4mm Cwm Caradoc

[Quintus]

The layout performed well at the Mere show, the only hiccup occurring on Sunday afternoon when 1196 lost traction.
A quick inspection revealed the final drive gear had let go from the rear driven axle, the Loctite finally giving up after forty years or so.
The gearbox is a Branchlines 80:1 two stage affair, and the only way of securing gear to axle is by means of adhesive of some sort.
A chassis strip down has now been carried out, the gear secured with Loctite 290, and the old girl is back running as sweetly as before.
Here she is with what passes in these parts for a pick up goods, i.e. just a Toad brake van. Maybe a few smalls from the goods lock up will be loaded in there. The GWR roundel can just be discerned on the tank, and a bit of patched paint here and there.

 

[Quintus]

A visit to Larkrail on Saturday left me amazed at the quality attainable from some of the rtr loco offerings available these days.
I am particularly thinking of Rye Sands, where a little Manning Wardle was creeping around extremely slowly without a hint of hesitation.
If I were to build another 4mm layout I would seriously consider doing it in 16.5. With decent track and some good modelling, as is often seen on this forum, it is very easy to ignore the discrepancy in the gauge.
When I built/converted the locos running on Cwm Caradoc some 35 years ago, it was to obtain better quality running, as the performance of most rtr locos was pretty dire to say the least, so it made no difference what gauge I chose.
Fortunately I have not (yet) been tempted to convert any of these latest offerings (the 517 does look nice though)
A big thank you to the organisers and exhibitors of Larkrail, and of course all those involved with the refreshments, for putting on a superb event.
Mike

 

[LarryG]

My late pal over at Llanfair TH would be well chuffed to see his little Cambrian 2-4-0T's still going strong some 50 years after his demise. He made the patterns on spec and asked George Mellor to cast them for him seeing as he worked at GEM. I built up a set for the box lid illustration and they were sold as GEM kits. The original coupling rods were also whitemetal castings!

 

[Geoff]

If I were to build another 4mm layout I would seriously consider doing it in 16.5. With decent track and some good modelling, as is often seen on this forum, it is very easy to ignore the discrepancy in the gauge.
When I built/converted the locos running on Cwm Caradoc some 35 years ago, it was to obtain better quality running, as the performance of most rtr locos was pretty dire to say the least, so it made no difference what gauge I chose.

The Scalefour Society once had a slogan which read, 'It's not just about wheels and track', or words to that effect. It's the overall quality of the modelling that matters in my opinion.

Like Mike, I changed to a more accurate track gauge, in my case EM, and also built my own chassis to get reliable running. But if I returned to 4mm scale, I would be more than happy to use 16.5.

In closing I find it strange that it's acceptable to use a narrow track gauge of 31.5 in 7mm scale, and yet 16.5 in 4mm scale is frowned upon.

Geoff.

 

[simond]

The Scalefour Society once had a slogan which read, 'It's not just about wheels and track', or words to that effect. It's the overall quality of the modelling that matters in my opinion.

Like Mike, I changed to a more accurate track gauge, in my case EM, and also built my own chassis to get reliable running. But if I returned to 4mm scale, I would be more than happy to use 16.5.

In closing I find it strange that it's acceptable to use a narrow track gauge of 31.5 in 7mm scale, and yet 16.5 in 4mm scale is frowned upon.

Geoff.

There’s a significant difference between 31.5 and 16.5.

0MF 31.5 is a specific result of minimising the flangeway gaps to make track with a finer appearance than is possible with 32mm gauge, whilst using standard 0F wheelset dimensions - thus preserving interoperability with any 0F or 0MF layout. If you keep the BtB you can’t move the check rails outboard, so the rails are moved inboard to refine the flangeways.

16.5 in 00 is a commercial product with established wheel & track standards, the “finescale” versions of which are intended to improve the appearance in the same way as S7 does in 7mm

 

[SimonT]

As an S7 geek.

established wheel & track standards,

Which many manufacturers ignore

 

[ullypug]

I'm firmly supportive of the 3ft rule (is it worth doing if its that far away), which I suppose makes me a P4 modeller in EM clothing, I wonder if its because 16.5mm scaled up to 7mm/ft is a track gauge of 28.875mm?
I do agree that from angles it's impossible to tell and maybe others need to get out more...
There are lots of fantastic examples of 00

 

[AJC]

I'm firmly supportive of the 3ft rule (is it worth doing if its that far away), which I suppose makes me a P4 modeller in EM clothing, I wonder if its because 16.5mm scaled up to 7mm/ft is a track gauge of 28.875mm?
I do agree that from angles it's impossible to tell and maybe others need to get out more...
There are lots of fantastic examples of 00.

If viewed at eye level it can make relatively little odds. I'm too involved in EM to change and I like the challenge.

The one that does look weird are those lovely RTR Irish models where 16.5 is to the scale basically the same sort of overhang as Cape Gauge (when of course, on the real thing it's the other way about), but that's an exception.

Adam

 

[76043]

I'm not entirely convinced RTR does have amazing running qualities all the time. It seems you have to keep returning items until you get one that does work properly.

Was a bit disappointed with my Heljan 48DS yesterday after running in, is still lumpy at low speeds for loco that doesn't have coupling rods!
Tony

 

[AJC]

I'm not entirely convinced RTR does have amazing running qualities all the time. It seems you have to keep returning items until you get one that does work properly.

Was a bit disappointed with my Heljan 48DS yesterday after running in, is still lumpy at low speeds for loco that doesn't have coupling rods!
Tony

Well, yes. I have a 4mm Heljan 14 which is getting a new chassis because I'm reasonably sure that I can build such a thing that runs properly at low speed which is not true of the Sino/Danish original.

Adam

 

[Lawrence Boul]

There’s a significant difference between 31.5 and 16.5.

0MF 31.5 is a specific result of minimising the flangeway gaps to make track with a finer appearance than is possible with 32mm gauge, whilst using standard 0F wheelset dimensions - thus preserving interoperability with any 0F or 0MF layout. If you keep the BtB you can’t move the check rails outboard, so the rails are moved inboard to refine the flangeways.

16.5 in 00 is a commercial product with established wheel & track standards, the “finescale” versions of which are intended to improve the appearance in the same way as S7 does in 7mm

If you come fresh, looking in, none of this scale/gauge stuff makes any sense at all. It's all history, manufacturing pragmatism and people trying to do better, while often being hamstrung by constraints such as existing stock, interoperability and so on. Not to mention that, unless you are prepared to go it alone, you need support of peers, manufacturers etc.

The long view might suggest it's a mess, but we are all getting by fine in our little bubbles. Since it's impossible (and not even desirable) to scale the full size railway completely, we all bump in to compromise sooner or later. I probably couldn't live with OO personally, but I doubt I could distinguish between the finescale alternatives at a glance.

For all these reasons I DO use 16.5mm track. It's 0.2mm under gauge for 3'6" in 1:64. My wheels are fine, but my flangeways are wide. If there is a 'next layout', I'll look at finer track, but the existing stock will be a constraining factor.

 

[Quintus]

I'm not entirely convinced RTR does have amazing running qualities all the time. It seems you have to keep returning items until you get one that does work properly.

Was a bit disappointed with my Heljan 48DS yesterday after running in, is still lumpy at low speeds for loco that doesn't have coupling rods!
Tony

I suppose it's a quality control problem, although, being responsible for a fairly large OO layout that opens to the public on occasions, I have found that the characteristics of the various motors fitted to rtr these days vary considerably, especially if running on DC control.
A large can motor in a mainline diesel will behave very differently to a tiny shunter with a tiny coreless motor, and may need a different controller for best results.
On DCC of course, the motor control can be factored into the CV's, but it is very important to get this right.

Regards

Mike

 

[Captain Kernow]

I've been doing P4 and 'finescale OO' for over 20 years now and am committed to both gauges, the reason being that I am just completing my first P4 layout and have two 'finescale OO' layouts as well.

Personally, I now steer clear of OO-SF, as some of you will be well aware, so the 'OO finescale' standards I use are rooted in those available with SMP track back in the 1970s, although I would like to think a little more refined these days.

I fully agree with the sentiments about observing finescale OO from the side and at eye level - it can be hard to tell the difference between OO and EM or P4.

Although the appearance and level of detail of modern RTR models is so much better now, running qualities are definitely a bit of a 'game of chance'.

The latest Rapido Manning Wardles definitely have issues, although I have been lucky with mine. A contemporary of these locos - the Dapol 517 - is the smoothest running RTR loco 'straight out of the box' that I have ever seen.

Last night I was giving an Accurascale pannier some running in on the DRAG test track, another new loco that I have only had good experiences with.

I am convinced, however, that modern RTR locos, which generally have good quality coreless motors fitted, are really designed with DCC operation in mind. As a committed DC user, I find it remains a bit of a lottery as to whether you'll get a good runner or not.

And don't get me started on the issue of 'fat flanges' and OO-SF....

 

[Quintus]

Swiftly posting another photo,hopefully avoiding a gauge war (war perhaps being a rather strong word for this erudite forum), here we see good old 1196 again propelling a loaded BQC wagon into the siding.
The wagon needed a bit of extra weight, so I used lead sheet formed to the shape of the load with Woodland Scenics ballast glued on with PVA.
As can be seen here, Cwm Caradoc now has the benefit of a loading gauge.