 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / June 2004Converting RTR Steam Locos to 18.83 gauge
Hi all, As a kind of followup to my earlier post re Lima coach and wagon wheelset replacements, can anyone tell me what kind of straightforward conversion packs are available for RTR steam locos to make them 18.83 gauge as against 16.5? I've seen on the Ultrascale website a number of the more recent Bachmann steam locos are covered, but no Hornby steam at all (Merchant Navies and West Countries are a must!) Also, I'm not interested in trying to get compensation or such into RTR locos, just to get them gauged to 18.83 (I'm not reaching for the heady heights of the P4 standards!) If there isn't enough available, I'll stick to 16.5 for my layout (currently under initial construction without track laid) Ta in Adv, Ian J. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bachmann steam locos are covered, but no Hornby steam at all > (Merchant Navies and West Countries are a must!) I think that there are conversion chassis kits for many models. Try Comet Models for example. > Also, I'm not interested in trying to get compensation or such into > RTR locos, just to get them gauged to 18.83 (I'm not reaching for the > heady heights of the P4 standards!) Errr... Wheelsets (EM, Scalefour, OO, whatever) are supplied to a gauge and track standard. The tyre tread and flange dimensions of the wheelset are important, and in turn require certain geometry and clearances in trackwork for them to run reliably.  SignatureNC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please. If you available on the 26th of this month our club is holding the scale 4 AGM http://www.rdmrc.nildram.co.uk/ all information is on the exhibitions page. Ian Gearing > If you available on the 26th of this month our club is holding the scale 4 AGM > http://www.rdmrc.nildram.co.uk/ all information is on the exhibitions page. > > Ian Gearing As I said in my original posting, it's not P4 standards (or Scalefour) that I'm aiming for. They are far in excess of what I'm trying to do. I accept that once regauged to 18.83, some of the track standards need to be tightened up, but to go for full-on P4 is not on the cards for me... Ian J. > As I said in my original posting, it's not P4 standards (or > Scalefour) that I'm aiming for. They are far in excess of what I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > need to be tightened up, but to go for full-on P4 is not on the cards > for me... Apart form P4 the only set of standards for 18.83 mm gauge I've heard of is an exactly-to-scale version used by very few modellers. SignatureBest regards Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/ <snip> > As I said in my original posting, it's not P4 standards (or Scalefour) that > I'm aiming for. They are far in excess of what I'm trying to do. > > I accept that once regauged to 18.83, some of the track standards need to be > tightened up, but to go for full-on P4 is not on the cards for me... That is an oxymoron, you are either adopting 18.83 (P4 / S4) or you are not, 18.83 is a *standard* - the / quality / of modelling is another matter all together... > I think that there are conversion chassis kits for many models. Try Comet > Models for example. I don't want to have to buy and build chassis kits, just replace the wheels sets into the existing chassis. This is for two reasons: Funds (chassis kits aren't cheap!) and capability (every time I've tried to build a chassis kit that requires valve gear, I've failed...) Ian J. > > I think that there are conversion chassis kits for many models. Try Comet > > Models for example. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ian J. The limiting factor for you will be the width across the wheel sets. The proprietry valve gear on steam locos has to line up with the cylinders and Diesel wheels have to fit inside bogie sideframes. It would seem to me that you need to go with EM (18.2mm) gauge and stay with your existing wheels. When you lay turnouts you can reduce the crossing/frog gaps to the minimum and widen the check rail gaps to suit. That way you will be able to get away with a few finer scale wheelsets if you want to use them. ie. I set track standards so that they are the finest that will just accomodate the coarsest wheel sets I have. I do this in HO to enable me to operate NEM and finer wheel standards as I tend to buy models faster than I redo wheelsets. Regards, Greg.P. Ian, > (every time I've tried to build a chassis kit >that requires valve gear, I've failed...) Just picking up on this factor, if you shove the existing RTR 4mm wheels out on their axles to 18.83mm gauge on a steam loco with outside motion, you are going to have problems with the motion since RTR wheels have tyres which are a bit wider than scale and you're not going to be able to fit your motion to match your cylinder centres. That's another major reason for using P4/S4 wheels at 189.83 - their tyre widths are of scale dimensions and you will have a fighting chance of being able to line up outside motion. On D&E models, you could get a similar problem with bogie sides, where your bogie sides have to project quite a way outside the body to enable the wheels to be re-gauged to 18.83mm. They will still work, but will look a tad ungainly :-) Jim. "Ian J." <leftfield42@hotmail.com> wrote... > Also, I'm not interested in trying to get compensation or such into RTR > locos, just to get them gauged to 18.83 (I'm not reaching for the heady > heights of the P4 standards!) You've confused me here. You can't re-gauge to 18.83 without reaching for the heady heights of P4 standards - it's the same thing. What track were you going to run 18.83mm wheelsets on if it isn't P4? If you try to build 18.83mm track, say, to OO standards, stock will fall off at crossings (frogs). The track standards and wheel standards are linked to each other much as faggots are linked to mushy peas and boiled potatoes! BTW, these days P4 standards and S4 standards are the same thing. SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.pbhome.plus.com/ http://www.ecsl-ltd.com/ > "Ian J." <leftfield42@hotmail.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > BTW, these days P4 standards and S4 standards are the same thing. I accept that there are track standards for 18.83 to work well, and that P4 is generally the accepted set of standards for 18.83, however, I want to relax some of the standards slightly, meaning that P4 isn't my goal. Ian J. > I accept that there are track standards for 18.83 to work well, and > that P4 is generally the accepted set of standards for 18.83, > however, I want to relax some of the standards slightly, meaning that > P4 isn't my goal. Then you should not use 18.83 mm gauge. SignatureBest regards Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/ > I accept that there are track standards for 18.83 to work well, and that P4 > is generally the accepted set of standards for 18.83, however, I want to > relax some of the standards slightly, meaning that P4 isn't my goal. Hi Ian It does sound like in one sense you're trying to invent a new standard for yourself. From other posts you've made, it sounds like you would be much better off going for EM Gauge. The gauge is only 0.63mm less than P4, and this gauge difference in itself is un-noticeable. It is only when you look at turnouts and wheel tyres that you can see a difference. Now, if you want to "relax" the P4 standards to make building easier, you will end up with something like EM gauge but a smidgen wider. It would be far easier to just forget that smidgen, and commit to EM gauge. For instance, which standards would you relax slightly? Where would you get the special track gauges for your standard? If you're not relaxing track standards, then what? 18.83 gauge requires a back-to-back of 17.7mm +/- a gnat's whisker. Full stop. Therefore building chassis or converting RTR will have to conform, so there are no "skill-savings" there. If you decide on EM, you will then be able to get the full support and backing of the EMGS http://www.emgs.org/ once you've joined. For standard gauge, I use EM, although I wish I had the courage at the time I made that decision to use P4/S4 - if I change now I have too much to convert! A page on my website (http://www.pbhome.plus.com/galleries/Track/index.html) shows some of my EM trackwork. Apologies for no captions yet! If you really want to use 18.83mm gauge, then I would strongly recommend joining the Scalefour Society (http://www.scalefour.org.uk/) and going the hole hog - that way you will get help and support. I hope this is helpful - it is intended to guide you on what I think is the right path for you. Use EM gauge! Best regards Paul Boyd http://www.pbhome.plus.com/ http://www.ecsl-ltd.com/ > > I accept that there are track standards for 18.83 to work well, and that > P4 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > http://www.pbhome.plus.com/ > http://www.ecsl-ltd.com/ I have taken all the views here and assessed the situation, plus done some checking of locomotives and the like, and decided that 18.83 (or P4) is not suitable for me, and neither is EM. The amount of work required to convert RTR steam locos is more than I am willing to put in (I simply don't have the time or the money) so it is with 4ft 1.5 inch gauge that I will stay. My reasons for investigating the 18.83 scenario were predominantly due to the amount of work I am going to do to go to finer-scale trackwork for OO. As I will be building most of the pointwork from C&L components, and rewheeling most of my rolling stock to get rid of deep flanges, I just figured it was worth looking into how difficult it would be to 'go the whole hog' and work in 18.83. But the kinds of work required to re-wheel the steam locos (it isn't the wheels that are the problem on an RTR chassis - I'm happy to replace them) is more than I am willing to consider. Some might say I just want to 'play trains', rather than model railways, and to some point I would accept that criticism. My main interest is in operation, not building, railways. To that extent I could stick with Peco HO track and avoid all the hassles. However, I also have a keen eye for when something doesn't look right, and it has always dismayed me when I look head on at my favourite loco, the Brighton Terrier (a kit built one!), sitting on wheels that look far tooo close together. So I had hoped to find someway of converting most of my steam locos (which is not kit built Terriers - which I was willing to have a go at because there's no valve gear! I never did get it to run properly though!) that didn't entail replacing the RTR chassis. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as if there are many conversion packs around, and certainly not much interest in producing them. The model railway interest in the country does indeed seem to sit in two camps most of the time - those who like to engineer their railways (more prepared to do kit and scratch building, etc), and those who like to collect trains to just simply run them, regardless of the track standards. I must admit I fall somewhere between, and so am not particularly well catered for. To that end I'm going to stick with that contradiction of a standard, 'finescale OO', or to put it more another way, 'modelling in 4ft 1 and a half inch gauge'! Ian J. > I have taken all the views here and assessed the situation, plus done > some checking of locomotives and the like, and decided that 18.83 (or [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I must admit I fall somewhere between, and so am not particularly well > catered for. I really think that EM should be considered and perhaps tried for a test. It does look noticeably better than OO head-on to locomotives, but doesn't introduce the requirement to build mechanisms (from kits) for most locomotives, or create quite as many clearance difficulties as Scalefour. If you've already gone as far as building C&L track, replacing wheels with finer flanges, etc., then I think you've done all the hard work of EM for most prototypes. That said, modelling with OO doesn't make a model a poor one, nor does ScaleFour make a good model. There are good and bad examples built to both track systems. Operation is a completely valid interest, and there is a strong argument that a person with limited time will get an operating layout far quicker and cheaper using commercially available RTR products. - Nigel (who doesn't model for operation, hence tinkers in 2mm finescale). SignatureNC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please. Ian J." <leftfield42@hotmail.com> wrote... > Some might say I just want to 'play trains', rather than model railways, and > to some point I would accept that criticism. I wouldn't necessarily call "playing trains" a criticism! > To that end I'm going to stick with that contradiction of a standard, > 'finescale OO', or to put it more another way, 'modelling in 4ft 1 and a > half inch gauge'! A thought has just occurred to me - have you heard of the Double-O Gauge Association? Have a look at http://www.doubleogauge.com/ I have no experience of the group, simply because I don't model OO, but maybe others have. SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.pbhome.plus.com/ http://www.ecsl-ltd.com/ >To that end I'm going to stick with that contradiction of a standard, >'finescale OO', or to put it more another way, 'modelling in 4ft 1 and a >half inch gauge'! I think you'll find you have some of the same problems with 'finescale 00' as you would with 18.83 ie: the track needs to be specially constructed to cope with the finer tyres and wheel flanges and so avoid derailments. (kim) > >To that end I'm going to stick with that contradiction of a standard, > >'finescale OO', or to put it more another way, 'modelling in 4ft 1 and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (kim) Track does not necessarily need to be specially constructed - it depends how "finescale" you want to go. Peco code75 finescale track does a good job - more than once was I asked if my layout was EM........... All the r-t-r stuff we had was happy, except for some of the older Lima items and the Hornby 142's that just needed their wheels easing out as the back-to-back was a bit narrow. Incidentally all the r-t-r stock I've bought in the last two years is also more than happy with my other little finescale layout, admittedly built from C&L components and also drawn numerous "is that EM?" comments. Just to add further discussion to the debate - some of my newer purchases are not happy with old "universal" 00 trackage!! however, let's not get carried away - remember that the whole model railway hobby is about compromise - it's just how much compromise you're prepared to allow. It's MY train set :-) Cheers, Mick >Peco code75 finescale track does a good job - more than once was I asked if >my layout was EM........... Says more about the observer than about your layout <g> Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. Surely the EH Gauge Soc. still supports P4 as well as 18.2mm? It doesn't take courage to go P4 (it would to go S4) it just takes common sense and logic. It's no more difficult to build trackwork to P4 standards than it is to 00 - in fact it's easier as the standards are well defined and the necessary gauges are readily available. snip > If you decide on EM, you will then be able to get the full support and > backing of the EMGS http://www.emgs.org/ once you've joined. For standard [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > http://www.pbhome.plus.com/ > http://www.ecsl-ltd.com/ "Dick Ganderton" wrote in message ... > Surely the EH Gauge Soc. still supports P4 as well as 18.2mm? Hi Dick Yes, the EMGS does support P4 as well as EM. My personal feeling is that the Scalefour Society supports P4 a little better (I should be calling it S4!) I am a member of both societies.... > It doesn't take courage to go P4 (it would to go S4) In hindsight, I know you're right. I made the decision to model EM gauge a fair few years ago, and at the time I felt P4 needed courage. Not any more - now it needs finance and time! I have quite happily made locos and test track to Finescale Narrow Gauge, which uses tolerances tighter than P4/S4 (sorry - to me they're the same thing - I thought the differences were ironed out donkeys years ago. Templot doesn't distinguish between them.) Flangeway gaps of 0.5mm, 2mm Scale Association wheels that make P4 look like N-gauge steam-roller wheels etc. There is a distinct possibility of a layout using standard and narrow gauge lurking in the back of my mind, and the idea of FSNG on the same layout as EM doesn't appeal, so that might be the catalyst to go S4. <Plug> There's a few photos of a 4mm scale Festiniog Railway Double Fairlie and FR Hunslets on my website that I'm particularly pleased with so far! <\Plug> SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.pbhome.plus.com/ http://www.ecsl-ltd.com/ > > "Ian J." <leftfield42@hotmail.com> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ian J. Ian, to put it simply, what your attempting to do wont work. If it was just a case re-gauging RTR stuff to 18.83mm and plonking it on any old track you felt like the whole world would be P4 modellers. Incidently, what track were you going to put it on?..you'd have to build it yourself in any case. As someone has said in a previous post P4 wheel standards go "hand in hand" with P4 track standards (or clearances if you like). If you wont to go "finescale" go EM. Easy to open out RTR wheels and the track standards are a bit more flexible.Additionally compensation isn't a neccesity. I model in HO 5' 3" gauge which works out (luckily) at very close to 18.2mm. Once you get set up, building EM track is a doddle...it must be easy if I can do it! Ian Clarke Dick Ganderton wrote: > It's no more difficult to build trackwork to P4 standards > than it is to 00 - in fact it's easier as the standards > are well defined and the necessary gauges are readily available. That's true. In fact it is much easier in P4 to build the complex formations because the narrower flangeway lets you follow prototype practice. Easier to BUILD that is. But it is much more difficult to LAY P4 track than 00. Rail-end alignments need to be typically within less than 5 thou both vertically and horizontally (and repeatable as such across baseboard joints). 5 thou is aproximately the thickness of a sheet of paper, and you are trying to achieve that tolerance using natural materials - wood, cork, ply, etc. P4 is well worth the extra effort - but don't let anyone tell you that there isn't any. Martin. ---------- email: martin@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com Hi Paul, > P4/S4 (sorry - to me they're the same > thing - I thought the differences were > ironed out donkey's years ago. Templot > doesn't distinguish between them. "P4" and "Protofour" are or were trademarks of MRSG/Studiolith Ltd. So other traders used the term S4 instead to mean generic 18.83 items. This is also why the EMGS always refers to "18.83mm" rather than P4. Nowadays Templot uses the term S4/P4 to mean normal P4 modelling, and S4-X to mean the tighter exact-scale standards which a few modellers use. However, many of them prefer to call the tighter standard simply S4, causing massive confusion all round! It means we have the situation that a society calling itself the "Scalefour Society" promotes P4 but not S4! Furthermore, there is an embryo convention that the S prefix is followed by the scale in mm/ft, and the P prefix is followed by the scale ratio. Hence ScaleThree (S3) ScaleSeven (S7) Proto45 (P45) Proto48 (P48) Proto87 (P87) etc. So P4 is the odd man out, and would be much better called only S4, at the same time bringing it into line with the name of the society which supports it. But this appears to be too simple and obvious for many to grasp. When I've suggested it, it has been immediately dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic! regards, Martin. ---------- email: martin@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com Hi Roderic, > So now who's muddying the waters! <Vbg>. > Why not just call them P4 and S4 rather > than introduce yet another code? The water was pretty thick with mud before I got anywhere near it! <g> The present situation is this, unless someone can assure me otherwise: "P4" and "Protofour" are trademarks of the Model Railway Study Group, Studiolith Ltd, and their successors (recently revived as The P4Track Company, see http://www.p4track.co.uk ) Templot is a commercial product. I cannot apply the term "P4" to the track templates which it produces if "P4" is a trademark not owned by me. In fact with the arrival of The P4Track Company also selling "P4" templates, I'm not sure it is wise for me to continue using the term "S4/P4" in Templot, and I am thinking of changing it back to simply "S4" (which is what it was in early versions). Now obviously I don't believe for a minute that Bernard or Len or Andrew are going to haul me over the coals for using the term "P4". But these are commercial entities, and they can change hands. Who knows what the future may bring? > That's 'cos Scale3.5 or P76.2 look stupid. That's a matter of opinion! S3.5 and P76 look fine to me. Proto87 actually uses a scale of 1:87.1 but is happy to use the simplified designation P87. In the same way P76 can mean 1:76.2 because I don't believe anyone would be daft enough to model at 1:76.0 (although there's always one! <g>) But why bother with "P76" when you have "S4" staring you in the face, and a society name to match? There are only a handful of modellers using the tighter exact standards. What sensible objection can they have to letting "S4" mean the same as "P4", and referring to their own standard as S4-X or S4-F or S4Plus or whatever they choose? > Well we understand what we mean by P4 and S4. > Avoid using S4 as an abbreviation for Scalefour > (Society) and there's no problem! <G>. Have you any idea how crazy that looks to outsiders? Paul has gone for a lie down! <g> regards, Martin. ---------- email: martin@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com John Sullivan wrote: > No more crazy than OO - 4 mm : 1 ft scale models > running on 3.5 mm : 1 ft scale track. They do that only if you use Peco track, and they look ridiculous when so doing. On the other hand 00 finescale track uses 4mm scale rail, 4mm scale sleepers at 4mm scale spacings and 4mm scale chairs and fixings. Only the distance between the rails is not to 4mm scale. Martin. ---------- email: martin@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com Hi John, > Pray tell, who makes OO finescale flexible track? For C&L flexitrack see: http://www.finescale.org.uk For SMP/Scaleway flexitrack see: http://www.mainlytrains.com/acatalog/by-scaleway.html regards, Martin. ---------- email: martin@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.