclude anything made in the UK (how surprising).
> >
> > Peco make their track to suit the American & Continental H0 markets and
> > it's probable that the turnouts fall between the NMRA and NEM standards.
> >
> > The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
> > workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
> > enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
It's not contradicted at all by the existance of the exact scale
standards. They prove that tightly written and controlled standards
really do work and give great benefits to both modeller and manufacturer
alike.
>
> That's one point of view, which has some merit even though it is
> contradicted to some extent by the existance of EM, P4, etc. The other
> point of view is that the problem is that the leading manufacturer of
> rtr track used by "00" modellers in the UK (Peco) appears not to be
> interested in designing the track to meet the needs of the majority of
> the UK "00" modellers, but has decided to sell track dsigned to suit
> modellers in different scales (H0), principally in other countries.
>
Dick Ganderton
You snipped in the wrong place - I didn't write that, Anthony New did in
reply to what I wrote!!
Nigel White wrote:
>
> In article <383E62...@wsi.no.junk> a...@wsi.no.junk writes:
> >Dick Ganderton wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> >ISTM that the NMRA standards are a red herring - fine for scale H0, but
> >in the UK we have (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) separate gauges
> >for the finescale modeller. What on earth is the point of trying to put
> >finescale wheels on a 4mm:foot model with a 16.5mm gauge? You wouldn't
> >be happy with it, and neither would I. The great virtue of 16.5mm coarse
> >scale is that anything runs quite happily even if it has been dropped on
> >the floor a few times.
snip
Tony Polson
<a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>Dick Ganderton wrote:
>
>> Peco make their track to suit the American & Continental H0 markets and
>> it's probable that the turnouts fall between the NMRA and NEM standards.
>>
>> The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
>> workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
>> enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
>
>That's one point of view, which has some merit even though it is
>contradicted to some extent by the existance of EM, P4, etc. The other
>point of view is that the problem is that the leading manufacturer of
>rtr track used by "00" modellers in the UK (Peco) appears not to be
>interested in designing the track to meet the needs of the majority of
>the UK "00" modellers, but has decided to sell track dsigned to suit
>modellers in different scales (H0), principally in other countries.
PECO is a world leader in producing model railway track. It's the top
brand in North America and sells extremely well in continental Europe.
PECO HO track works equally well with NMRA and NEM standards.
Yet you seem to want to knock it, because it does not allow good running
with the truly dreadful British RTR trains that don't attempt to comply
with any sort of standard.
I think we should give credit where it's due. PECO Publications may
have a bizarre, head-in-the-sand attitude to the Internet, but their
manufacturing division's track is popular across the world (and has been
for over 20 years). This a great export achievement for a UK
manufacturer, and I believe we should be proud of PECO.
The fact that UK RTR models are of such a low standard that they have
problems running on PECO's world-beating track is not something to
berate PECO about. Rather, it's time the UK model railway industry got
its act together.
Now that the same Chinese factories that make such excellent models for
the US market are making Bachmann and Hornby ranges for the UK, we
should be looking for similar standards here. But as most modellers
will accept any old crap for the UK market, I doubt it will ever happen.
If you really want to run Hornby Railways trains without problems try
running them on Hornby track, but be warned: my friends who have tried
this have had much more success with ... PECO.
Alternatively, buy some original Hornby-Dublo. It seems to run very
well on PECO Code 100.
Dick Ganderton
measured had different flangeways on the straight "arm' to the diverging
"arm".
For good running through the crossing vee area
The check rails must work to "check" the wheelset away from the crossing
vee.
The flangeways must be as small as possible so that the gap that the
wheel tread has to span is as small as possible.
The wheelsets must have a smooth profile with correct profile as to cone
angle, tread width, effective flange, root radius and the shape of the
back and front of the flange.
Wheels must be correctly set on their axles so that they don't wobble
and the dimension (EF + BB) is correct.
To achieve this you need tightly written standards which are adhered to
and "policed".
As the NMRA have managed this with their H0 Standards, and as UK 00
gauge uses 16.50mm track gauge why not adopt their H0 wheel and track
standards?
Anthony New wrote:
>
snip
>
> I bow to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject, but would
> comment that
>
> (a) the problems you point out would presumably be less serious than
> those which do now occur due to insufficient b-b clearance on points,
> and
>
> (b) ISTM that Peco points already appear to have unequal flangeways,
> though I haven't measured them.
>
Dick Ganderton
UK track geometry may be different to US but certainly not that way. The
points blades are not a constant curvature, and the crossing vee area is
straight.
Peco have opted for a geometry that is peculiarly their own and is not
based on any prototype geometry. They don't look like American turnouts
(switches), they don't look like British turnouts and they don't look
like Continental ones either! It's almost like the US RTR track that has
turnouts (switches) that can be substituted for the curved sections.
Roger L. Traviss wrote:
>
> Some people have mentioned that PECO track is "HO" and not "OO".
>
> While this may be true for the sleeper spacing, as PECO ads in the '60s used
> to say in order to justify the sleep spacing in the UK market, "It gives that
> more track look", it's not true for the points/turnout geometry.
>
> PECO points/turnouts are definitely based on UK track practices and not North
> American. IIRC, they have a constant curve through the point/turnout from
> the point of the switch blades and on through the crossing (frog) where as,
> North American switches/turnouts have straight switch blades, then curving
> closure rails and then a straight crossing (frog) and the curve continues
> only at a point past the point of the crossing.
>
> It's fairly obvious if you compare two turnouts/points/switches. One by PECO
> and say one by Shenohara(sp). I hand lay all my own trackage so I the above
> was written from memory.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Roger T
> Wet, windy, rainy,
Jim Guthrie
<jo...@y.ddraig.goch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
John,
>Don't the real railways have this problem, which is why they invented a
>frog that was moveable, and that gives no gap for a wheel to cross?
>There are plenty of examples of this type of point at Canary Wharf
>station on the DLR, for example.
AFAIK, the full size railways use moveable wing rails to minimise
wear on crossing noses. With the normal type of crossing, there is
still a very slight drop in, even when flangeway gaps and wheel
profiles are correct, and this causes wear on the nose and the
knuckles of the wing rails.>
>>
>>The third problem is the one of geometry through any track formation
>>which includes a diamond crossing with "K" crossings. The optimum
>>condition for laying out this formation is equal flangeways. I've no
>>doubt that you could design a crossing with unequal flangeways, but
>>the inequality would have to swap from one end of the formation to the
>>other, and I'm not quite sure what you would do in the middle :-)
>
>Don't the real railways have this problem, which is why they invented
>the switch diamond? There are plenty of examples of this type of diamond
>crossing outside London Bridge station (for example).
For the same reason, a switched diamond minimises wear on what would
be the "K" crossings on a traditional diamond formation. There is
also an inherent problem with the geometry in a traditional diamond
formation, with a crossing angle which is small (in angular
measurement), when a wheelset can have inadequate checking provision
in the region of the "K" crossings.
Morton Chalom
>PECO is a world leader in producing model railway track. It's the top
>brand in North America and sells extremely well in continental Europe.
I'm not sure about Peco being the top brand in North America. I don't
have any figures but I've seen a number of layouts around Michigan and
there's hardly any use of Peco, except for specialist applications.
Atlas and Shinohara/Walthers Code 83 are far more popular.
--Morton
Correct email: telson @ ameritech.net
Bill Bedford
> Of course not, but that's not the point is it, I can't see any reason
> why the companies who would make a Standard tank couldn't make it run
> just as well as the US stuff.
But would yo be willing to pay the asking price?
--
"So we're surrounded by absolutely nothing. There's a word for it.
It's what you get when there's nothing left and everything's been used
up." - "Yes. I think it's called the bill."
Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Bill Bedford
2-8-0+0-8-2
Think 2 x GCR ROD frame with the driving wheel spacing of a GNR
O1..........
Bill Bedford
> The 1:1 "hand from the sky" is equally necessary for both approaches.
> It was conspicuous by its absence from those model railway exhibitions
> I've been to in the Netherlands and Germany.
I wonder just how good these would be it they all used hand built
mechanisms
Tony Polson
bil...@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford) wrote:
>David Breeze <da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Of course not, but that's not the point is it, I can't see any reason
>> why the companies who would make a Standard tank couldn't make it run
>> just as well as the US stuff.
>
>But would yo be willing to pay the asking price?
You're maintaining the illusion that good model railways need to be
expensive. It is simply not true.
US HO RTR models are of a far higher standard than UK OO. Yet they cost
less, in some cases far less. You can buy Athearn model Diesels from
dealers in the UK (therefore including shipping, import duty and VAT)
for far less than their Hornby, Lima and Bachmann equivalents, and they
are of far superior quality than most products of the first two of
these.
With all wheel geared drive from a centrally mounted 5 pole motor, and
all wheel pick up, the slow running qualities of the cheapest Athearn
product are superior to *any* UK RTR Diesel. They also last for years.
Bjerg & Olsen
Dick Ganderton skrev i meddelelsen
<383F2B...@graskop.demon.co.uk>...
>Since when has UK track had a constant curvature throughout the
turnout?
>UK track geometry may be different to US but certainly not that way.
The
>points blades are not a constant curvature, and the crossing vee area
is
>straight.
>
>Peco have opted for a geometry that is peculiarly their own and is not
>based on any prototype geometry. They don't look like American turnouts
>(switches), they don't look like British turnouts and they don't look
>like Continental ones either! It's almost like the US RTR track that
has
>turnouts (switches) that can be substituted for the curved sections.
>
common turnouts exist that have a continuous curve throughout the whole
turnout. All swithes are curved, and there are straight crossings as
well as curved crossings.
At the tip of the switches, however, the curve is not a true tangent to
the straight track but is offset so that the tip has an angle of circa
0.5-1.5 degrees depending on curve radius. All Danish switches are made
like that (since 1931).
Faithfully
Erik Olsen
David Jackson
from bil...@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford) contains these words:
> 2-8-0+0-8-2
> Think 2 x GCR ROD frame with the driving wheel spacing of a GNR
> O1..........
You are probably right . . . And the LMS Garratt was really a 2-6-0+0-6-2
I still can't justify running one. Now a Super D is a different matter!
Wonder what kits I'll be able to find at the Manchester Exhibition
next week-end . . .
--
Dave,
Frodsham
Keith Norgrove
<roge...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you want to use American couplers use the American standard that
>> exists already, ie the NMRA.
>
>There is -no- NMRA standard coupler. The horn hook coupler is frequently,
>although mistakenly, referred to as an "NMRA coupler". The defacto "standard"
>for scale model railways in North America is the Kadee coupler and its various
>clones.
>
Roger, my reply was to a request for a standard coupler pocket to put
Kadees in. NMRA RP22 I believe.
Beltaine
<snip>
>US HO RTR models are of a far higher standard than UK OO. Yet they cost
>less, in some cases far less. You can buy Athearn model Diesels from
>dealers in the UK (therefore including shipping, import duty and VAT)
>for far less than their Hornby, Lima and Bachmann equivalents, and they
>are of far superior quality than most products of the first two of
>these.
>Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
You will also probably find that U.S. prototypes are made in their hundreds
of thousands where the U.K. prototypes are made in their tens of thousands
due to market size. When you take into account the different liveries, it
may be a higher ratio even than that.
Therefore the question is still valid, would you be prepared to pay the
asking price which would be in the order of 5 to 6 times the US prototype
cost minimum??
Graham Evans
Roger L. Traviss
Keith Norgrove wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:40:15 -0800, "Roger L. Traviss"
> <roge...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> If you want to use American couplers use the American standard that
> >> exists already, ie the NMRA.
> >
> >There is -no- NMRA standard coupler. The horn hook coupler is frequently,
> >although mistakenly, referred to as an "NMRA coupler". The defacto "standard"
> >for scale model railways in North America is the Kadee coupler and its various
> >clones.
> >
> Roger, my reply was to a request for a standard coupler pocket to put
> Kadees in. NMRA RP22 I believe.
Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
--
Cheers,
Roger T
Partially sunny,
Andrew Cocker
Polson) wrote:
>
>US HO RTR models are of a far higher standard than UK OO. Yet they cost
>less, in some cases far less. You can buy Athearn model Diesels from
>dealers in the UK (therefore including shipping, import duty and VAT)
>for far less than their Hornby, Lima and Bachmann equivalents, and they
>are of far superior quality than most products of the first two of
>these.
>
>With all wheel geared drive from a centrally mounted 5 pole motor, and
>all wheel pick up, the slow running qualities of the cheapest Athearn
>product are superior to *any* UK RTR Diesel. They also last for years.
>
>--
>Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
In the case of pricing you will find that for most things the
production & shipping costs in the US are far lower than in the UK.
There is also the issue of reusable parts. Most US and Canadian locos
are from one of 2 builders. Many of those share common parts. For the
model manufacturer this is a godsend. Many parts in Athearn locos are
common to 8 or more different diesel models. What you end up with is
economy of scale. Take Bogies for example. On UK diesels every single
class seems to have a different wheelbase and wheel diameter. In
Athearn's case they make a single 4 and 6 wheel geared bogie unit and
snap in sideframes suitable for each prototype. On the body shells
having a different moulding for each cab type and roof grille
arrangement means that many variations can be had for a simple change
of a snap in piece.
It wasn't all that long ago that Athearn had their rubber band drive
from an extra long motor armature to a fat wheel axle. (and you
thought Lima drives were dire)
What I'm getting at is that with all the shared componants and lower
production costs, Athearn is able to produce a good quality product
for a very low price. The same motor will fit in all their locos, not
always possible in the UK.
Think too that their market is 5 times the size of the UK and where we
buy one loco the Yanks would have a lashup of 4. Throw in the common
parts and you have a tooling cost that is spread over 30 to 40 times
the volume of product. That means for every loco the tooling cost per
unit is 1/30 to 1/40 that of Hornby.
You really can't compare UK with US model production and costs. For
Hornby to do the same they would have to double (at least) their price
per unit.
Bachmann on the other hand look to be investing for the long term.
Whenever possible they seem to be using common parts and
sub-assemblies. Their N class looks like it was designed with this in
mind. Boiler and frames suitable for a Q perhaps? Their dmus also
share many bits and bobs.They also have the advantage in that most of
their (ex-Mainline) tooling was paid for years ago.
Basically it boils down to the economic reality that the UK isn't
going to get the same quality as the US without a major price increase
and wholesale retooling by Hornby and Lima. For such a small market
that would be financial suicide. Hornby are on the (pardon the pun)
right track with gradual improvements and will eventually get it
right. The next step should be to re-motor and improve the drives.
Lima on the other hand have the better drives for their European
market but choose to offer us that crap motor/bogie pancake thing. I
notice too that they have gone back to the unpainted yellow plastic on
their recent CL 50. They can get away with flogging this crap because
there is no alternative. (yet) I wonder how many Warships they are
selling compared to Bachmann)
</economic rant>
Roger L. Traviss
Tony Polson wrote:
> >> Of course not, but that's not the point is it, I can't see any reason
> >> why the companies who would make a Standard tank couldn't make it run
> >> just as well as the US stuff.
> >
> >But would yo be willing to pay the asking price?
>
> You're maintaining the illusion that good model railways need to be
> expensive. It is simply not true.
>
> US HO RTR models are of a far higher standard than UK OO. Yet they cost
> less, in some cases far less. You can buy Athearn model Diesels from
> dealers in the UK (therefore including shipping, import duty and VAT)
> for far less than their Hornby, Lima and Bachmann equivalents, and they
> are of far superior quality than most products of the first two of
> these.
>
> With all wheel geared drive from a centrally mounted 5 pole motor, and
> all wheel pick up, the slow running qualities of the cheapest Athearn
> product are superior to *any* UK RTR Diesel. They also last for years.
You forgot "fly wheel equipped".
And Tony, Athearn are no longer considered the industry leader. Lifelike,
believe it or not, and the Kato/Atlas range are now number one. Yet the
point you make is valid. Athearn blows the socks of any UK diesel model
I've seen. I can't believe that in the UK they still make diesel that only
have one truck (bogie) powered, still use traction tyres and don't pick up
from all eight or twelve wheels.
Then there's the Bachmann and Athearn steam locos. They run as smooth as
any of the finest North American diesels.
Roger L. Traviss
Andrew Cocker wrote:
> In the case of pricing you will find that for most things the
> production & shipping costs in the US are far lower than in the UK.
[Snip good stuff about interchangeable parts affecting pricing.]
You have to keep in mind that before the Atlas/Kato range, Athearn diesels
were selling in the U.S. for a street price of around $15 to $20 each. And
then, about 10 years ago, along came the new Atlas/Kato locos with an asking
price of US $60 each.
SIXTY BUCKS?
Three times what Athearn were selling for. And you know what? They sold
out. Bang! All gone.
It's still the same today, with the odd exception of course, but now the
asking prices have increased due to inflation. It's amazing what people will
pay for a superb running and detailed model. I used to have around 25
Athearn diesels. They've all been retired and replace with the much more
expensive Atlas/Kato, Lifelike diesels and Bachmann and Athearn steam. And
remember, the price in Canada is about double the US list price and there are
no Canadian discounters.
Dick Ganderton
they now fit - for metal wheels it would only mean a form tool change on
the automatic machines. For plastic wheels (ugh!) it would mean a new
set of moulds.
Then they could look at improving the drives.
Keith Norgrove
Especially since 90 percent of the drive components can be common with
the US production coming out of the same factory. In effect we are
paying extra cos' the rubbish drives are specially produced for our
small market. I haven't noticed this supposed 5 or 6 times the price
on the new Bachman products such as the Warship or N class which are
essentially following the advice given in this thread.
Andrew Cocker
Norgrove) wrote:
>
>Especially since 90 percent of the drive components can be common with
>the US production coming out of the same factory. In effect we are
>paying extra cos' the rubbish drives are specially produced for our
>small market. I haven't noticed this supposed 5 or 6 times the price
>on the new Bachman products such as the Warship or N class which are
>essentially following the advice given in this thread.
>
That's partially how Bachmann have kept costs down, by using common
parts for their drives. The motor clip and gearing in the N is the
same as for their US steam locos. Don't forget most of the Warship
tooling was written down years ago while it was being used to produce
the Mainline model. The bean counters have probably amortized the
tooling costs of the N over projected future products. Internal
chassis blocks don't require as much precision and consequently are
far quicker and cheaper to produce. The biggest cost in tooling up is
the visible body shell and details.
A couple of years ago I approached Intermountain about producing rp25
profile metal wheels at the right diameter as replacements for 4mm
coaches and wagons. I would have had to buy 40,000 sets at $5 US per
set to make it worth their while. New metal wheels to a finer standard
needs new moulds tooled to finer tolerances, new jigs and milling
profiles all to much finer standards. By comparison a plastic wheel
set cost is just the mould and the plastic (nylon) pellets.
Bachmann have a big head start due to the existing Liliput tooling and
the now improved US stuff. In other words a much bigger market to
amortize their tooling costs over. Hornby basically have to start from
scratch as a toy company now trying to compete in a finescale reality.
Lima are still a toy company but you have to make a choice, 2 year
tooling time and increased costs or instant diesels with a drop in
el-cheapo drive.
Philip Baggley
era)
I make my own turnouts. I use PECO turnouts. I use PECO Code 100, I use PECO
Code 75
I use an NMRA standards gauge to check and adjust wheelsets and turnout
dimensions just like it says on the enclosed instructions.
I don't take measurements, the standards gauge does everything I need. I
don't have any wheel/track incompatibility problems.
Hornby locos usually have to have their wheels spread apart a fraction. Any
freight or passenger stock that have older "narrow gauge" all-plastic
wheelsets get replacements. I prefer round wheelsets ( call me old fashioned
:-) ). Brio make better wheelsets than LIMA in my opinion.
I have shimmed older PECO turnouts with thin strips of styrene when
required. I don't have any Hornby turnouts.
I am an NMRA member but not a member of the OO gauge society. If the OO
society can introduce workable standards for couplings and wheelsets, track
etc and they can get manufacturers to adopt them they will have made a
major contribution to the advancement of this great hobby which will be
appreciated for all time.
I firmly believe that we should expect more from our hobby press and
specialist societies to forge closer links with manufacturers to agree
standards which will serve us well in to the next modelennium.
What venue is there where most of the big hobby players congregate at the
same time? Warley? Could not the organisers sponsor a standards forum?
Invite representatives from all the major hobby players to an open
discussion about :
1 The establishment of agreed standards governing not just the above but
other areas also.
2 The long term development and direction of the hobby.
3 Attempt to set a timetable for implementation and agree to participate
in an annual review.
We have simply got to get away from the situation where a newcomer buys a
train set and runs into problems which could so easily be avoided by agreed
standards. That's another potential railway modeller lost. How long have we
been saying this?
Don't you just feel like banging their heads together sometimes? I do.
Baggers
Dick Ganderton
Guild/Scale7 Group and NMRA, the latter because I am dabbling in US H0.
However, like Philip, I make all my own trackwork for the S7 layout.
Like those modelling in P4, S7 and EM I never measure anything - it's
all done with accurate gauges to check everything. Hence it all works
and there are no compatibility problems - that's what drove me away from
00 gauge 35 years ago!
Bill Bedford
> Bachmann on the other hand look to be investing for the long term.
> Whenever possible they seem to be using common parts and
> sub-assemblies. Their N class looks like it was designed with this in
> mind. Boiler and frames suitable for a Q perhaps? Their dmus also
> share many bits and bobs.They also have the advantage in that most of
> their (ex-Mainline) tooling was paid for years ago.
All the Bachnamann steam loco's except two have a common chassis. The
two exceptions are thr J39, which I believe was inherited from
Maoinline? and the Austerity which could have common parts with US
2-8-0s
--
He was said to have the body of a twenty-five year old, although no one
knew where he kept it.
Bill Bedford mailto://bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Anthony New
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:09:36 +0000, Anthony New <a...@wsi.no.junk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why change all our models that have been running happily for 30 years
> >just to suit the standards invented in a foreign country who don't even
> >model in our scale?
> >
> If they were all running happily we would not be having this
> discussion. This problem has been with 00 for the last 40 years at
> least.
Not exactly. I have a large number of Peco points, and have run "00"
rolling-stock of a large number of makes quite happily on Triang,
Hornby, and Peco points. The problem is that a few years ago Peco
altered the dimensions of their points and many items no longer run
properly over the new points unless they are hacked about. It isn't even
easy to tell which are ok and which aren't.
IME Every "00" vehicle in good condition will run over Triang and (at
least some - I haven't tried the latest stuff) Hornby track, and all
except a few of the early Triang items will run happily over Peco track
made a few years ago.
The 00 scale association was, I thought, set up with the
> objective of setting 00 standards but there is no sign of any success
> as, like the BRMSB 40 years ago, they don't represent a significant
> fraction of the market so the manufacturers can happily ignore them.
>
Yes. I suspect that part of the problem may be that those interested in
pushing new standards invariably demand finer tolerances and
nearer-scale dimensions which Hornby (understandably) refuse point-blank
to entertain. If the "00" association was to demand Bachmann and Peco
kept to existing standards instead of covertly moving to unnecessarily
fine ones, there might be a different result.
Anthony New
> I think it is clear that 00 is long overdue for a workable set of
> standards; and as I have mentioned before, the Double 0 Gauge
> Association was working on various fronts. (I am sure they would
> appreciate the support of some more members!) The Gauge 0 Guild has
> standards for both "coarse" and "fine" scales, so why not the same for
> 00?
Yes, I think everybody agrees with that. The distinction is that most
"0" gauge is built (or at least modified) by hand and can be easily
arranged for fine-scale wheels. Most "00"/16.5mm gauge models are rtr
and used by - how can I put it? - less ernest and possibly less
experienced modellers.
If the "00" standard proposed is based on what the finescale modellers
want to see, then it won't suit the majority of coarse-scale modelers
and will instantly condemn a large number of cherished and attractive
models to the bin unmless they are extensively altered. Fortunately such
a situation is unlikely to happen as long as Hornby are there to protect
us <g> but you take my point I expect.
I think the solution is to have accepted standards for coarse-scale and
finescale "00" track and wheels, with track of the same geometry
available in each range, and with all track clearly labelled for which
standard it suits.
Anthony New
>
> The flangeways are equal on each "arm" of the turnout. The one I
> measured had different flangeways on the straight "arm' to the diverging
> "arm".
>
> For good running through the crossing vee area
>
> The check rails must work to "check" the wheelset away from the crossing
> vee.
>
> The flangeways must be as small as possible so that the gap that the
> wheel tread has to span is as small as possible.
>
> The wheelsets must have a smooth profile with correct profile as to cone
> angle, tread width, effective flange, root radius and the shape of the
> back and front of the flange.
>
> Wheels must be correctly set on their axles so that they don't wobble
> and the dimension (EF + BB) is correct.
>
> To achieve this you need tightly written standards which are adhered to
> and "policed".
>
> As the NMRA have managed this with their H0 Standards, and as UK 00
> gauge uses 16.50mm track gauge why not adopt their H0 wheel and track
> standards?
Because none of the rtr stock in this country made now or at any time in
the past would meet the standards, so you'd have to (a) alter the toling
and/or processes of all the current manufacturers and (b) re-wheel
almost all of the considerable stock in existance on peoples layouts.
ISTM that many of the people who espouse your viewpoint either don't
realise this, or have a viewpoint so firmly entrenched in the UK
finescale habit of making and altering things as a matter of course,
that they don't perhaps appreciate that a large number of modellers
don't want to fiddle with their model's wheels - they expect to buy them
and run them as they are.
Of course the very many US & continental modellers who expect to buy
finescale HO products and run them without alterations on finescale
track are perfectly entitled to be amazed at the current state of UK
"standards", but we can't just change our history by waving a magioc
wand. We have to find a path from where we are at the moment to where we
want to go - and we can't agree even on that!
Anthony New
>
> The flangeways are equal on each "arm" of the turnout. The one I
> measured had different flangeways on the straight "arm' to the diverging
> "arm".
>
> For good running through the crossing vee area
>
> The check rails must work to "check" the wheelset away from the crossing
> vee.
>
> The flangeways must be as small as possible so that the gap that the
> wheel tread has to span is as small as possible.
>
> The wheelsets must have a smooth profile with correct profile as to cone
> angle, tread width, effective flange, root radius and the shape of the
> back and front of the flange.
>
> Wheels must be correctly set on their axles so that they don't wobble
> and the dimension (EF + BB) is correct.
>
> To achieve this you need tightly written standards which are adhered to
> and "policed".
>
I meant to add, that I don't agree with this. ISTM that provided the
wheelsets are sufficiently coarse, these details are relatively
unimportant. Countless model trains run perfectly well on track that has
no effectively operating check rails, and provided the flanges are
consistant flangeways can be quite large and the flanges run along the
bottom. ISTM the problems come when some people want to make everything
much finer scale than others.
As I and others have pointed out, having fine standards, narrow
tolerances, and strong policing doesn't actually make the trains run
more reliably. I see far more derailments on finescale track than on
coarse scale track; I accept that finer scales look better but they
don't obviously run any better (I guess you will disagree with that, but
it makes sense to me).
For example - the smaller the flange depth is the more likely wheels are
to derail over uneven track joints, and the more critical the chassis
becomes in ensuring the wheels remain in contact with the rails. The
wider the back-to-back measurement used, the more chance there is of
awheel taking the wrong path at a frog and the more critical the
checkrail becomes; and the narrower the flangeways and check-rail
clearances become, the more chance of an errant warped axle/wheelset
sticking or jumping over and derailing.
ISTM therefore that there is a real value in a coarse-wheel/track
standard separate from a finescale standard. But standards *do* need to
be agreed - in my view it is just as wrong (perhaps even more so) for
one group to try and push de-facto standards in the finescale direction
without support from everyone else, as it is for others to continue
making what they have done for eons without consulting anyone else.
B.Rumary
> the US production coming out of the same factory. In effect we are
> paying extra cos' the rubbish drives are specially produced for our
> small market. I haven't noticed this supposed 5 or 6 times the price
> on the new Bachman products such as the Warship or N class which are
> essentially following the advice given in this thread.
>
yesterday, and he told me that the new US-outline 0n30 narrow gauge
2-6-0 has a chassis based on one of their UK '00' scale locos.
Apparently it was just the right size, although it had to have new
wheels.
Brian Rumary, England
http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
B.Rumary
> wear on crossing noses. With the normal type of crossing, there is
> still a very slight drop in, even when flangeway gaps and wheel
> profiles are correct, and this causes wear on the nose and the
> knuckles of the wing rails.
>
"high speed" facing points, which can be crossed at much higher speeds
than normal.
Dick Ganderton
Take my previous advice - go away and read everything you can lay your
hands on about wheels and track. When you actually know how it all works
then you can come back and argue from a factual viewpoint. In the
meantime, please don't show your ignorance in public!!
David Breeze
>For example - the smaller the flange depth is the more likely wheels are
>to derail over uneven track joints,
No offence, but that's simply not true. If it were, my tinplate Hornby
'O' gauge with their giant flanges would be the finest running trains
ever made...
Large flanges (which tend to have sharp edges, also part of the problem)
are all too good at catching an uneven joint and derailing. The RP25
wheels have small blunt-edged flanges and tend to be deflected by an
uneven joint rather than riding up over it. The RP25 wheels also have a
proper conical tread pattern which makes them track better round curves,
so like the real thing they are not just relying on the flanges to keep
them on the track anyway. All this is easily demonstrated with a couple
of bits of track and a couple of wagons, one Hornby, one Athearn.
As for the rest of it, if you just want coarse track so that old models
with widely varying wheels can run on it, why not get a pile of Super-4
or something? If we end up with a new standard for track so that any old
coarse wheels can run on it, where's the incentive for the model
manufacturers to do anything better?
--
Dave Breeze
Glasgow,
Scotland
Anthony New
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:34:18 +0000, in uk.rec.models.rail Anthony New
> <a...@wsi.no.junk> wrote:
>
> >Dick Ganderton wrote:
> >
> >> Peco make their track to suit the American & Continental H0 markets and
> >> it's probable that the turnouts fall between the NMRA and NEM standards.
> >>
> >> The problem with the UK 00 market, is and always has been, lack of
> >> workable standards coupled with the lack of will of the modellers to
> >> enforce them and the manufacturers to adhere to them.
> >
> >That's one point of view, which has some merit even though it is
> >contradicted to some extent by the existance of EM, P4, etc. The other
> >point of view is that the problem is that the leading manufacturer of
> >rtr track used by "00" modellers in the UK (Peco) appears not to be
> >interested in designing the track to meet the needs of the majority of
> >the UK "00" modellers, but has decided to sell track dsigned to suit
> >modellers in different scales (H0), principally in other countries.
>
> PECO is a world leader in producing model railway track. It's the top
> brand in North America and sells extremely well in continental Europe.
Is that right? ISTR a newsgroup poll on rec.railroads showed few using
Peco and I've yet to see a Continental layout using it.
> PECO HO track works equally well with NMRA and NEM standards.
>
> Yet you seem to want to knock it, because it does not allow good running
> with the truly dreadful British RTR trains that don't attempt to comply
> with any sort of standard.
>
> I think we should give credit where it's due. PECO Publications may
> have a bizarre, head-in-the-sand attitude to the Internet, but their
> manufacturing division's track is popular across the world (and has been
> for over 20 years). This a great export achievement for a UK
> manufacturer, and I believe we should be proud of PECO.
>
> The fact that UK RTR models are of such a low standard that they have
> problems running on PECO's world-beating track is not something to
> berate PECO about. Rather, it's time the UK model railway industry got
> its act together.
>
I'm not knocking Peco per se - I've used their track for decades for the
simple reasons that it looked better, worked better, and lasted longer
than any other. My complaint is that they have *changed* their specs
without telling anyone in so many words and their recent products *no
longer* run properly with a significant fraction or rtr stock in
existance in this country. This problem keeps on cropping up on layouts,
when people run their favourite old trains and can't understand why they
stick or de-rail over some points but not others.
I wouldn't mind if they restricted their modifications to the code-75
track, but they've altered the code-100 too which IMHO is inexcusable.
/rant/ For heaven's sake - we have EM, P4, S4 and doubless others to
cater for the extreme scale fanatics, and code 75 to cater for the
finescale "00" modellers - why the hell can't we unreconstructed
nostalgics, penny-pinchers, and DIY-averse modellers continue to run all
our old trains on code-100 as well?
/end rant/
> Now that the same Chinese factories that make such excellent models for
> the US market are making Bachmann and Hornby ranges for the UK, we
> should be looking for similar standards here. But as most modellers
> will accept any old crap for the UK market, I doubt it will ever happen.
>
> If you really want to run Hornby Railways trains without problems try
> running them on Hornby track, but be warned: my friends who have tried
> this have had much more success with ... PECO.
>
> Alternatively, buy some original Hornby-Dublo. It seems to run very
> well on PECO Code 100.
And mostly on Peco code 75 too.
>
> --
> Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
--
Anthony New
>
> Anthony
>
> Take my previous advice - go away and read everything you can lay your
> hands on about wheels and track. When you actually know how it all works
> then you can come back and argue from a factual viewpoint. In the
> meantime, please don't show your ignorance in public!!
>
Or alternatively, why don't you stop interfering in a subject of which
you are not interested - model railway stock that runs straight out of
the box - and go and build your ultra-finescale models that derail every
other time they are run at exhibition?
As I have commented before, your views on point construction are simply
irrelevant to coarse-scale rtr. I know my views are right - I've run
countless hundreds of trains through rtr points and the main
track-related problems have been (a) track that hasn't been mounted
flat, and (b) points (chiefly recent Peco) that have insufficient
back-to-back measurment for them to run cleanly.
The suggestions that you and others have made - NMRA standards - would
make the track virtually unsaleable in the UK because none of the
existing rtr stock would run on it. If you can't see the absurdity of
this, try reading my signature.
David Breeze
>The suggestions that you and others have made - NMRA standards - would
>make the track virtually unsaleable in the UK because none of the
>existing rtr stock would run on it. If you can't see the absurdity of
>this, try reading my signature.
Nope. We are happy with the track, we want the models improved so we can
move forward with better quality, more realistic rtr trains.
Jim Guthrie
wrote:
Anthony,
>As I have commented before, your views on point construction are simply
>irrelevant to coarse-scale rtr. I know my views are right - I've run
>countless hundreds of trains through rtr points and the main
>track-related problems have been (a) track that hasn't been mounted
>flat, and (b) points (chiefly recent Peco) that have insufficient
>back-to-back measurment for them to run cleanly.
Here's a quote from the 1958 BRMSB Handbook when talking about
"Universal" track to cope with the variety of wheel profiles then
available in 00.
".......but in the case of turnouts and crossings everything is
subject to the correct back-to-back measurements being in use on the
locomotives and rolling stock in relation to the turnouts through
which they have to pass. A lot of complications and much trouble
can now be avoided by using what are known as "Universal" turnouts.
These have the frogs constructed in such a way that they form a
continuous running face on the rail leading from the switch blade in
use. In this case, the check rail, where one is provided, is
actually a dummy and does not perform its normal function of
preventing the opposite flange striking the nose of the frog"
There's a lot of other relevant discussion which basically boils down
to the fact that if you want to run a wide range of wheel profiles and
standards, then you are not going to be able to model a suitable
crossing to accommodate them. You are going to have to revert to
some form of moving closure/wing rail to close the crossing gap and
get rid of functional check rails. Several manufacturers like Wrenn,
Gem, etc provided such pointwork, so you might like to research their
products of 40-odd years ago to see what their solutions were.
Otherwise, if you want to model prototype style crossings in your
pointwork, then you are going to have to accept the basic geometry
which governs flanged wheels in this situation, and finding a
workable compromise to suit every possibility is probably well nigh
impossible.
As an aside, it is very interesting to read all of George Lake's
words on the problem in the BRMSB Handbook. It reads like a
dignified spin doctor's statement on a problem which was understood,
but about which nothing was being done :-)
Jim.
Bjerg & Olsen
Anthony New skrev i meddelelsen <3842A7...@wsi.no.junk>...
>> PECO is a world leader in producing model railway track. It's the
top
>> brand in North America and sells extremely well in continental
Europe.
>
>Is that right? ISTR a newsgroup poll on rec.railroads showed few using
>Peco and I've yet to see a Continental layout using it.
>
Peco is one of the major brands of track in use among H0 and N scale
modellers here in Denmark.
Faithfully
Erik Olsen
Jonathan Hall
>
> David Lester wrote:
> >
> > In article <383E5D...@wsi.no.junk>, Anthony New writes:
> > > Sorry - I shouldn't have been so cryptic. I wasn't meaning to suggest
> > > there was anyting wrong with the NMRA standards as finescale standards
> > > for H0 modellers, merely implying that they weren't relevant for UK
> > > 4mm:foot scale on 16.5mm gauge.
You've missed the point (excuse the pun) the NMRA standards are for
READY TO RUN stock.
> > ... and the rest of us are suggesting that perhaps it would be a good
> > thing if NMRA standards _were_ in widespread use for OO.
> >
> > In practice this might mean re-wheeling locomotives with: Ultrascale
> > wheels for Diesels, and Romfords for Steam locomotives.
>
> So let me get this straight: Your solution to the "00" gauge problem is
> to redesign the track so that none of the rtr stock will run on it
> without modification?
Can someone clarify, if PECO track is the market leader in the US for HO
track (as has been stated elswhere in this thread) then surely it
complies with NMRA standards? If Peco track is the market leader in the
UK then surely this track allredy supports the standard, and bringing in
the NMRA standards for all new stock will not disadvantage anyone.
> > ... You pays your money and takes your choice...
> >
> > Or you nail down your own track and wheel standards very firmly.
> >
> No - just make sure the track will suit the rolling stock (rather than
> vice versa).
WHY?????????? How many firms produce 'oo/ho' track? How many firms
produce rolling stock or wheelsets?
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Hall
Thames Ditton
My railway website is at http://www.jonhall.mcmail.com/Railways.htm
Jonathan Hall
>
> David Breeze wrote:
> >
> > Anthony New wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea seems to be to produce coarse-
> > scaled track so that the various manufacturers can continue to produce
> > wheels of widely differing dimensions.
>
> ... to produce track on which all current and recent "00" makes will run
> on it, while looking as good as is possible consistant with the primary
> requirement.
You are living in the PAST, what we need now is a STANDARD, if that
standard is a re-aplication of one that works in the real world for HO I
see no reason why it cannot cross to OO.
The standard track will almost by definition have to support MOST of the
existing rolling stock, if it didn't the take up would be like that of
EM or British HO, but you have to accept that some wheelsets just won't
do, and drop-in replacements are simple enough.
> There is no reason for Peco to do
> > that. I would imagine that the US is their biggest market (just open a
> > copy of Model Railroader and see how many of the layouts use Peco
> > track...) so why should they change it to suit British models in
> > particular?
> >
> Fine if they want to do that. But they can't claim it's suitable for UK
> "00" stock as well - or shouldn't do.
But the british OO modellers buy this because they know that it supports
MOST of the stock available, if you are concerned that you do not have
realistic OO track then you have two options:
1. Swap to P4 course scale (such a thing doesn't exist but as the only
proponant you wouldn't need a standard to get other people to support)
2. Swap to British HO (perhaps this is what we all should do, it would
make this standard much easier!)
> > Surely it makes more sense for the manufacturers of British models to
> > conform to a standard that suits the existing track. They are after all
> > in the minority here. And if we're looking for a standard, why invent a
> > new one when a perfectly good one was developed over the last 50-odd
> > years by the NMRA?
>
> Why change all our models that have been running happily for 30 years
> just to suit the standards invented in a foreign country who don't even
> model in our scale?
BUT THEY HAVENT BEEN RUNNING HAPPILY if they had we wouldn't be talking
about a standard!
> > The fact that the models are just about all made in the same factories
> > in china can only make it easier.
>
> But not better!
The infrastructure to move to this set of standards exists right now!
(at least for Bachman and I suspect Hornby) it would leave Lima at a
small disadvantage, however they use metal wheels extensivly and I
imagine could swap fairly quickly, or is there a 'european wheel
standard' that they could already be using?
Jon