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

[Jamie]

As well as totally bemused folk who keep coming back because they just don't believe what is being suggested. 

 

Dave Franks

Aye.  I well believe what's being suggested but it's the accompanying sales pitch where the advantages are proclaimed (although some are pretty dubious IMO), while the drawbacks are pretty much denied.

 

I can understand finescale HO modellers wanting to run 'improved' OO models on their existing trackwork.  But otherwise why would I want all the difficulty of rebuilding stock to P4 tolerances then running it on lumpen PECO.  Which I'd need to hack about anyway?

 

Frankly if I could work to P4 tolerances for my tracklaying and stock rewheeling/mechanisms, I'd go the whole hog and get the benefit of realistic track.  If one can't work to those tolerances I just don't see how this is an easier solution.

 

If it were presented more dispassionately it'd probably be accepted as a sensible solution to a very closely defined, specific problem.  The sales pitch verges on hyperbole though. 

[Andy Reichert]

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.

 

You actually just said the whole concept of 00 for UK modelling in any form is BS.

[Andy Reichert]

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.

 

Yup. If it was 50 views and the 6 usual detractors, then I'd agree. 3500 takes a little more open-mindedness before jumping to conclusions.

[Andy Reichert]

Aye.  I well believe what's being suggested but it's the accompanying sales pitch where the advantages are proclaimed (although some are pretty dubious IMO), while the drawbacks are pretty much denied.

 

See post #10

 

I can understand finescale HO modellers wanting to run 'improved' OO models on their existing trackwork.  But otherwise why would I want all the difficulty of rebuilding stock to P4 tolerances then running it on lumpen PECO.  Which I'd need to hack about anyway?

 

Frankly if I could work to P4 tolerances for my tracklaying and stock rewheeling/mechanisms, I'd go the whole hog and get the benefit of realistic track.  If one can't work to those tolerances I just don't see how this is an easier solution.

 

If it were presented more dispassionately it'd probably be accepted as a sensible solution to a very closely defined, specific problem.  The sales pitch verges on hyperbole though. 

 

See post #1

 

Reading before quoting helps prevent hyperbole, especially when expressing disinterest.

[Andy Reichert]

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

 

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/?p=1961138

[Semi Fast]

I've visited this tread maybe 30-40 times.  For amusement.  And because I can't quite make my mind up whether it's an elaborate hoax or just plain bonkers.  Either way, it's quite fun.

[mightbe]

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/?p=1961138

 

What exactly are we to be looking at? That's almost a side-on view of a Pullman (about halfway to a 3/4 view). Coaches hide the undergauge-ness almost as well as most diesels and electrics due to the bogies (except from nearly dead-on). Where 00-P would surely fail to catch wind is with wagons and steam locomotives.

 

Can we see a picture of your L1 with P4 wheels running on 16.5 mm track from the front, from a normal perspective (not cropped above the buffers)?

 

Quentin

[mightbe]

Yup. If it was 50 views and the 6 usual detractors, then I'd agree. 3500 takes a little more open-mindedness before jumping to conclusions.

 

I'm not sure I follow what you're agreeing with?

 

Based on the current number of posts alone there have to have been at least 316 views and that's assuming that there were no outsiders (from RMweb) and no visits made checking to see if there have been more replies.

 

Quentin

[Andy Reichert]

What exactly are we to be looking at? That's almost a side-on view of a Pullman (about halfway to a 3/4 view). Coaches hide the undergauge-ness almost as well as most diesels and electrics due to the bogies (except from nearly dead-on). Where 00-P would surely fail to catch wind is with wagons and steam locomotives.

 

Can we see a picture of your L1 with P4 wheels running on 16.5 mm track from the front, from a normal perspective (not cropped above the buffers)?

 

Quentin

 

The workshop and test track is 5 miles away from home, where I'm working at the moment. So yes, sometime in the next few days.

[highpeak]

You actually just said the whole concept of 00 for UK modelling in any form is BS.

You have quite a habit of drawing false conclusions from posts with which you disagree.

 

I did not say British OO gauge as a whole concept was BS. I said your proposal to adopt the P4 standard for wheels while retaining the compromised gauge standard and then to run the "improved" British-prototype models on track that would presumably not resemble any kind of British track was BS. There's quite a difference there which you choose to ignore.

 

In other threads liberally scattered on the site (mostly in North American and Handbuilt track) you have been adamant that track deserves to be modeled accurately regardless of any other criteria, yet in this thread you don't seem to care what the track looks like as long as the models can negotiate it. For instance, you've lambasted Joe Fugate's method of turnout construction because it involves compromises that to you are not acceptable (post 11 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94425-a-different-idea-for-a-switching-layout/). What you are now promoting would appear to involve similar compromises at least in respect of some of the locomotives and rolling stock that would be operated over it, which is why I think most people are not accepting the idea.

[Andy Reichert]

You have quite a habit of drawing false conclusions from posts with which you disagree.

 

I did not say British OO gauge as a whole concept was BS. I said your proposal to adopt the P4 standard for wheels while retaining the compromised gauge standard and then to run the "improved" British-prototype models on track that would presumably not resemble any kind of British track was BS. There's quite a difference there which you choose to ignore.

 

In other threads liberally scattered on the site (mostly in North American and Handbuilt track) you have been adamant that track deserves to be modeled accurately regardless of any other criteria, yet in this thread you don't seem to care what the track looks like as long as the models can negotiate it. For instance, you've lambasted Joe Fugate's method of turnout construction because it involves compromises that to you are not acceptable (post 11 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94425-a-different-idea-for-a-switching-layout/). What you are now promoting would appear to involve similar compromises at least in respect of some of the locomotives and rolling stock that would be operated over it, which is why I think most people are not accepting the idea.

 

No. Actually, everything you found fault with, is also a fault of standard 00 left unchanged.

 

But to answer, See title and post #1 - "00-P A track and wheel compromise standard. . . ."

 

As explained. My own track is my best attempt for accurate US style, 3.5 mm scale.  And absolutely I promote (and assist) the same attitude for other US modellers.

 

I'm not making any demands on track used for 00-P. It's cosmetic appearance is not part of the standard, any more than any other standard controls track cosmetics. You can choose your own level of buy/build track realism/accuracy, provided only you continue to accept the overwhelmingly already used UK compromise that it is at 16.5 mm gauge. I'm just improving the appearance of the wheels and not changing the popular gauge compromise. Absolutely nothing got thrown out of the window

 

Aside: My criticism of Joe Fugate's work and self promoting article, WHICH I STAND BY, is that he didn't make compromises, he replaced at least  three non-compromise prototypically correct, accurate and realistic aspects of a Model Railroader Prize winning turnout design and substituted 3 non-realistic and unnecessary aspects instead. By definition, that's not compromising.

 

FWIW (J F replaced US accurate realistic hinged points with US unrealistic flex points, which then needed additional unrealistic filing of the stock rails, replaced many textured ties with flat pcb of the wrong thickness, soldered instead of spiked and no cosmetic match to the others, replaced reasonably realistic, hinged throw bars with a rigid soldered pcb "throw log" at full tie height, incurring paralleogram distortion and introducing eventual solder joint fatigue.)

 

Now that is what you should really call "don't seem to care what the track looks like as long as the models can negotiate it."

[Arthur]

You linked to this in post 155, I genuinely don't understand what it is mean't to illustrate in the context of this thread?

 

Model and image by Tony Wright.

 

 

 

No. Actually, everything you found fault with, is also a fault of standard 00 left unchanged.

 

So I can expend considerable time, trouble and expense to incur these faults by adopting 00-P,

 

Or, I can have them for free with RTR 00?

 

I'll get back to you on that one.

[Andy Reichert]

You linked to this in post 155, I genuinely don't understand what it is mean't to illustrate in the context of this thread?

 

image.jpg

Model and image by Tony Wright.  See 1.

 

 

 

 

So I can expend considerable time, trouble and expense to incur these faults by adopting 00-P,

 

Or, I can have them for free with RTR 00?

 

I'll get back to you on that one. See 2.

 

1. If you didn't know ahead of time, can you estimate what gauge the detailed model is? If so, how?

 

2. The requested pix of the L1 coming shortly will clear up your confusion there.

[martin_wynne]

can you estimate what gauge the detailed model is?

 

4ft-8.1/2in

[Andy Reichert]

4ft-8.1/2in

 

Wrong.

[davefrk]

It's OO using RTR wheelsets....

 

Andy doesn't get irony Martin.

 

Dave Franks.

Edited July 23, 2015 by davefrk

[Andy Reichert]

It's OO using RTR wheelsets....

 

Andy doesn't get irony Martin.

 

Dave Franks.

 

Yes. But to answer my question, please tell us if that's a deduction, or you were able to figure it out just by observation.

 

TIA Andy

[davefrk]

Observation Andy but before you start saying 'one can tell because of the coarse scale wheels', it is also the relationship between the outer face of the wheel and the bogie frames as seen at the right hand end which is almost the more usual three quarter view as mentioned by a number of posters, there is a gap and surely that would be worse if the bogie had the narrower P4 wheels set to 00P B2B.

 

On the other hand, if you expected people to say they can't tell the difference then that would blow your 00P suggestion out of the water.

 

Can I ask Andy, in any of the 160 odd posts on this thread has anyone actually said - I'm going to try 00P.

 

I ask this because as a trader I've been asked many times about the ways of going more 'finescale', (yes that word again) and I usually ask, can you work to fine tolerances, can you build loco chassis and trackwork that works well, do you understand the reasons for specifications when building your own track/wagons/locos. If they say yes to these questions then they have obviously looked into the idea and are probably ready to try but if it's a no then I would suggest looking into it further and studying demonstrations at shows then decide if it's for you.  I would not suggest 00P as an option because they would still need the same skills to produce something which just isn't even halfway there.

There is nothing wrong staying with modern 00 gauge if that's what one wants, there's some very nice 00 layouts on the exhibition circuit and with the modern RTR wheels now available they run very well.

 

Another thing that bothers me as mentioned previously is the big loco with outside cylinders, RTR locos have wider coarser wheels as you say but the connecting rods and valvegear generally splays out towards the cylinders but with the much narrower P4 wheels at the 00P B2B the rods will be even more splayed out (or would that be more splayed in). 

Working in EM or P4 that effect is very much reduced to the point where everything can be in proper alignment.

 

Dave Franks.

[Andy Reichert]

On the other hand, if you expected people to say they can't tell the difference then that would blow your 00P suggestion out of the water.

 

Dave Franks.

 

You have that statement 100% backwards. If they can't  tell within 2.33 mm what the gauge likely is by sideways observation, then that makes 00-P vehicles seen off track and sideways indistinguishable from P4 vehicles similarly seen sideways.

 

What you used instead of were visual clues from nearby objects to estimate the gauge and your expectation that there were only two possibilities. You were also basically depending on the reputation of Hornby and Tony Wright to assume no-one moved the gauge in or out by a millimetre or so to fool you.

 

Andy

[lyneux]

Is this thread still going? Yawn!

[Andy Reichert]

Is this thread still going? Yawn!

 

That's the way to keep it going.  The off-topic stuff, that is.

 

The description was published in post #1 and post #10. The rest of the topic is mostly failure to read post #1 and post #10, and/or emotional defense of steam roller wheelsets still being shipped on expensive plastic models.

 

Andy

[davefrk]

You have that statement 100% backwards. If they can't  tell within 2.33 mm what the gauge likely is by sideways observation, then that makes 00-P vehicles seen off track and sideways indistinguishable from P4 vehicles similarly seen sideways.

 

What you used instead of were visual clues from nearby objects to estimate the gauge and your expectation that there were only two possibilities. You were also basically depending on the reputation of Hornby and Tony Wright to assume no-one moved the gauge in or out by a millimetre or so to fool you.

 

Andy

 

So you're going to sit by the line and only open your eyes to look at the vehicle directly in front of you? A strange way of looking at a model railway.

Most modellers see the bigger picture and look at other aspects and yes visual clues, eg- nice looking locos, nice rolling stock, nice UK style track as near to scale as one wants.

 

I seem to remember you originally stated you were all about having scale looking wheels by using P4 wheels on HO track as you only saw the 'sideways' view then, when someone mentioned how it would run over pointwork you brought up the crossings that you happen to make and started going on about how reversible 00P was if one didn't like it, so the poor old 00 guy gouged the frog out of his nice new Peco points and when he finds he can't make 00P work he's stuck, you 'are' going to make replacement 00 standard crossings, yes? Yeah right. 

 

Looking at your comebacks to the posts by your so called 'detractors' you seem to be just moving the goal posts about to suit yourself.

Many posters have said you are taking the pixx but I have known of you for years on various forums and I believe you are deadly serious so there is no point arguing with you.

 

You'll be glad to hear I'm out of this pointless debate.

 

Dave Franks.

 

Dave Franks.

[Junctionmad]

That's the way to keep it going.  The off-topic stuff, that is.

 

The description was published in post #1 and post #10. The rest of the topic is mostly failure to read post #1 and post #10, and/or emotional defense of steam roller wheelsets still being shipped on expensive plastic models.

 

Andy

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

[Andy Reichert]

Let me recap as we seem to keep getting wildly emotional off-topic inputs.

 

This 00-P report topic is, and was clearly introduced as, a brief description and publishing of a not-mainstream Standard (set of dimensions) that I have actually been using, including providing crossings for, successfully for the past 10 years.  Its main feature is the use of long proven flange way dimensions and matching readily available near scale looking wheels, while not changing the industry's and hobby's most popular and track gauge.

 

As far as I am concerned it is a just a report of what has already been evaluated, fully tested and so put in place, along with the benefits I already found.  

 

So it is absolutely not an early proposal, nor a request for alternatives, nor a suggestion for debate, as the dimensions and parameters are already fixed by both theory, practice and long experience.  It is provided here solely as an information source. What, if anything, readers wish to take away from that, is entirely up to them and I'm happy to answer bona fide questions and/or correct any unintended misunderstandings.

 

Andy

[highpeak]

We'll sit and wait for the flood of pictures showing OO-P compliant stock running on layouts then alongside HO stuff. Any compromises in the track will be ignored because compromises are OK if they suit Andy's purpose.

 

BTW, Joe Fugate's "self-promoting" article? Bit rich that, coming from you. I did see though that you credit him with the idea on your website for the kit of parts you sell to use CV track bases as a jig. Very generous of you.