Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0-Gauge, Chapter 2

[John R Smith]

Yes, indeed, but what has me really intrigued - what is the the GW 4-4-0 in the foreground of the the O Gauge photo? Is it Bing?

[Nearholmer]

It’s a Bing for BL “Sydney”. The owner was marshalling a double-header using that plus a Bing “City of Bath”, heading an enormous string of Carrette and I think Bing and Maerklin GWR coaches of the same vintage. Seldom can a longer pre-WW1 0 gauge train have been assembled.

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s a Bing for BL “Sydney”. The owner was marshalling a double-header using that plus a Bing “City of Bath”, heading an enormous string of Carrette and I think Bing and Maerklin GWR coaches of the same vintage. Seldom can a longer pre-WW1 0 gauge train have been assembled.

 

Models contemporary with their prototypes.  REAL Modern Image stuff!

 

[Nearholmer]

Modern image r-t-r was jolly fine stuff before WW1, not that a huge proportion of the population had the disposable income to afford it. 

[John R Smith]

4 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Models contemporary with their prototypes.  REAL Modern Image stuff!

 

 

Yes, that's what we tend to forget. For example, the Bassett-Lowke Royal Scot was, when introduced in the 1928 catalogue, contemporary with the real thing, introduced the year previously. So there was nothing "vintage" about any of this stuff back then.

[Lacathedrale]

I keep seeing wonderful tinplate clockwork and meths-fired G1 locos - Carette, Bing, Bassett Lowke and the like. Most of them are out of my price range, but if I were to find one that was suitable - is there a way of knowing of it will run on 'G1 Standard' track? I know this isn't really a G1 thread but it's about as retro as it comes and in the same vein I hope.

[Donw]

It depends on wheel standards you may find that G45 track is more suited to older wheel standards similar to the way SM32 track is more suited to coarse scale 0 gauge.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I think LGB track is chunky enough for most flanges, but even then the points question comes into play, assuming you intend to have some, because, as in 0, things sometimes have very tight b-t-b by modern standards. If you join the Train Collectors Society Facebook group (make sure you get the British, not an American, group) there are guys in that who know old G1 inside out. It’s something I’ve considered myself, a vintage G1 train to run on my small outdoor line, so I’ll be interested in the answer.

[sncf231e]

I run tinplate Bing and Märklin on my gauge 1 track, which was orriginally constructed for ASTER live steam and modern Märklin gauge 1, but I do not have any points/turn-outs. My track is Tenmille Bullhead G1 which apparantly can have all types of flanges since I can also run LGB trains on it. I also use this track for 0 gauge and I have not find any train which cannot run on it.

Regards

Fred

[John R Smith]

10 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Most of them are out of my price range, but if I were to find one that was suitable - is there a way of knowing of it will run on 'G1 Standard' track?

 

It rather depends on what you mean by "G1 Standard track". I expect these days that it means G1MRA standards, or the track as sold by Tenmille. This chart defines the standards that Bassett-Lowke were using in the classic era -

 

 

So, in the Gauge 1 column are the B to B etc that you might expect pre-war 10mm rolling stock to have. If you compare this with the G1MRA standards you should quickly spot areas of difference. Does anybody have a similar table for the LGB standards?

 

 

[John R Smith]

 

Apologies, I forgot to give you the link to the G1MRA Standards -

 

https://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf

 

J.

[sncf231e]

Of course G1MRA is not the only one making standards:

 

https://www.morop.org/images/NEM_register/NEM_E/nem110G_en_2011.pdf

 

How standard do you want it 😉

 

Regards

Fred

[Nearholmer]

LGB in-situ:

 

 

 

The flange clearance on plain track is c4mm, but at the crossing nose is shallower, because LGB rolling stock actually runs on the flange-tip through the crossing; it’s a neat design feature that gives smooth running with apparently gross tolerances.

 

If an old G1 loco with very deep flanges runs through it, it may “bump up” very slightly as it does so, but it won’t de-rail.

Those B-L dimensions may not apply to older (pre-1930s) r-t-r made for tinplate track, and TBH the best thing to do would probably be to consult someone who has actually tried the loco you want on LGB points, or carry a point with you when you go loco shopping.

 

Edited June 27 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Fred,

 

have you got a B-L 112 or Peckett Tank in G1 that you could measure the b-t-b and flange depth and root of?

 

Kevin

[sncf231e]

No, I just have some Bing and Märklin in tinplate G1 (and some BL rolling stock, no locos).

Regards

Fred

[Lacathedrale]

Well, I specifically meant track to the G1MRA Standard standard, as I have plans to use Cliff Barker track on my garden route. @sncf231e your videos on YT remain a constant source of inspiration and joy to me, though I know you said you use plain track loops to avoid this very problem.

 

Checking the two diagrams and looking at the pertinent values, it looks like the gauge is 44.5 in Bassett Lowke vs 45mm in G1MRA, B2B is 41 vs 40mm and the width of Flange is 1 vs 1.25mm.

 

I have a parametric 3D model which allows me to adjust the dimensions of a standard wheel type, so maybe I can print up some BL-standard wheels and see how they go.

 

This is the current apple of my eye:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/196448301321

 

 

[Nearholmer]

What makes you think that the dimensions on that will bear any resemblance to those on the table of dimensions given above? They might, but they might not.

[Donw]

Trying to run finescale and coarse scale together is usually problematic. Plain track is generally OK but the turnouts is an issue. the best options is to build 'universal' turnouts where the wing rails move as well as the blades. That way the flangeway can be wide enough for coarse flanges and because the wingrail closes against the crossing nose finescale wheels can aalso run safely through.

 

Don

[John R Smith]

 

54 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Well, I specifically meant track to the G1MRA Standard standard

 

Yes, I thought you were implying that you wished to run on "standard", hence G1MRA, track. Looking carefully at the tables I should think you would not have too much trouble running the B-L table  G1 standard wheels on G1MRA turnouts. When I was running G1 I built all my own track, including turnouts and crossings, to the G1MRA standard, and I was running Tenmille wheelsets on my wagons. I also had no difficulty running an LGB 0-4-0 diesel shunter through the same pointwork without any alteration to its wheelsets.

 

That GNR Atlantic is gorgeous, isn't it? I have had my eye on it for a while, if it was O Gauge I would have been sorely tempted (and he has reduced it recently, too). Because it is probably just post WW I we don't know if the wheels are the same as the B-L table, bearing in mind that the table is from a late 1940s handbook. But you could always ask the seller (Dave) to measure the B2B for you!

 

 

 

 

[John R Smith]

 

 

A bit more research tells us that the GNR Atlantic in G1 was still in the 1928 B-L catalogue, so it could be as late as that. It had a two-speed clockwork motor, cast-iron wheels, and was hand-enamelled (not litho). Length overall was 24 inches, weight 6 lb 7 oz. The cost was £7-7-0 (!)

 

 

[ian]

2 hours ago, John R Smith said:

 

 

The cost was £7-7-0 (!)

 

 

Offer him a fiver - after all it is secondhand!

[Mark Carne]

I saw Nearholmers request for information on the back to back dimensions of a Bassett-Lowke 112 or Peckett Tank, over on the Train Collectors Society facebook page, and having spotted where the query originated, I thought I'd come and answer it.

 

I measured the back to back on 2 Bing for BL 112 tank locos, a Winteringham for BL Peckett tank, and a Carette Peckett tank.

 

The results were,

 

Generic green clockwork 112, 39mm.

 

Midland Railway electric 112, 37-38mm.

 

Winteringham for BL Peckett, clockwork converted to electric using original wheels, axles and mech frame, 39mm.

 

Carette Peckett, clockwork, 37mm.

 

So I would not expect any of these to pass through G1MRA standard pointwork. I know they don't, as a friend who is both interested in O gauge tinplate and gauge 1 live steam, decided to buy a Bing for BL 112 tank last year, to run at his local permanent gauge 1 track where he runs his gauge 1 live steam. It didn't pass through the points, so he sold it back to the guy he brought it from.

 

I do actually have a couple of LGB R3 points in a pile of stuff in my off site storage facility, purchased many years ago, with some Aristocraft track, with the intention of building a portable track for running clockwork and steam vintage gauge 1, but ended up acquiring a heap of tinplate track after, so it never happened! Think the loop of Aristocraft track had one day of use on the lawn in my Mums garden, and the points have never been used, I really must move that all on some time!

 

I've added a photo of the generic 112, so called because the sold this version as a number of different company names, NER, GWR and LSWR among them, and a photo of the minimum space vintage gauge 1 layout I displayed at an event just before last Christmas, to show just how little space it really needs, and to tease those among you teetering on the brink!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Mark Carne]

On 27/06/2024 at 09:27, John R Smith said:

 

It rather depends on what you mean by "G1 Standard track". I expect these days that it means G1MRA standards, or the track as sold by Tenmille. This chart defines the standards that Bassett-Lowke were using in the classic era -

 

 

So, in the Gauge 1 column are the B to B etc that you might expect pre-war 10mm rolling stock to have. If you compare this with the G1MRA standards you should quickly spot areas of difference. Does anybody have a similar table for the LGB standards?

John,

 

I suspect your table is post WW2. the photos I've attached are from a Bassett Lowke Model Railway Handbook, 4th edition, 1912. These standards are what pre and post WW1 Bassett Lowke will conform to, or is supposed to. All of this is based on the use of track with a hollow sheet metal rail, either conventional tinplate or Lowko track with a hollow rail in brass or tinplate, to a slightly smaller size than conventional tinplate rail. Note the standard depth of flange, 3.25 mm or 1/8", to ensure reliable running on tinplate track with a rail head diameter of 3.25 mm, when loose laid on a not necessarily smooth or level floor.

 

And to drag this back to O gauge, a pet point of mine, is there are 3 basic standards in O gauge ( I know I will be bombarded with numerous others, but in this discussion, we are talking from a commercial, historical, pre 1970 perspective), tinplate, coarse and fine, and the O gauge standard and dimensions here are those for O gauge railways using tinplate track. Trying to run coarse standard wheels on tinplate track is about as successful as running them on finescale track, but people persist in confusing the two standards and thinking that they are the same and totally compatible, they are not.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Edited June 29 by Mark Carne
Date correction

[John R Smith]

Hello Mark

 

And many thanks for that. You are correct, my table is from a late 1940s handbook, hence my rather poor advice to William. And your point regarding the essential difference between tinplate rail and solid rail standards is well taken, too. (But as an aside, the strange fact is that 1930s Hornby locos, built to run on Hornby tinplate track, run perfectly well through my Bassett-Lowke points and crossings).

 

However, something strange is going on here. The B to B given in your tables above for G1 is 39 mm. The G1MRA standard is 40 mm, a bit "finer" as you would expect, and hence problematic for compatibility (leaving aside the other standards for flange depth etc). But in my post-war B-L table the B to B is given as 41 mm, even greater than G1MRA - surely this must be a mistake of some kind? And seeing that B-L never actually listed anything in G1 after WW II, it seems unlikely that they ever built any rolling stock to these standards anyway.

 

I have found out the hard way how crucial these wheel and track dimensions are to good running. I am using all genuine B-L boxed post-war brass rail track, and it is a hard taskmaster. 27 mm B to B is fine (even 26.7), but 27.5 is only mostly OK, and 28 mm is bad news. Unfortunately messrs Exley do not seem to have read the B-L standards chart!

 

 

Edited June 29 by John R Smith

[Donw]

It was rather a long time ago ( I think my Hornby clockwork was replaced with an electric Tri-ang set in 1957) but I seem to remember the turnouts were of the type where there was no proper crossing instead the extension of the blades also swung across so they aligned with the rails of the route ahead a form of track that is very tolerant of standards so long as the treads were wide enough to keep on the top of the circular rail head and the flanges deep enough to cope. Once you have flangeways things get a bit more critical and mixing standards becomes problematic.

 

Don