Wheel gauge query

[rod335]

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.

[Hobby]

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...

[Stefan Krebs]

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

[rod335]

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.

[Stefan Krebs]

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

[B.Meldon]

.......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

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them."

[Dave Cooper]

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

[Hobby]

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.

[B.Meldon]

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

[Hobby]

Someone on RMWeb recons Standard,Series 3 and Super 4 used rail of about code 150!!

[Dave Cooper]

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

[Hobby]

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!

[Stefan Krebs]

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

[Stephen Rainsbury]

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!