00-P A track and wheel compromise standard with a lot of potential and practical support

[AndyID]

 By the end of the whole topic, you had managed to move on to self-guarded frogs - as if a first-time track builder would want to try such a thing!

 

 

Actually, I think that was me   It was an attempt to lighten things up - didn't work!

[Andy Reichert]

I don't find it clear or simple to understand. What ready-to-lay turnouts are available with scale flangeways? Having the same track gauge as RTR achieves nothing if the flangeways are not compatible. While you are hand-laying the turnouts with scale flangeways for scale wheels you may just as well be using the scale track gauge. Because RTR models won't run on them either way.

 

Admittedly, your idea of hot-swapping crossings (frogs) and check rails for an evening's running and swapping them back the next day gets round that objection. But you still can't run RTR models and scale wheels at the same time. I find it difficult to take that idea seriously for a finished scenic layout. Please provide some evidence of a layout where that is being done. Thanks.

 

Martin.

 

As per my earlier post.  RTR turnouts just need frog swaps. YET AGAIN, I AM NOT HAND LAYING TURNOUTS.  (see Bozo the clown short video)

 

As to your lack of knowledge on well known manufacturers turnouts running mixed scale and  RTR wheels simultaneously.

 

My teenage layout at home in the early '60's had PECO's Spiked Track, Universal turnouts. Not particularly good to look at, but they worked. I can't remember now if Wrenn even did them as well.  It appears that "Tru-Scale Track"   in the US did the same. And there was an article in the Model Railroader about 3 years ago resurrecting the idea. (Of course the author thought it was his own recent invention, but then that's the usual MR editorship failings).

 

I will be eventually designing also, but I'm hoping to use some of my technical background to make mine with a decent scale appearance.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

As to your lack of knowledge on well known manufacturers turnouts running mixed scale and  RTR wheels simultaneously. My teenage layout at home in the early '60's had PECO's Spiked Track, Universal turnouts. Not particularly good to look at, but they worked. I can't remember now if Wrenn even did them as well.

 

Hi Andy,

 

My layout in 1960 also had Wrenn turnouts with moving wing rails. And similar Welkut track. And Peco spiked track. But I think I have moved on in more than half a century since then. With hindsight it soon became clear that those tracks were toys -- they were not models of anything recognisable on the real railway. They would certainly look silly on a P4 layout or running P4 wheels.

 

Nowadays the prototype has caught up with swing-nose crossings. But only on the fastest main lines. Not on the vast majority of lesser lines -- the ones most modellers want to model. And certainly not in goods yards and motive power depots -- also popular model subjects.

 

 

 

YET AGAIN, I AM NOT HAND LAYING TURNOUTS.

 

I don't understand why you are so set against that. Handbuilt track seems to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance in the UK recently, with many posts on RMweb from modellers trying it for the first time, and reports of record sales by C&L. I thought the whole intent of your product range was to provide parts for handbuilt track?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited July 15, 2015 by martin_wynne

[mightbe]

Why do you say the RTR turnouts "just need frog swaps?" There are check rails which have to be modified as well, or in the case of a self-guarding frog, removed and hidden. 

 

 

 It appears that "Tru-Scale Track"   in the US did the same. And there was an article in the Model Railroader about 3 years ago resurrecting the idea. (Of course the author thought it was his own recent invention, but then that's the usual MR editorship failings).

 

Is this referring to the article Tom Piccirillo (sp?) did a few years back describing how he handlaid his O-gauge turnouts? I'm a regular subscriber but I can't say I recall anything more similar to what you're describing.

 

Quentin

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Andy,

 

My layout in 1960 also had Wrenn turnouts with moving wing rails. And similar Welkut track. And Peco spiked track. But I think I have moved on in more than half a century since then. With hindsight it soon became clear that those tracks were toys -- they were not models of anything recognisable on the real railway. They would certainly look silly on a P4 layout or running P4 wheels.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>But I am specifically recording a set of working dimensions for people other than yourself who may be bona fide interested a standard that isn't a a full blown to scale gauge P4 layout and doesn't require one, nor its skilled hand built track.  Already available standard reasonably and proportionally realistic static 00-P crossings work and look fine for converted stock.  And since I'm completely committed and already running 00-P, I'm working to create a realistic model version of a simultaneous dual standard crossing. But even those would be only necessary if you want to run both 00 and 00-P standard vehicles through the same turnouts simultaneously. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Nowadays the prototype has caught up with swing-nose crossings. But only on the fastest main lines. Not on the vast majority of lesser lines -- the ones most modellers want to model. And certainly not in goods yards and motive power depots -- also popular model subjects.

 

>>>>>>>>>> I just mentioned that even the prototype has inadvertently created those mixed standard capabilities. But I'm not going to be doing it that way for model versions.<<<<<<<<<<

 

I don't understand why you are so set against that. Handbuilt track seems to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance in the UK recently, with many posts on RMweb from modellers trying it for the first time, and reports of record sales by C&L. I thought the whole intent of your product range was to provide parts for handbuilt track?

 

>>>>>Clearly you still don't understand that this partly to scale standard doesn't require the much larger and more skilled effort of hand built track. Again that's why this topic is not in your hand built track section of RM WEB.<<<<<

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Multiple replies as above <<<< >>>>.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

Why do you say the RTR turnouts "just need frog swaps?" There are check rails which have to be modified as well, or in the case of a self-guarding frog, removed and hidden. 

 

 

 

Is this referring to the article Tom Piccirillo (sp?) did a few years back describing how he handlaid his O-gauge turnouts? I'm a regular subscriber but I can't say I recall anything more similar to what you're describing.

 

Quentin

 

Not Tom P.  His was far more recent.

 

I don't a MR archive to look up. But ironically it was about fixing claimed "track problems" and a month earlier than the article where past editor Andy Sperando famously described "upgrading" box cars by various detailing activities, including replacing the wheels with non standard compliant code 88 ones.

 

So later than 2011.

[Andy Reichert]

Actually, I think that was me   It was an attempt to lighten things up - didn't work!

 

Your speaking up to correct that "quote" is much appreciated.

 

This link might be considered a lightening up entertainment break, although it's also very insightful in this situation. Doesn't work with me of course

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

Why do you say the RTR turnouts "just need frog swaps?" There are check rails which have to be modified as well, or in the case of a self-guarding frog, removed and hidden. 

 

Hi Quentin,

 

Andy wants to run RTR and scale wheels at the same time. The only way to do that is to use swing-nose crossings or moving wing-rail crossings. In both cases check rails are not needed, because the wheels see no break in the rail. If an RTR turnout has check rails they can be left in place to look the part, but they won't play any part in the running. If an 00-P turnout has check rails, they must be moved or removed to allow RTR wheels to run.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Quentin,

 

Andy wants to run RTR and scale wheels at the same time. The only way to do that is to use swing-nose crossings or moving wing-rail crossings. In both cases check rails are not needed, because the wheels see no break in the rail. If an RTR turnout has check rails they can be left in place to look the part, but they won't play any part in the running. If an 00-P turnout has check rails, they must be moved or removed to allow RTR wheels to run.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Quentin,

 

Andy wants to run RTR and scale wheels at the same time. The only way to do that is to use swing-nose crossings or moving wing-rail crossings. In both cases check rails are not needed, because the wheels see no break in the rail. If an RTR turnout has check rails they can be left in place to look the part, but they won't play any part in the running. If an 00-P turnout has check rails, they must be moved or removed to allow RTR wheels to run.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Yet again. - No I don't. 

 

00-P Standard is defined as solely for running P4 and similar close scale wheels on 00 gauge track.

 

A special crossing implementation that allows a turnout to run 00 wheels and P4 wheels simultaneously through turnouts is not in the standard - it's a separate, optional, clever mechanism that allows for the simultaneous operation of every different standard that has 16.5 mm as its gauges: Including 00/HO, 00/HO Fine, P4 and P:87.

 

If,as you say, you don't understand 00-P, then I would suggest you stop posting your admitted misunderstanding as misleading answers until you do.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

00-P Standard is defined as solely for running P4 and similar close scale wheels on 00 gauge track.

If,as you say, you don't understand 00-P,  then I would suggest you stop posting your admitted misunderstanding as misleading answers until you do.

 

Andy I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and find some rhyme or reason in your posts.

 

But if your 00-P standard is solely for running P4 wheels on 00 gauge track and no other wheels, then I believe that in wanting to do that you are in a minority of 1. That's a fine place to be, but not if you are developing a commercial product.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

Andy I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and find some rhyme or reason in your posts.

 

But if your 00-P standard is solely for running P4 wheels on 00 gauge track and no other wheels, then I believe that in wanting to do that you are in a minority of 1. That's a fine place to be, but not if you are developing a commercial product.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

There are two answers to this, which I'll post separately.

 

Here I'll just remind you of your post #8 viz:

 

"What production run? This is a track standard for modellers to use when building their track in the privacy of their own workshop. If they want to. Or not if they don't. There is nothing to be produced."

 

Andy

[Stanley Melrose]

Many thanks for this topic - it is by far the most entertaining on the whole of RMWeb as contenders of various viewpoints try to compete with their individual posts of stunning irrelevance to a topic on a "standard" which unless I am mistaken absolutely no one will ever implement.

 

Please do not stop contributing as it never ceases to amaze me how anyone could ever take this as seriously as those contributing (apart from me).

 

Cheers,

 

Stan

[Andy Reichert]

Many thanks for this topic - it is by far the most entertaining on the whole of RMWeb as contenders of various viewpoints try to compete with their individual posts of stunning irrelevance to a topic on a "standard" which unless I am mistaken absolutely no one will ever implement.

 

Please do not stop contributing as it never ceases to amaze me how anyone could ever take this as seriously as those contributing (apart from me).

 

Cheers,

 

Stan

 

You obviously haven't met the SFanish Inquisition before.

 

Think of me as c00-Pernicus.

 

"Not a few other very eminent and scholarly men made the same request, urging that I should no longer through fear refuse to give out my work for the common benefit of students of Mathematics."

 

Andy

Edited July 18, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Junctionmad]

You obviously haven't met the SFanish Inquisition before.

 

Think of me as c00-Pernicus.

 

"Not a few other very eminent and scholarly men made the same request, urging that I should no longer through fear refuse to give out my work for the common benefit of students of Mathematics."

 

Andy

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

[Stanley Melrose]

You obviously haven't met the SFanish Inquisition before.

 

Think of me as c00-Pernicus.

 

"Not a few other very eminent and scholarly men made the same request, urging that I should no longer through fear refuse to give out my work for the common benefit of students of Mathematics."

 

Andy

 

Didn't Pythagoras have "Let none enter here ignorant of geometry" written above the lintel of the front door of his house?

 

I must have seen it in my school days . . . .

 

Stan

[Andy Reichert]

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

 

No, that's the background on the posting record of the handful of the six or so off-topic detractors. (out of 3000+ hot topic views). Apparently the prospect of having decent scale looking wheels on my models, while not having the major skill and effort of handlaying track to support them is really upsetting for those folk. And it appears they would like that option to go away.

 

My nostalgic interest is the BR ER, GER,  old LT&S commuter lines and the Central line "tube" centered around the "Bakers Arms" area of Waltham Forest. And I am dead serious about modelling various scenes there from the late 50s'/early 60's.

 

I have long ago purchased the kits, and of course P4 wheel sets, for 5 N7's, 2 L1s, 6 sets of Gresley Quint-Arts, and nine sets of 305s.  And I have a couple of odd items form the past that I would also be converting just so they can be used as demonstrations of the two extremes of chassis issues. A 9F and a Yorkshire Pug.

Since the high number of views shows the considerable interest, of the "silent majority", I will be posting full details of the conversion processes of many of the above items. I will try to capture "before and after" photos of my own. But of course anyone who genuinely feels this is unattractive, or a waste of time, will be welcome to post comparison pictures of their own plain 00 RTR versions.

 

Andy

Edited July 18, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[martin_wynne]

My nostalgic interest is the BR ER, GER,  old LT&S commuter lines and the Central line "tube" centered around the "Bakers Arms" area of Waltham Forest. And I am dead serious about modelling various scenes there from the late 50s'/early 60's. I have long ago purchased the kits, and of course P4 wheel sets, for 5 N7's, 2 L1s, 6 sets of Gresley Quint-Arts, and nine sets of 305s.  And I have a couple of odd items form the past that I would also be converting just so they can be used as demonstrations of the two extremes of chassis issues. A 9F and a Yorkshire Pug.

...

I will be posting full details of the conversion processes of many of the above items. I will try to capture "before and after" photos of my own.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I think you would have done much better to start this topic with such photos.

 

But of course anyone who genuinely feels this is unattractive, or a waste of time, will be welcome to post comparison pictures of their own plain 00 RTR versions.

 

The comparison people want is between your 00-P conversions, and the same model converted to P4. Because each of those conversions will involve exactly the same amount of work, and the same amount of work building the track for them to run on.

 

In fact P4 will give you more room for gearbox and springing/compensation, and easier pointwork with full prototype designs.

 

Of course the argument changes if you or someone else is intending to market ready-to-lay 00-P track. But without that, it seems blindingly obvious that P4 would be easier and look better, for exactly the same amount of work.

 

If your intent is to run 4mm models with scale P4 wheels on Peco turnouts with check rails removed and converted to "universal" moving wing rails, as a homage to 1960s fibre-based track, it's easy to understand why they are laughing at the back.

 

It would also negate your frequent efforts to get trackwork treated as a model in its own right, on equal par with the rolling stock. That's the whole ethos of your web site, and I'm much puzzled why you seem willing to abandon that with this daft P4 on 16.5mm concept.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

         It is Saturday again and SWMBO has got me a bottle of wine this weekend.

@ 23:40 I really like this Australian ShiraZ.

Cheers.

trustytrev.

[Andy Reichert]

Hello,

         It is Saturday again and SWMBO has got me a bottle of wine this weekend.

@ 23:40 I really like this Australian ShiraZ.

Cheers.

trustytrev.

 

00-Pizazz. This perfect answer to whine-lovers shows intense oak and creosote notes harmoniously exalted by a light spicy ballast. Smooth and velvety running with a firm back to back. Perfect at 16.5 mm with red meat, scale wheels and mature cheese

 

Contains sulphites. Do not drink during pregnancy. May impair your ability to drive a steamroller or operate machinations.

 

Edited July 20, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

Well after after 25 posts giving us all the benefits of Martin's casting of his 20 plus, yet merely subjective doubts, that seems to have exhausted the possibility of any contrary technical issues whatsoever. It's obviously good to have the talent pool of RM Web give stuff like this a good and thorough (3000 times) look over.

 

I'll be posting various additional 00-P topics with photos on both track and vehicle quick and easy upgrades, as time permits, here and elsewhere and likely some magazine articles too.

 

A new era of an easy choice of much better looking RTR  upgraded models, with just a few modern innovative and simple wheels/suspension and crossing/check changes is on the way.

 

Andy

[gordon s]

Now I know you're taking the pee…...

[Andy Reichert]

Now I know you're taking the pee…...

 

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, for 1:76 ratio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come,

Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,

How strange or odd soe'er you think I gauge myself

(As I perchance hereafter shall think meet

To put a transatlantic wiser position on),

[highpeak]

I think a fairly large percentage of the 3,321 views (at the time of posting) of this thread are from people bemused at the concept of marrying a scale 4mm wheel profile with a scale 3.5mm track gauge. There have been a couple of posts, one of them mine, noting that the slimmer wheel tread would look odd when set to 16.5mm track back to back in a 4mm scale bogie, but nowhere near as odd as British rolling stock running on presumably US track.

 

You have in other places gone to great lengths to propose that track be modeled as accurately as the rolling stock, and yet in this thread you throw all that out the window in support of a completely bastardized track standard.

 

Which leads me to agree entirely with Gordon. I would in fact go further and state that you are taking BS to new levels, and I don't mean British Standards either.

[mightbe]

I would like to point out that 3,321 views counts each visit to the page as a view--the same person opening the thread and then replying counts as two views alone, not to mention repeat-views from the same people who have been posting in this thread, as well as those who are not RMWeb members. Whatever the case may be, the views count does not count unique visitors to the thread.

[davefrk]

I would like to point out that 3,321 views counts each visit to the page as a view--the same person opening the thread and then replying counts as two views alone, not to mention repeat-views from the same people who have been posting in this thread, as well as those who are not RMWeb members. Whatever the case may be, the views count does not count unique visitors to the thread.

 

As well as totally bemused folk who keep coming back because they just don't believe what is being suggested. You said it was something you wanted to do on your own railroad but now you're saying quote:-

<A new era of an easy choice of much better looking RTR upgraded models, with just a few modern innovative and simple wheels/suspension and crossing/check changes is on the way.>

So does this mean you are going to produce this stuff for sale after all?

 

Many of us here fail to see how this can be 'better looking RTR models' when they are running on underscale and in your case US track. And, have you actually tried rewheeling a large 4-6-0 loco and looked at it at anything other than side on? At the more usual three quarter view it just looks ridiculous in my humble opinion, I tried it with Sharman wheels years ago before I went to EM. 

'Scale wheels' on 'scale track' is a joy to behold but just one look at P4 wheels set to 14.5mm B2B on a Mk1 coach bogie or wagon sitting on American or even Peco 75 track just says to me - WRONG, - yes I tried it the other night.

Sorry Andy but it is obvious you don't know how modelling in the UK has progressed over the last few decades as you have freely admitted previously.

If you only knew how people here are laughing incredulously at this proposal you wouldn't be so outgoing. At my club I was asked why,why,why. And another said why fix it if it isn't broken and because of the discussion other members have signed on to read the thread, might that have happened at other clubs around the UK just to see what is being said hence the number of views and maybe they see the whole picture of a model railway and not just the wheels.

 

I wish you all the best in your endeavours but it isn't for me or many others it seems.

 

Dave Franks