about Templot Club cookie information pre-print options:    

Templot club top logo looking for Templot? - (free)



 you are not logged in  - Login | Join


receive all messages by email: info


Recent Topics
  to bottom of page     Search  Image Gallery  Gallery Upload  My Account  Members  Help  
make a donation  
please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors Templot Companion - User Guide:  Beginner's Guide | Contents | A-Z Index
            messages archive on Yahoo
page trail:  Templot Club > Forums > Trackbuilding topics > Gauge 1 standard trackwork
main Templot web site

                                       Gauge 1 standard trackwork
     
 Start new topic   Reply blank   Printer friendly 
  Rate this topic  
AuthorMessage
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
1st message | this message only posted: 5 May 2017 12:04
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Richard Lambert
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi,

Many moons ago, I rocked the established O gauge boat and started building to and promoting 31.5mm trackwork - matching the track to the de facto wheel standards. I now find myself in exactly the same position in G1. The crossing noses on the 'standard' standard track take an almighty battering, especially considering the weight and speed of the locos in particular. I wonder whether there is scope to tighten up the trackwork through the turnouts in particular, and wish to take advantage of the expertise in this group to consider same.

The issue is in fact exactly the same. The wheels are thus. Now given that, what should the track work standards be.

Wheel Standards:
Back to back: 40mm
Wheel width: 6mm
Flange width: 1.5mm
Tread: 4.5mm
Back to back plus flange: 41.5mm

The current track standard has:
Gauge: 45mm
Flangeway: 3mm
Check gauge: 42mm

What should the track standards be given the wheel standard as set out?

Thank you for your assistance.

Richard Lambert

__________
message ref: 21468

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
2nd message | this message only posted: 5 May 2017 12:59
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Ian Allen
Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Richard,

Have you looked at the data for 1F on Templot ?

Gauge: 45.0mm
Flangeway gap: 1.75mm

However, that would equate to 41.5mm across check rails so you'd still need to lose 1.75mm to 2mm.

I'd be tempted to drop your gauge down to 43mm if using a 1.75mm flangeway, or if you go to 2mm, you could have a gauge of 43.5mm.
Both options would help with the crossing nose to wing rail gap.

Ian
__________
message ref: 21470

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
3rd message | this message only posted: 6 May 2017 12:25
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Richard Lambert wrote: The crossing noses on the 'standard' standard track take an almighty battering... ...The wheels are thus. Now given that, what should the track work standards be?

Wheel Standards:
Back to back: 40mm
Wheel width: 6mm
Flange width: 1.5mm
Tread: 4.5mm
Back to back plus flange: 41.5mm
Hi Richard,

The crossing noses are taking a battering, because like most of the "traditional" model railway standards, no allowance has been made for a blunt nose on the vee. And in order for the wheels to be fully supported (and in this case only barely so), the nose must be made dead sharp.

I have no practical experience of Gauge 1, so this below is based purely on the dimensions you gave. :)

I suggest going back to basics and deriving the track from the actual wheels.

We start with the magic fraction of 9/14ths. Which is the optimum ratio between flange thickness and flangeway gap.

So with a flange thickness of 1.5mm that means a flangeway gap of 1.5 x 14 / 9 = 2.33mm.

It's silly to go to a second decimal place in the larger scales, so I suggest a crossing flangeway gap of 2.3mm. That needs to be a MAX to calculate the minimum wheel width and ensure full wheel support through the crossing.

The prototype blunt nose width is 3/4" (bullhead, not GWR). The scale for Gauge 1 seems to be a bit variable, so let's say that is 0.6mm MAX blunt nose width.

That should be wide enough to take a bit of abuse from heavy locomotives, especially if you adopt the prototype practice of taking the top of it down below the height of the wing rails, to allow for the coning angle on the wheel tread.

We can now calculate the minimum wheel width, which is 2 x max flangeway gap, + max blunt nose, + a bit to ensure good support through the crossing.

So that's 2 x 2.3 , + 0.6 = 5.2 . Plus a bit = 5.5mm MIN wheel width.

Assuming wheels have been set to 40mm back-to-back nominal, this is likely to vary a bit on existing models. And some wheels may have a flange thickness a bit more than 1.5mm.

So let's make the back-to-flange dimension 41.7mm MAX. It is essential that this should be a MAX.

This dimension also becomes the minimum check gauge, and adding the flangeway gap gives us the minimum track gauge.

So track gauge = 41.7m + 2.3 = 44.0mm MIN.

And the check span is 41.7mm - 2.3mm = 39.4. Plus some freedom in the tolerancing = 39.5mm MAX.

Then choose a flange curving allowance, for which I suggest 0.3mm.

So that finally gives a minimum back-to-back of 39.5 + 0.3 = 39.8mm. MIN.

Summarising all that, I suggest:

WHEELS:

Wheel Width 5.5mm MIN.
Flange Thickness 1.9mm MAX.
Back-to-Flange: 41.7mm MAX. This is the most critical dimension.
Back-to-Back: 39.8mm MIN.

It is important to understand there is no maximum back-to-back dimension, the maximum wheel spacing on the axle is set by the Back-to-Flange dimension. For the best running aim to get as close to this as possible (without ever exceeding it), rather than the minimum back-to-back dimension.

Taking the flange thickness up to the 1.9mm maximum would obviously require setting the minimum 39.8mm back-to-back to avoid exceeding the 41.7mm back-to-flange.

TRACK:

Track Gauge: 44.0mm MIN.
Check Gauge: 41.7mm MIN. This is the most critical dimension.
Crossing Flangeway: 2.3mm MAX.
Blunt Nose: 0.6mm MAX.
Check Span: 39.5mm MAX.

Just to repeat this is all theory, I haven't actually tried it. :)

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 21471

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
4th message | this message only posted: 6 May 2017 14:48
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Richard Lambert
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thanks so much for that, it's exactly what I wanted. I do appreciate it's theoretical (at least until I build one), but seeing how successful 31.5mm has been in 7mm, I was sure something could be done that would improve both looks and running for 'standard' G1.

Now, how to get across the concept to G1MRA, hmmmm.:)

Richard
__________
message ref: 21472

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
5th message | this message only posted: 6 May 2017 16:05
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Richard Lambert wrote:Now, how to get across the concept to G1MRA, hmmmm.:)Hi Richard,

Which prompted me to go and look at their standards:

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

I see that some existing wheels may have a back-to-flange dimension up to 42.0mm (you did not mention that :( ).

Such wheels would not run very well on the dimensions I posted earlier.

Also the 40mm back-to-back is in fact the quoted minimum. In which case most wheels would presumably be wider. 

So increasing the check gauge to 42.0mm we get:

WHEELS:

Wheel Width 5.5mm MIN.
Flange Thickness 2.0mm MAX. (with back-to-back on minimum).
Back-to-Flange: 42.0mm MAX. This is the most critical dimension.
Back-to-Back: 40.0mm MIN.

TRACK:

Track Gauge: 44.3mm MIN.
Check Gauge: 42.0mm MIN. This is the most critical dimension.
Also no change from the existing standard, for maximum compatibility.

Crossing Flangeway: 2.3mm MAX.
Blunt Nose: 0.6mm MAX.
Check Span: 39.8mm MAX.

Which may work better with a mixture of existing wheels. But loses the convenience of a round figure for the track gauge.

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 21473

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
6th message | this message only posted: 6 May 2017 16:16
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Richard Lambert
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Martin,

The figures I gave you (just like the Slater's wheels in 7mm scale) were taken from the wheels in my possession covering all the manufacturers I am likely to run. They are what they are, irrespective of what G1MRA may say, so your original figures are sound for my purposes.

The figures I quoted suit Aster, Marklin, Kiss, KM1, Hubner, Finescale Brass, J&M. I shall build a turnout to your initial suggestions and report back!

Yours,

Richard

Edit: I realise now having looked at the G1MRA standards, that I hadn't looked at the +/- column, so I see where you are coming from. I shall measure some of my wheels to see exactly how well they fit the parameters, particularly the BEF.

R

__________
message ref: 21474

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
7th message | this message only posted: 6 May 2017 16:26
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Richard Lambert wrote: The figures I quoted suit Aster, Marklin, Kiss, KM1, Hubner, Finescale Brass, J&M. I shall build a turnout to your initial suggestions and report back!Hi Richard,

OK. You know what you are doing. :)

When the fireworks begin with G1MRA, I shall watch from afar with interest!

IMPORTANT: Your new standard needs a unique name. This is important so that it can be referred to without confusion. Also so that I can include it in Templot. I suggest 1-MC (modified coarse).

regards,

Martin.
 

__________
message ref: 21475

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
8th message | this message only posted: 8 May 2017 06:59
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Terry Flynn
Australia

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Richard Lambert wrote: Hi,

Many moons ago, I rocked the established O gauge boat and started building to and promoting 31.5mm trackwork - matching the track to the de facto wheel standards. I now find myself in exactly the same position in G1. The crossing noses on the 'standard' standard track take an almighty battering, especially considering the weight and speed of the locos in particular. I wonder whether there is scope to tighten up the trackwork through the turnouts in particular, and wish to take advantage of the expertise in this group to consider same.

The issue is in fact exactly the same. The wheels are thus. Now given that, what should the track work standards be.

Wheel Standards:
Back to back: 40mm
Wheel width: 6mm
Flange width: 1.5mm
Tread: 4.5mm
Back to back plus flange: 41.5mm

The current track standard has:
Gauge: 45mm
Flangeway: 3mm
Check gauge: 42mm

What should the track standards be given the wheel standard as set out?

Thank you for your assistance.

Richard Lambert
Hello Richard,
The answer depends on what tolerances are on your wheel specification and to what accuracy you can make track to.

The AMRA fine tolerance standard suits the wheels you are using. http://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/finewheeltrack.pdf

The recommended dimensions from the AMRA fine tolerance standard for 1 gauge crossings are;

Track gauge 14.4mm to 14.5mm
Track flangeway 2.5mm to 2.6mm

This gives a check gauge of 41.8mm 
This gives a maximum span of 39.5mm
Wheel drop will be minimal as the flangeway is less than double the wheel width.

If you try to use a finer track tolerance and maintaining the above check gauge using the same AMRA spread sheet mathematics we get. 

Track gauge 44.28mm to 44.34mm
Track flangeway 2.42mm to 2.48mm

This will give less wheel drop, but it will be harder to get within tolerance. 

Cheers,
Terry Flynn.


__________
message ref: 21477

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
9th message | this message only posted: 12 May 2017 13:33
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Richard Lambert
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thank you Terry.

I have been further looking at the wheels amongst the group members. The variation, particularly amongst the higher end of the market, Kiss and KM1 was more than I was expecting, and indeed, they were not as fine as the wheels on my own stock. I have had to revise my thinking....and owe Martin an apology along the way as the wheel standard I adopt is likely to be his second set of figures.

My Marklin live steam BR44 has BTB 39.8mm and BEF 41.2mm.
A Kiss BR 38 (2008 model) has BTB 39.9mm and BEF of 41.2mm
A KM1 BR23 (2014 model) has BTB 40.0mm and BEF of 41.8mm
An Aster MN has BTB 39.9mm and BEF of 41.8mm

Ho hum, more thinking.

Richard
__________
message ref: 21500

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
10th message | this message only posted: 12 May 2017 14:07
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Richard Lambert wrote:My Marklin live steam BR44 has BTB 39.8mm and BEF 41.2mm.
A Kiss BR 38 (2008 model) has BTB 39.9mm and BEF of 41.2mm
A KM1 BR23 (2014 model) has BTB 40.0mm and BEF of 41.8mm
An Aster MN has BTB 39.9mm and BEF of 41.8mm

Ho hum, more thinking.
Hi Richard,

Always the way with a mixed collection of RTR models. :(

Using my second set of figures, the Marklin is likely to bind across the check span at 39.8mm back-to-back.

To run all these reliably I think you will need to open things up a bit more.

I suggest a flangeway of 2.5mm max, check gauge of 42.0mm min, minimum wheel width 5.75mm.

So thirdly:

TRACK:

Track Gauge: 44.5mm MIN.  (see p.s. below)
Check Gauge: 42.0mm MIN. This is the most critical dimension.

Crossing Flangeway: 2.5mm MAX.
Blunt Nose: 0.6mm MAX.

Check Span: 39.6mm MAX.


WHEELS:

Wheel Width 5.75mm MIN.
Flange Thickness 2.0mm MAX.

Back-to-Flange: 42.0mm MAX. This is the most critical dimension.
Back-to-Back: 39.8mm MIN.

p.s. You might like to make the flangeway 2.45mm max, in which case the track gauge becomes 44.45mm min. Which just happens to be the traditional Gauge 1 track gauge of 1.3/4". :)

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 21501

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
11th message | this message only posted: 13 May 2017 20:57
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Richard Lambert
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thank you Martin. I'm going with the 2.45mm flangeway and 44.45mm gauge....at least that is what the gauges I will be using will be machined to.

As for a name for this, how about 'modified standard'? To use coarse to my mind implies it is worse than standard. I will let you know how well it works!

Thank you for your assistance.

Richard
__________
message ref: 21504

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
12th message | this message only posted: 13 May 2017 21:28
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Richard Lambert wrote: Thank you Martin. I'm going with the 2.45mm flangeway and 44.45mm gauge....at least that is what the gauges I will be using will be machined toHi Richard,

I like it! It's good to retain traditional imperial dimensions when we can. They are always more brain-friendly. 1.3/4" is a nice dimension for us -- it's the prototype flangeway gap.
 
As for a name for this, how about 'modified standard'? To use coarse to my mind implies it is worse than standard. OK, it's your gauge. :)

But currently we don't have a standard called "Standard" in Templot. The 3 existing Gauge 1 pre-sets are called:

P-32  ScaleOne32
1C  Gauge 1 Coarse
1F  Gauge 1 Fine

I will add 1-MS (or just 1M ?) in the next program update, but maybe wait until you: 

I will let you know how well it works!I look forward to your report.

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 21505

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
13th message | this message only posted: 14 May 2017 22:50
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Terry Flynn
Australia

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Richard Lambert wrote: Thank you Martin. I'm going with the 2.45mm flangeway and 44.45mm gauge....at least that is what the gauges I will be using will be machined to.

As for a name for this, how about 'modified standard'? To use coarse to my mind implies it is worse than standard. I will let you know how well it works!

Thank you for your assistance.

Richard
Hello Richard,
All the wheels you have measured so fare are suitable for the AMRA track standard. If you want to use 2.45mm nominal flangeways then I strongly suggest you use the 44.31mm nominal track gauge otherwise you may end up with the back to back of some models binding on the check and wing rails. Personally I would call it 1-SF. 

Martin, Why no AMRA  1 gauge standrds in Templot ? 44.45mm track gauge, flangeway 2.55mm = AMRA-FT (AMRA fine tolerance)

Cheers,
Terry Flynn.

__________
message ref: 21509

 
This is topic ID = 3020     Page created at 12:40 (local time)  
You can type a quick reply to this topic here.

Click in the box to begin.


But to reply to an individual message, or to include images, attachments and formatted text, use the reply buttons on each message above.

To start a new topic in this forum, click the Start new topic button below.
To start a new topic in a different forum, click the Forum Jump drop-down list below.

             Start new topic 

 click to jump to a different forum:     Back to top of page

Templot Club > Forums > Trackbuilding topics > Gauge 1 standard trackwork
about Templot Club

list recently active topics Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Old Templot Companion Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines only

back to top of page


Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so.

The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason.
Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2017  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems