Model Railway Forum banner
901 - 920 of 925 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #901 ·
Some very nice modelling there Graham! It is always interesting to see techniques used on other scales, as they are often very transferrable!

<SNIP>
With kits, it is a different situation. Generally, the W irons are much more fragile than RTR which is why I recommend constructing chassis and fitting the wheels at the same time as the solebars are glued to the base plate so that the W irons don't need bending apart to fit the wheels later - your [Cameron's] step 4. I would add that once the glue has partially set, I do check for squareness and sitting flat on rails/glass sheet before I allow it to set fully. I dry run fit to ensure that I don't have W irons tilting inwards or outwards - sadly, this is quite a big problem on Parkside 7mm kits.
<SNIP>
I will say that I haven't found much issue with the solebars on kit wagons being overly fragile, although it may be simply that if anything I have had so little experience with RTR I'm not aware of how much tougher they are....! You do raise a good point which I missed off my 'steps' of checking chassis squareness on a flat surface (pane of glass).

One problem I have had on a couple of Cambrian kits was that whilst I successfully assembled them 'square to ground', I ended up with one as a slight parallelogram (i.e. the axleboxes were not quite opposite each other!).

<SNIP>
I am a big advocate of kit building wagons and would encourage everyone to have a go. We are blessed with so much variety from Dapol, Parkside, Cambrian, Ratio/Peco and many others. They are a quick and cheap way to build up a fleet very quickly which is also different to RTR products. Some of mine:

Building the Dapol Meat Van Kit - Model Railways On-Line
Building the Parkside BR Fruit Van Van Kit - Model Railways On-Line
Building the Parkside BR Standard Van Van Kit - Model Railways On-Line
Building the Parkside GWR Mink G Van Kit - Model Railways On-Line
https://modelrailways.online/Pages/Vu/Weathering16TMineralWagons
Agreed completely on encouraging tackling kits. They can also teach you a lot about how the prototype functioned.

Just a further comment on chassis squareness: in 4mm scale we generally just make sure that the axles are perpendicular to the rails and the wheels sit firmly on the rail heads with no rocking and provided this is sorted, you're good to go. In 7mm, you begin to understand the issues of the prototype because if you don't build a chassis squarely, the effects of the prototype start to come into play. For example, if you don't get the axles dead-perpendicular to the rails, a vehicle will 'hunt' (move sideways) from one side to the other as it changes direction and will appear 'out of line' with other vehicles in a train. This of course, does depend on what your wheel/rail standards are, but in current 'finescale' 7mm, there is sideplay between wheels and rails, just as there is in 4mm. In 7mm, the coning of wheels also comes into play. On the prototype, this is compensated with sprung suspension, but it highlights a need for some form of compensation in 7mm - if you don't have it, a vehicle can rock due to the wheel tread coning. Assembling on a level glass sheet (using flanges as a means of determining rocking) is a reliable tool, but you do need to check sitting on rails as well.
Just some observational thoughts!
The vehicle dynamics of models is a very interesting subject, as 34C noted the wheel profile also has quite the effect and hunting remains a problem even on 12":1' today! Unfortunately as I currently completely lack a layout I'm not able to test properly the response of mine!

Further to which, the coning of the tyres is effective in 4mm. Dapol accidentally supplied the proof by (some dozen years past) putting a batch of wheels with parallel tyres in some of their wagons (the one I particularly recall was the 6 wheel milk tank) which would randomly derail as a result. Changing these wheels for any other conventionally coned tyred wheelset fixed the problem completely.
Hearing of that issue was one of the reasons why I decided to standardise on Gibson wheels for wagons (also the fact that they look nicer than the Hornby/Dapol/Bachmann wheels!)

Best Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #902 ·
Diagram O19 Open C (Continued)
Good progress has been made on the Open C, with it now substantially complete.

The chassis remained fiddly, although it certainly does look very nice once complete!

The brake shoes folded up and soldered in place, however it does feel a lot less sturdy than the etchings from other manufacturers - I suspect that a softer grade of brass has been used. The pull rod that goes to the ratchet is simply threaded on and not actually soldered in place yet as I wanted to do this in one go once things were all positioned roughly.
Circuit component Electronic instrument Engineering Hardware programmer Electronic component


Next on the docket; the DCII ratchet....! I can definitely say that this was one of the most challenging bits, although it does come out beautifully!
Wood Twig Pest Parasite Hardwood


....And fitted in place!
Wood Metal Bicycle part Auto part Plywood

Wheel Automotive tire Motor vehicle Wood Automotive exterior


As noted above, the rodding looks very nice once all in place!
Musical instrument Product Brass instrument Wind instrument Gas


Next up.... fitting the body....! I started by gluing the ends in place using some gel superglue.
Table Finger Wood Marker pen Paint


The sides fitted very snugly in place, with butanone applied to affix them to the ends. The chassis is ~2mm narrower than the inside face of the solebars for some reason, so there is a 1mm gap between the plastic body and brass etch each side...! Fortunatemy this will be covered by the floor, with the supplied moulding being replaced with some thin plasticard to enable the fitment of some weight.

The door springs were next, with the moulded items being removed and replaced with etched ones that are melted and glued into place.
Bumper Gas Motor vehicle Automotive exterior Machine

(The sprung axle on the RHS is particuarly noticable before any weight is added...!)

The final parts for today is to fit the buffers (Lanarkshire Models) and axleboxes/springs (MJT). Weight has been provided with a thin layer of 'liquid lead' glued (superglue) inside the wagon floor bringing the weight up to ~60g. I decided against fitting the weight to the underframe as there is simply too much 'going on' to do so without risking freezing things solid...!
Train Wheel freight car Rolling stock Vehicle

Gas Railway Vehicle Wood Engineering

(You can see the cassis now sits level with the weight added)

I still need to fit the lashing rings to the top of the 'T' ironwork, but it is elsewise basically ready for a coat of paint!

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Some very nice modelling there Graham! It is always interesting to see techniques used on other scales, as they are often very transferrable!
Just to point out that only the first link was for 7mm. The block of links was all 4mm.

I will say that I haven't found much issue with the solebars on kit wagons being overly fragile, although it may be simply that if anything I have had so little experience with RTR I'm not aware of how much tougher they are....! You do raise a good point which I missed off my 'steps' of checking chassis squareness on a flat surface (pane of glass).

One problem I have had on a couple of Cambrian kits was that whilst I successfully assembled them 'square to ground', I ended up with one as a slight parallelogram (i.e. the axleboxes were not quite opposite each other!).
I wouldn't say that W irons are 'overly fragile'. It really depends on the model. RTR W-irons and solebars are a single solid, one piece moulding so consequently, are quite strong. Plastic kits normally have separate solebars to the main chassis/base plate and in 7mm, the W-irons are sometimes separate to the solebars. By definition, parting W-irons attached to solebars which are glued to a base plate runs the risk of splitting the glue join and/or bending the W-irons. Brass kits like your open C of course, are a whole different ball game.
Bottom line is that I recommend that wheels should be fitted at the same time as solebars and W-irons so that it is not necessary to later force the W-irons apart to fit wheels.

Your parallelogram is a classic example of what I mean by checking squareness and the perpendicularity (right angle) of axles to rails. I always use a jewellers metal set-square to check this. In 4mm, it isn't that noticeable if you get it wrong, but in 7mm, you will notice a vehicle 'hunt' - and it looks terrible!

Agreed completely on encouraging tackling kits. They can also teach you a lot about how the prototype functioned.
Agreed absolutely!

Hearing of that issue was one of the reasons why I decided to standardise on Gibson wheels for wagons (also the fact that they look nicer than the Hornby/Dapol/Bachmann wheels!)
I mostly standardised on Romford wheels many years ago (now available from Markits) but I did explore others such as Gibsons, Maygib and Sharman. I used a lot of Gibsons until they started having 'flash' issues on the backs of wheels and then their trueness wasn't perfect. These days, I largely use Hornby wheels for kits (unless they are supplied in the kit) as these are readily available in Australia at a reasonable price. They need gauging out to 14.5mm B2B, but otherwise, are very good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Further to which, the coning of the tyres is effective in 4mm. Dapol accidentally supplied the proof by (some dozen years past) putting a batch of wheels with parallel tyres in some of their wagons (the one I particularly recall was the 6 wheel milk tank) which would randomly derail as a result. Changing these wheels for any other conventionally coned tyred wheelset fixed the problem completely.
Yes, I have 6 Dapol milk tankers from the first batch. The wheel treads were dead flat and had no coning at all. They ran really rough! These wagons were the first time I ever had derailments on my layout.
The lack of coning meant that there was no flexibility when crossing pointwork and consequently, they derailed on my Peco code 75 track.
I replaced all of these wheels with Hornby wheels. I seem to recall that I had to swap the axles because the Dapol axles on these wagons weren't a standard length, so the wagons now have Dapol axles with Hornby wheels. But they run really well now without problem:

Just a word on coning on the prototype: its primary purpose is to accomodate the fact that railways wheels are fixed axles and don't have 'differentials'. By moving sideways changes the circumference of the wheel, thereby assisting going around curves. Coning also has the effect that on straight track, flanges are technically not necessary, although for safety reasons, that would never be permitted! On curves, flanges prevent derailments. Be aware that cant on curves is never configured to enable a vehicle to travel in perfect equilibrium. There are several other parameters which also come into play in the calculations including the line speed and curve radius.

These days, there is a further variation: low floor trams which often have split axles. This changes the whole kinematic dynamic behaviour and is usually speed limited for safety reasons.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,278 Posts
... I decided to standardise on Gibson wheels for wagons (also the fact that they look nicer than the Hornby/Dapol/Bachmann wheels!)...
Slippery slope time. Some day you'll look at a P4 wheelset...

I was similarly afflicted in my teens, up to this time on a diet of 'Jackson' wheelsets, when the new MGW wheels came supplied with the range of 3H's 4mm injection moulded wagon kits. Polished chrome steel pinpoint axles and matching brass bearings, wheel centres moulded plain or split spoke, solid, Mansell and three hole disc (and there was more, in smaller and larger wheel diameters) turned mild steel tyres. There was an interlude of (club) movement into P4ness, but then for home layouts I decided on OO, and cleared the old KX model shop of every applicable MGW wheelset they had remaining when that shop closed down. Still got a couple unused, never did build that Scottish mineral with the 10 spoke 14mm diameter wheelset.

I am given to understand that the G in MGW is for Gibson...

...Just a word on coning on the prototype: its primary purpose is to accomodate the fact that railways wheels are fixed axles and don't have 'differentials'. By moving sideways changes the circumference of the wheel, thereby assisting going around curves. Coning also has the effect that on straight track, flanges are technically not necessary, although for safety reasons, that would never be permitted! ...
That's pure nostalgia for me! Elements of this were set in one of a previous year's Applied Maths A level paper questions, that were used during the course to prepare us for what we might face in the examination. As it was the one question I remember from the examination papers 'on the day' was to determine the required velocity of a cricket ball for a 50% probability that it would be diffracted by the stumps. (Happily I was also sitting A level Physics which course at that time included special relativity. From the starting conditions supplied, the answer was near as nothing 0.55C)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,278 Posts
Probably best to avoid being got out, LBW... 😱
Actually that wouldn't be a problem at all. Best not to be anywhere near the cricket ground. We were allowed to 'ignore the bounce' in our calculation. As the ball contacts the ground something around 22 Gigajoules would be released, equivalent to 500 tons of TNT.

Wisden: Vaporisation stopped play. Match presumed abandoned, but no report available from match officials. England retain The Ashes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #908 ·
<SNIP>
I mostly standardised on Romford wheels many years ago (now available from Markits) but I did explore others such as Gibsons, Maygib and Sharman. I used a lot of Gibsons until they started having 'flash' issues on the backs of wheels and then their trueness wasn't perfect. These days, I largely use Hornby wheels for kits (unless they are supplied in the kit) as these are readily available in Australia at a reasonable price. They need gauging out to 14.5mm B2B, but otherwise, are very good.
Whilst a couple of years ago I had some issues with Gibson wheels that were wobbly/had flash/loose tyres, the last couple of batches (~60wheels in all!) I've bought have all been perfectly straight and true! The main 'issue' I have with Hornby wheels is that I dislike the fact that they're shiny silver as supplied, and I'm not keen on painting wheels if I can avoid it...

<SNIP>
Just a word on coning on the prototype: its primary purpose is to accomodate the fact that railways wheels are fixed axles and don't have 'differentials'. By moving sideways changes the circumference of the wheel, thereby assisting going around curves. Coning also has the effect that on straight track, flanges are technically not necessary, although for safety reasons, that would never be permitted! On curves, flanges prevent derailments. Be aware that cant on curves is never configured to enable a vehicle to travel in perfect equilibrium. There are several other parameters which also come into play in the calculations including the line speed and curve radius.

These days, there is a further variation: low floor trams which often have split axles. This changes the whole kinematic dynamic behaviour and is usually speed limited for safety reasons.
Is certainly true regarding the 'differential effect' provided by the coning angle around curves. As you've highlighted, it is difficult to configure a curve for perfect equilibrium, particuarly on the mainline where you may have a EMU rocking around at 100mph line speed, and a freight train at 75mph. Setting of the cant (superelevation to those in NA) is always a bit of a balance for different stock/speeds, and is where some of my PWay colleagues would claim they earn their living! :p Cant deficiency, changes in vehicle bearing, transitions etc all come into it!

Whilst heavy rail (i.e. mainline) in the UK has effectively standardised on the P8 wheel profile, the various light railway/tram systems each have differences. Trams for instance need shallower and thinner flanges as you want to minimise the width of the groove in embedded rail where it might otherwise catch the tyres of motorcycles/push bikes/etc (see picture below of some embedded tram rail vs some flat-bottomed siding rail from the mainline)! The coning on LRT system wheels tends to be much more severe than on the mainline to assist their navigation around significantly sharper curves (many going down to 25m, albeit with speed restrictions).
Household hardware Gas Font Metal Wood


I can confirm from experience that split axles on low-floor trams do create some very interesting vehicle dynamics....!

I know that this is something I will want to look into properly when I am (eventually...) able to build a layout to run things on, as including proper transitions, cant and 'flowing' track work does greatly improve (in my view) the look of a train running around a layout. That said, I'm not likely to go all the way to P4 standards, but am planning on using OO-SF (i.e. EM-2mm) as the narrower crossing and check gaps do improve running and visuals IMHO (although I appreciate that this is a controversial subject, and it isn't for everyone...)

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #909 ·
Diagram O19 Open C (Continued)
A very fiddly job has been tackled this morning.... the lashing rings....!

From the photos I guestimated that these should come out to ~1.5mm OD, so have used some 0.3mm Nickle Silver wire wrapped tightly around some 1mm rod using a cordless drill. The spring that this created was then chopped up into individual 'rings' using some wire cutters.

After some adjustment the ring was then touched with some solder to close it, then it was twisted onto some fine copper wire to enable it to be attached.
Natural material Body jewelry Jewellery Creative arts Composite material


A mounting hole (~0.4mm) was drilled into the top of the wagon sides to enable the fitment of the wire 'spigot'. On the first side I drilled this into the 'T', however after spending ages swearing at it I decided to do the second side on the top, which is tbh barely noticeable...
Tire Tread Automotive tire Wood Grey


The wire 'spigot' was then dipped in a small amount of superglue and affixed in place..! I was able to keep the superglue off the lashing ring itself, so it is still able to move around, which is very nice!
Guitar accessory Automotive tire Wood Motor vehicle Musical instrument


To assist with painting I glued a nut to the bottom to enable full 360-access. (I had intended to solder this on, but forgot until after I had glued the body in place....)
Motor vehicle Toy Automotive design Hood Vehicle

Automotive tire Finger Bumper Wood Engineering


And a couple of 'pre-paint' glam shots...! It is amazing how much of a difference to the look the lashing rings make IMHO.
Train Wood Rolling stock Asphalt freight car

Train Rolling stock Track Rolling Railway


After some pre-paint cleaning it has now received a coat of Halfords etch primer, which brings out the detail nicely!
Musical instrument Plant Guitar accessory String instrument Table


Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #910 ·
Diagram O19 Open C (Continued)
A coat of Phoenix Precision GWR freight grey has now been applied using the airbrush. Annoyingly this is only supplied as matt paint which slows down the lettering process.... This is one of the reasons why I have used the cellulose automotive paint on many recent models (coupled with how nicely it applies!). It is a tad lighter than the PP paint though, so I like to swap between them at times...
Motor vehicle Toy Engineering Gas Machine

Motor vehicle Yellow Automotive exterior Gas Bumper




Next up will be to apply some gloss varnish to enable application of transfers. Once that is all done I'll finish dealing with painting the wagon insides which will initially be finished in 'raw wood'. At some stage I will be going back and weathering the insides, but not at the moment!

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Slippery slope time. Some day you'll look at a P4 wheelset...

I was similarly afflicted in my teens, up to this time on a diet of 'Jackson' wheelsets, when the new MGW wheels came supplied with the range of 3H's 4mm injection moulded wagon kits. Polished chrome steel pinpoint axles and matching brass bearings, wheel centres moulded plain or split spoke, solid, Mansell and three hole disc (and there was more, in smaller and larger wheel diameters) turned mild steel tyres. There was an interlude of (club) movement into P4ness, but then for home layouts I decided on OO...
Most of my Jackson/Romford wheels were fitted to my rolling stock in the 1990's. Since then, I have used a bit of a mixture: Ultrascale for locos, Romford/Markits/Gibson/Hornby. All have worked well.
P4 is another ballgame. As a professional permanent-way design engineer, my father went down the P4 route because it was the only way to get exact scale and exact fidelity to the prototype he was designing. This was his layout: Last Trains to Littlehempston - Model Railways On-Line
Over time, the P4 track became unstable and suffered gauge narrowing. It turned out that the plastic used by P4 Track Company shrinks over time. Faced with this problem, the fact that the layout still needed about a dozen turnouts to complete it and the fact that the suppliers P4 track components had basically gone out of business, he had a dilemma: how to complete a layout when the track parts were no longer available and how to fix gauge narrowing issues when replacement parts were no longer available.
It was at this time that he came to the conclusion that P4 is not viable. To be honest, I was never supportive of it. My father ultimately decided to abandon P4 and go to O gauge: Ashburton - Model Railways On-Line
At the time he started the P4, the only RTR available in 7mm was Heljan's Hymek and Dapol's 14xx was on the distant horizon so the 7mm scale RTR that we are blessed with today, hadn't yet eventuated. He often says that if he had the foresight at the time, going 7mm instead of P4 would have been a better choice. I agree.
So our view is that P4 is a waste of time now. Looks very good, but the tolerances are too small to be practicable. If you want that sort of thing, do it in 7mm scale and don't waste your time with P4!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Whilst a couple of years ago I had some issues with Gibson wheels that were wobbly/had flash/loose tyres, the last couple of batches (~60wheels in all!) I've bought have all been perfectly straight and true! The main 'issue' I have with Hornby wheels is that I dislike the fact that they're shiny silver as supplied, and I'm not keen on painting wheels if I can avoid it...
I believe that there was a period of manufacturing difficulties at Gibson which yielded the problems we have mentioned. I have a whole load of Gibson wheels to fit to Mark 2's and a full-length HST at the moment and every set does appear to be perfect.
As far as 'shiny' wheels go, that has never been an issue for me. Most manufacturers have had non-anodised wheels as some point in history. I paint all my wheels anyway, both inside and outside faces - cameras and flash guns find things that are unpainted!

Is certainly true regarding the 'differential effect' provided by the coning angle around curves. As you've highlighted, it is difficult to configure a curve for perfect equilibrium, particuarly on the mainline where you may have a EMU rocking around at 100mph line speed, and a freight train at 75mph.
The point I was making was that curves and cant are purposely not set up for perfect equilibrium.

Setting of the cant (superelevation to those in NA) is always a bit of a balance for different stock/speeds, and is where some of my PWay colleagues would claim they earn their living! :p Cant deficiency, changes in vehicle bearing, transitions etc all come into it!
That's right. I have an article about all this here: Cantand Transition Design - Model Railways On-Line

I know that this is something I will want to look into properly when I am (eventually...) able to build a layout to run things on, as including proper transitions, cant and 'flowing' track work does greatly improve (in my view) the look of a train running around a layout.
It is properly implemented on my layout here: Ashprington Road - Model Railways On-Line
Even at 5 foot radius, our model curves are right on the bottom end of the tightest permissible prototype curves, scale-wise. In practice, such radii would have a 10mph speed restriction and require someone to walk along side checking for wheels jumping rails. Yet we run HST's round this at top speed!
So what I did was use the minimal transition permissible as described in our cant and transition design article. It is a good idea to use a length at least the length of a bogie coach to allow for twist - we don't have the benefit of flexible suspension on our models. I think for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of modellers should all be using the same transition length because their radii are way off the bottom of the prototype minimum!

That said, I'm not likely to go all the way to P4 standards, but am planning on using OO-SF (i.e. EM-2mm) as the narrower crossing and check gaps do improve running and visuals IMHO (although I appreciate that this is a controversial subject, and it isn't for everyone...)
As I wrote elsewhere, don't bother with P4: the parts supply has dried up so you won't complete a layout.
Please don't use 00-SF. It was something invented by one individual and isn't supported by the trade. It attempts to solve running issues by reducing the track gauge without addressing wheel standards. Considering that OO gauge track is already under-gauge by over 2mm, I can't think of a more silly approach than to reduce the gauge even further!!
If folk have running issues, then they need to address their track AND wheel standards at the same time. And if folk are prepared to go to the effort of building OO-SF track, then they are quite capable of solving the problem properly with properly matched wheel and rail standards. Please don't get sucked into OO-SF - it is nonsense!
Better still, go to O gauge!!!

Happy modelling!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #913 ·
Most of my Jackson/Romford wheels were fitted to my rolling stock in the 1990's. Since then, I have used a bit of a mixture: Ultrascale for locos, Romford/Markits/Gibson/Hornby. All have worked well.
P4 is another ballgame. As a professional permanent-way design engineer, my father went down the P4 route because it was the only way to get exact scale and exact fidelity to the prototype he was designing. This was his layout: Last Trains to Littlehempston - Model Railways On-Line
Over time, the P4 track became unstable and suffered gauge narrowing. It turned out that the plastic used by P4 Track Company shrinks over time. Faced with this problem, the fact that the layout still needed about a dozen turnouts to complete it and the fact that the suppliers P4 track components had basically gone out of business, he had a dilemma: how to complete a layout when the track parts were no longer available and how to fix gauge narrowing issues when replacement parts were no longer available.
<SNIP>
A very nice layout indeed, a great pity that the shrinkage issues put paid to it.

<SNIP>
It was at this time that he came to the conclusion that P4 is not viable. To be honest, I was never supportive of it. My father ultimately decided to abandon P4 and go to O gauge: Ashburton - Model Railways On-Line
At the time he started the P4, the only RTR available in 7mm was Heljan's Hymek and Dapol's 14xx was on the distant horizon so the 7mm scale RTR that we are blessed with today, hadn't yet eventuated. He often says that if he had the foresight at the time, going 7mm instead of P4 would have been a better choice. I agree.
So our view is that P4 is a waste of time now. Looks very good, but the tolerances are too small to be practicable. If you want that sort of thing, do it in 7mm scale and don't waste your time with P4!
My view of P4 is that whilst I would love to, I am very invested in OO to try to make a conversion. As the majority of my rolling stock (now >100!) is kitbuilt with brake shoes etc aligned with OO wheels it would effectively require complete rebuilding of underframes on all of them....! 7mm suffers from a similar issue of being invested in OO, with the added 'bonus' of requiring significantly more space (I'd like to tackle open countryside), and similarly 2mm scale is too small!!

<SNIP>
The point I was making was that curves and cant are purposely not set up for perfect equilibrium.


That's right. I have an article about all this here: Cantand Transition Design - Model Railways On-Line
<SNIP>
Very true, as to do so would require all vehicles to always travel around that curve at the perfect speed, which is very unlikely....! A very useful article which I will certainly come back to in due course once a layout exists to implement on...!

<SNIP>
It is properly implemented on my layout here: Ashprington Road - Model Railways On-Line
Even at 5 foot radius, our model curves are right on the bottom end of the tightest permissible prototype curves, scale-wise. In practice, such radii would have a 10mph speed restriction and require someone to walk along side checking for wheels jumping rails. Yet we run HST's round this at top speed!
So what I did was use the minimal transition permissible as described in our cant and transition design article. It is a good idea to use a length at least the length of a bogie coach to allow for twist - we don't have the benefit of flexible suspension on our models. I think for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of modellers should all be using the same transition length because their radii are way off the bottom of the prototype minimum!
<SNIP>
A very valid point about the spatial challenges we experience with models. As you say with planning out the transition on models having it simply long enough that it is >bogie coach length, with the added of ensuring that the relative sway between these doesn't 'look silly'!

<SNIP>
As I wrote elsewhere, don't bother with P4: the parts supply has dried up so you won't complete a layout.
Please don't use 00-SF. It was something invented by one individual and isn't supported by the trade. It attempts to solve running issues by reducing the track gauge without addressing wheel standards. Considering that OO gauge track is already under-gauge by over 2mm, I can't think of a more silly approach than to reduce the gauge even further!!
If folk have running issues, then they need to address their track AND wheel standards at the same time. And if folk are prepared to go to the effort of building OO-SF track, then they are quite capable of solving the problem properly with properly matched wheel and rail standards. Please don't get sucked into OO-SF - it is nonsense!
Better still, go to O gauge!!!

Happy modelling!
As above, no risk of tackling P4 or EM.

My intention for track is that plainline will be commercially available flexitrack, with only S&C built to the 0.3mm tighter gauge (which I know that I would not be able to determine by eye).

In terms of components I don't see any major future issues with their supply, I already have a set of gauges which I bought from C&L and DCC Concepts a few years back, so am all-set on that side. Rail/chairs/etc are all common with EM (with the exception of sleepers) so again I don't have concerns about their supply. I have also been keeping an eye on the Templot Plug track approach, although am acutely aware that it is in its infancy, and may not be suitable for 'primetime' when I need it.

As ultimately OO-SF is effectively EM-2mm, the wheel/rail standards that work for that will (for the most part) be completely transferrable in my view. (I'm aware that the differential effects caused by the wheel profile will be impacted by the narrowed gauge, but am not convinced that would provide any measurable difference compared to other issues I'm likely to encounter...!)

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #914 ·
Now that I've been able to print off the number and warning plates I have been able to make the finishing touches on the GPV and Open B.

Diag Z2 10Ton Gunpowder Van (Continued)
As noted in the other post, whilst not 100% legiable, I do think that the addition of the printed plates does add to the look!
Wheel Vehicle Rolling stock Train Rolling


Diagram O15 OPEN B (Continued)
And similarly on the Open B!
Train Wheel Vehicle Rolling stock Mode of transport


Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #915 · (Edited)
Diagram O19 Open C (Continued)
A nice coat of gloss varnish was applied last night to the relevant areas...
Safety glove Gas Electrical wiring Engineering Machine


Lettering has therefore started in earnest. 25" 'GW' lettering is from Railtec, with the 'Open C' and load/tare from Modelmaster.
Building Rolling Rectangle Freezing Bridge


The numbering and lettering on the other side will follow in due course.

Studying the photo in more detail, it appears that the LHS end panel is also numbered, wo will need to do that too...!
Vehicle Train Wheel Motor vehicle Rolling stock

(Ref pg8 of A Pictorial Record of Great Western Wagons, JH Russel)

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Watching your modelling brings back happy memories of when I was building large numbers of Ratio and Coopercraft GWR wagon kits back in the late 80's prior to my move to early 1960's BR. I still have all those wagons but none of them have run for 30 years!

Is that open C kit still available ? I think you said it was Ratio ? It looks very similar to the long tube wagon currently made by Bachmann ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #917 ·
Watching your modelling brings back happy memories of when I was building large numbers of Ratio and Coopercraft GWR wagon kits back in the late 80's prior to my move to early 1960's BR. I still have all those wagons but none of them have run for 30 years!
<SNIP>
Thanks Graham, is certainly nice and relaxing coming back into building them again! Of course many of those GWR wagons were still (just!) in service in the early '60s, albeit in a delapidated condition....!
<SNIP>
Is that open C kit still available ? I think you said it was Ratio ? It looks very similar to the long tube wagon currently made by Bachmann ?
It is unfortunately no longer available and hasn't been for a while - the spacing between the solebars is waaaay too large at nearly 27mm, and I don't believe that Peco considered it worth the effort to fix this with a re-release when the old moulds wore out, as it would require significant re-jigging of things to allow the fitment of modern wheels (at least this is what I have read online RE the axleboxes, as mine are still on the fret having replaced it with the Morgan etch!).

The long tube currently made by Bachmann is I believe a BR diagram that is a development on an older LMS(?) prototype. The only other supplier in OO i'm aware of for an Open C was David Geen, although as discussed they are also currently NLA :(.

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #918 ·
Diagram O19 Open C (Continued)
I had a bit of a change of heart on the lettering when I came back to it last night, and have swapped out the Railtec 'GW' lettering with some HMRS Methfix ones. - The shape of the 'G' in my prototype photo didn't quite match that on the Railtec sheet.

The lettering on the first side is therefore done with the addition of the bodyside (HMRS) and solebar (printed) numbering.
Water Automotive tire Wheel Motor vehicle Rolling


The second side and the ends need completing before a coat of protective varnish is applied. Other remaining jobs include; painting brake levers, white stripe on solebar & black panel on top-right 2No. body panels.

Regards,

Cameron.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,278 Posts
...The long tube currently made by Bachmann is I believe a BR diagram that is a development on an older LMS(?) prototype...
Yes, BR diagram 1/447, corrugated steel end and the small centre drop door. BR also built the LNER equivalent diagram 1/445 which had a two section full dropside, all wood sheeted, circa 500 of each diagram. And just for variety 100 of the GWR equivalent, diagram 1/446 all wood sheeted but this type only four planks high, with central drop door. Toward the end of construction of the 1/447 type BR gave up painting the wooden sides, other than where the numbering and lettering was placed, for an immediate shabby look ex-works.

So if you want a little trot of tube wagons in a freight carrying a sizeable consignment of pipe to a customer, a glorious variety is possible.
 
901 - 920 of 925 Posts
Top