Model Railway Forum

Go Back   Model Railway Forum > Specific Gauge Topics > OO Scale

OO Scale OO model railway topics


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-10-2017, 09:40 AM   #21
LC&DR
Goods Shunter (retired)
 
LC&DR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: York
Posts: 698
LC&DR is on a distinguished road
Default

I had just this kind of problem with my layout a while back, my brand new Hornby Merchant Navy constantly derailed at one particular point but none of my other locos did. I tried all the usual things I listed above, with no real success, the track appeared level and the rail joints were OK. The loco was brand new but I did the plate glass test and no fault were apparent and all the wheel back-to-backs were OK. However in desperation I took up the track at that one place and replaced it with a fresh bit, and in doing so I was particularly careful to get it all laid true.

Problem solved!
LC&DR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2017, 11:37 PM   #22
Maz066
Member
 
Maz066's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 59
Maz066 is on a distinguished road
Default

I have had problems like that with spam can and a castle that derailed on a point. On examination the point looked normal. Replaced the point and all OK ??????
__________________
Peter S
Maz066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 01:17 PM   #23
Footplate1947
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Moving
Posts: 1,553
Footplate1947 is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes it is normally the track at fault.
__________________
I may be wrong as I very often am. John
Footplate1947 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 01:20 PM   #24
Footplate1947
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Moving
Posts: 1,553
Footplate1947 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terryj View Post
just run an old triang princess around a few times and no problem at all i have some really small super strong magnets might try one of those above the bogey to give a bit more weight and traction
Is your track steel. Most people use Nickle Silver these days and magnets will not help. John
__________________
I may be wrong as I very often am. John
Footplate1947 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 01:21 PM   #25
Footplate1947
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Moving
Posts: 1,553
Footplate1947 is on a distinguished road
Default

Sorry RAF did not see your answer........John
__________________
I may be wrong as I very often am. John
Footplate1947 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 11:46 PM   #26
Mountain Goat
Senior Member
 
Mountain Goat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,537
Mountain Goat is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

What is weird, is one can replace the point, and all will run fine, and use the faulty point elsewhere and have no issues with it!
Mountain Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 02:41 PM   #27
taylork54
Junior Member
 

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
taylork54 is on a distinguished road
Default

I have just been doing battle with a chinese Hornby Black 5 that would at random times throw itself into a left hand turn unfortunately a it passed through a peco long diamond crossing. After much checking I found the rail to rail through the centre part to be approaching 16.9mm . Now with the back to back of 14.5mm on the loco I was puzzled until I measured from the base of flange to base of flange, with a measurement of barely 16.00mm it would seem that we put far to much creedence on the b to b dimension. The amount of sideways movement that is then available ie. 0.9mm in this case was allowing the r/h wheels to hit the point of the frog and causing the loco to derail / turn left.
The very fine flanges on "newer" locos compared to the steam roller wheels and flanges of older models that code 100 will accomodate would seem to say that a b to b (nominal) of 14.5mm may not necessarily be the correct yard stick anymore.
I stand as ever ready to be corrected, just my recent observations
Kevan
taylork54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 12:17 AM   #28
Footplate1947
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Moving
Posts: 1,553
Footplate1947 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terryj View Post
was thinking of the magnets just for weight
If I were you I would take out the old magnets as they can attract bits of iron filings and bits of metal and they can build up and cause problems with wheels shorting out to the chassis. Fill the hole up with bits of lead hammered to shape. Old fishing weighs are good way of finding lead for the job.
Now somebody is going to tell me off for recommending lead because it is dangerous stuff. Well you could use gloves. And to be honest it is not as dangerous as some of the solvents and glues we use today. I dont recon anyway. Not half as dangerous as working in an shed filled with MDF dust.
John
__________________
I may be wrong as I very often am. John
Footplate1947 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 12:46 AM   #29
paul178
Junior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 10
paul178 is on a distinguished road
Default

See Your friendly car tyre dealer and ask for some used balance weights. Most will give you a handfull and some will even give you some new ones(as in my case)
paul178 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2017, 03:22 PM   #30
Mountain Goat
Senior Member
 
Mountain Goat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,537
Mountain Goat is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taylork54 View Post
I have just been doing battle with a chinese Hornby Black 5 that would at random times throw itself into a left hand turn unfortunately a it passed through a peco long diamond crossing. After much checking I found the rail to rail through the centre part to be approaching 16.9mm . Now with the back to back of 14.5mm on the loco I was puzzled until I measured from the base of flange to base of flange, with a measurement of barely 16.00mm it would seem that we put far to much creedence on the b to b dimension. The amount of sideways movement that is then available ie. 0.9mm in this case was allowing the r/h wheels to hit the point of the frog and causing the loco to derail / turn left.
The very fine flanges on "newer" locos compared to the steam roller wheels and flanges of older models that code 100 will accomodate would seem to say that a b to b (nominal) of 14.5mm may not necessarily be the correct yard stick anymore.
I stand as ever ready to be corrected, just my recent observations
Kevan
Is interesting you mention track gauge as on the prototype, as speeds of trains increased in the early years the gauge widened slightly in order to help the trains negotiate the curves. Thus broad gauge went from 7'0" to 7'", and as the high gauge change to standard gauge took place along with the later even higher speeds, standard gauge went from 4'8" to 4'8".
I was thinking if there is the possibility of the sharp curves on our models needing a little more leeway?
I think we sometimes ask a bit much in our hobby in the extremes we expect from our manufacturers to design and build. Scale wheels and chassis, and then expect the thing to take very sharp corners on these thin wheels....
High detail but we get disappointed when the tiny details come off in our hands....

Of corse, it could be the track itself that has strayed out of gauge. Rare but nothing is impossible, especially if the moulds used have expanded with high temperatures?

Last edited by Mountain Goat; 13-10-2017 at 03:24 PM.
Mountain Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.