Jump to content
 

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


Recommended Posts

As a 00 modeller I find the various standards by the 00 Association, 00-SF by Martin's gang and the "standards" set by the RTR manufacturers over confusing so do we need another one?

 

My RTR stock, my kit built stock and my scratchbuilt stock all run to a standard that I am happy with on Peco track...................yes I am a luddite but if it ain't broke why fix it.

 

As for the expense and time to re-wheel everything to match a new track standard, might as well renew my membership to the Saclefour Society, or fill in one of the EM gauge society's membership application forms that are under the short leg on my layout (they do stop it wobbling).

 

Me too - Especially the use of  the same name for different gauges and redundant ones.  In my local HO, the Standards have been mostly set by one group - the NMRA  - and the RTR guys mostly follow that fairly well, even the mainstream 00 ones in the UK apparently. Just one major hiccup mostly due to non-technical "experts" and similar magazine editors, but I fixed that ten years back with no issues since. 

 

My understanding is that If you stick with PECO, 00 and RTR, everything works 100% just fine. Everything I've seen on the many youtube clips certainly supports that impression. No other variations are actually necessary.

 

00-P isn't yet another standard that supports RTR. It's only there as a nearer scale modelling option or interim testing transition for those who ARE thinking of re-wheeling to make models and/or RTR look better. It was something that the PROTO:87 SIG seriously considered and I later used for my BR stock, because P4 wheel flanges were so close to P:87 ones.

 

I'm just trying to basically describe it for future reference and document the several benefits I've found. I've been already using it in my earlier P:87 designs and now in my own full layout, so whether anyone else thinks it's funny or whatever doesn't (and won't) affect me or my results whatsoever. I'm just recording it now so that it doesn't gradually exist later in otherwise unshared different versions and thus emerges become yet another fragmented set of almost identical sets of dimensions that are mysteriously occasionally unreliable if mixed.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Andy, just to surprise and amuse you even more. The layout you are referring to as OO 'coarse scale' is actually EM and even at that, the spec. has been tightened up to make the best use of modern 'finescale' wheels like Gibson, Ultrascale etc. not RTR or Romford as you have alluded to. The B2B being set to 16.65mm and the check gauge through the points being adjusted accordingly as per a number of us EM users who have found that the running is so much better, there have been tests of 100+ wagon trains run round the layout at breakneck pace and even reversed at speed over the very pointwork you have commented on.... I'm happy with the 99.9% reliability.

I have also worked on P4 projects like 'Burnisland', re-chassised and built quite a few P4 locos for customers and even built compensated and sprung locos for customers in OO.

So you see Andy, I do have a little experience in the scale end of the hobby thanks.

 

But my thought still is, why would anybody go down the route you are advocating - running on track that is 2.33mm under scale but looking at the wheels to see how scale they look.... Just go the whole hog and go for P4 or the next best thing of EM. Both proven specifications.

 

I realise all this is you just thinking out loud about what you want to do on your own railway, that's fine by me but the fear is you'll end up confusing a lot of prospective P4 modellers.

 

Dave Franks.

Who is working in EM just because he wants to.

 

Surprising and amusing me was your unsolicited choice. Thanks for alerting me to the opportunity to reciprocate. :jester:

 

But I've been producing and shipping quantities of product for P:87 that also runs P4 profile wheels, for probably 15 years with absolutely no complaints. So I haven't confused anyone up until now. . . . . . . but then this IS RM Web. . . . :O

 

I'm sorry, but I have very little idea about any differences in UK coarse flange wheel standards. I don't use the vague term finescale, as it's also one of the greatest sources of confusion I try to avoid. I just stick to knowing gauges and and either deep (coarse) or near scale flange sizes. That's another reason why I'm only interested in near scale wheels, and 100% running reliability. ( hence 00-P). 

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My understanding is that If you stick with PECO, 00 and RTR

 

How many more times -- not everyone wants to "stick with RTR".

 

I know that may seem a strange idea on your side of the pond, but in the UK lots of 00 modellers like to build kits. And the kit wheels do not work "just fine" on Peco -- they bump.

 

00-SF track was called 00 because it's intended for 00 trains to run on it.

 

No-one is under the slightest obligation to use it or have any contact with it or knowledge of it if they don't want to.

 

p.s. I do not have a "gang".

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprising and amusing me was your unsolicited choice. Thanks for alerting me to the opportunity to reciprocate. :jester:

 

But I've been producing and shipping quantities of product for P:87 that also runs P4 profile wheels, for probably 15 years with absolutely no complaints. So I haven't confused anyone up until now. . . . . . . but then this IS RM Web. . . . :O

 

I'm sorry, but I have very little idea about any differences in UK coarse flange wheel standards. I don't use the vague term finescale, as it's also one of the greatest sources of confusion I try to avoid. I just stick to knowing gauges and and either deep (coarse) or near scale flange sizes. That's another reason why I'm only interested in near scale wheels, and 100% running reliability. ( hence 00-P). 

 

Andy

Andy, many people in the UK use the term 'Finescale' about wheels to differentiate between RTR wheels and something better, the Gibson and such wheels I use are to the EMGS standard or better so have a fine (to me) flange of 0.6mm and a width of 2.2mm compared to a P4 wheel from the same source at 0.4mm and 2mm so they are not exactly coarse are they? Some people actually use these wheels on P4 track with an appropriate B2B so they can't be coarse scale but just not P4 spec.

You say yourself that you have, quote :- '' very little idea about any differences in UK coarse flange wheel standards'' . Wheel standards in the UK have come on leaps and bounds in recent years Andy.

Did I say anything about your P87 products causing confusion? No. But advocating using P4 wheels set to 16.5 gauge in 'British 4mm scale' would be confusing to people who may be thinking of going P4.

Like a number of posters have said, I think you are winding us up, but what you want to do on your railway is up to you.

Didn't you suggest this or a similar idea on that other forum E4um years ago and received similar comments? Sorry if I've got that wrong but I remember a few S4 people got very upset about something.

 

All the best.

 

Dave Franks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Martin - please define or elaborate 'bump'.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

On a Peco turnout the flangeway size is 1.3mm. That means the gap across between the wing rails just in front of the nose of the vee is 2.6mm wide.

 

Kit wheels typically comply with the EMGS profile or the NMRA RP25/88 profile, and are 2.3mm wide or in some cases a bit narrower.

 

If you place an object 2.3mm wide over a gap 2.6mm wide, it falls in. With a bump.

 

If you want to have smooth running you can either make the gap narrower -- that's what 00-SF and DOGA-Fine and EM do.

 

Or you can make the wheels wider -- that's what RTR models do.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

How many more times -- not everyone wants to "stick with RTR".

 

I know that may seem a strange idea on your side of the pond, but in the UK lots of 00 modellers like to build kits. And the kit wheels do not work "just fine" on Peco -- they bump.

 

00-SF track was called 00 because it's intended for 00 trains to run on it.

 

No-one is under the slightest obligation to use it or have any contact with it or knowledge of it if they don't want to.

 

p.s. I do not have a "gang".

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

By gang I meant the other 00-SF users :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

On a Peco turnout the flangeway size is 1.3mm. That means the gap across between the wing rails just in front of the nose of the vee is 2.6mm wide.

 

Kit wheels typically comply with the EMGS profile or the NMRA RP25/88 profile, and are 2.3mm wide or in some cases a bit narrower.

 

If you place an object 2.3mm wide over a gap 2.6mm wide, it falls in. With a bump.

 

If you want to have smooth running you can either make the gap narrower -- that's what 00-SF and DOGA-Fine and EM do.

 

Or you can make the wheels wider -- that's what RTR models do.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Fine tuning the B-B can help. If it is set so that the check rail keeps the flange of the other wheel just on the correct side of the vee nose you get maximum support through the crossing.

 

Do you know whether the Peco O-16.5 points have the same clearances etc as the OO points? I'm messing about with On30/O-16.5 but it's all a bit crude and makes me appreciate the consistency and accuracy of P4........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine tuning the B-B can help. If it is set so that the check rail keeps the flange of the other wheel just on the correct side of the vee nose you get maximum support through the crossing.

 

Do you know whether the Peco O-16.5 points have the same clearances etc as the OO points? I'm messing about with On30/O-16.5 but it's all a bit crude and makes me appreciate the consistency and accuracy of P4........

 

Unfortunately that's not the case.

 

Provided the wheel width meets its matching standard, i.e., the fundamental 2 x the flange way width, plus a tad, then you will always get 100% support. Altering the B-B won't fix any problems if the wheel is less than twice the width of the crossing. The wheel set can just as easily be against the outside rail and not be rubbing against the check rail at that time.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

MK1%20bogie.jpg

 

A quick look on the web came up with this angled view of the wheel end of a MK1, although with a commonwealth bogie in this case.

 

Overall I was quite surprised at how this demonstrates the potential for a much more scale-like "look"  using 00-P over the various coarse wheel standards.

 

Andy

I think if you put a P4 wheel set in most commercial 4mm or 3.5mm truck frames and set the wheel set to 16.5 gauge it would look a little odd because the eye would register (from the 3/4 view) a noticeable gap between the face of the wheel and the frame that isn't there when the wheel is over scale and set to a narrower gauge or when the scale wheel is set to a scale gauge.

The same thing would happen with HO scale steam engines. The compromise in HO is in the engine, not the track. I have a 2-8-2 freight engine that looks reasonable enough until you measure it and discover that the engine is a scale one foot too wide over the cylinders. If you reduce the wheels to a thinner scale tread size, I would imagine it will look a bit silly because the compromise in the width of the engine will suddenly be very visible, whereas the eye is fooled a bit by the over scale wheels.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many more times -- not everyone wants to "stick with RTR".

 

I know that may seem a strange idea on your side of the pond, but in the UK lots of 00 modellers like to build kits. And the kit wheels do not work "just fine" on Peco -- they bump.

 

00-SF track was called 00 because it's intended for 00 trains to run on it.

 

No-one is under the slightest obligation to use it or have any contact with it or knowledge of it if they don't want to.

 

p.s. I do not have a "gang".

 

Martin.

 

 

:offtopic: Sorry, but that's a deliberate misquote. Which completely altered my originally 100% true meaning and turned your remark into an off-topic area.

 

Andy

 

e.g I shot the sheriff a wistful smile

 

is changed into a damning statement. That change works much like

 

My understanding is that If you (everyone wants to ) stick with PECO, 00 and RTR, everything works 100% just fine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that's not the case.

 

Provided the wheel width meets its matching standard, i.e., the fundamental 2 x the flange way width, plus a tad, then you will always get 100% support. Altering the B-B won't fix any problems if the wheel is less than twice the width of the crossing. The wheel set can just as easily be against the outside rail and not be rubbing against the check rail at that time.

 

Andy

All I meant was that it 'can' help, not that it is the solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I meant was that it 'can' help, not that it is the solution.

 

I don't think I wrote enough explanation. (It's a full page subject). I was trying to say not progressive and so pretty much no help.

 

However the "bump" argument is also a little misleading as the wheels have a significant diameter. That means the as the wheel barely begins to "fall", the part of the wheel curving immediately behind then catches on it's still narrow enough part of the wing rail instead.  So the wheel actually "rolls" slowly down initially and then, due to the front of the curve, equally slowly reverse rolls up again onto the crossing vee. The bigger the wheel, the less the drop. The maximum drop is only down to the "chord" on the wheel the same length as the wing rail width error length.

 

It can still cause problems, particularly with any combinations of light vehicles, higher speeds and shallower crossing angles. But on RTR tight radii turnouts, it's often not even noticed.

 

In my standard 00/HO 16.5 mm gauge case I have quite simply obviated any significant drop problems with narrower wheels, but I'll start another topic to explain that.

 

Andy

Edited by Andy Reichert
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

However the "bump" argument is also a little misleading....

 

Where is the disagree button when you need it?

 

It may be true that a locomotive with large narrow wheels running at 50mph over short train-set style crossings will do a hop, skip and a jump over the crossing with hardly anyone noticing.

 

But if a wagon with much smaller narrow wheels is being slowly shunted into the goods yard, the fact that each wheel falls into the crossing is very noticeable. The fact that it rolls down into the hole and then rolls back up out of the hole doesn't change the fact that it is in a hole, and that the wagon will appear to lurch in the process. Anyone who has tried to run Ultrascale wagon wheels over a Peco turnout is well aware of this. It's no good trying to pretend it doesn't happen.

 

RTR flangeways require wide RTR wheels. Andy, you normally insist on mathematical rigour in these matters. But not on this apparently.

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snipped>

I just stick to knowing gauges and either deep (coarse) or near scale flange sizes. That's another reason why I'm only interested in near scale wheels, and 100% running reliability. ( hence 00-P). 

 

Andy

 

Andy,  I've just re-read what you've being saying in this thread to try to get it clear in my head and the above quote has stuck out. You say that you know gauges and either coarse or near scale flanges and that you are only interested in 'near' scale wheels. But as others have pointed out, you are happy to forget the gauge is noticeably 2.33mm under scale for 4mm, that's what I don't get. You slagged me off for using my 'near scale' wheels which you previously admitted you know nothing about but the EM gauge which I chose long ago is just 0.63mm under scale and with the reliability of running I'm very happy with. 100% reliability is unachievable, even the big railway can't achieve it so why expect models to.

Maybe your quote should read 'near' scale wheels, 'near' 100% reliability and 'close enough' British track gauge hence OO-p

Sorry but that's how I see it.

 

Or is it your business head saying I need to open up a market in the UK for my P87 parts, I don't blame you if that is the case, business is business.

 

Cheers,

Dave Franks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

No future except for very specific cases.

 

P4 is not much wider over the wheel faces than OO due to narrower treads with P4, this is why OO can look quite acceptable stock wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,  I've just re-read what you've being saying in this thread to try to get it clear in my head and the above quote has stuck out. You say that you know gauges and either coarse or near scale flanges and that you are only interested in 'near' scale wheels. But as others have pointed out, you are happy to forget the gauge is noticeably 2.33mm under scale for 4mm, that's what I don't get. You slagged me off for using my 'near scale' wheels which you previously admitted you know nothing about but the EM gauge which I chose long ago is just 0.63mm under scale and with the reliability of running I'm very happy with. 100% reliability is unachievable, even the big railway can't achieve it so why expect models to.

Maybe your quote should read 'near' scale wheels, 'near' 100% reliability and 'close enough' British track gauge hence OO-p

Sorry but that's how I see it.

 

Or is it your business head saying I need to open up a market in the UK for my P87 parts, I don't blame you if that is the case, business is business.

 

Cheers,

Dave Franks.

 

Please re-read post #1.  I have considerable time and space investment in 16.5 mm track due to my modelling interests in US outline Electric Systems.

 

I no longer have the space or desire or energy to build a second and equally large parallel layout that could run my full length UK trains as I would wish to see them. So for me 00-P is a compromise that allows me to have UK stock on my mostly US layout. An additional PRO over P:87 is that is there is a good range and supply of Steam Locomotive wheels that P:87 doesn't have. So I can even model and use my BR/GER L1s and N7's, but give them decent looking wheels :declare:

 

Since it works extremely well and looks good with normal sideways viewing, I'm trying to share it, while dealing with a lot of members apparently only interested in either suppressing it, or pushing unasked for opposing agendas to replace this subject. Asking them for their real motives would be a better use of your time..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy - I think you are banging your head against a brick wall.  Your requirements are quite clear but the world-wide take-up would I suspect be minimal.  No one responding to this thread evidently has a P87 layout and even those that do may not see a need to run UK outline stock.  My answer would be keep it to yourself and enjoy it.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to share it, while dealing with a lot of members apparently only interested in either suppressing it, or pushing unasked for opposing agendas to replace this subject. Asking them for their real motives would be a better use of your time..

Hmmm, kettle, pot, black......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the disagree button when you need it?

 

It may be true that a locomotive with large narrow wheels running at 50mph over short train-set style crossings will do a hop, skip and a jump over the crossing with hardly anyone noticing.

 

But if a wagon with much smaller narrow wheels is being slowly shunted into the goods yard, the fact that each wheel falls into the crossing is very noticeable. The fact that it rolls down into the hole and then rolls back up out of the hole doesn't change the fact that it is in a hole, and that the wagon will appear to lurch in the process. Anyone who has tried to run Ultrascale wagon wheels over a Peco turnout is well aware of this. It's no good trying to pretend it doesn't happen.

 

RTR flangeways require wide RTR wheels. Andy, you normally insist on mathematical rigour in these matters. But not on this apparently.

 

Martin.

 

Actually yes I did the mathematical rigour several years ago, but it's off topic for 00-P. So see post #1. of the new topic

"Some Model Wheel Dimensions that Affect Standards and Running"

to clarify that.

 

Andy

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Personally, I don't think that the original poster's proposals go far enough.  If you are going to run two different scales on the same track, why not have a standard for P4 wheels to be used with 9mm track?  You could run a re-wheeled Hornby Flying Scotsman on the same track as an N gauge Dapol Terrier. :jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

See post #1. To repeat:

 

I'm not building to P4 standards, nor needing any tight tolerance (or skilled) hand made track laying. 00-P can work 100% reliably on appropriate radius plain commercial track with easy and simple modifications to commercial turnouts.  I've also created my own easy to add suspension systems, so don't need any of the usual complex P4 parts and extensive work to make such upgrades. :drag:

 

I will say,  I found your well thought through and precise technical adjectives hilarious. So the enjoyment is mutual. :jester:

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think that the original poster's proposals go far enough.  If you are going to run two different scales on the same track, why not have a standard for P4 wheels to be used with 9mm track?  You could run a re-wheeled Hornby Flying Scotsman on the same track as an N gauge Dapol Terrier. :jester:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOn30_gauge

 

I agree. I had to go back and make #4 frogs for the above as a separate item, the demand has been so great.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...