Don't use the Crossing flangeway gauge!!!

This section allows guests to comment or ask questions. Posts from guests require explicit approval (which generally takes a day or so), before they appear, so that we can prevent unwanted spam.
proto87stores

Don't use the Crossing flangeway gauge!!!

Postby proto87stores » Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:04 pm

For anyone laying setts for model paved track, please be aware that using the crossing flange way gauge will not give a sufficient groove width to avoid wheel backs rubbing (and possibly even climbing) the setts or other paving material laid in between the rails.

Andy

martin goodall
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Don't use the Crossing flangeway gauge!!!

Postby martin goodall » Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:22 pm

Bearing in mind that the crossing flangeway gauge is applied to only one side of the setts, the clearance on the other side is not going to be any narrower, although I then 'spoilt' the setting by inserting the blade of a screwdriver in the gap and twisted it slightly to 'centre' the setts in the 4-foot (purely for the sake of appearance). Using the crossing flangeway gauge is simply a means of ensuring that the setts have not been laid too close to one rail or the other.

If you think about it, with the setts having been filed to a width of no more than 17.5 mm (a shade less than the minimum P4 back-to-back) before being laid, it would be impossible to produce a situation in which the back of the wheel flanges could rub on either side of the setts in the 4-foot, provided they clear the crossing flangeway gauge.

In the same way, if the crossing flangeway in a common crossing is set with the flangeway gauge, and the check rails are set with the checkrail gauge, the backs of the wheel flanges are not going to rub on or climb over the crossing vee or the stock rail.

As I explained, I checked that all was well with a roller gauge, as well as running a rake of wagons (fitted with EM wheels set to the minimum P4 back-to-back) over the inset track. Either or both of these tests would undoubtedly have shown up any problem there might have been.

As the late 'Smokey' Bourne once observed, "An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory."


Return to “Guest Book”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests