1/32 Promoting Better Wheels and Track

jamiepage

Western Thunderer
However - I will try just once more to put my view across.

Done. Can that really be the end of it please?

Your core point that G1MRA standards are good because you've found you can also run a 16mm NG loco on their track completely misses any point worth discussing here.
Your responses to David's comments were patronising and rude. Your alternative 'solutions' such as 'ball bearing wheels, avoiding 'S bends' (!), and something about ensuring both wheel and track were within gauge, rather speak for themselves.

The internet must provide plenty of opportunities for waffling, cod academic pontificating and the 'debates' you seem to want, elsewhere, surely?

Here, I'd really like to hear more from David, more about Jim's swinging crossing nose, or our manufacturer's experiences in the 1/32 world, and other practical stuff like that.
I hope the good stuff doesn't get swamped by this sort of provocatively rude and yet rambling and ill informed theorising.
 

Simon

Flying Squad
Just for the record, for those readers who aren't members of G1MRA or otherwise aware, the track standards used by G1MRA, (the "Standard standard" as it is rather nattily known) are fundamentally flawed in that twice the specified flangeway actually equals the specified wheel width. (3mm and 6mm respectively)

This breaks one of the rules of specifying (any) set of track standards, as it guarantees that wheels are able to drop into the rail gap in front of the crossing nose. This they do on all G1MRA "standard" tracks, which has and does cause problems. Whatever any of us says here, these problems are well documented and have been observed and recorded over years and years of G1MRA newsletters, meetings and conversations. The mass and speed of a typical G1 live steamer and its train exacerbate the problem, produce the characteristic clattering and hammering one sees at shows and serious deformation at crossing noses, as David illustrates pictorially at the beginning of the thread.

Just by way of comparison, ScaleOne32 specifies a flangeway of 1.5mm and a wheel width of 4.5mm.

This is the factual background of the track standard that is still promoted by G1MRA and used on nearly all Gauge one tracks built in the UK.

To be fair, it arose through the desire and perceived need within G1MRA after WW2 to have a track standard that would allow the running of pre war tinplate stock as well as more modern rolling stock.

By the 1980s if not earlier, all tinplate stock was being cheerfully run on its own vintage tracks and the stock running on layouts was all being, or had been, built for the purpose.

I first joined G1MRA in 1988 and have been observing it since. My own participation in the form of building models started in 1999 and I started building my own garden track in 2009. Whilst finding G1MRA as frustrating as Hell at times, I have numerous friends within the association, my membership of which is ongoing.
 

John Miller

Western Thunderer
John,

In the track I'm building in the garden, the terminus station will be laid to ScaleOne32 standards but the continuous run will be laid with a form of universal turnout which will allow anything gauged to 45mm to run through them. I'll use some form of swinging crossing nose to allow this. This means that any Gauge 1 locos and stock will run on the continuous section of my layout. Maybe this is the way the G1MRA should head and advocate universal pointwork in layouts which could have visiting stock. Providers of trackwork might come up with an off the shelf product which would make tracklaying easier. It could also mean that development of finer track and wheel standards could happen while still allowing the developers to take their stock to get-togethers, etc.

Jim.
Hi Jim - Yes, I think that's an interesting approach which gives all the advantages of a dedicated G1 section with the oportunities for scenic additions and photo ops - and yet has all the flexability of running 45mm gauge stock in scales ranging all the way from 1/32 to 1/19 or anything else that's compatible.

I also agree that the G1MRA should be giving consideration to these kinds of ideas in order to develop the appeal of G1 to a much wider, more progresive audience. Unfortunately, as may bee seen from threads like this - G1mra Renewal Time - this current one - and the low level of traffic on the other G1 forums (check this out - Forums | The Gauge One Model Railway Association), they are stuggling against a strong internal faction of old school conservative elitists who really are much happier operating in their isolationist world. I should of course say that there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's a free country and after all, it was their world in the past.

However the future's bright, the recent internal shake up within the Association has resulted in some welcome changes, the old school die hards are fading away, the newer younger membership is promoting a more progressive atmosphere and the excellent journal is almost worth the membership subsciption for that alone.
 
Last edited:

Simon

Flying Squad
Sadly, I think your upbeat assessment will prove to be wildly optimistic.

The committee appear to be fully engaged in some opaque maelstrom of procedural angst whilst the new newsletter editor Peter Bird in his introductory piece ended with the line "......in 10mm scale of course" - which is a spectacularly stupid thing to have written.

I think Richard's observation regarding reaction from the G1 fraternity to the prospect of a 1/32 West Country in the Finney range is a sad but entirely accurate reflection of the "state of mind" of UK G1 and G1MRA in particular.

The truth is that what is needed is a new Gauge One organization/society. If Cynric hadn't very sadly passed away just over 5 years ago then I suspect I'd have set one up with him. Although I'm still interested I just don't currently have the time or energy to attempt any such thing, but I'd dearly love to see it and would fully support any such movement.

In the meantime I'm working away at my own line and very much enjoying it, but it would be so very nice to be part of an association that supported what one was doing.

Recognizing that the readership of WT is much wider than one might think, I would again like to make it clear that I have very many friends within G1MRA and do recognize its virtues, but sadly find it close to worthless in terms of supporting, encouraging or developing anything of any interest to my own endeavors in the scale.

Simon
 

Thirtysecond

Western Thunderer
I am about to start construction of my own garden track so have a "clean sheet" so to speak. Ideally I'd love the prototypical look of finescale track and the idea of swing nose points appeals for all the reasons of legacy/visitors mentioned in this thread. Problem is I don't want start making points; I have enough to do already!

Do we know of anybody (Marcway, Cliff Barker, "the independent guy who's always at shows but who's name I forget", etc) who will make swing nose points to order?
 

Simon

Flying Squad
Derek

I don't know of anybody who will build swing nosed points, but both Cliff Barker and Marcway will supply ready built pointwork. Marcway can offer very many options and will construct to whatever standard you want. You can marry Marcway point work to plain Cliff Barker track easily enough.

I appreciate you aren't able to do scale track but two thoughts for you, if you are using the dreaded "Standard standard' then tighten up the flangeways a bit, for example and as Richard Donovan proposed 2.5mm rather than 3mm. This will remove the crossing wear/hammering issue, unless your wheel width is 5mm or less of course....

More pragmatically, and this is especially useful if you are constructing a double tracked line, if you lay points so that they are "trailing to traffic" (entirely prototypical) then you will find that fine scale stuff will run through standard or whatever bastard of that standard you are forced to use and running will be smoother for all the other stuff too.

On a double line you could perhaps have all point work trailing on one or other of the lines, this is the case on Don Froud's beautiful Combe Down Railway on which I have successfully run my stuff.

And then there's the question of 2 rail or not, if required then that adds a deal of complication to point work and quite a few wires, but I'm guessing this mayn't be a requirement from your point of view.

Simon
 

Tim Humphreys ex Mudhen

Western Thunderer
A couple of comments if I may.
I model Denver and Rio Grande 3 ft gauge I 15 mm to the foot, I've always thought that 16 mm uses 32 mm track to represent 2 foot gauge.
I've also got a couple of Aster 1/32 locos which are pretty good although the division in gauge 1 between 1/32 and 10 mm is totally frustrating. I can't stand seeing the two sizes running together.
I've been a member of G1MRA for quite a few years and am not really sure why I continue. There seems to be very littleforward thinking and suggestion/comments don't seem to be generally welcomed. For example as mentioned here the track standards are appalling. I 've also questioned why they persevere with slip eccentric valve great when stephehsons/ walschaerts is perfectly practical.
Good luck to those who are attempting to raise the standards, the guys at Finney 7 could well make difference.
Tim
 

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
I am absolutely certain in my own mind that there is a particular corner of Hell* reserved for those that have promulgated the current Gauge One situation in the UK. Immediately post War, well maybe it made some sense - but in the 21st Century it absolutely does not.
Truly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Simon.
It seemed quite innocuous seventy years ago:
- The regime inherited from Greenly, Bassett-Lowke and (above all) Die Meistertinker von Nürnberg worked perfectly.
- But by comparison with the newfangled hobby of 'Railway Modelling' it was looking increasingly toy-like.
- So the track was kept the same (because of the historic investment both in track and wheels that would run on it) and the wheels were narrowed to the 'bare minimum' for appearance's sake.

But, as you have explained, they were narrowed a whisker too much, resulting in the endemic track damage shown in my earlier photos, followed after a while by a crippling fatalism about routine derailments.
. . . The Wicked Lie (ahem, Alternative Fact) has been that "finer standards would be even less reliable', whereas opposite is true.

I'll respond to the great points people have made, one by one. David
 
Last edited:

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
It is interesting from the commercial aspect. Wearing my Finney7 hat, we are developing a 1/32 Bulleid Light Pacific which will be as high-fidelity as we can make it....which will be very high indeed.

We have had not a shred of interest from G1, at least not on the pretty moribund forum I am a member of, and I have had no private messages of interest, but a lot of enthusiasm from 7mm modellers - enough to convince us we can cover our not inconsiderable costs. It strikes me there is a cadre of 7mm modellers who are looking to build the most accurate models they can who would love to have a statement piece in G1 of the same standard they expect in 7mm scale.
I am genuinely shocked and disappointed at the lack of finescale 1/32 kits in G1 (with the notable exception of those from Fred Phipps). It reminds me of the time I was looking to move to 7mm from 4mm, 35 years ago, but wasn't prepared to because I would be faced with kits in the larger scale that weren't a patch on those in the smaller scale.
Richard

It seems to me that your astounding Production Values are just what ScaleOne32 was designed for, Richard, and I share your shock. I see that (as of nine months ago), you'd only had one Expression of Interest in 1/32, compared with four for the 7mm scale version.
I've quoted your post in full because I think it's desperately important and deserves a Topic all of its own.
Maybe we could have that here, where 1/32 holds sway? Especially as wheels are bound to be part of the sales equation.
Even though my Pretty Moribund Forum gave you positive feedback, I concede that most of the 500 bods are runners of live steam, rather than electric kit builders. However, our two top Builders were both positive, one wanting to sign up while the other is hanging on for a GWR engine.

(Anyone wanting to see the existing conversation so far is welcome to join this Topic Finney7: 1/32 development - see page header for how to join.)

David
 
Last edited:

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
Oh dear - what a pity you seem to find it neccessary to resort to personal aspertions - apart from invoking the 'H' word, few things are as sure to bring reasonable debate to an unsuccessful conclusion than the loss of mutual respect of the participants.
However - I will try just once more to put my view across.
John, as you've had a bit of a rough ride already and, in view of what you've written about me, you'd be justified in expecting more of the same now. Actually, I'm writing to offer you an Olive Branch, because my private model world is exactly as you describe. [I'm about to take delivery of two new locomotives, one of British standard gauge to 1/32 scale and the other of Colonial three foot gauge to 1/20 scale. I shall run them on the same tracks, albeit not at the same time, enjoying the kind of flexibility you do, and which you explain very eloquently.]
At the same time, I also do small-time online publishing i.e. manage Moribund Forums, mostly about machine tools, but covering a very broad range of Gauge One as well.

From those perspectives, I'm thanking you for pointing out what I've missed, and returning the compliment - no Aspersions, OK? :)

To start here:
a few simple precautions are all that is necessary to ensure that the variety of manufacturers wheel standards continue to glide smoothly through the various kinds of track they may be required run on with the minimum of fuss.
. . . that's clearly been your experience, but only because - as you say yourself -
it constantly surprises me just how compatible the range of wheel standards are with a similar variety of track standards in our model world
. . . in other words, most manufacturers make wheelsets within spitting distance of the classic "G1MRA Standard": 5.5 to 6mm wide, 1.5 to 2mm deep flanges, 40mm back-to-back.
In the world you and I share, supplied by Aster, Roundhouse, Accucraft, Tenmille, Korzilius, Slaters, Northern Finescale, IP Engineering, Brandbright, etc etc etc, that's kinda true.
. . . Simple precautions, a moderately accurate caliper and common sense will indeed keep the wheels rolling smoothly for a while. Until the wheels gradually destroy the crossings, as illustrated earlier, at which point some folk will put up with the consequences while others will declare, "Good Grief! Actually it is broke!"

BUT (you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?) in posting here, on WESTERN THUNDER, you and I have stepped outside that comfortable world. We have landed on a planet where the Local Deviants value BOTH the wheels AND the track looking Right when compared with a prototype (rather than with someone else's model) AND they don't want to see their trains roll over.
And because of that stance, hard numbers come inexorably home to roost:
- G1MRA and G-Scale wheelsets jam on 1/32 check, wing and guard rails.
- 1/32 wheels 'split the points' on G1MRA track.
- 2mm deep flanges don't always fit inside 1/32 splashers,
- 40mm back-to-back doesn't often clear 1/32 boilers and fireboxes.

Therefore Minimal Compromise Scale undermines the benefits you attribute to G1MRA Standard just as surely as the guys here remain exasperated with G1MRA's fudges. So on the surface, there's a dividing of the ways along the lines of Hornby versus ProtoFour.
The snags with that are that,
- G1MRA isn't making progress towards fixing what IS broken (unavoidable distortions of scale, damage to track, and tolerance of an alarming number of crashes),
- In the last four years, ScaleOne32 has no new tracks, and there's only one taker for a Masterpiece kit.

When I say most G1MRA members don't understand, I'm not intending to patronise them - merely reflecting on to you dozens and dozens of initial reactions to my demonstrations. Those who do understand - and that includes Officers and Vice Presidents - are very supportive to ScaleOne32. No, they aren't supportive enough to 'cross the floor' and give up their present train-sets and social whirl so, in that sense, Simon's quip about Canute is absolutely justified.
. . . Yet I am confident that, given a realistic Proposition, they would provide practical help in the pursuit of excellence.

For myself, with "Gauge One" models in seven scales, I would like:
- to have at least one ScaleOne32 train,
- be aware of places where I could run it,
- to offer a range of options for people struggling with the snags of G1MRA Standard, both Absolute and Compromises,
- to see Gauge One modelling at its best - in print, online, in public.

For yourselves, I'd like to see less frustration and more blossoming, and if I or my forums can help - if only by putting like-minded souls in touch, I'd like that too.

This thread is about exploring long-term options, and thanks to everyone for contributions.

David
 

Neil

Western Thunderer
As I only tinker in the smaller scales I know very little about G1 and ScaleOne32. From the touchline it appears that like wider society opinion is very much polarised at the moment. It seems that there is a gap for a compromise standard which would encourage the coarse scale faction to shift a bit towards the centre which might improve the lot of the ScaleOne32 practitioner. The parallels with the 4mm are striking, better track from Peco has encouraged better rtr models which has given the S4 world better material to work with.
 
Last edited:

Dikitriki

Flying Squad
Maybe we could have that here, where 1/32 holds sway? Especially as wheels are bound to be part of the sales equation.
Even though my Pretty Moribund Forum gave you positive feedback,

David

Hello David,

There's certainly a platform here for discussion.

There's a number of things I'm really disappointed about in G1, and I accept this is a personal view, and my background is that of a pretty serious kit builder, but one without engineering experience of any sort:

*Absence of 1/32 rolling stock kits - I know Peter Korzilius does a few and they look OK. They don't have to be brass etched kits. I like the Tenmille stuff but funnily enough, it's 10 mil. I saw with delight that Northern Finescale were moving into 1/32, then saw the basic errors in the kit on Simon's thread.

*Absense of live steam kits for locos. When I joined G1MRA, I had a 4 point plan that would take me to scratch building a live steam loco.
1 - Play with my Marklin live steam BR44, get a feel for running live steam, the do's and dont's.
2 - Build an Aster loco - all done for you so as a kit-builder, I should be able to get it to work. Gain a bit more understanding of how live steam works.
3 - Build a Barrett models loco or a Keith Cousins kit. The hard work is done for you, but there is much more personal input; live-steam kit building.
4 - Scratch build a loco

3 is a desperately needed missing link in 1/32 in my opinion.

*The lack of any vibrant internet presence to show and tell - and learn. G1mra doesn't have a forum - what an omission in this day and age. Yours (and I knew it was yours when making my initial post, and no personal criticism was intended) is only as good as the people who contribute, and the vast majority don't.

* Track standards. I have really struggled to get my head round all the options. I shall do what I did in 7mm scale when I went my own way with 31.5mm. Ascertain the wheel standard and derive the appropriate track standard, whatever that may be. Since the layout is one for running only, there will only be a trailing point on the main circuit to/from the steam up area and storage, so all standards should be able to run.

I'd like to think that our 1/32 Bulleid Light Pacific kit will make a difference, but I'm not holding my breath. We are aware that wheels will have to be part of our package, but with Mark Wood and Elliot doing castings, that should not be an insurmountable problem.

Richard
 

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
Richard,

*Absence of 1/32 rolling stock kits - I know Peter Korzilius does a few and they look OK. They don't have to be brass etched kits.
Trevor Cousins at Mercian also does 1/32 versions of many of his etches, but not problem free either.
Slaters are heading slowly in the direction of 1/32.
The bulk of rtr locomotives and stock are 1/32 - steam and electric. It's the long-term future.

*Absence of live steam kits for locos.
Talk to Derek Mackenzie of Orion Models.

*The lack of any vibrant internet presence to show and tell
Since you are being objective, but blunt, so shall I:
- G1MRA hasn't rolled out its nascent forum software because (as people have remarked here) its internal affairs are too volatile.
- 1/32 doesn't have a big presence anywhere because hardly anyone is making stuff - yet. That's the nut we are here to crack.
- What fores there are are indeed only as good as the people who contribute: All Welcome: Get busy Doing, Showing and Telling.
- High quality mags have been suspicious of Gauge One, but there's opportunity there too.

* Track standards.
Happy to help with simple and technical (rather than emotional) explanation.
'Pointless' layouts, like JvR's figure of eight, take all standards (if the crossing allows).
Your Q-shaped layout plan is good. Maybe you could tolerate just one swing-crossing (such as Dick Moger's design in the G1MRA rag), as the necessary exit from the loop?

I'd like to think that our 1/32 Bulleid Light Pacific kit will make a difference,
Me too :) David
 
Last edited:

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
it appears that like wider society opinion is very much polarised at the moment. It seems that there is a gap for a compromise standard which would encourage the coarse scale faction to shift a bit towards the centre which might improve the lot of the ScaleOne32.
That's a great insight, Neil. We've already seen some stunning super-detailing of commercial 1/32 live steamers, and here are a commercial wagon and a live steamer, both 'breathed on' by Mark Wood - and incidentally, both running satisfactorily on Scale track floating on ballast out of doors:

!cid_D1AB4EB8C52E4711B53E8A4DFCDDE3E0@markfa28b2e16a.jpg
4MT-2009-1.jpg
I don't think the polarisation can be avoided - nor do I think it's a Bad Thing in itself. (Heck, Gauge 00 itself had to tear up the rule book and start all over again, even without EM/S4/P4.) What's different about Gauge One is the highly unusual degree of inter-running. If every Track had it's own traction and rolling stock, the only problem would be buying suitable stuff in.

Gauge One already has its Compromise, namely "G1MRA Fine Standard". While it looks a bit better than "G1MRA Standard", it too blocks inter-running, so the consensus from both 'sides' seems to be, "Go the whole hog." And for the scratch-builder, one way of doing that is to start with G1MRA Fine wheels and tweak them. Slaters make 1/32 scale wheels, and supply axles and etched washers to allow of alternative back-to-backs.

David

PS G1MRA Standard isn't the 'coarse' version - we have that as well, left over from the 1890s yet still alive and well in the wonderfully evocative Gauge One Vintage Tinplate Group. Be Scared :)
 
Last edited:

mickoo

Western Thunderer
What Richard hasn't seen is the growing list of folders in Autocad prefixed 1:32 ;)

Whilst live steam appeals long term, I much prefer electric traction for it's simplicity and whilst I respect those with their meths rockets (my loveable phrase for those live steam missiles) and the boyish fun they engender, my biscuit is fidelity and building.

From my limited exposure to G1, friend at work who only ran live steam and wasn't interested in fidelity and several track visits (I returned back in my modeling hobby looking initially at G1 five years ago), I don't think you'll get many existing G1 members to move across the floor.

The best thing for 1:32 is to entice new members into the scene to help dilute the existing stronghold, only then will things begin to change, or stand a chance of changing.

I'm building the BLP in 1:32 because I want one and so do one or two others. That's the primary drive for me, and will be for future projects; if Finney7 wish to add them to their portfolio then good and well.

MD
 

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
was I the only person that (eventually) noticed that the diameter of the wheels supplied on the G1MC/Accucraft coaches is too small?!:headbang:

So, Simon, who will be the first person to clean Roxey Mouldings out of ScaleOne32 wheels ? :)

They are bright stainless steel, 34mm diameter, 4.4mm wide, and 42,35mm back-to-back, fully insulated, with 2mm diameter journals, priced at £5.10 per axle. Dave is stuck with £270 worth of dead Working capital for which he was assured there was a massive demand.
. . . Maybe their time has now come?

Incidentally, I find they run well in 3mm bore non-metallic bearings - the excess clearance isn't brilliant for classic HydroDynamic oil-film lubrication, but it does give a noticeable degree of self-steering on wide-radius curves.
And as a result (just to chuck a casual cat among some pigeons) I find they run quite well on new (unbattered) G1MRA track! The self-steering keeps the flanges away from Facing crossing points, but the narrow scale treads still fall through the over-wide crossing gaps.
. . . Not recommended as a Strategy, but food for thought nonetheless.

David
 

JimG

Western Thunderer
David,

On a side issue regarding wheels, will anyone be interested in acquiring a ScaleOne32 form tool. I'm just about to approach New Tech, who did the original form tool a few years ago, to see if they could run another one for me. If anyone else is interested then I could up the order quantity from one. :) I've recently got a batch of form tools for the S Scale Society from them and they cost around £50, single ended, so I would think that the ScaleOne32 wouldn't be too far away from that price. However, there could be a setting up premium for very small order numbers.

Jim.
 

AndyB

Western Thunderer
Jim,
Unless I've mis-read his web-site, Mark Wood already does 1/32 form tools - at £40 + postage.
Form tools
No point in duplicating, at a higher price!

Andy
 

David Halfpenny

Western Thunderer
will anyone be interested in acquiring a ScaleOne32 form tool. I'm just about to approach New Tech, who did the original form tool a few years ago, to see if they could run another one for me. If anyone else is interested then I could up the order quantity from one. :) I've recently got a batch of form tools for the S Scale Society from them and they cost around £50, single ended, so I would think that the ScaleOne32 wouldn't be too far away from that price. However, there could be a setting up premium for very small order numbers.
Jim.
Jim, Please put me down for one. EDIT: just seen Andy's post about Mark's - will go with whatever you go with, Jim.

I have some vehicles with exposed wheels that would look SO much better for a re-turn. (I'll worry about running them as a separate issue - frankly, if all else fails, hot-swoppable wheelsets would be good enough for me.)

(I have a selection of HSS form tools from these guys who make small batches to all sorts of scales and standards. eBay makes purchase easy, and running the German description through a Translation App shows you what the table of figures means.
1 Radprofil-Drehmeißel Spur1 6x4 RP25 Code175 Roco Radsatz scale lathe cutting | eBay
They have zero top rake and decent front and side rake.
Not super-accurate, but Near Enough for me, especially for paring down existing wheels to a finer standard. Used carefully as a Hand Graver, the job can be done using a cheap hand-rest lathe - a tool well worth considering for Finescalers without machine shops.)

David
 

Neil

Western Thunderer
Thanks for the clarification David. Out of academic interest could I ask where the continental rtr gauge 1 standards fit into the overall picture?
 
Top