What happened at your workbench today?

[DafyddElvy]

I have recently encountered the problems of modelling track with non fine scale wheels needing to pass over my fine scale point work. To accommodate the less than fine scale wheels I have retained the check rail flange way and slightly increased the crossing nose flangeway, what I have also tried to do is, where the wheel flange width permits, is increase the back to back measurement to 41mm, if doing this one also needs to be aware of the back edge to running edge distance and ensure the over flange gauge of the wheels does not exceed to track gauge, I hope this all makes sense.

 

[Greg Elmassian]

I have found that if I use a pretty precise back to back (I use 1.575") and the wheels do not have overly thick flanges (not deep, thick) no issues.

It seems to be trouble if the flanges are so thick that setting a proper back to back messes up the gauge...

I usually have trouble the other way, that the fine scale wheels have narrower wheel tread and the wheels tend to drop into the frog...

Greg

 

[Cobalt6700]

Not only the extended length helping, but moreover the fact these inserts narrow the too-wide flangeway, and keep the wheels from "picking the point" (of the frog). Basically better controlling the wheelset as it transitions to-from the frog.

One of the first modifications for many off the shelf switches.

One proviso, double checking and setting back to back spacing on wheelsets will be more critical, since you reduced the "tolerance". On the other hand you should enjoy much improved reliability.

Greg

Thanks for your insight, thinking on it I can see why that would better help - I had only really considered the extended rails keeping the flange before the frog.

I have also got some of the extended check rails for my LGB R3's. Not sure if they are needed, but have seen some posts saying that R3s can be troublesome - my PIKO R3s have much longer and tighter check rails.

That is something I haven't done yet. Might look to spin a gauge up on the lathe.

 

[Cobalt6700]

I have what are certainly later versions of these from LGB so if you would like photos of them if this might help, just let me know.

Thanks for the offer - if I have further issues I may well take you up on that

 

[Rhinochugger]

I have recently encountered the problems of modelling track with non fine scale wheels needing to pass over my fine scale point work. To accommodate the less than fine scale wheels I have retained the check rail flange way and slightly increased the crossing nose flangeway, what I have also tried to do is, where the wheel flange width permits, is increase the back to back measurement to 41mm, if doing this one also needs to be aware of the back edge to running edge distance and ensure the over flange gauge of the wheels does not exceed to track gauge, I hope this all makes sense.

The back-to-back is meant to be 40.5 mm, so you're not stretching it that much.

 

[Greg Elmassian]

the spec is 40mm +0.5 -0 mm for standard gauge
for fine scale the spec is 42 mm with no tolerance given.

so he is basically 1/2 way between standard and fine specs.

http://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf

I'm assuming you guys are using G1MRA, right?

 

[DafyddElvy]

The back-to-back is meant to be 40.5 mm, so you're not stretching it that much.

The LGB stock I have is anywhere between 38.5mm and 39.5mm, I haven't found any with a greater back-to-back than that.

 

[DafyddElvy]

the spec is 40mm +0.5 -0 mm for standard gauge
for fine scale the spec is 42 mm with no tolerance given.

so he is basically 1/2 way between standard and fine specs.

http://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf

I'm assuming you guys are using G1MRA, right?

Yes, I'm working to G1MRA fine scale.

 

[Greg Elmassian]

So the typical toy train stuff reduces the back to back, and then they need to increase the flangeway width to accommodate. This is done to accommodate manufacturing tolerances (save money) on the wheels and the switches (plastic dimension change)

As you tighten the tolerances, you can narrow the flangeways and everything will work still if you do the wheels and the trackwork at the same time.

It's still tough to get prototype tread width.

LGB works because they use flange-bearing frogs, letting the wheel flange support the wheel (this stops the wheel from dropping into the throat of the frog which is too big from the too wide flangeways)

It works if all the pieces work together.

Greg

 

[dunnyrail]

I have recently encountered the problems of modelling track with non fine scale wheels needing to pass over my fine scale point work. To accommodate the less than fine scale wheels I have retained the check rail flange way and slightly increased the crossing nose flangeway, what I have also tried to do is, where the wheel flange width permits, is increase the back to back measurement to 41mm, if doing this one also needs to be aware of the back edge to running edge distance and ensure the over flange gauge of the wheels does not exceed to track gauge, I hope this all makes sense.

Back in my Hertford days with a small railway I bought a couple of Merlin live steam locomotives. They were an issue as the wheels were also quite fine made to “G1MRA fine scale“ standards. My solution was to attach lengths of 00 code 100 Bullhead rail just as you have with lengths of brass strip. Certainly resolved the issue, but these days I tend to use mostly PECO G Points which have never had any issues with LGB or Fine Scale wheels (I have a G1 Terrier). Though of course some of the very early LGB wagons with deeper plastic flanges did bump along on the chairs, all have been replaced with metal wheels now.

 

[DafyddElvy]

I think we are both saying the same thing but in a different way, regarding rail and wheel standards.


On the topic of track, Sunday I finally got round to spending time on some track work myself, one half of a crossover has been built, both stock rails for the other half is laid and the curve switch blade in place ready for soldering to the sleepers.
I have trialled an idea I haven't decided if I'll repeat, laying the crossing rail straight through to the become the belly rail and then filing out the grove for the flange, the trams don't seem bothered and run through the area smoothly, the LGB wagons though are not so happy because of their deep flanges, all the LGB wheels will be getting replaced with fine scale ones in the not too distant future.

 

[Rhinochugger]

The LGB stock I have is anywhere between 38.5mm and 39.5mm, I haven't found any with a greater back-to-back than that.

As Greg says, that's a bit tight, largely due to the massive flanges, which again are necessary for LGB's pursuit of R1. Ironically, my stock is mostly Fn3 with finer flanges - not fine scale - but if I have to set a back-to-back on anything kit built / scratched / bodged I use an old LGB wheelset and set the back-to-back by eye. I rarely have de-railments on my badly laid track, but then again, I only have four turnouts ( 3 x Aristo, 1 x USAT) and one LGB diamond.

However, if you are going to fine scale in any scale or size, then there is little scope for error and the precision of your measurements is absolutely critical.

 

[Greg Elmassian]

There's a true story I tell often to newcomers.

My first loop was a basic circle, 10' diameter no switches... fine.

The next loop was sort of kidney shaped, all 10' diameter but several switches, many where the "mainline" was the diverging route of the switch, and with two S curves with only 1 foot in between.

7 car train was the max. Any longer, derailment. Tried backing up, instant derailment.

A friend was a track inspector for 20 years for the US government... told me to check track gauge at switches and the back to back of all cars.

Now I can run and back up a 45 car train on the SAME trackwork.

I'm pretty anal about getting back to back the same at 1.575 (NMRA specs) and fixed all the flangeways on my switches.

It was worth the effort.

Greg

 

[Paul M]

However, if you are going to fine scale in any scale or size, then there is little scope for error and the precision of your measurements is absolutely critical.

Finescale in the garden must be hard work. You cannot fault LGB, and others, thinking in not going down that route, but making things robust enough to cope with almost anything

 

[dunnyrail]

Finescale in the garden must be hard work. You cannot fault LGB, and others, thinking in not going down that route, but making things robust enough to cope with almost anything

Paul I think you will be faced with fine scale in the garden, the 0 gauge boys at Brambleton are using much finer track standards than the 16mm guys do. And those 16mm standards are much finer than outer G ones, in truth I think with all the problems we face in the great outdoors, wind, rain, dirt, snow, livestock, over growing plants, leafs it is a wonder that our miniature trains run as well as they do. Testimony to our perseverance I guess.

 

[Paul M]

Paul I think you will be faced with fine scale in the garden, the 0 gauge boys at Brambleton are using much finer track standards than the 16mm guys do. And those 16mm standards are much finer than outer G ones, in truth I think with all the problems we face in the great outdoors, wind, rain, dirt, snow, livestock, over growing plants, leafs it is a wonder that our miniature trains run as well as they do. Testimony to our perseverance I guess.

True. But, although they're a FINER scale they aren't what I would call FINESCALE, and the 16mm locos are very heavy, seeing them wobble over some of the poorer parts of the track can be heartstopping at times

 

[Rhinochugger]

Finescale in the garden must be hard work. You cannot fault LGB, and others, thinking in not going down that route, but making things robust enough to cope with almost anything

There is some middle ground - LGB's wheel standards are more about the use of tight radius curves rather than their legendary robustness.

 

[David1226]

I know there is always some thread drift now and then, but there is an awful lot of posts that should be on another thread, as they have absolutely nothing to do with work and/or projects actually being carried our on a workbench. The last post that actually had anything to do with the workbench was 20 posts ago on the previous page.

David

 

[Rhinochugger]

I know there is always some thread drift now and then, but there is an awful lot of posts that should be on another thread, as they have absolutely nothing to do with work and/or projects actually being carried our on a workbench. The last post that actually had anything to do with the workbench was 20 posts ago on the previous page.

David

Well, not quite David, it's a fairly relevant discussion, albeit a bit rambling, around the work that David (DaffydElvy) is doing. I'm afraid there is always a lot of debate about wheel and track standards in G scale (as in 45mm track Gauge) and David is one of the few who is actually modelling fine scale in this gauge.

I've just removed two unintended puns, but I understand what you're driving at

 

[DafyddElvy]

To get back on track here is my latest crossover, it's a test track so some construction may look unusual, it's just me trialling different track construction methods ahead of building my tramway layout.

I am not a conformist hence the parts which may at first glance look unconventional.

All this work on a test track is proving quite useful, and it's also useful to test trams and and trams with trailers.