222 27388  body

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
> platform edge in OO?  I could measure it from my models but it would
> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
> and didn't fit :-)
>  
> Guy

My friend here [now late friend :-(] did his by running a pencil along
with a carriage to make the template. They seem to look OK on his old
large layout.

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:58:08 +0000, thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
wrote:

>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
>> platform edge in OO?  I could measure it from my models but it would
>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
>> and didn't fit :-)

>My friend here [now late friend :-(] did his by running a pencil along
>with a carriage to make the template. They seem to look OK on his old
>large layout.

That's how I'm intending to get the curves right, but I am wondering
about the actual spacing.

The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
elaborate constructions.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:58:08 +0000, thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
> 
>>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
>>> platform edge in OO?  I could measure it from my models but it would
>>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
>>> and didn't fit :-)
> 
>> My friend here [now late friend :-(] did his by running a pencil along
>> with a carriage to make the template. They seem to look OK on his old
>> large layout.
> 
> That's how I'm intending to get the curves right, but I am wondering
> about the actual spacing.
> 
> The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
> platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
> elaborate constructions.
>  
> Guy

The easiest way is to think in term of centre to centre spacing on 
double track.

Based on experience, NMRA clearance diagram works just fine for OO, 
because UK rolling stock is smaller than US. For curves, allow an extra 
3/8 for 15" radius, 1/4" for 18", 1/8" for 24", and 1/16" for 36" radius 
(sorry, I haven't a clue what that means in terms of "radius 1", etc, as 
over here we work in  actual radii.) If you make a quick'n'dirty graph 
on 1/4" or 5mm squared paper, you can interpolate for other radii.
NMRA
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/s-7.html

NEM norms should be close, but note that European rolling stock is 
intermediate in szie between UK and N. American.
NEM:
http://www.morop.org/en/normes/nem102_e.pdf, 
http://www.morop.org/en/normes/nem103_e.pdf

And of course you can check out the prototype, and convert:
http://www.btinternet.com/~joyce.whitchurch/gauges/text.htm
Sorry, dimensions are metric, and they don't allow for the tight model 
curves.

cheers,
wolf k.

On Oct 31, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
> platform edge in OO?  I could measure it from my models but it would
> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
> and didn't fit :-)
>
> Guy
> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
> GPG public ket athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

I found that 5mm was good for the largest locos and longest carriages
down to a radius of  60 cms but actually based on 80cms.   The worst
locos were the Scot/ Jubilee/Patriots etc because of their front steps
which actually can swing quite a significant distance across the line
of advance!

Peter A

"Andy Hewitt"  wrote in message 
news:1j8gskm.12co1g41dqrxj0N%thewildrover@me.com...
> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
>> platform edge in OO?  I could measure it from my models but it would
>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
>> and didn't fit :-)
>>
>> Guy
>
> My friend here [now late friend :-(] did his by running a pencil along
> with a carriage to make the template. They seem to look OK on his old
> large layout.
>
> -- 
> Andy Hewitt
> <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

true to big railway - Stanier had chalk fitted to cylinders of a Crab to 
check all places civil engineer said Black 5 wasnt wellcome. Wonder if that 
was the first time civil engineer was forced to reveal exactly why a loco 
wasnt allowed on a route.

Cheers,
Simon

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:58:08 +0000, thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
> 
> >> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
> >> platform edge in OO?  I could measure it from my models but it would
> >> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
> >> and didn't fit :-)
> 
> >My friend here [now late friend :-(] did his by running a pencil along
> >with a carriage to make the template. They seem to look OK on his old
> >large layout.
> 
> That's how I'm intending to get the curves right, but I am wondering
> about the actual spacing.

Interweb search only finds a suggestion for 1/8", which happens to be
the centre line of a standard pencil :-) (or at least the one I measured
here).

> The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
> platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
> elaborate constructions.

Yes, I think I'll be looking at Metcalfe stuff too.

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:59:27 -0400, Wolf K 
wrote:

>The easiest way is to think in term of centre to centre spacing on 
>double track.
>
>Based on experience, NMRA clearance diagram works just fine for OO, 
>because UK rolling stock is smaller than US. For curves, allow an extra 
>3/8 for 15" radius, 1/4" for 18", 1/8" for 24", and 1/16" for 36" radius 
>(sorry, I haven't a clue what that means in terms of "radius 1", etc, as 
>over here we work in  actual radii.) If you make a quick'n'dirty graph 
>on 1/4" or 5mm squared paper, you can interpolate for other radii.
>NMRA
>http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/s-7.html

Excellent, just what I was looking for.  Thanks.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:56:44 +0000, thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
wrote:

>> The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
>> platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
>> elaborate constructions.
>
>Yes, I think I'll be looking at Metcalfe stuff too.

Peco plastic ones with Plastikard might be acceptable.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

"Sailor"  wrote in message 
news:062e3cde-e341-40b3-9b2f-e64c978723a3@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
> platform edge in OO? I could measure it from my models but it would
> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
> and didn't fit :-)
>
> Guy
> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
> GPG public ket athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

I found that 5mm was good for the largest locos and longest carriages
down to a radius of  60 cms but actually based on 80cms.   The worst
locos were the Scot/ Jubilee/Patriots etc because of their front steps
which actually can swing quite a significant distance across the line
of advance!

Peter A


I had some -very- tight curves to add a platform to on the inside of the 
curve so I took the longest item of stock, attached a pencil to the side at 
the centre and used that to draw the line, for an outside curve it'd be at 
the end of the longest item.  That worked for me, but if the locomotives 
stick out disproportionately more there might be a problem with them 
(although a quick check with a card template based on the curve would show 
that).

Regards

Mike

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:02:31 +1300, Mike Smith <mike@invalid.invalid>  
wrote:

>
> "Sailor"  wrote in message  
> news:062e3cde-e341-40b3-9b2f-e64c978723a3@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
>> platform edge in OO? I could measure it from my models but it would
>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
>> and didn't fit :-)
>>
>> Guy
>> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
>> GPG public ket athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
>
> I found that 5mm was good for the largest locos and longest carriages
> down to a radius of  60 cms but actually based on 80cms.   The worst
> locos were the Scot/ Jubilee/Patriots etc because of their front steps
> which actually can swing quite a significant distance across the line
> of advance!
>
> Peter A
>
>
> I had some -very- tight curves to add a platform to on the inside of the  
> curve so I took the longest item of stock, attached a pencil to the side  
> at the centre and used that to draw the line, for an outside curve it'd  
> be at the end of the longest item.  That worked for me, but if the  
> locomotives stick out disproportionately more there might be a problem  
> with them (although a quick check with a card template based on the  
> curve would show that).
>
> Regards
>
> Mike



The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small drivers,
short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
On one of my early scenicked layouts I built for tank locos and short
passenger rolling stock. Fell in love with a Pacific in my local S/H
model shop and managed enough pocket money and tradables to manage
to carry it home. It was surprising just how may places the big cylinders
wouldn't clear and how much rebuilding was required before it would
do a complete circuit.The worst bit was not leaving enough clearance
on the curves in front of the backscene!

Greg.P.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:39:57 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:02:31 +1300, Mike Smith <mike@invalid.invalid>  
>wrote:
>
>>
>> "Sailor"  wrote in message  
>> news:062e3cde-e341-40b3-9b2f-e64c978723a3@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 31, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
>>> platform edge in OO? I could measure it from my models but it would
>>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
>>> and didn't fit :-)
>>>
>>> Guy
>>> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
>>> GPG public ket athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
>>
>> I found that 5mm was good for the largest locos and longest carriages
>> down to a radius of  60 cms but actually based on 80cms.   The worst
>> locos were the Scot/ Jubilee/Patriots etc because of their front steps
>> which actually can swing quite a significant distance across the line
>> of advance!
>>
>> Peter A
>>
>>
>> I had some -very- tight curves to add a platform to on the inside of the  
>> curve so I took the longest item of stock, attached a pencil to the side  
>> at the centre and used that to draw the line, for an outside curve it'd  
>> be at the end of the longest item.  That worked for me, but if the  
>> locomotives stick out disproportionately more there might be a problem  
>> with them (although a quick check with a card template based on the  
>> curve would show that).
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>
>The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small drivers,
>short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
>4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!

Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
don't have the overhang problems.

The ex- Bristol & Exeter 4-2-4 tanks actually ran like carriages.
Bogies were pivoted at the centre with no side play, and flangeless
drivers with wide treads. 

Don't mention Dean's GWR 3251 0-4-4 tanks. They had the same problem
as a long wheelbase OO 0-4-4T. No side control on the bogie and a
short coupled wheelbase that made it wobble from side to side. They
wouldn't stay on the track and were rebuilt as (IMO) handsome
small-wheeled sandwich framed 4-4-0 tender engines.

>On one of my early scenicked layouts I built for tank locos and short
>passenger rolling stock. Fell in love with a Pacific in my local S/H
>model shop and managed enough pocket money and tradables to manage
>to carry it home. It was surprising just how may places the big cylinders
>wouldn't clear and how much rebuilding was required before it would
>do a complete circuit.The worst bit was not leaving enough clearance
>on the curves in front of the backscene!
>
>Greg.P.

On Oct 31, 11:00 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:56:44 퍍, thewildro...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >> The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
> >> platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
> >> elaborate constructions.
>
> >Yes, I think I'll be looking at Metcalfe stuff too.
>
> Peco plastic ones with Plastikard might be acceptable.
>

I would use Scalescenes.

MBQ

On Nov 2, 3:26 am, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:39:57 흽, "Greg.Procter"
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:02:31 흽, Mike Smith <m...@invalid.invalid>  
> >wrote:
>
> >> "Sailor"  wrote in message  
> >>news:062e3cde-e341-40b3-9b2f-e64c978723a3@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.> >> On Oct 31, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> >>  wrote:
> >>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
> >>> platform edge in OO? I could measure it from my models but it would
> >>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
> >>> and didn't fit :-)
>
> >>> Guy
> >>> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
> >>> GPG public ket athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
>
> >> I found that 5mm was good for the largest locos and longest carriages
> >> down to a radius of  60 cms but actually based on 80cms.   The worst
> >> locos were the Scot/ Jubilee/Patriots etc because of their front steps
> >> which actually can swing quite a significant distance across the line
> >> of advance!
>
> >> Peter A
>
> >> I had some -very- tight curves to add a platform to on the inside of the  
> >> curve so I took the longest item of stock, attached a pencil to the side  
> >> at the centre and used that to draw the line, for an outside curve it'd  
> >> be at the end of the longest item.  That worked for me, but if the  
> >> locomotives stick out disproportionately more there might be a problem  
> >> with them (although a quick check with a card template based on the  
> >> curve would show that).
>
> >> Regards
>
> >> Mike
>
> >The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small drivers,
> >short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
> >4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
>
> Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
> side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
> don't have the overhang problems.

The body is rigid and will always overhang on the much tighter than
scale curves found on most models.

MBQ

"manatbandq@hotmail.com"  wrote in news:c89a49dc-
e92e-4cde-a126-d441e04122a1@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 31, 11:00 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:56:44 +0000, thewildro...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
>> >> platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
>> >> elaborate constructions.
>>
>> >Yes, I think I'll be looking at Metcalfe stuff too.
>>
>> Peco plastic ones with Plastikard might be acceptable.
>>
> 
> I would use Scalescenes.

Three-ply laminated with some plasticard - or for the terminally deranged 
(I can say this as my 7' platforms were made this way) three-play with a 
scim of plaster over the top then scribed.

-- 
All the best,

Chris

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:09 +1300, Christopher A. Lee  
 wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:39:57 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:02:31 +1300, Mike Smith <mike@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sailor"  wrote in message
>>> news:062e3cde-e341-40b3-9b2f-e64c978723a3@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 31, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>  wrote:
>>>> How much clearance do folks usually leave between the running rail and
>>>> platform edge in OO? I could measure it from my models but it would
>>>> be a bit sad if I later bought one that was wider over the valvegear
>>>> and didn't fit :-)
>>>>
>>>> Guy
>>>> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
>>>> GPG public ket athttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
>>>
>>> I found that 5mm was good for the largest locos and longest carriages
>>> down to a radius of  60 cms but actually based on 80cms.   The worst
>>> locos were the Scot/ Jubilee/Patriots etc because of their front steps
>>> which actually can swing quite a significant distance across the line
>>> of advance!
>>>
>>> Peter A
>>>
>>>
>>> I had some -very- tight curves to add a platform to on the inside of  
>>> the
>>> curve so I took the longest item of stock, attached a pencil to the  
>>> side
>>> at the centre and used that to draw the line, for an outside curve it'd
>>> be at the end of the longest item.  That worked for me, but if the
>>> locomotives stick out disproportionately more there might be a problem
>>> with them (although a quick check with a card template based on the
>>> curve would show that).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small drivers,
>> short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
>> 4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
>
> Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
> side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
> don't have the overhang problems.


The only British 0-4-4/4-4-0 models I can picture that meet
those criteria are of Diesel outline ;-)


>
> The ex- Bristol & Exeter 4-2-4 tanks actually ran like carriages.
> Bogies were pivoted at the centre with no side play, and flangeless
> drivers with wide treads.

Good point - would a model constructed that way go around R1 curves?


>
> Don't mention Dean's GWR 3251 0-4-4 tanks. They had the same problem
> as a long wheelbase OO 0-4-4T. No side control on the bogie and a
> short coupled wheelbase that made it wobble from side to side. They
> wouldn't stay on the track and were rebuilt as (IMO) handsome
> small-wheeled sandwich framed 4-4-0 tender engines.
>
>> On one of my early scenicked layouts I built for tank locos and short
>> passenger rolling stock. Fell in love with a Pacific in my local S/H
>> model shop and managed enough pocket money and tradables to manage
>> to carry it home. It was surprising just how may places the big  
>> cylinders
>> wouldn't clear and how much rebuilding was required before it would
>> do a complete circuit.The worst bit was not leaving enough clearance
>> on the curves in front of the backscene!
>>
>> Greg.P.



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Chris Wilson wrote:
> "manatbandq@hotmail.com"  wrote in news:c89a49dc-
> e92e-4cde-a126-d441e04122a1@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> 
>> On Oct 31, 11:00 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:56:44 +0000, thewildro...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The first platform is going to be a cop-out anyway, using a Metcalfe
>>>>> platform kit.  For the main station I will be using rather more
>>>>> elaborate constructions.
>>>> Yes, I think I'll be looking at Metcalfe stuff too.
>>> Peco plastic ones with Plastikard might be acceptable.
>>>
>> I would use Scalescenes.
> 
> Three-ply laminated with some plasticard - or for the terminally deranged 
> (I can say this as my 7' platforms were made this way) three-play with a 
> scim of plaster over the top then scribed.
> 


Obsessiveness can be soothing when taken in small doses.

I'm about to pour a single malt, and settle down to an hour of nicely 
done teevy.

So good night all,

;-)

wolf k.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:21:35 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:09 +1300, Christopher A. Lee  
> wrote:

>>> The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small drivers,
>>> short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
>>> 4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
>>
>> Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
>> side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
>> don't have the overhang problems.
>
>The only British 0-4-4/4-4-0 models I can picture that meet
>those criteria are of Diesel outline ;-)

The P4 guys do it, as do many of the 7mm guys.

Most of my 7mm engines are either 0-6-0s, 2-4-0s or 0-4-2s with a
rigid (but compensated) wheelbase.

The only bogie engine is a Dean single built from a GW 150 limited
edition kit from DJB. The driven and trailing axle are equalised by
making the ashpan like a bogie that only pivots vertically. The bogie
truck has a nice lost wax casting for the bolster, with springs on
either side of a rubbing plate that carries the weight of the front of
the engine.

Basically, it depends what kit you build. The better ones do this, and
you can also buy the necessary bits from other suppliers.
 
>> The ex- Bristol & Exeter 4-2-4 tanks actually ran like carriages.
>> Bogies were pivoted at the centre with no side play, and flangeless
>> drivers with wide treads.
>
>Good point - would a model constructed that way go around R1 curves?

I don't know. The only 4mm model I have seen was actually built like
an 0-10-0 and powered as a 1A1A1. It went round the sort oc curves you
get on a fiddle yard - station - fiddle yard layout.

I know you're in the antipodes, but if you've ever managed to get to
the NRM at York there are a pair of driving wheels and axle on display
outside the museum, on the way in, from one of these.

>> Don't mention Dean's GWR 3251 0-4-4 tanks. They had the same problem
>> as a long wheelbase OO 0-4-4T. No side control on the bogie and a
>> short coupled wheelbase that made it wobble from side to side. They
>> wouldn't stay on the track and were rebuilt as (IMO) handsome
>> small-wheeled sandwich framed 4-4-0 tender engines.
>>
>>> On one of my early scenicked layouts I built for tank locos and short
>>> passenger rolling stock. Fell in love with a Pacific in my local S/H
>>> model shop and managed enough pocket money and tradables to manage
>>> to carry it home. It was surprising just how may places the big  
>>> cylinders
>>> wouldn't clear and how much rebuilding was required before it would
>>> do a complete circuit.The worst bit was not leaving enough clearance
>>> on the curves in front of the backscene!
>>>
>>> Greg.P.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:50:46 +1300, Christopher A. Lee  
 wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:21:35 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:09 +1300, Christopher A. Lee
>>  wrote:
>
>>>> The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small  
>>>> drivers,
>>>> short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
>>>> 4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
>>> side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
>>> don't have the overhang problems.
>>
>> The only British 0-4-4/4-4-0 models I can picture that meet
>> those criteria are of Diesel outline ;-)
>
> The P4 guys do it, as do many of the 7mm guys.

Radius is the BIG difference! Show me a P4 layout using circa 360mm
radius curves and I'll eat my entire collection of hats!

>
> Most of my 7mm engines are either 0-6-0s, 2-4-0s or 0-4-2s with a
> rigid (but compensated) wheelbase.
>
> The only bogie engine is a Dean single built from a GW 150 limited
> edition kit from DJB. The driven and trailing axle are equalised by
> making the ashpan like a bogie that only pivots vertically. The bogie
> truck has a nice lost wax casting for the bolster, with springs on
> either side of a rubbing plate that carries the weight of the front of
> the engine.

The driving and rear carrying axles are the equivalent of the 2 rigid
(horizontally) driving axles of a 4-4-0 or 0-4-4.

>
> Basically, it depends what kit you build. The better ones do this, and
> you can also buy the necessary bits from other suppliers.

I mostly build my own as I'm into old-time German plus HO L&Y.

>
>>> The ex- Bristol & Exeter 4-2-4 tanks actually ran like carriages.
>>> Bogies were pivoted at the centre with no side play, and flangeless
>>> drivers with wide treads.
>>
>> Good point - would a model constructed that way go around R1 curves?
>
> I don't know. The only 4mm model I have seen was actually built like
> an 0-10-0 and powered as a 1A1A1. It went round the sort oc curves you
> get on a fiddle yard - station - fiddle yard layout.
>

Not the same sort of overhang on an all-driver loco as on a short  
wheelbase,
long overhang loco like a 4-4-0.


> I know you're in the antipodes, but if you've ever managed to get to
> the NRM at York there are a pair of driving wheels and axle on display
> outside the museum, on the way in, from one of these.
>

York railway museum is definitely on my list of UK highlights.

>>> Don't mention Dean's GWR 3251 0-4-4 tanks. They had the same problem
>>> as a long wheelbase OO 0-4-4T. No side control on the bogie and a
>>> short coupled wheelbase that made it wobble from side to side. They
>>> wouldn't stay on the track and were rebuilt as (IMO) handsome
>>> small-wheeled sandwich framed 4-4-0 tender engines.
>>>
>>>> On one of my early scenicked layouts I built for tank locos and short
>>>> passenger rolling stock. Fell in love with a Pacific in my local S/H
>>>> model shop and managed enough pocket money and tradables to manage
>>>> to carry it home. It was surprising just how may places the big
>>>> cylinders
>>>> wouldn't clear and how much rebuilding was required before it would
>>>> do a complete circuit.The worst bit was not leaving enough clearance
>>>> on the curves in front of the backscene!
>>>>
>>>> Greg.P.



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:37:25 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:50:46 +1300, Christopher A. Lee  
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:21:35 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:09 +1300, Christopher A. Lee
>>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>> The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small  
>>>>> drivers,
>>>>> short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or a
>>>>> 4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
>>>> side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
>>>> don't have the overhang problems.
>>>
>>> The only British 0-4-4/4-4-0 models I can picture that meet
>>> those criteria are of Diesel outline ;-)
>>
>> The P4 guys do it, as do many of the 7mm guys.
>
>Radius is the BIG difference! Show me a P4 layout using circa 360mm
>radius curves and I'll eat my entire collection of hats!

Crichel down. When I saw it, it had a GE tram engine and a small
saddle tank. Only small locomotives but it had 2' radius reverse
curves and a Y-turnout with a 1 in 2 frog angle.

>> Most of my 7mm engines are either 0-6-0s, 2-4-0s or 0-4-2s with a
>> rigid (but compensated) wheelbase.
>>
>> The only bogie engine is a Dean single built from a GW 150 limited
>> edition kit from DJB. The driven and trailing axle are equalised by
>> making the ashpan like a bogie that only pivots vertically. The bogie
>> truck has a nice lost wax casting for the bolster, with springs on
>> either side of a rubbing plate that carries the weight of the front of
>> the engine.
>
>The driving and rear carrying axles are the equivalent of the 2 rigid
>(horizontally) driving axles of a 4-4-0 or 0-4-4.

Yes, but they're not rigid. It makes it like the diesel outline models
you describe, except that one bogie has side control and the other
only pivots vertically. DJB's 4-4-0s I've seen work the same way.
 
When I was still in OO I toyed with the idea of building a GWR City
(using a plastic Airfix kit body) with a coupled motor bogie having
limited horizontal rotation - you can hide a lot behind the outside
frames. The most visible compromise would be wider slots for the axles
but these would be hidden by the wheels.

This was to overcome the problem of the outside frames limiting the
bogie's side play and let it go round fairly tight curves. It really
would be like a bogie diesel.

I had previously had a white metal Dukedog that was built the old
fashioned way - like a rigid 0-4-0 with a long front overhang and a
bogie that just went along for the ride - and wanted something better.

I also had a Triang Dean Single with its horrible frame cutouts and
wanted something better than that, too.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:24:40 +1300, Christopher A. Lee  
 wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:37:25 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:50:46 +1300, Christopher A. Lee
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:21:35 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:09 +1300, Christopher A. Lee
>>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The worst locos would be 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts in reverse. (small
>>>>>> drivers,
>>>>>> short rigid wheelbase and long overhang) Of course a 4-2-4 (GWR) or  
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> 4-6-6t (DR) would also be bad!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. If the bogie works as on the prototype with proper
>>>>> side control and carrying the weight of the front of the engine, you
>>>>> don't have the overhang problems.
>>>>
>>>> The only British 0-4-4/4-4-0 models I can picture that meet
>>>> those criteria are of Diesel outline ;-)
>>>
>>> The P4 guys do it, as do many of the 7mm guys.
>>
>> Radius is the BIG difference! Show me a P4 layout using circa 360mm
>> radius curves and I'll eat my entire collection of hats!
>
> Crichel down.


Is that an admonition or a layout name??? ;-)

> When I saw it, it had a GE tram engine and a small
> saddle tank. Only small locomotives but it had 2' radius reverse
> curves and a Y-turnout with a 1 in 2 frog angle.

Short locos and impossibly lage radii!

>
>>> Most of my 7mm engines are either 0-6-0s, 2-4-0s or 0-4-2s with a
>>> rigid (but compensated) wheelbase.
>>>
>>> The only bogie engine is a Dean single built from a GW 150 limited
>>> edition kit from DJB. The driven and trailing axle are equalised by
>>> making the ashpan like a bogie that only pivots vertically. The bogie
>>> truck has a nice lost wax casting for the bolster, with springs on
>>> either side of a rubbing plate that carries the weight of the front of
>>> the engine.
>>
>> The driving and rear carrying axles are the equivalent of the 2 rigid
>> (horizontally) driving axles of a 4-4-0 or 0-4-4.
>
> Yes, but they're not rigid. It makes it like the diesel outline models
> you describe, except that one bogie has side control and the other
> only pivots vertically. DJB's 4-4-0s I've seen work the same way.
> When I was still in OO I toyed with the idea of building a GWR City
> (using a plastic Airfix kit body) with a coupled motor bogie having
> limited horizontal rotation - you can hide a lot behind the outside
> frames. The most visible compromise would be wider slots for the axles
> but these would be hidden by the wheels.

Yes, that sort of thing can be done, in fact has to be done for my
sort of radii!
Built an outside cylindered 4-4-0 with second and fourth axles rigid
and the driving axle flangeless. That worked very well.
DJH's 2-12-0 with second driving axle and fifth driving axle rigid,
third and fourth on a narrow bogie. It goes around 360mm radii without
problems and minimal overhangs.


>
> This was to overcome the problem of the outside frames limiting the
> bogie's side play and let it go round fairly tight curves. It really
> would be like a bogie diesel.
>
> I had previously had a white metal Dukedog that was built the old
> fashioned way - like a rigid 0-4-0 with a long front overhang and a
> bogie that just went along for the ride - and wanted something better.
>
> I also had a Triang Dean Single with its horrible frame cutouts and
> wanted something better than that, too.

Some people are never satisfied ;-)))))

Greg.P.



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/