Jump to content
 

Junctionmad

Members
  • Posts

    2,486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Junctionmad

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. yes, and bizarrely, repeatedly and aggressively made. This suggests an " agenda" to most people. Personally I dont see the point of their arguments, its either (a) 00-SF is unnecessary or (b) 00-SF is mis-representing itself the answer from its adherents is " so f&*ing what", it works for me. I cant then see why the argument is then pushed further. 00-SF is not a " standard " in the recognised sense. it a construction methodology that provides certain benefits to its adherents.
  9. You mis-understand. DOGA-Fine gives very smooth operation, BUT .. Currently , you can build an 00 layout with PECO or similar RTR track , this is basically DOGA -intermediate , ie 1.3mm flange ways . This allows a wide variety of 00 RTR stock to run. However if you use DOGA intermediate or similar( PECO) , you will experience some wheel drop on finer scale wheels , often found in kits etc. whether this bothers you or not is the question Since the next available standard is DOGA -fine , which precludes most of today's RTR uk outline wheelsets in reality anyone contemplating DOGA -fine is far better going to EM or P4 Hence into this gap , steps 00-SF, while it wasn't conceived for this purpose, it NOW acts as a " bridge " standard, providing similar running for RTR to DOGA -intermediate and better running for finer wheels , it also improves the turnout cosmetically to boot. In essence you get the running qualities of DOGA-fine with the wide acceptance of wheel types of DOGA-intermediate In reality , I suspect only 00 modellers searching for better track geometry, but who wish to utilise 00, are going to consider 00-SF. In the past I actually built PECO compatible turnouts , but now I build 00-SF ( because there no downside) .
  10. There is no prototypical uk basis for filling the frog. It's seems incredibly " toy train" to most modellers DOGA -fine is just H0 ( ie 16.5) with narrower flange ways and check rail gaps. The big issue is that it will typically not accept RTR wheels. 00-SF , will accommodate a range of British outline , RTR wheels and finer wheels. That's it point.
  11. With the greatest respect to HO modellers and NMEA adherents. It's worth reminding everyone that it's 00-SF not H0-SF. it's only relevant to 4mm modellers using 16.5mm gauge , typically UK modellers. Talking about code 88 wheels is just confusing people. As to why not go EM. simple, many people want the flexible prototypical geometry of hand built track , without having to potentially re wheel their stock. I suspect this is the only reason people are adopting 00-SF. In my case I'm modelling an irish layout in 00 , so EM would still be wrong !!!! With 50 points excluding fiddle yard , going p4 would be an exercise in madness !
  12. I would disagree with point #3. The purpose of 00-SF was to bridge the gap between RTR and finer scale wheels. If you simply wanted better looking 00 track and the ability to handle finer wheels then DOGA-Fine is available and pre dates 00-SF to my knowledge
  13. I'd disagree with a lot of comments here I'd have to take issue with a lot of this. Firstly if you are running any sort of modern DC electronic controller it's no more or less tolerant then dcc of shorts. Intermittent short will cause poor running on any loco. DC or dcc , secondly building an insulated chassis kit is no different for dcc or DC and is entirely achievable. In fact you can quite happily run dcc on a loco with a live frame. It causes no real greater issues then the same issues on DC layouts. I wouldn't recommend it , but it can be done. Many dcc boosters will have actually longer short circuit cutout times then some modern DC controllers Modern dcc decoders will also make your kit perform better as they offer far better configurable motor control then DC. Decoders for dcc are available to drive a whole range of motors including core-less. In my view dcc is superior to DC control in almost every aspect , especially in layout wiring simplicity.
  14. as an aside , I remain stunned at the number of small traders that cant accept paypal for orders. cheques, whats that, postal orders, like you mean go into my post office - whaaaat.
  15. I'm not sure Andy what buttons you're trying to press. But this topic has extended commentary PRECISELY because people read your initial comments. What you don't seem to accept is the concept of p4 on 00 is just nonsense , rather like having beautiful Scale working valve gear on a 1975 style Hornby loco. If modellers in 4mm wish to consider finer profile wheels they have a stepping stone in 00-SF , or even further in DOGA -F , or transition to EM or full P4. To suggest there some coterie of modellers yearning to run 00 gauge models on typically peco style RTR track ( laid to those standards ) who wish to use p4 wheels AND want to modify exiting RTR point work to facilitate that , is just either a wind up , or borderline looney bin stuff. Quite frankly Andy , no one sees merit in your suggestions , so why not stop
  16. And there it is. A whole topic created by Andy to " get at " 00-SF. 00-SF has a particular usefulness to many modellers. 00-P ( P as In pi5S take ) is just a joke , a wind up
  17. Again Andy , and I agree with Martin, why would a 00 modeller , modelling in 4mm, need your so called 00-P solution. Who is the intended audience. The 3 people on the planet, trying to mix H0 p-87 with p4 in 00 , seriously. ? , the other two have already been committed , that just leaves you. 00-SF Adresses a clear issue in 00 track work , 00-P Seems to be an attempt by you to invent the unnecessary and then look to, justify it I mean replaceable frogs etc , your clearly pulling people's legs here. This is like dealing with an argument for a 5 wheeled car
  18. Andy , if " one " use P4 wheel sets. , " one" in effect buys into the whole kit and caboodle to ensure good running You can't use p4 and run then around poor track on uncompensated vehicles , like you can rtr. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise
  19. I think it's time to "call" this nonsensical thread , the number of people building to p4 standards , with compensated chassis and tight tolerance track laying AND then deciding to use 16,5mm HO track is tiny to nonexistence , most of whom are firmly in straitjackets, to suggest that rtr track work would then be modified to allow occasional running of such standards is in the realms of barking looney-ism I've had a good chuckle reading this thread. But I think we need to return to normal programming now
  20. let me get this straight and I re-read Andys OP. This is to allow P4 wheels to run on HO track , so as to facilitate modellers with p4 wheels that want to see 00 gauge !!!!!! why in gods name would you go to the expense of building the stock to p4 etc and then want to run it on HO track ! I can fully understand p87 and any associated HO track standard , but 00-P whats that , where is the user base
  21. P4 or P87 wheels on 00 track , what's the point , it's like suggesting putting a Ferrari engine into a hillman imp. I'm sure we could postulate the need to run N -wheels or 5" on 00 gauge and invent another track and wheel combo , but seriously Andy
  22. given the work hardening that goes on in stainless, Id be wary of using it in hard built turnouts
  23. thanks Steve, even if the weights were upped a bit to generate a bit more " gravity ". I suppose the best answer is to try it, I must rig a test up. Like most people to date I have built them using rods from the base up, but its looks all wrong for this prototype , especially for dollies and brackets , I have tried hiding the cranks in the trussing etc, but its very fiddly and difficult to do. The other option might be a small spring behind the arm, providing additional return force or something tks re metal stores
  24. thanks,I will bear that in mind, I have a very comprehensive photo survey myself , taken around 1981, when these signals were in widespread use. They are simplistic enough to model as most are not ornate. However the issues around activation in 4mm without too many cranks and rods, has perplexed me.
×
×
  • Create New...