Industrial Track inset into Setts

[TEZBEDZ]

I am considering a small industrial layout based on the idea in March Model Rail. Thus gas a Peco Settrack layout on 4ft square.

i would like to build this, but, probably on a slightly bigger base.

What is the minimum radius for an 0-4-0 handling 9ft wheelbase wagons?

I was thinking of building the flangeway by soldering brass strips to the base of the rail and either gluing or soldering a strip of brass or Nickel Silver upright to represent the flangeway.

Does this sound feasible?

[jim s-w]

Hi terry

Have you seen the proto 87 tram rails? www.proto87.com/

(afraid I can't provide a direct link as the drop down menus don't work on an iPad)

HTH

Jim

[andrewnummelin]

I'd guess that the minimum radius will be well under 1': but take care with the layout as buffer locking could be a problem.
If you look at Blaenavon ironworks you'll find some prototype situations with very tight curves - my memory was that you could get around 4 wagons on one of the 90 degree bends there. I was told when visiting the site in the '60s that 21T wagons were banned because of buffer locking!
See http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html and put in coordinates 324984 209216 in the 1:2500 map.
http://cadw.wales.gov.uk/daysout/blaenavonironworks/?lang=en

[TEZBEDZ]

Hi Jim,

The Proto 87 tramway looks to be modular, could it be used out to 18.83?
It would be easy to do it in OO/HO and use RTR and build it quickly, however all my stock and locos are to P4 and I would prefer to be able to use them on all layouts.
On a tramway layout I don't think the difference between OO track and P4 would be so obvious to the untrained eye (no sleepers to see)

[jim s-w]

Hi Terry

I'm pretty sure you can buy just the rails.

HTH

Jim

[Re6/6]

Take a look at Brian Harrap's 'Quai 87' thread on RM web. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... 87/page-16

IMHO he's the master at anything to do with cobbles/sets. Real carved ones, not plastic card which never looks convincing and it can't be curved for one thing.

Brian constructs (in P87) tramway and inset track using fully checkrailed for heavy rail or nickel-silver strip for light tramway track.

Any questions that you might have can be forwarded to him if you send me a PM. I'm not sure if he's on here.

Quai 87 tramway 1.jpg

Quai 87 tramway.jpg

[Guy Rixon]

What is the minimum radius for an 0-4-0 handling 9ft wheelbase wagons?

I remember a facsimile of a BR wagon diagram, for a 16-ton mineral, that stated "minimum curve 1.5 chains". That's 396mm in 4mm scale.

I would guess that the practical, minimum radius is set by the risk of buffer locking between wagons. Buffer locking between an industrial shunter and a wagon would happen at a lower radius because the loco has wider buffer-heads than the wagons.

If your couplings take the buffing force than you avoid buffer locking and track holding sets the limit. Back in the day, MRSG published a diagram ("nomogram"?) showing how the "falls off the track dammit" radius varies with wheelbase. There was a copy in an MRC article; I'll see if I can find it this evening.

[KK92]

Buffer locking is not just a matter of wheelbase but also of overhangs (read: the distance between the bufferface and the nearest axle). The smaller this distance is the less is the distance the bufferbeam is moved outside from the track center.

It also shows that wagons with different overhangs worked together through a sharp curve will be more prone to buffer locking. The same will applie for the locomotive propelling these wagons.

Another factor is the transition from the straight into the curve. If this is without a transition curve buffer lockin again will be more likely.

If the layout will only use 16 ton minerals and a shunter with similar dimensions, by the use of transition curves, the minimum radius of the curve is only determined by the wheel base.

[grovenor-2685]

For buffer locking nomograph see http://www.scalefour.org/resources/GWRtracknotes/R1774A.pdf
AFAIK the MRSG article had a graph showing min radius against wheelbase and wheelsize, not a nomograph. The articles are all in the history section of this website but our webmaster pruned pics and diagrams he thought poorly scanned and I think that diagram was caught by this.
Regards
Keith