The Heybridge Railway, 1889 to 1913

[Eastsidepilot]

S7
A dog can eat like a king View attachment 225148

I'll bet Dennis does !

 

[Eastsidepilot]

............ and less restrictive than 33.

All my mates can run their stock on each others layout

 

[adrian]

Not quite sure how this helps Richard who's settled on a variation of 32mm.

 

[simond]

All my mates can run their stock on each others layout

yeah, but…

Some 25 years back, when I (re-)started in 0 gauge, I had no chance of a layout on which I could get any real running, so I was dependent on a couple of mates who had garden lines (and the Folkestone club’s 7mm section which also had two layouts) all of which were 32mm to G0G-F standards.

so, build stock to S7 and run rarely, or build to G0G-F, and use the stock I’d built? (And socialise with local mates)
And when building track, build to 32 or 31.5?

not so difficult a question!

 

[Richard Gawler]

Some early Heljan wheels did not have a proper profile to the tyre, just a flat flange, no coning and steam roller width which even caused problems running through sloppy Peco points !. The answer is to re-profile with a F/S profile tool.

Thanks Col. I can store this away and one day I will find it useful.

 

[Richard Gawler]

I have seen few 7 mm layouts I would find satisfying to operate over any extended period, and needless to say I don’t find operating at home terribly engaging. I am sure this is because my layouts are never sufficiently complex. I do enjoy seeing my trains running over a decent distance, and I currently have access to at least five tracks to do this. Only the NEEGOG one supports analogue DC, but now I have two battery-powered locos I have a choice of motive power for the dead track at CSME, the stud-contact at a friend's layout, the three-rail in another garden, and the DCC at the friend of a friend. And this sort of roundy-roundy running is more fun with company.

This is why I favour 0-F wheelsets and compatible track gauges for the Heybridge Railway.

I would try for 32 mm near the tips of the point blades next time I build a turnout. I think it makes life that little bit easier, and if the trackwork is gently flowing with few if any straight rails then the variation in gauge will never show.

This is why I favour allowing myself 32 mm instead of 31.5 mm gauge from time to time.

I included a Setrack point in my diorama of Heybridge Basin so I could see whether models would negotiate a Setrack point, not because I especially wanted 32 mm gauge. Indeed, the gauge of this sample goes down smaller despite my efforts to manipulate the curved blade.

It also allows stock to travel in a straight line rather than crab about all over the shop.

I haven't seen crabbing at home or outdoors, but my battery locos do barely 15 and 20 mph. I can take a video camera to a 32 mm track and put some of my wagons behind a faster loco, see what happens.

And when building track, build to 32 or 31.5?

not so difficult a question!

I cannot see the difference between the two gauges on plain line, but I will admit to using 31.5 at the back of the layout and 32 at the back because I had fold-up gauges for the FB and turned gauges for the BH. I had a hunch it would make the layout look bigger too, but it doesn't.

Since then, I've bought a set of Deb's turned gauges for 31.5. I hardly need a written standard for a one-man project, but I will probably now use 31.5 wherever I can, and ease this out where it helps construction or running.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

yeah, but…

Some 25 years back, when I (re-)started in 0 gauge, I had no chance of a layout on which I could get any real running, so I was dependent on a couple of mates who had garden lines (and the Folkestone club’s 7mm section which also had two layouts) all of which were 32mm to G0G-F standards.

so, build stock to S7 and run rarely, or build to G0G-F, and use the stock I’d built? (And socialise with local mates)
And when building track, build to 32 or 31.5?

not so difficult a question!

The 'grin' emoji is not the same as a tongue in cheek one.
I do understand where your coming from Simond, model railways has always been about compromise of different levels for us even in S7.

Col.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Since then, I've bought a set of Deb's turned gauges for 31.5. I hardly need a written standard for a one-man project, but I will probably now use 31.5 wherever I can, and ease this out where it helps construction or running.

If you keep to a 31.5mm standard through out you could improve the look of the stock and loco's and get away with using S7 wheel profile ?

 

[simond]

The 'grin' emoji is not the same as a tongue in cheek one.
I do understand where your coming from Simond, model railways has always been about compromise of different levels for us even in S7.

Col.

to quote one of my Scots mates, "Aye, I think we're in violent agreement!"

 

[Richard Gawler]

If you keep to a 31.5mm standard through out you could improve the look of the stock and loco's and get away with using S7 wheel profile ?

Well, such a move will surely reduce interoperability. In particular, the club SM32 track suffers from rail creep whereby three consecutive 2 mm gaps between rail ends become two butt joins and a 6 mm gap. We haven't found a way to stop this, the mechanism is like the way stones rise in a flower bed. Other people's tracks have lateral discontinities (like a sideways step at rail joints) and of course Peco and coarser pointwork.

My 0-F wheels cope; a narrower profile with a shallower flange looks to me like asking for trouble. One day, I'll have a go. My chaldron wagon (May 2022) rarely runs anywhere and would look cool with finer wheels.

 

[Hayfield1]

yeah, but…

Some 25 years back, when I (re-)started in 0 gauge, I had no chance of a layout on which I could get any real running, so I was dependent on a couple of mates who had garden lines (and the Folkestone club’s 7mm section which also had two layouts) all of which were 32mm to G0G-F standards.

so, build stock to S7 and run rarely, or build to G0G-F, and use the stock I’d built? (And socialise with local mates)
And when building track, build to 32 or 31.5?

not so difficult a question!

Simon and others

Coming from a track builders perspective with mainly 4mm scale experience, a couple of years back we had similar discussions re 00 gauge and 00SF. Given firstly many new RTR models are built to finer standards plus the up take of kit building using finer scale wheels (Gibson's) many were noticing erratic movements through RTR and kit built turnouts and crossings, plus modelers wanted a finer scale appearance through crossings..

One solution was to narrow the gap between the wing and check rails (00GA fine), which gave a more scale appearance but required a wider back to back setting. An easier solution was to both go for finer wing and check rail gaps and narrow the track gauge to 16.2mm. Resulting in a better looking and running crossing, but at the cost of narrowing the gauge even more

From what I see moving into 7mm scale a similar situation sits with GOG fine and 0MF. Firstly the difference between GOGf and Scale 7 on the face of it is only 1mm, nowhere near as bad as between 00 and P4, but as with 00 gauge O gauge was designed at a time for use with coarser scale wheels than we have now either in RTR of kits. The same issue of overscale flange width persists in 7mm as 4mm scales, and the less smooth running through crossings. 0MF like 00SF is designed to both visually to look better and improve running, but allows the use of RTR wheels without re-gauging. Again all be it reduces the gauge even further, though in 7mm scale the difference between 0 and scale 7 is much less that 00 & P4

One thing to be aware about 00SF & 0MF is on smaller radius turnouts and crossings, gauge widening might be needed and of with kit built locos introducing a small amount of side play with the drivers. You might even have to gauge widen at places

Standing back as a track builder and looking at ready to run turnouts is the un-prototypical design of RTR trackwork, I understand the reasons why, as far as commercial trackwork construction is concerned, but it looks wrong !!! Especially Set Track with over short check rails and short over bent check rail flanges

I totally accept for those who rely on RTR that they cannot easily convert to Scale 7, but they could convert to using better looking turnouts.

In the past (and it still does) Templot provides 2D plans of prototypically looking trackwork, until now not everyone has the skills or time to build said trackwork , with soaring track kit prices you could even add affordability of track kits, as a reason, though RTR turnouts are nearly as dear

Plans are afoot to make available plans/files for easy to build trackwork at affordable prices, turnouts initially, but not only to a very much wider range of sizes, but radii as well, all to a prototypical design. Easy to build and its just as easy to make with a gauge of 31.5mm or 33mm gauge as it is in 32mm gauge

As you can see, in my opinion before you worry about flangeway gaps, take a look at the actual total visual appearance, before worrying about the odd 0.5mm. With a little thought and effort a much better visual appearance can be achieved. I do like to see stock running smoothly through crossings, but before you get down to altering flangeway gaps, please sort out the much larger abnormalities first, if you do that you may not even feel the need to worry about the odd half a mm

John

 

[Richard Gawler]

I think everyone has a stash unless they have chosen a scale with no commercial support. This is mine, recently slimmed down to nine models:
. . .

The first model from my stash is the Ragstone kit for a GER single bolster wagon to diagram 29. These wagons were built from 1889 to 1898 with wooden sides (later ones had steel sides), and the model will be useful when the railway carries timber overhanging the end of a wagon.


The kit includes buffers and couplings, and I’ve bought it a set of wheels.


The castings include some lost wax ones with very neat details.


In fact I think they are worth a photo of their own.


To begin, the four sides of the floor fold up and laminations go onto the outsides.

I think my soldering skills are evolving through three stages. The first stage was to make something that held together. The second was to do this neatly, and the third (underway) is to do it so it doesn’t show.

 

[Dog Star]

Excellent, I shall be pleased to read about your progress.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Progress is already as good as building one of Jim McGeown's kits. Everything is fitting together without modification or substitution.

I have decided to deviate from the sequence of assembly suggested in the instructions. I want to treat the capping and corners on the body as detail parts, and add them later using 145 degree solder. This lets me complete the structural parts with the 188 degree solder.


The lengths of the sole bars confirm that the buffer beams need to go on flush with the outsides of the ends.


This is my second buffer beam before cleaning up.


Then I added the solebars with their end plates. Solder is becoming visible but the cleaning up was minimal. I have soldered up the folds in the buffer beams to give them strength, and left the folds in the solebars untouched for vanity.

This completes the assembly I want to do with 188 degree solder. Everything else can go on with detail solder, low melt solder and possibly glue.

 

[Richard Gawler]

I always struggle with making picture frames, and the four capping strips are like a miniature picture frame.


This is the worst of my four corners. The etches are spot-on; the errors are from my assembly and somewhat abrupt corrective actions with a file.


The corner plates are more tricky because they have to go on near several soldered joints. I made the hand vise as part of my O level Metalwork and this still comes in useful.


The vise held everything together and provided a heat sink.


I have plenty of evidence of heat, but no solder to clean up.


Making up the bolster assembly, I fitted the two stanchions first. This let me drill the two holes for the D link pivots right through the edges of the stanchions. I bought a pillar drill a few weeks ago, a Proxxon TBM220. This is the first time I have used it and first impressions are very good. It is so much easier to hold the workpiece and let the feed take the drill through the work.


The D-links are free to swivel at the moment though of course the paint may change this.

This leaves the wheels, brake gear and buffers still to do. This has been a lovely kit to build so far, everything fits together perfectly.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Here are the axle guards before I tidied them up. All of the castings in this kit are very neat.


I have assembled so many unsprung sprung buffers I decided to fit the buffer stocks now, before the axle guards. This turned out to be a good idea. I have cut a corner out of each axle guard to make a space to let the buffer stems move.


My obsession with doing things neatly has taken me to using masking tape to control the flux and solder.


The tape is probably a step too far but it does work.


The wheels are from Slaters, with the axles hot blued in vegetable oil and the tyres cold blued with Perma Blue. The axle guard nearest the camera was missing its axle box retainer and I made a new one from wire.


I drilled out one axle box oversize. The associated wheel bearing is packed with epoxy glue and the model suspended from its axles while the glue sets. The callipers are here to make sure the axles are parallel in the vertical plane.


I have a rolling chassis and in this case not far short of a wagon. I tacked the bolster pads down with 100 degree solder and this is very visible because I daren't try sweating white metal castings onto brass.

 

[simond]

I have had some success sweating wm to brass as follows.

Tin brass with normal solder, I use rosin cored electrical tin-lead for everything as I’ve got enough to see me out. Use a suitably aggressive flux like Powerflow, and aim to get the tinning to be a uniform molecule thick ( or less ). Swap soldering irons. Add some more flux and then over-tin, and “dot” the 70 degree solder where you'll want to solder the casting on. You’ll want to tin the casting with low melt too.

then the magic bit. Hold the casting in place (with your finger!) and apply the high temp soldering iron to the brass. You can see the lowmelt start to melt, at which point remove the iron, press the casting into position as the dots melt, and wait the few seconds until it solidifies. Et voila!

 

[Richard Gawler]

Thanks for this Simon. I have attached all of the whitemetal castings on this wagon, but I can try sweating them next time. I think this will be neater.

On the bright side, my efforts (one below) will end up hidden under the bolster.