Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
Problem is, Dave, you don't know what the wheels of new RTR releases are going to be like. My Accurascale Manor actually derailed each time it passed over any 16.2mm track, not just the crossing area!
Flaxfield- A bucolic 1950s Suffolk backwater
- Thread starter NHY 581
- Start date
daifly
Western Thunderer
That suggests that it's wheel/gauge spec is very far from where it should be!
Dave
Jordan
Mid-Western Thunderer
Typical - my closest B&Q doesn't stock it!! Others a bit further away do, of course...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
martin_wynne
Western Thunderer
You can reasonably expect a new 00 model to comply with the NMRA RP-25/110 standard. If it doesn't, it is not fit for purpose and should be returned to the supplier.
That means flange thickness not greater than 0.8mm. Back-to-back not less than 14.3mm. Back-to-back+flange thickness not more than 15.2mm.
If folks keep accepting non-compliant models instead of sending them back, they are never going to improve.
Martin.
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
Morning all,
Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Very helpful. Much cogitating later, I've come to the conclusion that the way forward is not via Peco but via the British Finescale kits, specifically the A5 which I thought I would use on Flaxfield anyway. I just need to measure again as I know they are slightly longer than the Peco offering and at 4ft total layout length there's not much to play with.
Indeed Mike and thanks for the encouragement. Tim ( CK ) was kind enough to bring along his build of the A5 to the Exeter show when we exhibited there last month. Very impressive it looked and it sowed the seed. As it happens, this is a test plank/piece board thing anyway. What's the point in building it if you don't...er....test stuff, including alternative pointwork ?
The Peco points should, in theory of course, be just fine but frankly, I'm losing/lost confidence in them. They clearly have issues. Testpiece this may be but pointless ( !?! ) persisting with something if deep down you suspect it won't work anyway.
Hi Tony, Yes, our rep also confirmed the hand assembled aspect of them but I think this is more a design issue than construction. I will be emailing Peco, I have the required contact details. The other issue for me personally is that having had issues of my own it then impacts on my work as I work in a retailer selling the product. Transparency is key and I will be quite open and honest with customers seeking to purchase these items from us
I shall update accordingly.
Rob
Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Very helpful. Much cogitating later, I've come to the conclusion that the way forward is not via Peco but via the British Finescale kits, specifically the A5 which I thought I would use on Flaxfield anyway. I just need to measure again as I know they are slightly longer than the Peco offering and at 4ft total layout length there's not much to play with.
Indeed Mike and thanks for the encouragement. Tim ( CK ) was kind enough to bring along his build of the A5 to the Exeter show when we exhibited there last month. Very impressive it looked and it sowed the seed. As it happens, this is a test plank/piece board thing anyway. What's the point in building it if you don't...er....test stuff, including alternative pointwork ?
The Peco points should, in theory of course, be just fine but frankly, I'm losing/lost confidence in them. They clearly have issues. Testpiece this may be but pointless ( !?! ) persisting with something if deep down you suspect it won't work anyway.
Hi Tony, Yes, our rep also confirmed the hand assembled aspect of them but I think this is more a design issue than construction. I will be emailing Peco, I have the required contact details. The other issue for me personally is that having had issues of my own it then impacts on my work as I work in a retailer selling the product. Transparency is key and I will be quite open and honest with customers seeking to purchase these items from us
I shall update accordingly.
Rob
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
Not at all, Dave, well, not in one sense.
The B2Bs were all consistent at 14.5mm, but the flanges were closer to 1mm thick. Same with the Pi Kerr Stuart.
If the flanges were of the same thickness as (say) a Dapol product, then there'd be no problem.
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
That's all very well, in theory, Martin.
What you are suggesting would require the entire production batch of Accurascale Manors and Planet Industrial Kerr Stuarts to be send back as 'not-fit-for-purpose' or 'non-compliant with OO-SF'.
With the above models, certainly the examples I received, the only 'non-compliant' factor was the flange thickness.
daifly
Western Thunderer
But that, combined with an accurate b-t-b, produces an out-of gauge wheel set which, as Martin rightly asserts, is not fit for purpose.
Dave
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
I've taken my comments to the manufacturer, but no one in their right mind could now expect them the recall an entire production batch of locos worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Like the manufacturer says and others too, there's no laid down standards for OO...
The wheelsets concerned are perfectly OK on 16.5mm track and 'normal' point clearances, they just don't like OO-SF, which must surely be about as popular amongst 4mm modellers in the greater scheme of things as P4 gauge....
Hi all
If only every 00 manufacture had adopted the original Hornby Doublo (Binns Road) standard then no trouble. I could run my 0-6-2 with three coached flat out round the hairpin corners and through the points with no problem. Then slam it into reverse and see the wheel spinning.
In the very early days of S4/P4 I asked about why. I was told that while not strict prototype (ignore gauge) the rail shape, wheel profile and crossing & check rail clearance where properly matched.
Oh the delights of progress.
Regards
Allen
If only every 00 manufacture had adopted the original Hornby Doublo (Binns Road) standard then no trouble. I could run my 0-6-2 with three coached flat out round the hairpin corners and through the points with no problem. Then slam it into reverse and see the wheel spinning.
In the very early days of S4/P4 I asked about why. I was told that while not strict prototype (ignore gauge) the rail shape, wheel profile and crossing & check rail clearance where properly matched.
Oh the delights of progress.
Regards
Allen
2996 Victor
Western Thunderer
This is an interesting conversation on the relative merits of the PECO b/h points. I was all set to use the EMGS ready to lay track but then decided life was too short to modify all those items of locos and rolling stock. Then PECO released the b/h range and I thought, "great!" as I really don't like the look of the older streamline track and this looks the ticket. What a disappointment, then, to hear of these gauge issues!
I've already laid a couple of large radius b/h points on one of my micros, so I wonder if its an problem with the medium radius points? The large radius seem to cope alright running wagons through them, but I haven't sorted out the electrics so nothing has run "properly" yet.
The British Finescale kits look very nice as an alternative, and not too taxing for track-building tyros like me!
Might have to give one a try-out.....
Cheers,
Mark
I've already laid a couple of large radius b/h points on one of my micros, so I wonder if its an problem with the medium radius points? The large radius seem to cope alright running wagons through them, but I haven't sorted out the electrics so nothing has run "properly" yet.
The British Finescale kits look very nice as an alternative, and not too taxing for track-building tyros like me!
Might have to give one a try-out.....Cheers,
Mark
I have to say the above exchanges have been a real eye-opener to me. I am quite shocked. I had no idea the most popular UK scale/gauge was in such a mess.
The capital investment in tooling and design, then production costs, must be considerable for any new model. I would have assumed great care would have taken to make sure it was right before signing off the design for manufacture. A loco with 14.5 mm back-to-back wheels and near 1mm thick flanges, even if there is considerable side play on the wheels, is surely going to be track sensitive to even the slightest narrowing of the gauge, especially on curves. I would be inclined to agree, the loco is not fit for purpose.
Variation in flange thickness between models sold by the same company seems particularly odd/incompetent. Why would you do this? Surely it’s actually easier to draw a correct tread/flange profile once and use it repeatedly for successive models?
Is anyone doing anything to try to get standards agreed across the industry? Or even to get individual manufacturers to publish and adhere to a standard for all their own models? If people simply accept poor wheels, there is no pressure to change.
Speaking as someone whose interest is primarily vintage models, 0 gauge, the exchanges above suggest 00 is currently in a worse position than 0 was in 1910. I use mainly Bassett-Lowke trains. The wheel widths do vary depending on which manufacturer Bassett-Lowke had used to make the particular model. And treads were narrowed and flange depth reduced in the mid-1930s, across the range, as part of progress towards greater realism. But the back-to-back stayed at 27.0 mm for over 50 years of production and rolling stock made in 1910 runs reliably on track made in the 1950s — and vice versa. I thought I had chosen a hard road trying to build a working model railway using vintage equipment. It turns out not. I am blessed — but didn’t realise it.
(Edit to add: I should also say the back-to-back measurement of 27.0 mm hardly varies at all on Bassett-Lowke rolling stock and locomotives. The company’s quality control was lacking in some respects (eg lithograph printing not always perfectly aligned with folds/window cut outs etc in tinplate bodywork parts), but the wheel back-to-back is consistently very accurate. Precision where it mattered.)
The capital investment in tooling and design, then production costs, must be considerable for any new model. I would have assumed great care would have taken to make sure it was right before signing off the design for manufacture. A loco with 14.5 mm back-to-back wheels and near 1mm thick flanges, even if there is considerable side play on the wheels, is surely going to be track sensitive to even the slightest narrowing of the gauge, especially on curves. I would be inclined to agree, the loco is not fit for purpose.
Variation in flange thickness between models sold by the same company seems particularly odd/incompetent. Why would you do this? Surely it’s actually easier to draw a correct tread/flange profile once and use it repeatedly for successive models?
Is anyone doing anything to try to get standards agreed across the industry? Or even to get individual manufacturers to publish and adhere to a standard for all their own models? If people simply accept poor wheels, there is no pressure to change.
Speaking as someone whose interest is primarily vintage models, 0 gauge, the exchanges above suggest 00 is currently in a worse position than 0 was in 1910. I use mainly Bassett-Lowke trains. The wheel widths do vary depending on which manufacturer Bassett-Lowke had used to make the particular model. And treads were narrowed and flange depth reduced in the mid-1930s, across the range, as part of progress towards greater realism. But the back-to-back stayed at 27.0 mm for over 50 years of production and rolling stock made in 1910 runs reliably on track made in the 1950s — and vice versa. I thought I had chosen a hard road trying to build a working model railway using vintage equipment. It turns out not. I am blessed — but didn’t realise it.
(Edit to add: I should also say the back-to-back measurement of 27.0 mm hardly varies at all on Bassett-Lowke rolling stock and locomotives. The company’s quality control was lacking in some respects (eg lithograph printing not always perfectly aligned with folds/window cut outs etc in tinplate bodywork parts), but the wheel back-to-back is consistently very accurate. Precision where it mattered.)
Last edited:
daifly
Western Thunderer
Hi Tim
You're right, of course, but flanges 0.8mm thick? The ScaleSeven standard is for 0.68mm! The prototype is c1.125"= 0.375m. I accept that 0.375mm is probably too fragile for the trainset brigade but 0.8mm still seems unnecessarily coarse.
Dave
2996 Victor
Western Thunderer
Interesting - that suggests that whoever designed the medium radius points had no knowledge of gauge widening on tighter radius curves.
Mark
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
These thick flanges have only been found (by me, at least) on the two locos I mentioned. Both made in the same factory. I wonder if the factory have had some kind of input or say in the production process?
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
As I posted in my previous post, I suspect this wide flange occurrence may be something to do with the Chinese factory they were produced in, although this is purely my personal speculation.
But inconsistencies in flange profile within the range of any single, given manufacturer are nothing new in OO gauge. Hornby's W4 Peckett features noticeably less deep flanges compared to their B2 Peckett, both fairly recent productions. The former is fine on my older C&L bullhead flexi track, the latter doesn't like it.
Even Bachmann are not immune. I found that I wasn't able to run their Standard Class 5 and Crab locos on my C&L track, yet locos such as the panniers, 08 diesel shunters, other diesels etc. were fine.
I even found differing flange profiles on a single Bachmann loco - their WD 2-8-0. The driving wheels were fine (same profile as the panniers etc.), but the bogie and tender wheels were deeper and bumped along the tops of the C&L chairs on Engine Wood. This was a relatively quick fix, as I substituted Markits bogie and tender wheels and the loco was fine after that.
Other problem locos on the OO-SF 16.2mm gauge on Bethesda Sidings were a couple of earlier Heljan diesels - a Hymek and a Class 33. They also didn't like the narrower gauge and had thick flanges. The solution here was to replace the wheels with Branchlines 'Black Beetle' wheels, with the original Heljan drive gears.
My solution with the Accurascale Manor was to return it to the retailer, who was happy to take it back. It actually ran like a dog as well, despite running in and wasn't really a 'core' loco for any of my layouts anyway.
The solution with the Pi Kerr Stuarts is to convert one to P4 (which I planned to do all along) and change the supplied wheels for Markits wheels for the other one.
JimG
Western Thunderer
I remember reading years ago that the BRMSB was set up during or just after WW2 to set UK model railway standards. The halt in model production during the war years gave an opportunity to start with a clean slate. They drew up a set of standards, but Hornby decided to restart operations using their own standards and I think British Trix did the same, with their own standards. And Triang appeared in the early 50s with their own standards. I think that the only manufacturer who followed the BRMSB standards was Graham Farish with their 4mm range. I remember buying a GF wagon in the 1950s to run on my Trix layout and finding out the hard way about wheel standards at a very young age.
So someone did try but our manufacturers gave them the finger.
Jim.