Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Prototype Track Standards

Expand Messages
  • John Clutterbuck
    Hi All Its been a bit quite here lately so I thought I would start a little investigative challenge. As was discussed some time ago the only 14mm standards we
    Message 1 of 15 , May 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All

      Its been a bit quite here lately so I thought I would start a little
      investigative challenge.

      As was discussed some time ago the only 14mm standards we have are
      those published by Roy Link which are also to be found in the group
      Files.

      I would like to know how close these standards are to the prototype
      but to do this we need details on the exact gauge, flangeway, point to
      check, back to back, wheel width, etc. as used on prototypes such as
      the WHR and L&B.

      Does anyone have access to such info and are these published (e.g. BS)
      standards.

      I assume the rebuilt WHR and L&B are the same today as they were when
      built and are the same as each other. Furthermore does anyone know if
      this matches the current or original Festiniog and the Ashover?

      I have details from the ScaleSeven group on how the model standards
      are derived and will try and see how they fit to 14mm guage with
      allowance for the narrower guage and flangeway etc.

      I'm hoping the current standards are close enough without proposing an
      alternative standard, however there may be some leeway (e.g. slight
      gauge reduction) which is still compatable. I am using them together
      with ScaleSeven and they certainly look right.

      Regards
      John
    • Vincent Bradley
      While not exactly the same thing, I have been looking at the standards for On3 and comparing them to HO RP25. The NMRA has both fine scale and course scale
      Message 2 of 15 , May 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        While not exactly the same thing, I have been looking at the standards
        for On3 and comparing them to HO RP25. The NMRA has both fine scale
        and course scale information. Type in On3 wheel standards or On 3 wheel
        standards and then go to the NMRA and find a downloadable document
        with detailed standards. Personally I would use the RP25 standards for
        wheels and adjust the gauge to fit using HO standards.
        Take care, Vincent

        -----Original Message-----
        From: O-14@yahoogroups.com [mailto:O-14@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
        John Clutterbuck
        Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:30 AM
        To: O-14@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [O-14] Prototype Track Standards


        Hi All

        Its been a bit quite here lately so I thought I would start a little
        investigative challenge.

        As was discussed some time ago the only 14mm standards we have are
        those published by Roy Link which are also to be found in the group
        Files.

        I would like to know how close these standards are to the prototype
        but to do this we need details on the exact gauge, flangeway, point to
        check, back to back, wheel width, etc. as used on prototypes such as
        the WHR and L&B.

        Does anyone have access to such info and are these published (e.g. BS)
        standards.

        I assume the rebuilt WHR and L&B are the same today as they were when
        built and are the same as each other. Furthermore does anyone know if
        this matches the current or original Festiniog and the Ashover?

        I have details from the ScaleSeven group on how the model standards
        are derived and will try and see how they fit to 14mm guage with
        allowance for the narrower guage and flangeway etc.

        I'm hoping the current standards are close enough without proposing an
        alternative standard, however there may be some leeway (e.g. slight
        gauge reduction) which is still compatable. I am using them together
        with ScaleSeven and they certainly look right.

        Regards
        John





        O-14 Photos area:
        http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/lst

        O-14 Files area:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files
        Yahoo! Groups Links









        --
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.2 - Release Date: 5/2/2005
      • John Dennis
        John, I did some comparisons between the Roy Link standards and the prototype drawings from Australia s Zeehan & North East Dundas Tramway, and the Goondah
        Message 3 of 15 , May 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          John,

          I did some comparisons between the Roy Link standards and the
          prototype drawings from Australia's Zeehan & North East Dundas
          Tramway, and the Goondah Burrinjuck Railway, both 2' gauge lines. The
          key drawing is one of a wheelset, fully dimensioned. The following is
          extracted from an email I sent to a local modeller:

          The Roy Link standards are fine scale - in fact the problem might well
          be that they are too fine scale. Measuring the drawing, and then
          comparing with NMRA RP25-88 and 110 I get these:

          Prototype 7mm RP25-110* RCL RP25-88*
          Back to Back 20.6" - 12mm 11.9 12.5 12.3
          Flange Width 1.5" - 0.88mm 1.00 0.6 0.6
          Wheel Width 4.75" - 2.77mm 2.74 2.35 2.2
          Flangeway ? ? 1.27 1.00 ?
          * RP25 standards reduced by 2.5mm (for gauge difference) as
          appropriate.

          Looking at that it makes me realise that NMRA "standard" 110 wheels
          are in fact much closer to the prototype than the RCL standard, which
          are too fine.

          Of course, these are only measurements from drawings. Although they
          are copies of official drawings, the purpose of the drawing was to
          build a wagon, not to construct wheels.

          These are only two 2' gauge railways here in Australia. Quite how the
          2' gauge track and wheel standards line up across the world, from
          small industrial tramways to common carrier lines, I don't know.
          Perhaps someone who knows someone could speak to someone else at
          Ffestiniog, or one of the other 2' gauge lines, and find out the
          prototypical standards user there...

          Simply some food for thought ...

          John


          ==========================================================
          John Dennis jdennis@...
          Melbourne,Australia Home of the HOn30 Dutton Bay Tramway
          and the Australian Narrow Gauge Web-Exhibition Gallery
          Dutton Bay URL: http://members.optusnet.com.au/duttonbay
          WebX http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/ng_webex.html
        • Mark K
          G day all, I ve just uploaded an acrobat .pdf file with a comparison of RCL, RP25 codes 88 and 110 (minus 2.5mm where needed) and prototype dimensions from the
          Message 4 of 15 , May 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            G'day all,
            I've just uploaded an acrobat .pdf file with a comparison of RCL, RP25
            codes 88 and 110 (minus 2.5mm where needed) and prototype dimensions from
            the Illawarra Light Railway Museum (kindly supplied by Michael Milway).
            The file can be found at
            <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files/2'gauge.pdf>

            Some prototype dimensions (flangeways) may seem a little odd, that is due to
            operating both 2' and 1' 11.5" equipment on the same track. This does cause
            some wheel drop, but it means we have more operable stock than if we were to
            rigidly enforce either gauge.

            Cheers,
            Mark K

            <www.geocities.com/mark_the_train_brain/index.htm>



            -----Original Message-----
            From: Vincent Bradley
            Subject: RE: [O-14] Prototype Track Standards

            While not exactly the same thing, I have been looking at the standards
            for On3 and comparing them to HO RP25. The NMRA has both fine scale
            and course scale information. Type in On3 wheel standards or On 3 wheel
            standards and then go to the NMRA and find a downloadable document
            with detailed standards. Personally I would use the RP25 standards for
            wheels and adjust the gauge to fit using HO standards.
            Take care, Vincent
          • Michael Milway
            Just to add to what Mark said. The ILRMS does indeed have a problem in that we source our stock from multiple sources and consequently have a number of
            Message 5 of 15 , May 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Just to add to what Mark said. The ILRMS does indeed have a problem in
              that we source our stock from multiple sources and consequently have a
              number of different wheel standards to contend with. This has caused a
              lot of problems with pointwork. I would love to be able to set all our
              stock to one standard!

              One nice thing about modeling narrow gauge is that by using wheel and
              track standards from the the next scale down (e.g. HO NRMA standards for
              0 scale models) the somewhat coarse standards turn into reasonable
              fine scale standards with no extra effort on our part. This includes
              rail size, flangeways and wheel widths. For instance the 1mm wide NRMA
              standard flangeway translates to 43 mm in 7mm scale. This is not too far
              from prototype realities (but would be 87 mm in HO scale).

              I personally am happy to use NRMA RP25 standards (either 110 or 88) for
              my 16.5mm gauge modeling. Subtracting 2.5mm off the gauge may well work
              for 14mm gauge. but will have to be carefully compared to the Roy Link
              standards to check compatibility.

              Regards,
              Michael Milway

              Mark K wrote:

              > G'day all,
              > I've just uploaded an acrobat .pdf file with a comparison of RCL, RP25
              > codes 88 and 110 (minus 2.5mm where needed) and prototype dimensions from
              > the Illawarra Light Railway Museum (kindly supplied by Michael Milway).
              > The file can be found at
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files/2'gauge.pdf>
              >
              > Some prototype dimensions (flangeways) may seem a little odd, that is due to
              > operating both 2' and 1' 11.5" equipment on the same track. This does cause
              > some wheel drop, but it means we have more operable stock than if we were to
              > rigidly enforce either gauge.
              >
              > Cheers,
              > Mark K
              >
              > <www.geocities.com/mark_the_train_brain/index.htm>
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Vincent Bradley
              > Subject: RE: [O-14] Prototype Track Standards
              >
              > While not exactly the same thing, I have been looking at the standards
              > for On3 and comparing them to HO RP25. The NMRA has both fine scale
              > and course scale information. Type in On3 wheel standards or On 3 wheel
              > standards and then go to the NMRA and find a downloadable document
              > with detailed standards. Personally I would use the RP25 standards for
              > wheels and adjust the gauge to fit using HO standards.
              > Take care, Vincent
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > O-14 Photos area:
              > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/lst
              >
              > O-14 Files area:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • John Dennis
              Mark et al, It s interesting the vast differences between the measured wheels at ILRMS, and those on the Burrinjuck drawings. You list the wheel width as
              Message 6 of 15 , May 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark et al,

                It's interesting the vast differences between the measured wheels at
                ILRMS, and those on the Burrinjuck drawings. You list the wheel
                width as 75mm, 90mm preferred, and yet the Burrinjuck wheels are shown
                as 4.75" - 120mm.

                I wonder whether the Burrinjuck wheel standards were derived from the
                North East Dundas (quite likely, as the rolling stock is almost
                identical) and the NED in turn, being owned by the Tasmanian
                Government Railways, had wheel standards derived from the 3'6" used by
                that system?

                Fascinating...

                John

                On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:53:30 +1000, "Mark K"
                <trainbrain@...> wrote:

                >G'day all,
                > I've just uploaded an acrobat .pdf file with a comparison of RCL, RP25
                >codes 88 and 110 (minus 2.5mm where needed) and prototype dimensions from
                >the Illawarra Light Railway Museum (kindly supplied by Michael Milway).
                >The file can be found at
                ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files/2'gauge.pdf>
                >

                ==========================================================
                John Dennis jdennis@...
                Melbourne,Australia Home of the HOn30 Dutton Bay Tramway
                and the Australian Narrow Gauge Web-Exhibition Gallery
                Dutton Bay URL: http://members.optusnet.com.au/duttonbay
                WebX http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/ng_webex.html
              • Michael Milway
                John, is the 120mm the width of the locomotive wheels or the wagon wheels? Locomotive wheels are always wider than the wagon wheels. In order to prevent wheel
                Message 7 of 15 , May 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  John,
                  is the 120mm the width of the locomotive wheels or the wagon wheels?
                  Locomotive wheels are always wider than the wagon wheels. In order to
                  prevent wheel drop through the frog the minimum width of a wheel must be
                  at least twice the width of the flangeway plus a bit. In our case that
                  is 2 x 40mm + 10mm = 90mm. This may mean that the flange is hard up
                  against one side of the flangeway and the tread is just touching the
                  running rail.

                  On a locomotive this would mean that the wheel has lost traction, hence
                  the greater width required. A locomotive wheel would probably want to be
                  twice the flangeway plus the rail head in width.

                  From a modeling point of view, preventing wheel drop is important. The
                  extra width of the locomotive wheel probably is not. I have built models
                  of coal skips and used Parkside Dundas 009 curly spoked wheels. These
                  are very narrow and cause the skips to bounce through frogs; just like
                  the real ones did.

                  Regards,
                  Michael Milway

                  John Dennis wrote:

                  > Mark et al,
                  >
                  > It's interesting the vast differences between the measured wheels at
                  > ILRMS, and those on the Burrinjuck drawings. You list the wheel
                  > width as 75mm, 90mm preferred, and yet the Burrinjuck wheels are shown
                  > as 4.75" - 120mm.
                  >
                  > I wonder whether the Burrinjuck wheel standards were derived from the
                  > North East Dundas (quite likely, as the rolling stock is almost
                  > identical) and the NED in turn, being owned by the Tasmanian
                  > Government Railways, had wheel standards derived from the 3'6" used by
                  > that system?
                  >
                  > Fascinating...
                  >
                  > John
                  >
                  > On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:53:30 +1000, "Mark K"
                  > <trainbrain@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >>G'day all,
                  >>I've just uploaded an acrobat .pdf file with a comparison of RCL, RP25
                  >>codes 88 and 110 (minus 2.5mm where needed) and prototype dimensions from
                  >>the Illawarra Light Railway Museum (kindly supplied by Michael Milway).
                  >>The file can be found at
                  >><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files/2'gauge.pdf>
                  >>
                  >
                  > ==========================================================
                  > John Dennis jdennis@...
                  > Melbourne,Australia Home of the HOn30 Dutton Bay Tramway
                  > and the Australian Narrow Gauge Web-Exhibition Gallery
                  > Dutton Bay URL: http://members.optusnet.com.au/duttonbay
                  > WebX http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/ng_webex.html
                  >
                  >
                  > O-14 Photos area:
                  > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/lst
                  >
                  > O-14 Files area:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • John Dennis
                  Michael, No, it s a curly-spoked wheelset from a wagon bogie - the 10-ton open wagon. The drawing is reproduced in the Goondah-Burrinjuck Railway book,
                  Message 8 of 15 , May 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Michael,

                    No, it's a curly-spoked wheelset from a wagon bogie - the 10-ton open
                    wagon. The drawing is reproduced in the Goondah-Burrinjuck Railway
                    book, although it's a bit too small to read the dimensions, but I can
                    certainly confirm that the wheel width on the drawing is 4.75" -
                    120mm.

                    One other oddity is the back-to-back, which is shown as 1'9" on the
                    drawing - 533mm - but Mark's listing shows 545-580. Assuming the wide
                    range in Mark's listing is for the narrower gauge stock, the 533mm is
                    also quite narrow compared to the other 2' gauge vehicles.

                    The "flange-width" dimension isn't shown, but could be worked out if
                    we knew where in the fillet it should be measured.

                    I have uploaded the drawing of this wheelset to the files section.

                    John

                    On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:56:33 +1000, Michael Milway <mjm@...>
                    wrote:

                    >John,
                    >is the 120mm the width of the locomotive wheels or the wagon wheels?
                    >Locomotive wheels are always wider than the wagon wheels. In order to
                    >prevent wheel drop through the frog the minimum width of a wheel must be
                    >at least twice the width of the flangeway plus a bit. In our case that
                    >is 2 x 40mm + 10mm = 90mm. This may mean that the flange is hard up
                    >against one side of the flangeway and the tread is just touching the
                    >running rail.
                    >
                    >On a locomotive this would mean that the wheel has lost traction, hence
                    >the greater width required. A locomotive wheel would probably want to be
                    >twice the flangeway plus the rail head in width.
                    >

                    ==========================================================
                    John Dennis jdennis@...
                    Melbourne,Australia Home of the HOn30 Dutton Bay Tramway
                    and the Australian Narrow Gauge Web-Exhibition Gallery
                    Dutton Bay URL: http://members.optusnet.com.au/duttonbay
                    WebX http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/ng_webex.html
                  • Roy Link
                    Dear All, My standards for my industrial series are based on what is known to work, plus commercially obtainable! I always point out that they are only for
                    Message 9 of 15 , May 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear All,

                      My 'standards' for my industrial series are based on what is known to
                      work, plus commercially obtainable! I always point out that they are
                      only for small industrials NOT common carriers. These latter are often
                      noticeably different.

                      Note though, that the wheel profile I use (EM) is slightly overscale
                      when compared to the Festiniog coach profile but slightly underscale as
                      regards the loco profile - both taken fron 'Vignes Atlas'.

                      I would advise anyone modelling 'common carriers' to adopt a slightly
                      modified form of NMRA 'Sn3' standards.

                      Roy Link
                    • Roy Link
                      Dear All, Looking through my archives I ve found an old Southern Railway drawing PWa/258 of 1927, that shows Engine Tyres in relation to 40lbs Rail
                      Message 10 of 15 , May 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear All,

                        Looking through my 'archives' I've found an old Southern Railway
                        drawing 'PWa/258' of 1927, that shows 'Engine Tyres in relation to
                        40lbs Rail Section'.

                        The rail is standard 40lbs per yard of that period with the gauge noted
                        as 1ft 11-1/2in.

                        Of interest, are the wheel dimensions. Back to back is a fixed 1ft 9in.
                        with 1-1/4in. allowed for the flange. Coupled wheels are 4-13/16in.
                        wide, leading a trailing pony wheels, 4-5/8in.

                        Thus, in 7mm scale, the loco wheel profile would be 2.80mm wide. This
                        corresponds well to the NMRA Sn3 (and On2) minimum of 2.74mm. Note that
                        the minimum for On3 is too big at 2.92mm.

                        As Sn3 has a track gauge of 14.3-14-9 (min-max). I would suggest that
                        'converting' the NMRA dimensions to give a track gauge of 14mm would
                        give a good working set of standards with an available wheel profile.

                        Unless you want to machine your own wheels to very fine limits and
                        indulge in endless calculation and experimentation, it is surely best
                        to 'adopt or adapt' a set of standards known to work properly. I did
                        this for small industrials by modifying BRMSB 'EM' - though note
                        (again) I do not advise their use for larger 'two-footers'.

                        There are no 'two-foot' standard dimensions in the real world. Each
                        prototype line had its own peculiarities, as any operator of a
                        preserved line, struggling to mix locos and stock from different lines
                        will confirm. sometimes it works - sometimes it does not!

                        In a small scale like 1:43.5, we can't afford any latitude if
                        appearance is not to be compromised. I would propose that, while the
                        'look' of 14mm track is a distinct improvement over 0-16.5 (for
                        two-footers), the width and profile of the wheelsets are less
                        important, as long as they work and look correct. The human eye can
                        easily tell the difference between 14 and 16.5mm - not so 2.50 and
                        2.80mm!

                        Roy C Link
                      • DLTaylor
                        --On 03 May 2005 14:29 +0000 John Clutterbuck ... Or open a can of worms?
                        Message 11 of 15 , May 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --On 03 May 2005 14:29 +0000 John Clutterbuck
                          <jclutterbuck2001@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Its been a bit quite here lately so I thought I would start a little
                          > investigative challenge.
                          >
                          Or open a can of worms?
                        • John Clutterbuck
                          Dear All Thanks for all the lively feedback. I totally agree with Roy that no one is going to notice minute differences in wheel widths and profiles, but the
                          Message 12 of 15 , May 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear All

                            Thanks for all the lively feedback.

                            I totally agree with Roy that no one is going to notice minute
                            differences in wheel widths and profiles, but the gauge is noticable.
                            However I would also argue the flangeway width is equally noticable.

                            Mark K points out that on the ILMRS this varies between 30mm - 40mm
                            (1.57"). I suggest the latter is probably close to that used on the
                            main UK 2' lines for both frog and checkrail flanges. Does anyone
                            know? The current RCL standard of 1mm scales to 43.54mm which is
                            pretty close to this, and confirms my observations that it looks right
                            alongside ScaleSeven.

                            Assuming the above is correct I would suggest the continuing use of
                            the published RCL standards and that they are suitable for true fine
                            scale.

                            Regards
                            John
                          • Michael Milway
                            ... Do you have an equivalent drawing for rolling stock? ... As Roy has pointed out above, the mere fact that we are adopting wheel standards from the next
                            Message 13 of 15 , May 4, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Roy Link wrote:

                              > Dear All,
                              >
                              > Looking through my 'archives' I've found an old Southern Railway
                              > drawing 'PWa/258' of 1927, that shows 'Engine Tyres in relation to
                              > 40lbs Rail Section'.

                              Do you have an equivalent drawing for rolling stock?

                              >
                              > The rail is standard 40lbs per yard of that period with the gauge noted
                              > as 1ft 11-1/2in.
                              >
                              > Of interest, are the wheel dimensions. Back to back is a fixed 1ft 9in.
                              > with 1-1/4in. allowed for the flange. Coupled wheels are 4-13/16in.
                              > wide, leading a trailing pony wheels, 4-5/8in.
                              >
                              > Thus, in 7mm scale, the loco wheel profile would be 2.80mm wide. This
                              > corresponds well to the NMRA Sn3 (and On2) minimum of 2.74mm. Note that
                              > the minimum for On3 is too big at 2.92mm.
                              >
                              > As Sn3 has a track gauge of 14.3-14-9 (min-max). I would suggest that
                              > 'converting' the NMRA dimensions to give a track gauge of 14mm would
                              > give a good working set of standards with an available wheel profile.
                              >
                              > Unless you want to machine your own wheels to very fine limits and
                              > indulge in endless calculation and experimentation, it is surely best
                              > to 'adopt or adapt' a set of standards known to work properly. I did
                              > this for small industrials by modifying BRMSB 'EM' - though note
                              > (again) I do not advise their use for larger 'two-footers'.

                              As Roy has pointed out above, the mere fact that we are adopting wheel
                              standards from the next scale down means that our models are already
                              close to scale dimensions. I personally do not see a need to push this
                              any further. Anyone who is looking closely enough to spot that the
                              wheels are 0.2mm too wide won't see the baseball bat that I'm holding:-)

                              >
                              > There are no 'two-foot' standard dimensions in the real world. Each
                              > prototype line had its own peculiarities, as any operator of a
                              > preserved line, struggling to mix locos and stock from different lines
                              > will confirm. sometimes it works - sometimes it does not!

                              Hear! Hear! The ILRMS has stock for 1'11-1/2", 60cm (1'11-5/8") and 2'
                              gauge. With the 2' gauge stock I have seen a wide variety of back to
                              back, flange widths and wheel widths. A least one locomotive appears to
                              be closer to 2'-1/2" gauge. We have wheel diameters ranging from about
                              9" to 24" diameter. Locomotives range from small Rustons that will go
                              around an 18' radius curve to a large Hudswell Clark that wants more
                              than 100' radius. Rolling stock ranges from small flat wagons, good for
                              about 1 tonne, to bogie bulk sugar wagons, good for about 10 tonne. We
                              also have to cope with worn wheels.

                              All these have to run on the same track and, more importantly, run
                              through the same set of points. The widest wheel sets have to be
                              prevented from hitting the frog. The narrowest wheel sets must not be
                              allowed to jam between the check rails. Hence the 30mm/40mm flangeways
                              that we have adopted.

                              As far as I am aware, there are at least two distinct set of wheel
                              standards used on Queensland cane railways.

                              >
                              > In a small scale like 1:43.5, we can't afford any latitude if
                              > appearance is not to be compromised. I would propose that, while the
                              > 'look' of 14mm track is a distinct improvement over 0-16.5 (for
                              > two-footers), the width and profile of the wheelsets are less
                              > important, as long as they work and look correct. The human eye can
                              > easily tell the difference between 14 and 16.5mm - not so 2.50 and
                              > 2.80mm!

                              See above comment re baseball bat. Model track is very visible. Wheels
                              tend to be hidden under vehicles and in shadows. In most cases we are
                              already compromising by having sharper curves. My layout runs 15" curves
                              on 16.5mm gauge track. This scales out to 54' in 7mm scale or about half
                              our minimum gauge at the ILRMS (which is still way too tight). Sharper
                              curves require us to have a bit more clearance between the wheels and
                              the rails.

                              >
                              > Roy C Link
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > O-14 Photos area:
                              > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/lst
                              >
                              > O-14 Files area:
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/O-14/files
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              Regards,
                              Michael Milway
                            • Roy Link
                              Dear All, regret the drawing noted is the only one I have for the L&B wheel profile. however, it is likely that the rolling stock wheels were similar if not
                              Message 14 of 15 , May 5, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear All,

                                regret the drawing noted is the only one I have for the L&B wheel
                                profile. however, it is likely that the rolling stock wheels were
                                similar if not identical to the loco pony wheels.

                                Roy C Link
                              • JohnHedderly@aol.com
                                In a message dated 05/05/2005 13:53:51 GMT Standard Time, royclink@ndirect.co.uk writes: it is likely that the rolling stock wheels were similar if not
                                Message 15 of 15 , May 5, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 05/05/2005 13:53:51 GMT Standard Time,
                                  royclink@... writes:

                                  it is likely that the rolling stock wheels were
                                  similar if not identical to the loco pony wheels.



                                  The original Bristol C&W wheels were 18" dia. 4" tread.btb 21" (coaches on
                                  the FR and in NRM York). The later SR ordered 'Howard' wheels were 18 3/4"
                                  dia. 3 7/8" tread, btb 20 3/4". (SR drawing #E16705).

                                  John Hedderly


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.