Arthur Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I think they still work out cheaper than those from down under (and, whilst I'm not sure of current rules, don't forget that you may get hit by vat and the dreaded post office "collection fee" when they arrive in the UK...). Correct Polybear, you will get hit with them, now handled by Parcelforce, they're considerably more diligent than they were a few years back. As I have, you can order them from Gaugemaster, either way, they will be more expensive than those from C&L. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted January 25, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2015 But the gauge is not being used on prototype rail, the model rails may not have accurate head widths. Colin Craig has info on that on his website and supplies different gauges depending on whose flat bottom rail is used. Keith When the 00-sf Gauges were being designed (for Code 75 B/H rail, incidentally) I approached many rail manufacturers for rail specs. in order that I could answer questions such as "I'm using rail from supplier ABC - will these Gauges be suitable?" I'll dig out the data and post it up later. HTH polybear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jintyman Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 Please excuse my ignorance, am I reading this correctly, Polybear (must keep Uncle George happy!!), I take it you are the original purveyor of the current gauges distributed by C&L? And I fully agree that DCC Concepts, a company who force the issue of warranties, would refuse refund in that particular case, given the demographics of it all. Gaugemaster are the agents in the UK for all DCC Concepts, and although I use their Cobalt IP Digital point motors, I will certainly not be purchasing their OO-SF gauges. I'll patiently wait for C&L. From my OP, I have just one remaining question (He says waiting for the hit rate and comments to rise uncontrollably), I'm going to purchase the C&L OO-SF Check rail gauges, I currently have the Marcway OO-BF roller gauges, So long as I use the OO-SF check rail gauges and the 1mm shims for the construction of the points, can I still utilise the OO-BF gauges for plain track (Where the point meets flexi)? Jinty ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted January 25, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2015 Please excuse my ignorance, am I reading this correctly, Polybear (must keep Uncle George happy!!), I take it you are the original purveyor of the current gauges distributed by C&L? From my OP, I have just one remaining question (He says waiting for the hit rate and comments to rise uncontrollably), I'm going to purchase the C&L OO-SF Check rail gauges, I currently have the Marcway OO-BF roller gauges, So long as I use the OO-SF check rail gauges and the 1mm shims for the construction of the points, can I still utilise the OO-BF gauges for plain track (Where the point meets flexi)? Jinty ;-) Hi Jinty, Guilty as charged, M'Lud.... I had fun with the project, but took the decision to hand it over as it gained popularity (who'd have thought it, after all those doom 'n gloom "the world will end" merchants cast doubts and said "it'll never work" back in the early (er) days of RMWeb...). Each batch of Gauges was costing a grand, and I was getting decidedly nervous that another manufacturer would jump in and start supplying Gauges at a lower price, leaving me right up s.street.... As for using 00-BF gauges for the 16.5mm plain track, I see no reason why not - assuming they measure out at 16.5mm (no doubt Martin will be able to confirm and/or shoot me down I did take a look at the Double 00 Gauge Association website for track standards for 00-BF. However, it only seemed to make mention of "Finescale" or "Intermediate" standard. My head is starting to hurt....Martin must have a cracking headache after all those years of bangin' his bonce against that brick wall.... However, I personally reckon a 00-sf layout should be all 00-sf, and not mixed with that over-gauge 16.5mm 00 stuff......does that make me a 00-sf rivet counter?? polybear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 George Humble oligopolies in forgetting the spelling, its my age !! You are quite right about the cost increasing by 20% when a business takes over as the inland Revenue take their and then the business has overheadsand does need a profit margin. Costs have just exploded in recent years, 10 years ago copperclad was about £2.50 a packet, now over £10 (better product and longer lengths though), Just look at old price labels in the spares box. Incomes have not kept pace though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted January 25, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2015 When the 00-sf Gauges were being designed (for Code 75 B/H rail, incidentally) I approached many rail manufacturers for rail specs. in order that I could answer questions such as "I'm using rail from supplier ABC - will these Gauges be suitable?" I'll dig out the data and post it up later. HTH polybear Hi all, Info as promised - note that this information dates from May 2009 (I think) so things may have changed since then..... C&L RAIL 4 mm rail code 75, nickel silver BS95R bullhead 0.92mm (0.0362") [source: C&L]; 0.90mm (0.0354”) [Measured sample] 4 mm rail code 75, steel BS95R bullhead 0.92mm (0.0362") [source: C&L] 4 mm rail code 75, nickel silver flat bottom *approximately* 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] 4 mm rail code 82, nickel silver BS110A flat bottom 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] 4 mm rail code 82, steel BS110A flat bottom 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] 4 mm rail code 82, nickel silver 12% Ni. flat bottom 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] 4 mm rail, Nickel Silver 12% Ni. Code 70 FB *approximately* 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] Rail, Nickel Silver 12% Ni. Code 55 FB 0.50mm (0.0197") [source: C&L] Rail, Code 60 BH 0.71mm (0.0279") [source: C&L] Rail, Code 80 FB 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] Rail, Code 83 FB 0.67mm (0.0264") [source: C&L] Rail, Code 100 FB 1.00mm (0.0394") [source: C&L] IMPORTANT NOTE: The above information was gathered via a telephone conversation with Brian Lewis (C&L), who was anxious to stress that the manufacture of Rail is quite a crude process (basically wire drawn thru' steel rollers) and as such the above (C&L) dimensions should be regarded as nominal values only, since variation may occur between batches. In addition, both C&L and SMP/Marcway have at times sourced rail from each other for onward sale to customers. The dimensions of the rail codes listed in red above were quoted to me by Brian Lewis, however these sizes are not listed for sale on the C&L Finescale website (possibly special order?). The two rail code dimensions where the sizes are preceded by the word *approximately* (i.e. Code 75 N.S. F/B & Code 70 N.S. F/B) are shown as such since they were quoted to me as being “about the same” as Code 82 Flat Bottom Rail. SMP RAIL (see note below) Code 75 Nickel Silver Bullhead Rail 0.83mm (0.0326”) [Old measured sample]. 0.815mm (0.032”) [New measured sample] Code 75 Phosphor Bronze Bullhead Rail SMP report this is the same size as the Nickel Silver rail (above) [*I suspect this has not been confirmed accurately*] Code 75 Nickel Silver Flat Bottom Rail 0.905mm (0.0356”) [New measured sample] Code 100 Nickel Silver Flat Bottom Rail 1.025mm (0.040”) [New measured sample] MARCWAY RAIL Code 100FB Nickel Silver Flat Bottom Rail 1.025mm (0.040”) [New measured sample] Code 90 FB Nickel Silver Flat Bottom Rail Marcway were out of stock of this rail, so dimensions not known unfortunately. Code 75 FB Nickel Silver Flat Bottom Rail 0.905mm (0.0356”) [New measured sample] Code 75 BH Nickel Silver Bullhead Rail 0.885mm (0.0348”) [New measured sample] Code 75 BH Phosphor Bronze Bullhead Rail No sample provided, but I suspect Marcway would suggest this to be the same size as Nickel Silver Rail (above) IMPORTANT NOTE: SMP/Marcway have at times sourced rail from C&L (and vice-versa) for onward sale to customers. SMP was a separate company but has now been taken over by Marcway; both brands are now supplied via the same (Marcway) address. The SMP website states: SMP Scale Model Productions have now been taken over by Marcway of Sheffield and a price list of the SMP range of products is listed in the space below . The range will not be absorbed into the large Marcway range but will keep its own identity. Marcway started in 1964 and SMP and SCALEWAY later in the 1960s. Both brands having different but similar types of products and a long term following. EXACTOSCALE Code 75 Bullhead Rail BS95R steel 0.905 – 0.915mm [source: Exactoscale] Code 82 Flat Bottom Rail BS113A steel 0.91mm nominal (probably 0.905 - 0.915mm, as per B/H rail) [source: Exactoscale] (Note: Exactoscale state that Nickel Silver variants of the above may have slight differences due to the way the material will behave when formed). PECO “INDIVIDULAY” Code 75 Flat Bottom Rail, nickel silver 0.78mm (0.0307”) [source: PECO and Dave Long] Code 80 Flat Bottom Rail. nickel silver 0.63mm (0.025”) [source: PECO] Code 82 Flat Bottom Rail, nickel silver 0.89mm (0.035”) [source: PECO]; 0.88mm (0.0346”) [source: Measured by Dave Long] Code 100 Flat Bottom Rail. nickel silver 1.04mm (0.041”) [source: PECO]; 1.045mm (0.0413”) [Measured sample] HTH Kind Regards, polybear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jintyman Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 So from the lists supplied above, the best two to use (if you're having mixed BH & FB) are: C&L Bullhead code 75 Nickel silver rail Peco Flat Bottom Code 82 Nickel silver rail I'll be using Flatbottom on the main running lines with C&L's concrete sleeper (Fastrack) units, and Bullhead in the sidings using the C&L wooden sleeper flexi track. I just need to find some Peco FB code 82 rail and see if it fits into the C&L concrete sleepers, unless someone on here has done it???? Jinty ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Hi Andy, For trams the groove alongside the rail isn't a check rail and doesn't normally take any part in guiding the wheels. It is there to allow the road surface to be filled between the rails. To prevent it making contact with the wheel backs it needs to be slightly wider than the normal check rail gap, so that wheels can be guided by their flanges against the rail head in the usual way. They are so supplied, and it is a reason for using 1.0mm flangeways instead of the 1.3mm with 00-BF or DOGA Intermediate or NMRA H0, to prevent wheel drop in the crossings. I'm not sure what you mean by "now popular" -- such wheels 2.3mm wide, or the Romford/Jackson/Markits ones 2.5mm wide, have been standard issue with kits in the UK for decades. RTR wheels (RP25/110) 2.8mm wide have rarely if ever been supplied with kits in the UK. To use 1.0mm flangeways you have two choices: 16.5mm gauge (DOGA-Fine) which requires wheel back-to-backs to be widened to at least 14.6mm -- or 16.2mm gauge (00-SF) which requires back-to-backs to be at least 14.3mm and therefore doesn't require any widening on the vast majority of existing models. I've written this stuff over and over again on RMweb for years now and I don't understand why you are still quibbling from across the pond. I know where you are the 16.5mm track gauge dimension is revered in the same way as 18.83mm here, but in the UK at 4mm/ft scale 16.5mm has no prototype meaning whatsoever. If it makes life a lot easier to use 16.2mm instead, that's what many folks are now choosing to do. regards, Martin. You seem to be completely missing the two points. The well known Tramway modeller was trying (publicly) to justify using double 1mm plaster flange ways as OK, because that was how he interpreted the DOGA standards if he used the fine B-B. I disagreed with him and was trying to get you to confirm the problem. Not trigger your looking for a hidden agenda. According to my quick exercises with CAD to double check my arithmetic. If he would use 00-SF, the problem would go away. So I was treating that as a win for 00-SF and was thinking of suggesting it back on that forum. But I also wanted your concurrence first, as I'm not a recognized 00-SF expert. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Andy, Your problem is the same whatever the gauge if you use two 1mm flangeways, to avoid the back of a flange touching track gauge the plaster you will have to use a wheel check gauge not less than track gauge minus 0.9 mm. (to give 0.1 clearance). Hence CG of 15.6 for TG of 16.5, or CG of 15.3 for TG - 16.2. As CG = BB + EF the back to back setting can only be set when the EF is known, and that will depend on both wheel and rail profile. Good luck. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The rail head in 4mm should be 0.036 inches/0.886mm, scaled from dimensions on National Rail drawing REPW 200b. Clive, your calculator has gone a bit awry, your imperial figure is OK, your metric, not. Below is from my recent post on the contemporary gauge thread. UK standard 113lb rail with a headwidth of 2.75" should be 0.917 mm or 36.1 thou in 00, but in H0 only 0.802 mm or 31.6 thou. and a rail height of 6.25" should be code 82 (2.1 mm) for 00 and code 72 (1.8 mm) for H0 By the way, the UIC60 rail current for UK main lines is 6.77" high with a head width of 2.83", code 88.9 (2.3 mm) and width 0.944 mm or 37.2 thou. in 00. My reference is from the drawings in Network Rail's track design handbook which look to be taken direct from the BS. Regards Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Just to repeat - again - that the DOGA Intermediate OO standard is for a 1.20mm flangeway , subject to a tolerance of +/-0.05mm. It is NOT 1.3mm as Martin claims above Martin is entitled to advocate his OO -SF concept, but not through incorrect statements about other standards in order to exaggerate the potential visual benefit of a 1.0mm flangeway The accepted BRMSB standard is 1.25mm nominal . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Just to repeat - again - that the DOGA Intermediate OO standard is for a 1.20mm flangeway , subject to a tolerance of +/-0.05mm. It is NOT 1.3mm as Martin claims above Martin is entitled to advocate his OO -SF concept, but not through incorrect statements about other standards in order to exaggerate the potential visual benefit of a 1.0mm flangeway The accepted BRMSB standard is 1.25mm nominal . That might be the case, but ........I have several different gauges supposedly for this standard and the closest any of them comes is 1.27mm, which thus appears to be outside the standard?I CAN see the difference between track/ turnouts built with these gauges and 00-SF gauges (1mm flangeway etc) - what I cannot see is the slight reduction in the turnouts (or points if you are that way inclined!!) to 16.2mm : can you? What I do know is that the running qualities ARE better, and so is the visual appearance. Please note: not trying to provoke yet another war!! - just a very happy user of 00-SF........ Edit to add (and this is just my query, so I hope someone will confirm?) If the DOGA intermediate standard is for 1.2 +-0.05 then the minimum flangeway gap would be 1.15 - which is pretty close to 00-SF - surely this would mean a gap of anything between 1.20 to 1.35 on the 'other' side of the turnout (ie between the check rails and stock rails) - that would look odd, and surely wouldn't work with diamonds and slips?? This might be why people complain that these formations are very difficult to build in 00?? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 IIRC, a turnout built to NMRA standards, exact 16.5 mm (0.649") gauge and a 0.050" (max) frog FW and check gauge will have something like a 0.036" Check rail flange way gap. Again without checking the arithmetic, reducing the frog FW to around 0.045" and partly moving the check rail in the same direction, is OK, provided the widest tolerance B-B wheels don't get close enough to "pick" or "split" the frog vee. Saying the running qualities for 00-SF are better (than what?) is difficult, since the NMRA standards already work 100% reliably as is. This is usually where the follower enthusiasm claims for 00-SF go too far above and beyond the factual stage. Lest I be assumed to favour the NMRA regular standards, let it be clear, I absolutely prefer Proto:87 and enjoy symmetrical ~0.022" flange ways and great running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2015 Saying the running qualities for 00-SF are better (than what?) is difficult, since the NMRA standards already work 100% reliably as is. This is usually where the follower enthusiasm claims for 00-SF go too far above and beyond the factual stage. Yes the NMRA H0 standards do work fine, but only for RTR wheels (RP25/110, 2.8mm wide). Not with 2.3mm and 2.5mm wide kit wheels and RP25/88 wheels, all of which are bumpy on NMRA H0, especially if prototypical blunt-nose vees are used. Whereas on 00-SF such kit wheels are not bumpy and run smoothly with full support at the crossings, mixed with RTR wheels on the same layout. Since such a mix of wheels is typical of 00 layouts in the UK, it is fair and reasonable to say that 00-SF provides better running qualities. And also improved appearance. Andy, we have been over all this so many times on RMweb that I can hardly believe I am writing it yet again. I don't understand why you can't simply accept that many hand-builders of 00 track in the UK have tried 00-SF and decided that they like the results. Instead of constantly quibbling from a USA perspective with irrelevant references to proto87, trams, asymmetric H0 flangeways, etc. Asymmetric flangeways work only for plain turnouts where some gauge-widening is needed. They don't work for K-crossings (in diamonds), nor for parallel-wing crossings where a wing rail and check rail are combined. Parallel-wing crossings are very common in the UK, sometimes on ordinary crossovers and often within complex formations such as a tandem turnout: Ravenser wrote: Martin is entitled to advocate his 00-SF concept, but not through incorrect statements about other standards in order to exaggerate the potential visual benefit of a 1.0mm flangeway The OP on this topic asked about 00-BF. The flangeway for the traditional "scale 00" standard is nominally the same as the old NMRA H0 standard at 0.050" = 1.27mm. Expressed to a single decimal place that is 1.3mm and that is the figure which I shall continue to use to describe it, even if there are minor differences between DOGA Intermediate, 00-BF and NMRA H0. Otherwise it all gets too difficult and confusing for beginners to follow. The important point is that it is significantly wider than the 1.0mm flangeways used for 00-SF and EM. 00-SF is not my concept, it was originally developed by the late Roy Miller of the EM Gauge Society in the early 1970s. My only contribution was to coin the designation "00-SF" for it, instead of "EM minus 2", and then only for the sake of brevity. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Andy, we have been over all this so many times on RMweb that I can hardly believe I am writing it yet again. I don't understand why you can't simply accept that many hand-builders of 00 track in the UK have tried 00-SF and decided that they like the results. Instead of constantly quibbling from a USA perspective with irrelevant references to proto87, trams, asymmetric H0 flangeways, etc. Indeed Martin. I've been following threads on 00-SF for some while and the 'proverbial bad penny' springs to mind. I think that you have shown a remarkable degree of patience and restraint in your responses. Andy, I don't know what your agenda is with reference to 00-SF but I find your input on these threads repetitive, unhelpful and irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jintyman Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Indeed Martin. I've been following threads on 00-SF for some while and the 'proverbial bad penny' springs to mind. I think that you have shown a remarkable degree of patience and restraint in your responses. Andy, I don't know what your agenda is with reference to 00-SF but I find your input on these threads repetitive, unhelpful and irrelevant. You can ask a simple question, which is then responded to with frank and concice answers, from Martin, Hayfield and dasatcopthorne. With their advice, I as a relativly novice track constructor, could make an informed decision as to what direction I wanted to go. The repetitive 'arguments' that have been put forward just hamper and confuse the issue. Maybe I should of stated in my OP that this was a model based in the UK and not the USA. I totally agree with Arthur in that this kind of argument is not helpful at all. Especially to such as myself who are novices. We may begin to ask what the hell we're getting into, and then revert to proprietry track!!!! Now that would be a waste, unless the argumental people view themselves with some eliteism? As the OP, again I'd like to thank all the positive/constructive help given, and politely ask for the waters not to be muddyed!!!!! Regards Jinty ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Good Grief! Doesn't anyone here know what a dictionary is? Better running and wider range of options have two completely different meanings. The NMRA regular standard REQUIRES code 110 wheels. That's one of the definitions of a Wheels and Track standard. It has multiple inter-related dimensions that should not be individually altered willy-nilly. It works perfectly with RTR wheels, and train set radii, but not necessarily if you use other wheels. Nor is it claimed to. 00-SF has different gauge dimension together with different wheel flange side clearance tolerances, so that it will work with both code 110 wheels and narrower, down to I believe around code 88. So it has a different standard set of dimensions, which also works perfectly with both RTR and and also popular UK slightly narrower wheels, but has a greater minimum radii requirement for long wheelbase vehicles in exchange. Whether one is a better match for your needs, is up to the user to decide. As far as better running ( 0 derailments and no bumpiness) is concerned, they are both identical at 00-SF minimum radius or larger. The above has nothing to do with my or anyone else's personal feelings, good, bad or otherwise. It's purely factual. I don't see how correcting that when it is misrepresented in posts can be in the least confusing. OTOH, taking subjective feelings and re-publishing them as engineering facts, with or without the barrage of "ad hominem" mis-arguments, is the classic method of spreading "internet disinformation", and boy, is that confusing to not yet fully informed people. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2015 Good Grief! Doesn't anyone here know what a dictionary is? Better running and wider range of options have two completely different meanings. The NMRA regular standard REQUIRES code 110 wheels. Indeed it does. Likewise 'tis written in the ancient texts that the 00-SF standard REQUIRES all posts by Andy Reichert to be disregarded. Andy can't you see that it is BECAUSE the regular standard requires code 110 wheels that folks are looking for something else? If an observer sees that on one layout some of the vehicles are bumpy when running over the pointwork, and that if the very same rolling-stock is transferred to another layout it all runs smoothly, he is entitled to say that one layout is providing better running qualities than the other. A dictionary is not needed. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Everybody! I love reading all this about 00-SF because I find a number of people just cannot help commenting on its effectiveness or otherwise when most of them have never tried it. The likes of Andy R and Revenser (surprised he took so long to comment this time round. Must have been away) who have probably also not tried it. I can remember the early days of 00-SF on RMWeb when Ravenser used to say "show me someone who has built a layout in 00-SF" or words to that effect. Well they have and had also done so at the time. Me for one. Luckily my temperament allows me to sit back and read all these posts on this and that about 00-SF and not jump every time someone tries to show its not worth doing or quote various measurements here or there. I fail to understand what they hope to gain from it all. Perhaps they might explain. It really intrigues me. The OP here was asking for info on 00-SF, not an argument, or discussion on why he should or shouldn't use it. I can't believe how much time Martin spends on explaining 00-SF and arguing for its effectiveness. Martin. If you haven't already, take one of the posts containing a full and frank explanation (made under Police Caution) of 00-SF, copy it into a Word doc or a PDF and when someone asks, post the doc or PDF. Then go to bed mate. Leave it. have a nap, sign off, go on Holiday, Emigrate, change you name or just ignore it all. I dare you to try it!! Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Indeed it does. Likewise 'tis written in the ancient texts that the 00-SF standard REQUIRES all posts by Andy Reichert to be disregarded. Andy can't you see that it is BECAUSE the regular standard requires code 110 wheels that folks are looking for something else? If an observer sees that on one layout some of the vehicles are bumpy when running over the pointwork, and that if the very same rolling-stock is transferred to another layout it all runs smoothly, he is entitled to say that one layout is providing better running qualities than the other. A dictionary is not needed. regards, Martin. Martin. You've taken the bait again. Now, stop this disgraceful behavior. ;-))))) Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 We're doomed…….or so it would seem. Those of us building to 00-SF standards will continue to do so. We're quite happy and sometimes ignorance is bliss. It works, end of…..as do many other track systems…. It just happens some of us chose this one. Wouldn't life be dull if we all slavishly followed the same standard?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 00-SF reminds me of this…. http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Everybody! I love reading all this about 00-SF because I find a number of people just cannot help commenting on its effectiveness or otherwise when most of them have never tried it. The likes of Andy R and Revenser (surprised he took so long to comment this time round. Must have been away) who have probably also not tried it. I can remember the early days of 00-SF on RMWeb when Ravenser used to say "show me someone who has built a layout in 00-SF" or words to that effect. Well they have and had also done so at the time. Me for one. Luckily my temperament allows me to sit back and read all these posts on this and that about 00-SF and not jump every time someone tries to show its not worth doing or quote various measurements here or there. I fail to understand what they hope to gain from it all. Perhaps they might explain. It really intrigues me. The OP here was asking for info on 00-SF, not an argument, or discussion on why he should or shouldn't use it. I can't believe how much time Martin spends on explaining 00-SF and arguing for its effectiveness. Martin. If you haven't already, take one of the posts containing a full and frank explanation (made under Police Caution) of 00-SF, copy it into a Word doc or a PDF and when someone asks, post the doc or PDF. Then go to bed mate. Leave it. have a nap, sign off, go on Holiday, Emigrate, change you name or just ignore it all. I dare you to try it!! Dave Why don't you back up your post by pointing out where I said 00-SF wasn't effective? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 And why don't you tell us why you persist with this nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 And why don't you tell us why you persist with this nonsense. I dislike Ad Hominem postings like yours on otherwise pleasant lists. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.