Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[DavidH]

There is no problem at all in using 16.5mm flexi-track with 16.2mm pointwork. It works fine. But I have several times suggested that the transition should be within the flexi-track, and not built into the pointwork. See my reply earlier today:

Indeed you have, I remember that - and for that reason the few points I've made have been extended, or blended into the flexitrack, so the transition happens outside the point, but within the track component I've called "pointwork". So, the point (sic) was heeded ...

[Junctionmad]

I was the one that asked for the variable gauge template. I based my request particularly on the work of Gordon S of Eastwood town , who by his own admission has built over 100 00-SF turnouts and has explained on this and other forums how he flairs the heel and toe to rejoin 16 .5 flexi track.

 

He has repeatedly demonstrated superb track building and running abilities , to suggest that his methods of flaring the gauge will lead to trouble is ridiculous in the face of his practical demonstrations

 

I don't care what we call the fu$k -ing concept at this stage I am desperately tired of the this ridiculous nit picking from all sides of the debate.

 

I would suggest those building volumes of plain track in 16.2 to come on here , I'll be waiting a while I think. ( edit , there does seem to be one person )

 

I can see why any serious track builder would go to p4 at this stage.

 

As far as I'm concerned only a mad man would build any sort of significant amounts of 16.5 or 16.2 or whatever 00 gauge track, since perfectly acceptable finescale ( for 00 anyway ) track is available.

 

I can see clearly why finescale ( or finer anyway 00 is doomed to repeat itself

To me the name change is strange given there are commercial products out there supporting the gauge , why introduce more confusion into an already hopelessly confused situation.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

As Andy points out it's entirely appropriate to flair the exit track at the heel and toe to rejoin flexi track. , since after all you are building the thing so it's easy. . As davidH ah says it effectively occurs outside the geometry of the turnout itself. Modifying the flexi track is plainly silly because that flexi track is now useless if reused on a 16.5 mm layout again. Plain track is often reused ( as Gordon S has demonstrated many times ) custom point work rarely is.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

If we are to maintain the concept that somehow 00-SF is a separate gauge , then it's a track gauge with no matching wheelsets at all. This seems a useful addition to 4mm as if we need it.

 

Martin no one in their right mind is going to change gauge within a complex formation of point work. As Gordon S has shown many times in his mastery of 00-SF, You build the point work formation completely as a unit of consistent gauge and flair the plain ends to match the flexi.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

So folks listen up.

 

If you build turnouts and flair the plain track ends of your turnouts to 16.5 and use the benefits gauge narrowing to improve the common crossing that's called 00-SF cause it's clearly a " technique " with 00 gauge

 

Templot provides direct support for this ( that's fine I have no issue with that ) , but you can use 4-SF to approximate the design

[Junctionmad]

Hi Keith,

 

But not by me. I was asked recently to do variable-gauge templates in Templot, and my answer was a firm no. I was quite upset to be asked, because it meant that after so many dozens of posts on the subject, I had still failed to properly explain 00-SF.

 

Martin.

On the contrary , you have more then adequately explained the gauge many times. However other people choose to use it as they see fit. It has been repeatedly shown and explained by Gordon S over the years that the improved common crossing , by using a particular part of 00-SF or 4 -SF or em-2 or whatever it is today , has advantages while retaining the use of standard flexi track.

 

Merely because I asked you , does not indicate confusion, on the contrary as an engineer and a track builder of many years I understand PRECISELY what I'm doing ( or was asking ) and I understand PRECISELY what 00-SF of 4-SF or whatever IS.

 

The rest of this ridiculous debate is purely about nomenclature and how many angels are on the head of a pin.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

What was wrong with EM-2? I'm not sure that 4-SF is any more informative than 00-SF, but EM-2 seems to say what the standard is based on. It doesn't really matter: all I need to do is remember that the recently purchased and still unused 00-SF gauges that I now own are for a 'new' standard.

I think the EMGS would be very unhappy if we went about promoting a nomenclature like that as it would suggest some imprimatur from them.

 

Perhaps we could call it " 18-2+.2 gauge " or DOGAF-.3. Then theres the Aussies.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Just a silly thought on the subject of joining 16.5 flexi track to 00-SF point work. From a length of flexi track remove the last few sleepers slide on replacement chairs and connect to point work. Then put sleepers back under the track and glue in position.

 

Keith HC

 

It's matters not, exactly where you do it. You can add a little exit and entry track to your templot 4-SF design and flair that to 16.5 , of course common sense will suggest you retain a common consistent gauge through a complex series of immediately connected together point work. , eg crossovers , diverging junctions etc. no one ever suggested otherwise nor to my knowledge built anything like that

 

It's no wonder people are laughing at us.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

On the subject of confusion I would quote this exchange from Martin in January

 

Jintyman, on 09 Jan 2015 - 00:07, said:

My Question is: Can I now purchase the OO-SF gauges from C&L and make any further points with the finer flangeways and mix them with the ones I've already built from a running point of view?

 

Hi Jinty,

 

Yes, you can mix them up as much as you like. And also use Peco turnouts if you wish. The point is that all these use the same wheels, so you can use any of them together and the wheels will still run over all of them.

 

 

Clearly this is not promoting a seperate gauge.

 

This was followed closely there after by a post from a Hayfield

 

Texchem

 

If you have not started building the turnouts an crossings yet, I would strongly suggest that you use 00sf standards. Most using these standards only use the 16.2 gauge through the crossing part and widen out the gauge where it connects with the plain flexi track. Your gauges will be used on the outer parts, the time and trouble you will save in not having to alter the back to back is well worth the cost of 2 pairs of gauges

 

Yet at the tine Martin you made no comments about " confusion" and proceded to contribute to the thread. So we had no confusion in January but we do have now ?

 

I would point out to people that 00 is first and foremost a SCALE. in fact ther is no such thing as 00 track at all, proper scale 00 track is.called P4. What we have today is 00 scale models running on H0 dimensioned track , or derivatives or it. Hence the 00-SF moniker is just as valid. And it is a derivative of 16.5 mm HO track ( it's matters not where the dimensions came from, it's clearly intended to be used by 00 SCALE stock )

I remain bewildered at the issues over nomenclature which are utterly irrelevant

Edited September 24, 2015 by Junctionmad

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      I can understand Martins point of veiw as he must be driven to despair by all the bickering. Building track to 16.2mm gauge is a brilliant and successful compromise that ticks so many boxes.I see people now want to argue the toss about RTR track from other manufacturers that looks better than Peco in their opinion and happens to be 16.5mm gauge. Come on guys we are talking 0.3mm difference in overall gauge between the two. On plain track 0.15mm difference in either rail on a yard length of plain track is neither here nor there. The concept for point and crossing formations are a success for those that use it and Plastic RTR track is just one more compromise some think is acceptable. Gauge widening on any handbuilt track at 16.2mm gauge that is not straight is a forgone conclusion just as it is in the real  thing.

trustytrev.

[Junctionmad]

Hello,

      I can understand Martins point of veiw as he must be driven to despair by all the bickering. Building track to 16.2mm gauge is a brilliant and successful compromise that ticks so many boxes.I see people now want to argue the toss about RTR track from other manufacturers that looks better than Peco in their opinion and happens to be 16.5mm gauge. Come on guys we are talking 0.3mm difference in overall gauge between the two. On plain track 0.15mm difference in either rail on a yard length of plain track is neither here nor there. The concept for point and crossing formations are a success for those that use it and Plastic RTR track is just one more compromise some think is acceptable. Gauge widening on any handbuilt track at 16.2mm gauge that is not straight is a forgone conclusion just as it is in the real  thing.

trustytrev.

The bickering has come from one person and Martin would be well served just to ignore it. You itself have just expounded in essence the variable gauge argument.

 

Clearly smp and c&l are visual improvements over peco , which is a HO gauge track. To argue otherwise would suggest you think p4 isn't either. The primary improvements are in improving sleeper size and placement

 

Anyway the " with it people. " have moved to 00-DN

[AndyID]

BTW, there are a couple of other reasons to go to the trouble of making the track gauge 16.2 mm that I don't think have been mentioned. 

 

It helps to prevent rolling stock from "crabbing", particulary when reversing long rakes of wagons. It also centers automatic couplers properly relative to the track.

[gordon s]

Last weekend I lost one of my golfing mates to bowel cancer at the age of 56.  He was fit as a fiddle, but went into hospital just four months ago and his funeral is next Thursday.  That to me is tragic and puts all the bickering that has gone over 00-SF into perspective.

 

I have been angered by posts from certain individuals and at times I am ashamed to say, rose to the bait as it seemed so important at the time.  Now I see things differently, but as I have been mentioned several times in these threads, feel I will have to comment.

 

I really must thank Martin for making Templot available and introducing me to 00-SF in the first place.  Building pointwork for is one of the most enjoyable pastimes and I will continue to build in 00-SF using the methods that have worked for me.  I will have transition areas within the turnout to connect to 00 flexi track and as long as we have freedom of choice in this world will continue to do so.

 

I cannot believe all the criticism and questioning that has come from certain individuals and have no idea why 00-SF has met with a continual barrage from them.  To me it will always be 00-SF as I will be running 00 stock on my track.  There is no confusion at all to anyone who took the trouble to read about 00-SF and builds turnouts to those dimensions.  

 

The joke of the whole thing is that the confusion has come from one who follows DOGA standards and the other in HO and Proto 87.  What on earth 00-SF has to do with either of them is baffles me, but hey ho, it takes all sorts.

 

As I said at the outset some things in life are important, others not worth getting wound up about.  Rise above it all and just enjoy this hobby.  

[dasatcopthorne]

I was the one that asked for the variable gauge template. I based my request particularly on the work of Gordon S of Eastwood town , who by his own admission has built over 100 00-SF turnouts and has explained on this and other forums how he flairs the heel and toe to rejoin 16 .5 flexi track.

He has repeatedly demonstrated superb track building and running abilities , to suggest that his methods of flaring the gauge will lead to trouble is ridiculous in the face of his practical demonstrations

I don't care what we call the fu$k -ing concept at this stage I am desperately tired of the this ridiculous nit picking from all sides of the debate.

I would suggest those building volumes of plain track in 16.2 to come on here , I'll be waiting a while I think. ( edit , there does seem to be one person )

I can see why any serious track builder would go to p4 at this stage.

As far as I'm concerned only a mad man would build any sort of significant amounts of 16.5 or 16.2 or whatever 00 gauge track, since perfectly acceptable finescale ( for 00 anyway ) track is available.

I can see clearly why finescale ( or finer anyway 00 is doomed to repeat itself

To me the name change is strange given there are commercial products out there supporting the gauge , why introduce more confusion into an already hopelessly confused situation.

Hello, what ever you name might be.

 

Are you referring to me, when you mention building plain track to 16.2mm?

 

Whether you are or not, the reason I build all track in 16.2 is that this is the gauge I have gauges for. The reason I have the gauges is because I needed them to build pointwork.

 

For me, using Templot (and subsequently 16.2) was that a new layout needed building at our Club and I was completely fed up with the crappy track available off-the-shelf. I wanted proper panels of track etc., etc just like P4. A number of members were already well into 00 with fair amounts of stock, so considering EM or P4 was out of the question. So I suppose that I am a serious track builder that couldn't consider P4.

 

On another note, it does surprise me that someone might need a template to increase the gauge of track by 0.3mm. The big question, of course is, do you move one rail .3mm or two rails each by .15mm. Personally, if I had to do this, I would move both rails on the point by 0.075 and both rails on the end of the RTR flex track inwards by the same amount. (Hope my maths hasn't let me down there).

 

I can see another 200 posts coming on this one subject alone.

 

Cheers.

Dave.

Posted by someone who doesn't mind using their real name in a post.

Edited September 25, 2015 by dasatcopthorne

[martin_wynne]

of course common sense will suggest you retain a common consistent gauge through a complex series of immediately connected together point work. , eg crossovers , diverging junctions etc. no one ever suggested otherwise nor to my knowledge built anything like that

 

But that seems to be the thrust of Richard's post in this topic yesterday:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf/page-8&do=findComment&comment=2031001

 

with reference to "gauge-narrowing". And comments about  "the usual 16.5mm" and flaring within curved turnouts.

 

The term "gauge-narrowing" has also been used in other 00-SF discussions, for example by Andy Reichert. It is going to cause much confusion if it becomes the common terminology.

 

I can imagine used (or even new) turnouts described as "00-SF" appearing on e-bay and elsewhere and then the purchaser finds that they don't connect with other 00-SF turnouts, with some exits at one gauge and some at another. The result would be much grief on web forums and general rubbishing of 00-SF.

 

If folks want to build pointwork that way, that's fine. There are some excellent photos of layouts built that way on RMweb. But I don't want my name associated with the practice of variable gauge within pointwork, because ultimately I think it is going to cause much confusion and grief. That's why I have changed the name in Templot to remove the reference to 00 (and the consequent association with 16.5mm gauge).

 

4-SF has a track gauge of 16.2mm throughout and everywhere, and is printed that way on the templates from Templot. For diamond-crossings and slips it is very important that the gauge is consistent throughout, and that the template is printed for 16.2mm. Otherwise it is impossible to align the rails correctly. Progressive gauge-widening is fine where needed for sharp curves in accordance with prototype practice, but not anywhere else. If a user desires to use 16.5mm flexi-track with 4-SF, it will need to be modified at the ends in order to connect to 4-SF track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited September 25, 2015 by martin_wynne

[Junctionmad]

Hello, what ever you name might be.

 

Are you referring to me, when you mention building plain track to 16.2mm?

 

Whether you are or not, the reason I build all track in 16.2 is that this is the gauge I have gauges for. The reason I have the gauges is because I needed them to build pointwork.

 

For me, using Templot (and subsequently 16.2) was that a new layout needed building at our Club and I was completely fed up with the crappy track available off-the-shelf. I wanted proper panels of track etc., etc just like P4. A number of members were already well into 00 with fair amounts of stock, so considering EM or P4 was out of the question. So I suppose that I am a serious track builder that couldn't consider P4.

 

On another note, it does surprise me that someone might need a template to increase the gauge of track by 0.3mm. The big question, of course is, do you move one rail .3mm or two rails each by .15mm. Personally, if I had to do this, I would move both rails on the point by 0.075 and both rails on the end of the RTR flex track inwards by the same amount. (Hope my maths hasn't let me down there).

 

I can see another 200 posts coming on this one subject alone.

 

Cheers.

Dave.

Posted by someone who doesn't mind using their real name in a post.

My request to Martin is somewhat out of context , nor D&D it show confusion exists. I was merely looking to replicate Gordon S work with 00-SF through the point work connected to standard SMP flexi. Martin seems to think this shows confusion ! ( but it's also in the context of 00-DN ) which is 16.2 yet designed to basically match SMP etc.

 

I fully understand why a few people might build the layout completely inn16.2. However I would contend is a terribly small minority. Most would use SMP r c&l flexi

[cromptonnut]

I can't notice a difference of 0.3mm just by looking at something...

[martin_wynne]

Martin seems to think this shows confusion

 

I think the confusion is self-evident. We have had several posts referring to "gauge-narrowing" from Andy Reichert and others, culminating in a post yesterday which convinced me that something had to be changed. No sensible track builder ever narrows the gauge, it is only ever widened. If the notion that narrowing the gauge is a good idea gains credence in the hobby, I don't want my name to be on it.

 

Unfortunately it seems that a reference to 00 is seen by many to mean 16.5mm, so I have removed it from the designation for 16.2mm, which will now be shown in Templot as 4-SF: http://4-sf.uk

 

My interest is only for the content of Templot. No-one is obliged to take the slightest notice -- what others build and choose to call it is clearly a matter for them, and I wish them well.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

I can't notice a difference of 0.3mm just by looking at something...

 

Nor me. But I can notice the consequence, when an Ultrascale wheel falls into a crossing gap.

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

But that seems to be the thrust of Richard's post in this topic yesterday:

What Richard said looks to me to be exactly what has been discussed on all these 00-sf topics for the last couple of years, ie the whole thrust has been a means of obtaining finer flangeways through the crossings in handbuilt 00 pointwork. It has been repeatedly stated that there is no need to change plain track and that the whole idea is to get better running for 00 stock. All of which made sense.

It seems very obtuse to me to suddenly decide it has nothing to do with 00. IMHO, far from clearing up confusion this change will just create more.

regards

Edited September 25, 2015 by Grovenor

[dasatcopthorne]

And still our P4 mate is interested in 00-sf.

 

Blimey Keith. You'll be having a go at building some to test it out soon!! Keep your P4 gauges though. They'll help set the Third Rail.

 

:mosking:

 

Dave

[martin_wynne]

It seems very obtuse to me to suddenly decide it has nothing to do with 00.

 

Hi Keith,

 

I haven't said it has nothing to do with 00. That would be daft when it is intended that 00 models should run on it. What I am trying to say is that it has nothing to do with 16.5mm track gauge. It's clear that some folks cannot divorce the 00 designation from 16.5mm, which is why I have now removed 00 from the designation for 16.2mm in Templot.

 

From reading Richard's post I could see folks printing out a template for say a 16.5mm diamond-crossing or slip, and then trying to build it with 16.2mm gauge through the crossings and 16.5mm elsewhere. You know that the result would be a disaster. And it would damage the concept of 00-SF unjustifiably. Every time someone in one of these topics refers to "gauge-narrowing" I can just see this sort of thing happening.

 

So I have changed the track designation to 4-SF in Templot, so that I can say firmly that the track gauge is 16.2mm, everywhere and always. There is no reference to 16.5mm anywhere within it.

 

My only concern is the content of Templot. No-one is required to take the slightest notice, and everyone is entirely free to build whatever they want. Including using 16.5mm flexi-track to link between 4-SF pointwork.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

It's clear that some folks cannot divorce the 00 designation from 16.5mm

Well, that is the definition of 00.

But really you worry to much.

Regards

Keith

[martin_wynne]

Well, that is the definition of 00.

But really you worry to much.

 

All the more reason not to use it in reference to 16.2mm.

 

I'm not worrying too much. I am maybe explaining too much. Writing too much. Spending too much time at the keyboard. I shall stop now.

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

No sensible track builder ever narrows the gauge, it is only ever widened.

I'm not trying to get at you Martin but this is taking semantics to extreme, both 00-sf and the various sub 32 versions of 0 gauge are narrowing the gauge to get better running through crossings without altering the wheel check gauge. Or if you insist that 00-sf is an adaption of EM, then narrowed even more. Really there is no difference between 16.2 with widening to 16.5 and 16.5 with narrowing to 16.2. How much of the layout consists of which gauge is personal choice.

As is what you choose to put in Templot  and what you choose to call it.

Regards