Can someone please tell me the back to back distance for n gauge wheels please,
Sadly there is no simple answer to this question! (This is probably why it has taken several hours for a response.)
I use a 7.3mm back to back gauge.
However this is just used as a guide as the actual measurement will depend on the thickness of the wheel flange and this is different for virtually every manufacture!
The way I do this is to use the back to back gauge as a rough guide and then try the vehicle through the points I use, in my case this is Peco 12 inch and Y points made before 2010. If it runs ok then all is well, but if not the some very fine adjustment is required.
Different makes of track may well require slightly different back to back measurements.
I am sorry that I can not be more definitive about this, but it is just one aspect of 009 that has no exact standard.
Others may quote various recognised back to back measurements such as:
.290 inches (7.366mm)
7.4mm
7.54mm
However in practice the measurements vary from 7.25mm to 7.6mm.
Basically all that matters is that your vehicle runs ok through your points and on your track.
Brian Meldon
Brian is perfectly correct. There are no accepted standards for 009 modelling. But, as he points out, what we are trying to achieve is consistent and reliable running. To this end, an arbitrary standard or set of standards is really of little use when most modellers use proprietry track and often moulded plastic wheels which cannot be regauged. So the answer is, surely, to ascertain what is the greatest distance over check and wing rails in all your pointwork (it varies from manufacturer to manufacturer) and set all adjustable wheels to run freely through that or those points. I have to say that in my experience the earlier Peco points will tolerate a smaller back to back distance than the modern ones. If you wish to adhere to strict standards there is regrettably no alternative but to forgo moulded plastic wheels completely and build your own pointwork. The Society committee discussed for some time the concept of producing a back to back gauge and eventually concluded it would be of little use simply because of the lack of defined standards.
Thanks for your help, it just saved me spending
I'm not sure why this is in the Sales (sub) forum, but never mind.
If you don't have a back to back gauge then a set of digital calipers can be used. If a piece of stock is playing up then a check with the calipers will confirm if the problem lies with the wheel (or track) dimensions. A genuine vernier caliper (not a plastic one) with a screw clamp/clutch can be set and used to check a run of items. It itself need not be that accurate if it can be set against a known dimension as it is the locking that is important. I have a fairly ancient and inexpensive one that got dropped, but is still good for transferring dimensions.
I have made satisfactory back-to-back gauges by filing a piece of brass to the correct dimension and bending it into a "U" shape. Getting it square is the tricky bit, but you can square it up in a vice if slightly out. You can solder on a brass handle if you want.
Scrap brass from etches can be used and is OK but slightly thicker strip is better.
Of course you do need to decide what B2B measurement you are using before doing the filing!
Frank
A "rough and ready" solution which came to me from well known and respected 009 modeller Ian Turner is to use the large earth pin of a UK 3 pin plug and file it down to your desired B2B if you have one (around 7.4mm is a fair standard). On the other hand if you have the facility to measure accurately 7.whatever mm then you probably have a vernier caliper which can very suitably be used for a back to back gauge anyway!
So, on the assumption that you don't have this sort of high tech tool, then file the earth pin to be a good snug fit on a known free running moulded wheel and axle set such as a Peco wagon wheel with integral axle and you will then have a back to back gauge that will allow you to set any metal wheelset to the same as the Peco ones which are made to go through all Peco N trackwork.
Mick
Take the plug out of the wall socket first of course!
I only come on here to escape from the comedians on the "other forum".
Wherever Mick goes, we go... ;)
Quote from: MickT on August 04, 2017, 15:12
I only come on here to escape from the comedians on the "other forum".
What other Forum, is there one?? (!!)
Sorry! :'(
You have been fully pardoned Hugh. Nothing wrong with a bit of levity now and again, even in this august place.
Mick
Hi All. I don't know if it's any help but I did spot a useful table on wheel (and other) standards in Stewart Hine's book "Model Railways"- Haynes explains series 1977/80, which contains much useful info on the hobby and is a good read anyway !
For 'N gauge' he gives a back-to-back measurement of 7.4mm and a flange width of 0.6mm with a 'chamfer' angle of 20 degrees. There are also other useful data given eg clearances for pointwork etc.
A vernier caliper would certainly be useful here plus, I see that the various model railway show dealers are now selling digital calipers at quite reasonable prices. A search through Ebay /Amazon may turn up a copy of Stewart's book which has been very helpful to me as a newbie...
Dave
Before you nail your banner to one dimension you need to do a bit of thinking. Wheel and wheel spacing is only half of a system, the other half is the track.
It's worth studying the NMRA and NEM standards and understanding the system wheel, rail and track; as it is to decide and stick with one. Manufacturers that produce rolling stock and track typically put their own spin on those standards to tie modellers to their brand, i.e. design for incompatibility.
I aim for NMRA RP25, as it seems to be a good compromise between prototypical dimensions and running reliability. NEM, like most European manufacturers, has flanges that require flangeways the size of battle trenches; on level crossings more an cosmetic issue, but at switches an issue of good running.
But most 009 modellers in the UK appear not to be too concerned about prototypical track and use course standards; so this is a matter of personal preference.
If you stick with stock and track from one manufacturer this all doesn't really matter, but once you mix brands you have to know what standard they are made to! It's not just back-to-back, which has to match the distance from guardrail to guardrail at switches and crossings, it's also flange width and depth, and wheel width.
The standards can be found on the internet, and they give you the low-down on the subject.
As, whatever you decide, commits you for the future with regards to both rolling stock and track, it is worth to educate yourself so you hopefully avoid a decision you regret.
Cheers
Waldschrat
I have to confess that I really do not understand the 'Standards for the sake of standards' mentality. All we are trying to achieve is for all our stock to run freely through all our pointwork. There seems to me to be little point in slavishly adhereing to what is after all another arbitrary decision. True sledgehammer to crack a nut principles. Indeed, the rigid imposition of back to back measurements ignores another critical point, flange width. So, in reality, we should not be looking at a back to back measurement but a back to FRONT measurement, which then makes allowances for flange width.
Of course all of this is to a degree irrelevant if you use moulded plastic wheelsets which cannot be adjusted. I note the recommendation to use N gauge standards of 7.4mm back to back, which I had done for many years simply by using a commercial N gauge back to back gauge. I stopped using this gauge when I discovered wheels set using it would not run through new Peco points. Wheels are now set, when necessary, by using a Vernier gauge set to a known free-running wheelset.
I tend to agree, Rod, though I must admit, like most Railway Modellers (not just OO9 ones) that I only start looking at B2Bs when something doesn't run right and that is quite rare these days with modern RTR stock and track (a certain Heljan loco excepted!)... Most of the time i find any dicky running down to either my bad track laying or a piece of ballast stuck somewhere it shouldn't be! If you scratchbuild chassis or track then some standards are needed but for most of us who just use RTR then they aren't...
Dear Rod,
The reason you don't understand it is that because of those standards you don't have to understand them, unless you have problems. There is no such thing as THE (one and only) N-gauge standard, not even for the 7,4mm back-to-back.
The reason why you can use freely Fleischmann, Trix, Graham Farish etc. on the same track is that they ALL followed the design dimensions developed by Arnold.
However, you will find that some engine - track combinations work better together than others. That's what I referred to with 'tweaks'.
And PECO will have spent a small fortune to design their track to accommodate the widest variety possible of other maker's engines. Such an approach has drawbacks too, so while it widens the customer base for their track it doesn't necessarily make for best running qualities.
it is only by developing these design dimensions into a set of standards, that full interchangeability is ensured with no compromise in other aspect, e.g. running qualities.
So, like it or loath it, standards are not for standard's sake; and even you enjoy the merits of standards, be it consciously or subconsciously or with cursing and swearing. ;D
Of course you can ignore that and stick with just one brand of track and rolling stock. That ensures it'll all work together well; and is exactly what manufacturers want.
And of course you can just fettle around until it works, creating your own 'standard' along the way. But sticking to one of the dominating standards from NEM or NMRA not only makes life easier for yourself (because you need less fettling as most stock will run straight off the box), but also allow your friend's engine to run on your layout and vice-versa.
So yes, you're right, sod the standards and create you're own world, you don't need the rest.
Me, I prefer to have some friends and co-operate, and for me the standards are not just most helpful, but also most educational; they help me to avoid mistakes. :D
Cheers
Waldschrat
Well, I have to say that is probably the most patronising reply I have ever had. I wonder if you actually bothered to read what I posted, let alone understand my reasoning? I shall not bother to correspond further with you over this matter as it would be a waste of both of our time.
It's a 'patron' saint, isn't it? ;D
Maybe my answer wasn't aimed at you so much, but more to balance the thread for the benefit off the newbies, who might not be that much aware what standards are about?
Put a nut on a bolt, or put a plug in a socket; in both cases you're using standards! Like them or loath them, they are part of out all lives! ;D
As I said you can do whatever you like, but I can't be bothered to reinvent the wheel, I rather learn from those who did. :laugh:
Cheers
Waldschrat
Quote from: Leprechaun on February 26, 2019, 22:23
.......The reason why you can use freely Fleischmann, Trix, Graham Farish etc. on the same track is that they ALL followed the design dimensions developed by Arnold.......
Cheers
Waldschrat
I am not sure that is entirely true.
If you measure the Arnold 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 loco wheel flanges you will find that they are larger than those used almost every other manufacture with the exception of Piko who also have large flanges.
Also most N gauge, 009 and H0e track manufactures have built their track and points for use with smaller wheel flanges than those used by Arnold on their locos.
You will also find that all the manufactures use slightly different wheel profiles to each other as well! Hardly any use the same wheel profiles including flange depth and thickness. If they had all followed the design dimensions developed by Arnold they would all be the same and they are not.
It is no good just sticking to one manufacture either as most have different wheel profiles, flange sizes and thicknesses even within their own range!
All that matters is getting all you locos and rolling stock to run smoothly through the points and track work you have on your layout, and to do this although a back to back gauge is a good tool as an initial guide some further adjustment may well be necessary to get good running.
It is just my opinion, but I think 'standards' are ideal if you build all your own track and turn all your own wheels, just like many in the 2mm association do, but for most of us who use a wide variety of manufactures products on our layouts having standards and trying to stick to them would in practice be next to useless.
Brian Meldon
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them."
Speaking as a newbie, I thought I was safe with 'my standard' - PECO track. I use code 75 for the 00 bit and code 80 for the 009 lines (don't ask !).
All was well until I picked up an old Triang tanker at a show. Result - the wheels are hitting the chairs...tweak time with the bench grinder to reduce the flange depth I thought, whereupon, I ground a nice 'flat' on one wheel ! (it had a semi-seized axle)...really I just needed the tank part for my diesel loco depot.
Hmm, standards...I think the jury's still out for me. Definitely something to aim for, but, will I ever attain ???
Dave
Avoid stuff from the 50s to the 60s made by Triang or Triang Hornby. They launches their "Series 6" track in 1970 and that used code 100 rail, the stuff before then (Super 4) was very crude in comparison. Hornby Dublo's wheel flanges were much finer as HD used code 100 rail back in the 60s.
Quote from: Hobby on February 27, 2019, 21:33
Avoid stuff from the 50s to the 60s made by Triang or Triang Hornby. They launches their "Series 6" track in 1970 and that used code 100 rail, the stuff before then (Super 4) was very crude in comparison. Hornby Dublo's wheel flanges were much finer as HD used code 100 rail back in the 60s.
That is correct. I have several old 1960's Triang and Triang-Hornby items from my childhood. To get them to run on modern Peco 00 track I have turned down all the wheel flanges.#
But obviously they are not 009!!
Brian Meldon
Someone on RMWeb recons Standard,Series 3 and Super 4 used rail of about code 150!!
Thanks both - it looks like a case of 'forewarned' is 'forearmed' !
Incidentally, the chassis on the tanker is die-cast, I think, with plastic wheels fixed to metal axles and running in 'axle boxes' that are cast into the chassis. Would this metal be "Mazak" (or, similar) ?
Dave
It could well be mazak, it was widely used at the time. The driving wheels of many of the 50s Triang locos were mazak as well! Then there's those early plastics with U-shaped coaches!
Dear Brian,
You're right, - to some extend. Arnold used their unique rail shape, and the wheels were designed to match. And what you listed in difference is what I meant with 'tweaking the standards' to ensure they are not really compatible. By the way, you forgot tread width, which in combination with certain switches causes shorts. :laugh:
And just a look at the ROCO H0e trucks through the ages shows you a whole range from steam roller flanges in the 1960s to NEM standard (N-gauge).
But back to the thread: thanks for confirming what I tried to highlight: before settling for one back-to-back measurement, a bit of soil-searching is sensible, and the decision to either stick with one manufacturer and his company standard, or to go for intentional standards like NEM or NMRA. Both options have their downside, as you rightly pointed out, reworking wheels and track to meet NMRA or NEM standards (wheels and axle you can buy for rolling stock), or being limited to one or two manufacturers. Mind you, as the companies don't publish their standards you have a problem right away: how do you know their standards, and whether they are adequately developed. :laugh:
Cheers
Waldschrat
I have a B2B gauge on my ToDo list for my 3D printer and am starting to think that I need to make a set from 7.3mm to 7.8mm in 0.1mm increments, and hang them on a chain like those sets of plastic measuring spoons!
Surely best to use just the one and make that the standard for all your stock. I also feel that a B2B gauge is one thing that you should buy in, they aren't expensive and a brass one will last for ever, I'm not convinced about using a plastic home made one when there are reasonably priced fully accurate commercially produced ones.