Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
following on from the insulfrog thread, and the HO thread, I recently re-read an article in MRJ concerning a way of sorting a problem with wheel dimensions and checkrail measurements.

Although applying to O gauge, finescale and Scaleseven, it is equally relevant to to 4mm EM, ec.

The problem was, if attempting true finescale measurements with checkrail gauge, etc, to smooth the passage of wheelsets through point crossings....one usually had to change not just trackage, but wheelsets as well.

If the wheelsets were changed, that apparently limited the ability to use stock on another's layout......so with Scaleseven, the trackage was changed, but thte wheelsets remained the same.

same with 18.2mm gauge EM.

which results in better track appearance, but no ''improvement'' in the smooth passage of wheels through crossings.

The answer was...TO REDUCE THE TRACK GAUGE....which sorted the running problems.

so.....in my view, concerning OO gauge track....perhaps to improve things yet retain universality...simply ''finescale'' the checkrail gauges??

as per DOGA?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
what I ran out of time to say was......bringing the running rails closer together..ie nearer the check rails/wing rails, enabled ''coarser'' dimensioned wheelsets to enjoy a less bumpy ride, and gives one's trackage a more 'realistic' appearance.......a major issue with the likes of Peco points, etc, is for me the huge 'gaps' between check rails and running rails....and huge gaps at point crossings.

the outcome of the article was that...rather than change the wheelsets....narrow the gauge.

Hence, keeping to [scaleseven] check rail gauges, ie gaps between check rails...yet retaining finescale 7mm wheelsets..the easy answer is to reduce the track guage to 31mm from 32 mm....apparently the percentage reduction ingauge is less...ie more tolerable, than decreasing the checkrail gauge.

hence, smooth-as-silk passage through points.

for EM....with its current 18.2mm track gauge.......reducing to 18mm gauge ensures the same smooth passage.

so there IS a valid reason for not having a dead-scale track gauge?

plus.......track gauge itself isn't a constant value....it varies depending on whether the trackage is straight, or on a curve.....[which Setrack doesn't seem to].....so whether one has a gauge of 16.5mm, or 18.2mm, or whatever....really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things...
it's what it operates like that really counts?
 
G

·
QUOTE (alastairq @ 21 Aug 2008, 18:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>what I ran out of time to say was......bringing the running rails closer together..ie nearer the check rails/wing rails, enabled ''coarser'' dimensioned wheelsets to enjoy a less bumpy ride, and gives one's trackage a more 'realistic' appearance.......a major issue with the likes of Peco points, etc, is for me the huge 'gaps' between check rails and running rails....and huge gaps at point crossings.

the outcome of the article was that...rather than change the wheelsets....narrow the gauge.

Thats exactly what the OO-SF standards are for.

QUOTE for EM....with its current 18.2mm track gauge.......reducing to 18mm gauge ensures the same smooth passage.

so there IS a valid reason for not having a dead-scale track gauge?

No this a compromise to overcome the problems with EM gauge (EM is NOT to scale!). At the end of the day as far as the track is concerned OO-SF, EM and P4 all have the same amount of effort required to produce. However OO-SF and EM come with the added frustration that they are still wrong and TBH look very wrong to the eyes of someone who knows what track should look like.

Ok - OO-SF looks quite good until you stick a loco on it - then it looks like meter gauge!

However, its your train set.

Cheers

Jim

PS - did you know not all mainlike track in the UK is 4 ft 8 and a half inch gauge? BR did change the gauge in the early 80's (narrower) in an effort to reduce "hunting" The good old 4 ft 8 and a half inch gauge is now standard again though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
QUOTE Ok - OO-SF looks quite good until you stick a loco on it - then it looks like meter gauge!

only if viewed end-on.......which might well be impossible for a lot of layouts?

QUOTE No this a compromise to overcome the problems with EM gauge (EM is NOT to scale!).

still a valid reason, surely? Most scales and gauges involve some sort of compromise.....if only to make them more workable.

P4, for example......whilst workable in all respects, will provide limited reliability unless stock has running gear which is flexible enough to make use of finer wheel shapes......suspension/compensation, whilst not absolutely essential, seems to be deemed necessary by those who use it and write in the press......

EM, on the other hand, retains some of the appearance advantages of P4, but seems to be less sensitive regarding the operation of wheelsets......a compromise, true......but one that seems more acceptable to many?

However, the angle I was trying to get at, referred to issues raised about scales and gauges....the point being that sometimes, for improved running qualities without totally dedicated track and stock, some have actually promoted gauge reduction...which rather flies in the face of some accepted views.

For my own views, I prefer to have a nice fine check gauge /wheelset relationship, with bump-free running, which is regardless of gauge......[not that I'm against any of those accepted gauges]........although I do wonder sometimes at the significance of what amounts to about half a millimetre, twixt P4 and EM....the wingspan of nits on a gnat's nuts.........as I am pushed to differentiate on appearance alone, on plain track.....so is some of it actually QUOTE in the mind?

ie, happy in the knowing?

and why shouldn't P4 checkrail dimensions, etc, work for EM or OO?

or are we supposed to lock ourselves into laid-down standards for each gauge discipline?
 
G

·
QUOTE (alastairq @ 22 Aug 2008, 23:29) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>P4, for example......whilst workable in all respects, will provide limited reliability unless stock has running gear which is flexible enough to make use of finer wheel shapes......suspension/compensation, whilst not absolutely essential, seems to be deemed necessary by those who use it and write in the press......

Well as someone who uses it and "writes in the press" it most certainly is NOT necessary. desirable, yes Necessary, no!

QUOTE EM, on the other hand, retains some of the appearance advantages of P4, but seems to be less sensitive regarding the operation of wheelsets......a compromise, true......but one that seems more acceptable to many?

Thats true, Em stock certainly clunks around more than P4 stock does - which was the original point wasn't it?

QUOTE and why shouldn't P4 checkrail dimensions, etc, work for EM or OO?

or are we supposed to lock ourselves into laid-down standards for each gauge discipline?

They will - if you use a p4 profile tyre! The reliability and care in workmanship will be identical though so why go through all that and not do it to the correct gauge in the first place. All that work and still wrong! LOL


Cheers

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
QUOTE They will - if you use a p4 profile tyre! The reliability and care in workmanship will be identical though so why go through all that and not do it to the correct gauge in the first place. All that work and still wrong! LOL

the whole point of what I was reading about , was the retention of interchangeability of stock twixt individuals' layouts.

something that cannot realistically be achieved between the various [4mm scale] disciplines.

Either for gauge reasons, or for wheel profile reasons.

However, taking things a step further, there IS no reason why EM gauge stock cannot be interchangeable......with other EM layouts, yet individuals can still achieve smooth running through crossings,etc.....apparently by narrowing their individual gauges....ie from 18.2mm to 18mm, as was suggested in the article?
Leaving the checkrail gauge as is?

it is all about folk actually making-do with the wheel dimensions they already have, and others have........

QUOTE hats true, Em stock certainly clunks around more than P4 stock does - which was the original point wasn't it?absolutely..and the article suggested a solution to that clunking, without losing the ability to share with others.........by judicious gauge narrowing..[instead of widening the check gauge, which would need changes in wheel dimensions, which would lose that sharing ability?]

QUOTE Well as someone who uses it and "writes in the press" it most certainly is NOT necessary. desirable, yes Necessary, no!

which is what was originally quoted, in as many words?

However, as someone who avidly reads anything to do with the finer scale issues, the overall impression I get is that compensation/suspension seems to be the rule rather than the exception, for the likes of P4.

A quick perusal of the Scalefour Society and CLAG homepages seems to affirm my impressions.

I re-iterate, I have nothing but full support for P4, EM, etc, [and have even dabbled in the more 'left-field' of scales]......and fully understand their advantages.

It just seems to me somewhat at odds with general views [expressed herein] concerning OO, 4mm scale, HO and all those concerns over GAUGE.....for someone [long ago] to come up with an almost opposite solution to running quality and appearance.
 
G

·
QUOTE (alastairq @ 26 Aug 2008, 21:41) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It just seems to me somewhat at odds with general views [expressed herein] concerning OO, 4mm scale, HO and all those concerns over GAUGE.....for someone [long ago] to come up with an almost opposite solution to running quality and appearance.

It definately sits at odds with logic, I am with you 100% on that. It does work though.

Cheers

Jim
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top