Yorkshire Dave
Western Thunderer
How much does it weigh in it's current state?
Flaxfield- A bucolic 1950s Suffolk backwater
- Thread starter NHY 581
- Start date
How much does it weigh in it's current state?
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
Um...........no idea.....stand by...
Yorkshire Dave
Western Thunderer
Thanks - two and a half bags of sugar.... and counting.
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
Morning Dave.
Indeed. 5lbs 8ozs or there abouts in old money. Why for you do ask ?
Rob
Last edited:
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
Morning all,
Yesterday evening, when I should have been working on the layout, I plonked some track down on the new baseboard and ran some trains.
Trackwork was PECO Bullhead, medium radius points and plain track. Due to the temporary lash up nature of the ensemble, power to track, none to frogs.
Running was interesting. I have already been chatting elsewhere about the issues some have had with these points but the summary is this........
There is gauge narrowing through the curved section of the point. Others more qualified than me measured and established it's 16.2, which I understand to be consistent with 00/FS.
I, like others, have a nice selection of wagons by Rapido. They're lovely, state of the art ( Darling ) and I intend to use them, a lot. However, the B2B vary up to 14.8. Combine this with narrow pointage and as I saw last night it makes for interesting progress through the points.
Locos..........I want to use short wheelbase locos. For testing last night, I used a Hattons P Class, actually a couple and a Dapol Rails Terrier. Neither coped well through the frogs. The P class stuttered but got through. The Terrier just stopped and sulked. The Terrier lacked side play on the driven axle ( in this case beneath the cab ) so reversing through the frog just didn't happen. Forwards there was an improvement but only marginally.
Other locos were tried. A Hornby J 15 was fine though the tender was a bit tight going through. I think this was due to the tender chassis base plate being a tad tight thus reducing side play and the centre axle being a bit tight.
Bachmann USA tank sailed through as did a Bachmann 1F and Jinty.
A Dapol B4, normally a benchmark for good running wasn't particularly happy, neither was a new Hawthorn Leslie but stuttered through.
I didn't do any measuring of loco B2B but I think the main issue was that of varying wheel profiles. The Terrier looked chunkier to the eye than say the J15.
I'm therefore in a bit of a quandary. Do I persevere with the Bullhead points, lay and wire them properly with the chance I may not obtain the running I want ( mindful that to do this may well require the re-wheeling of any Rapido wagons used thereon ) or do I revert to Code 75 Streamline points, laid and wired as per as I know all the above locos run well through them.....I am certainly of a mind to use British Finescale kit built points on Flaxfield in light of the above but given the space constraints on this test piece, I want to stay with proprietary ready to lay points at this stage as I'm not yet proficient enough to make my own pointage......and the main reason for this 'test piece was to make sure I understand fitting point motors, powering frogs adding droppers etc etc.
Decisions, decisions.....
Rob.
Yesterday evening, when I should have been working on the layout, I plonked some track down on the new baseboard and ran some trains.
Trackwork was PECO Bullhead, medium radius points and plain track. Due to the temporary lash up nature of the ensemble, power to track, none to frogs.
Running was interesting. I have already been chatting elsewhere about the issues some have had with these points but the summary is this........
There is gauge narrowing through the curved section of the point. Others more qualified than me measured and established it's 16.2, which I understand to be consistent with 00/FS.
I, like others, have a nice selection of wagons by Rapido. They're lovely, state of the art ( Darling ) and I intend to use them, a lot. However, the B2B vary up to 14.8. Combine this with narrow pointage and as I saw last night it makes for interesting progress through the points.
Locos..........I want to use short wheelbase locos. For testing last night, I used a Hattons P Class, actually a couple and a Dapol Rails Terrier. Neither coped well through the frogs. The P class stuttered but got through. The Terrier just stopped and sulked. The Terrier lacked side play on the driven axle ( in this case beneath the cab ) so reversing through the frog just didn't happen. Forwards there was an improvement but only marginally.
Other locos were tried. A Hornby J 15 was fine though the tender was a bit tight going through. I think this was due to the tender chassis base plate being a tad tight thus reducing side play and the centre axle being a bit tight.
Bachmann USA tank sailed through as did a Bachmann 1F and Jinty.
A Dapol B4, normally a benchmark for good running wasn't particularly happy, neither was a new Hawthorn Leslie but stuttered through.
I didn't do any measuring of loco B2B but I think the main issue was that of varying wheel profiles. The Terrier looked chunkier to the eye than say the J15.
I'm therefore in a bit of a quandary. Do I persevere with the Bullhead points, lay and wire them properly with the chance I may not obtain the running I want ( mindful that to do this may well require the re-wheeling of any Rapido wagons used thereon ) or do I revert to Code 75 Streamline points, laid and wired as per as I know all the above locos run well through them.....I am certainly of a mind to use British Finescale kit built points on Flaxfield in light of the above but given the space constraints on this test piece, I want to stay with proprietary ready to lay points at this stage as I'm not yet proficient enough to make my own pointage......and the main reason for this 'test piece was to make sure I understand fitting point motors, powering frogs adding droppers etc etc.
Decisions, decisions.....
Rob.
76043
Western Thunderer
Hi Rob,
Well, 16.2 isn't going to make for a satisfying exhibition layout, good running is vital as we all know. @Quintus reported the EM versions narrow to 18mm, so I'd be tempted to report it to PECO as others have if you want to. They do listen to feedback.
I do know from my contact at Peco that they are handmade, hopefully it's being looked at.
Tony
Well, 16.2 isn't going to make for a satisfying exhibition layout, good running is vital as we all know. @Quintus reported the EM versions narrow to 18mm, so I'd be tempted to report it to PECO as others have if you want to. They do listen to feedback.
I do know from my contact at Peco that they are handmade, hopefully it's being looked at.
Tony
That’s a very revealing post — to me anyway. I confess to almost total ignorance of and zero practical experience with present-day 00. But the issues you describe, notably variation in gauge in hand-assembled turnouts and differences in wheel profile between manufacturers, are very familiar. Both problems are issues for my vintage model railway and present in pre-WW1 equipment. I have many times cursed the manufacturing short-comings that have me rebuilding points to make them useable. A little bit of me wishing I could simply go to the model shop and buy present-day ready-to-run equipment that I could just use — immediately, straight out of the box, problem-free. It turns out, from what you say, the grass is not greener on the other side of the model railway fence. What on earth are modern manufacturers doing? I had, naively it appears, assumed these kinds of issues had been sorted long ago. The model railway industry was less than ten years old when my track was designed — so plenty of collective learning to do. It’s understandable it wasn’t perfect. There is surely no excuse for the problems you describe in 2024.
Quintus
Western Thunderer
Rob, if you are having problems with ready to lay points, may I encourage you try a Finetrax point kit.
I am no lover of track building, but I assembled an A5 kit in less than a couple of hours, and it worked first time, with no fettling and faffing,
I suspect after building the first kit, a second one could be built in much less time.
It may save you time in the long run !
regards
Mike
I am no lover of track building, but I assembled an A5 kit in less than a couple of hours, and it worked first time, with no fettling and faffing,
I suspect after building the first kit, a second one could be built in much less time.
It may save you time in the long run !
regards
Mike
Last edited:
AJC
Western Thunderer
The issue is wider than that - the wheel standards (widths, flange depths, etc), vary within loco ranges. The two Hornby Pecketts have markedly different profiles from one another, they're different again from Bachmann's rough standard, and so on. I think the wagon and coach wheels are generally consistent within product ranges, but since I work in EM, I tend to replace on spec'.
Adam
Ian@StEnochs
Western Thunderer
Rob,
It was very similar experiences that prompted me into ditching OO and adopting P4 standards in 1972. One set of standards, which work, rather than every manufacturing reinventing the wheel. Did the same again in the 90s when I tried O gauge and quickly went S7.
RTR would probably be fine if we built our railways only using one makers track and stock but we all know that isn’t what modellers want. OK a bit more effort needed to convert stock and build track but so much more satisfying, in my opinion.
Ian
It was very similar experiences that prompted me into ditching OO and adopting P4 standards in 1972. One set of standards, which work, rather than every manufacturing reinventing the wheel. Did the same again in the 90s when I tried O gauge and quickly went S7.
RTR would probably be fine if we built our railways only using one makers track and stock but we all know that isn’t what modellers want. OK a bit more effort needed to convert stock and build track but so much more satisfying, in my opinion.
Ian
AJC
Western Thunderer
That assumes that the RTR suppliers maintain consistent standards in wheel profiles. They don't.
Adam
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
Indeed, Adam. It's extremely frustrating, but it wouldn't have been a problem for me, if I hadn't had the stupidity to use OO-SF on the crossover on Bethesda...
As I see it (OO-SF notwithstanding), the problems mainly revolve around B2Bs, flange thickness and flange depth.
Of all the RTR that I've tried on the OO-SF on Bethesda, the main culprits were the Accurascale Manor and the Planet Industrials Kerr Stuart. Both feature wheels of the same (thick) flange thickness, even though their B2Bs are 14.5mm. Both were made in the same Chinese factory.
Most other RTR are OK, although the deeper Hornby flanges on the B2 Peckett don't like the inside of the chairs on the older C&L bullhead track I've used on the rest of the layout. Mind you, the older (deeper) Romford flanges don't like it either, but I haven't found them to be a problem with Peco plain bullhead flexi track.
daifly
Western Thunderer
Martin Wynne of Templot fame is (quite rightly) always banging on about the importance of 'Check Gauge". This is is equal to the back-to-back dimension plus the effective flange thickness (of one wheel). Locos and rolling stock won't consistently and safely pass through crossings without adherence to a standard dimension.
Deviate from a standard value at your peril!
Dave
Deviate from a standard value at your peril!
Dave
Yorkshire Dave
Western Thunderer
Always interested in looking at how others build their baseboards and from what materials. I'm always trying to keep mine lightweight, strong and able to carry comfortably with one hand. I keep looking at aircraft wing construction and other lightweight materials to garner ideas.
Yorkshire Dave
Western Thunderer
Recommended standards exist (or existed) under BRMSB but it is apparent manufacturers for the UK market fail to follow them. Seems odd when the same manufacturers produce HO models to NMRA or NEM standards for their respective markets. Maybe it's because the UK 4mm RTR market is considered insignificant when compared to the global HO market.
Jordan
Mid-Western Thunderer
Jordan
Mid-Western Thunderer
I second this.
The only way to get proficient is to make a start!! If I can make points that work, from pcb and filing rails, anyone can - a proprietary kit should help no end, as the hard work has been done for you - you're more than halfway to success right from the off!!
The other 'learning' matters (point motors, frog wiring etc) are a moot point (sorry! No pun intended
) if locos and stock fail the basic test of successful turnout negotiation in all directions.
76043
Western Thunderer
I stumbled across Q-board in the reduced section at B&Q and got a roughly 1200 x 600 x 30mm board for a fiver.
Qboard Construction boards for diy bathroom renovation
Renovate your bathroom just the way you want it with lightweight, strong Qboard construction boards. Level walls, build furniture, anything is possible.
www.myqboard.com
It is pink foam innards with some sort of glass fibre matting on the outside, hoping to use it for the next layout whenever that is....
Feels very light and strong.
Tony