Talking regular RTR OO here, on any 16.5mm gauge track system.
I was very pleased when I first bought a Heljan diesel model to see that they were using a significantly shallower flange on the wheelsets than is normal for RTR OO. The trackholding was not affected, the models stayed on the rails; on a mixture of Peco's streamline codes 100 and 75, and code 75 SMP BH track and points, and soldered construction points, smallest plain track radius 24", smallest radius point 36". (Although I have no set track, it was at the time possible to try these models on a friend's set track layout - all purchased from circa 2010 - and they were trouble free if operated at modest pace through the points, no problems on plain track curves.)
Even the two Heljan steam locos I have (O2 2-8-0) tempt fate by offering the shallower flange on a rigid 8 coupled chassis, yet perform perfectly on track.
Some Accurascale and Hattons wagons have recently come my way, and these too have shallower than normal flanges, very good too.
So, is there any objection to a shallower flange becoming general in RTR OO?
I like it for the benefit to appearance, and it would be handy on a few UK steamers which have their wheels closely grouped and are necessarily 'dimensionally massaged' to make a practical running mechanism, because the normal flange depth fouls (e.g. C1, H1, H2, atlantics, Peppercorn A2 pacific, BR std 9F). There may well be more such, these are the examples I know; I'll be particularly interested to see how Hornby handle the problem on their all new tooling 9F: the present RTR models are both 'massaged', Hornby, correct overall coupled wheelbase length, but axle centre spacings varied, Bachmann, axle spacings consistent but slightly overscale, resulting in an overall coupled wheelbase 2mm over scale.
I was very pleased when I first bought a Heljan diesel model to see that they were using a significantly shallower flange on the wheelsets than is normal for RTR OO. The trackholding was not affected, the models stayed on the rails; on a mixture of Peco's streamline codes 100 and 75, and code 75 SMP BH track and points, and soldered construction points, smallest plain track radius 24", smallest radius point 36". (Although I have no set track, it was at the time possible to try these models on a friend's set track layout - all purchased from circa 2010 - and they were trouble free if operated at modest pace through the points, no problems on plain track curves.)
Even the two Heljan steam locos I have (O2 2-8-0) tempt fate by offering the shallower flange on a rigid 8 coupled chassis, yet perform perfectly on track.
Some Accurascale and Hattons wagons have recently come my way, and these too have shallower than normal flanges, very good too.
So, is there any objection to a shallower flange becoming general in RTR OO?
I like it for the benefit to appearance, and it would be handy on a few UK steamers which have their wheels closely grouped and are necessarily 'dimensionally massaged' to make a practical running mechanism, because the normal flange depth fouls (e.g. C1, H1, H2, atlantics, Peppercorn A2 pacific, BR std 9F). There may well be more such, these are the examples I know; I'll be particularly interested to see how Hornby handle the problem on their all new tooling 9F: the present RTR models are both 'massaged', Hornby, correct overall coupled wheelbase length, but axle centre spacings varied, Bachmann, axle spacings consistent but slightly overscale, resulting in an overall coupled wheelbase 2mm over scale.