Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The club I'm a member of is starting to build a new layout and we intend building our own pointwork. For reasons that are not relevant to my question the intention is to use the Double 0 Gauge Association [DOGA] Intermediate standard. Having read various topics on this forum I've found a lot of the advice on standards and gauges confusing, mainly I think because it's scattered throughout various topics, so I'd like a few points clarified.

 

1. It appears to me that 00-BF, DOGA Intermediate & BRMSB standards are effectively the same, is this correct?

 

Assuming the answer to the above is Yes: then suitable gauges for point building in these standards would be:

1. Any 16.5mm track gauge that fits the rail will be suitable, providing on those for DOGA fine standard eg C&L 4TGOO the grooves for check/wing rail setting are ignored.

2. The C&L OO-SF check gauges 4CGOO-SF are suitable as the check gauge is the same in OO-BF/DOGA Intermediate & OO-SF [15.2mm].

3. For setting the check rails a 1.3mm flangeway gauge is needed.

 

Thanks for any answers.

 

Jeremy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy

 

The quick answers you require

 

1 Yes providing it is for code 75, that's fine

 

2 Yes again as it sets the stock rail at the correct distance from the Vee

 

3 Yes again, I use an old SMP gauge which happens to be 1.25 mm thick, other suggestion is to use a car feeler gauge set, or find a friendly engineer who could mill a length of ali

 

Edit

 

3 I assume you are talking about the wing rail, and the wing rail gauge is what I have referred to 

Edited by hayfield
Link to post
Share on other sites

The club I'm a member of is starting to build a new layout and we intend building our own pointwork. For reasons that are not relevant to my question the intention is to use the Double 0 Gauge Association [DOGA] Intermediate standard. Having read various topics on this forum I've found a lot of the advice on standards and gauges confusing, mainly I think because it's scattered throughout various topics, so I'd like a few points clarified.

 

Hi Jeremy,

 

Q1. It appears to me that 00-BF, DOGA Intermediate & BRMSB standards are effectively the same, is this correct?

 

Yes, effectively the same in use, also the NMRA H0 standard. However there are some differences in the flangeway gap:

 

DOGA-Intermediate: 1.2mm

            BRMSB: 1.25mm

             NMRA: 1.27mm

            00-BF: 1.3mm

 

Q2. Assuming the answer to the above is Yes: then suitable gauges for point building in these standards would be:

 

      1. Any 16.5mm track gauge that fits the rail will be suitable

 

Yes, but it needs to be a close fit. Actually achieving this in practice will need some trial and error, because model rail sections vary a lot. For example SMP/Marcway bullhead rail is narrower (and underscale) compared with C&L bullhead rail. If the rail is a loose fit in the gauge slots you can pack them with bits of kitchen aluminium foil, but it makes them very fiddly to use.

 

     1a. providing on those for DOGA fine standard eg C&L 4TGOO the grooves for check/wing rail setting are ignored.

 

Yes. You may want to fill the slots with epoxy or similar for club use where several people may be using them.

 

     2. The C&L 00-SF check gauges 4CGOO-SF are suitable as the check gauge is the same in 00-BF/DOGA-Intermediate & 00-SF [15.2mm].

 

Yes for 00-BF and 00-SF (4-SF) for both of which the check gauge is 15.2mm. Not for DOGA-Intermediate for which the check gauge is 15.3mm.

 

     3. For setting the check rails a 1.3mm flangeway gauge is needed.

 

No, the check rails are set using the check gauge. You need a flangeway gauge shim to set the wing rails (the rails which lie alongside the vee). For 00-BF it should be 1.3mm thick. For DOGA-Intermediate it should be 1.2mm thick. For 00-SF (4-SF) it should be 1.0mm thick.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy

 

The quick answers you require

 

1 Yes providing it is for code 75, that's fine

 

2 Yes again as it sets the stock check rail at the correct distance from the Vee

 

3 Not for the check rails. Yes for the wing rails, I use an old SMP gauge which happens to be 1.25 mm thick, other suggestion is to use a car feeler gauge set, or find a friendly engineer who could mill a length of ali

 

I have amended John's quick reply as above.

 

edit: overlapped with John's edit. :)

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP seems to be quite knowledgeable but for those with little experiance  in track building, I wing rail gauges (they are flat metal bars) to check/mark where the bend should be where the closure rail ends and the wing rail start (some call it the knuckle), using a scalpel blade to mark lightly its position. Don't just rely on plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The club I'm a member of is starting to build a new layout and we intend building our own pointwork. For reasons that are not relevant to my question the intention is to use the Double 0 Gauge Association [DOGA] Intermediate standard. Having read various topics on this forum I've found a lot of the advice on standards and gauges confusing, mainly I think because it's scattered throughout various topics, so I'd like a few points clarified.

 

1. It appears to me that 00-BF, DOGA Intermediate & BRMSB standards are effectively the same, is this correct?

 

Assuming the answer to the above is Yes: then suitable gauges for point building in these standards would be:

1. Any 16.5mm track gauge that fits the rail will be suitable, providing on those for DOGA fine standard eg C&L 4TGOO the grooves for check/wing rail setting are ignored.

2. The C&L OO-SF check gauges 4CGOO-SF are suitable as the check gauge is the same in OO-BF/DOGA Intermediate & OO-SF [15.2mm].

3. For setting the check rails a 1.3mm flangeway gauge is needed.

 

Thanks for any answers.

 

Jeremy

 

1. Yes.

 

- OO-Intermediate, 1.20mm +/- 0.05mm (so 1.25mm is the upper permitted limit)

- BRMSB OO : 1.25mm , nominal

- NMRA 16.5mm gauge: max 1.27mm

 

I would ignore gauges for OO-Fine, such as are available from C+L - most people seem to use roller gauges to set the wing and check rails, and it seems pointless to buy gauges that set them to a different value

 

SMP gauges are for BRMSB OO , and should now be available from Marcway. Someone was selling Markits roller gauges at Peterborough this weekend - I think either Wizard Models/|MSE or H&A Models were selling them - and while the packets were simply marked "code 100" and "code 75" I believe both should be BRMSB OO - and therefore suitable for you working in OO Intermediate. OO-Intermediate gauges are also available from DOGA

 

Using a shim to set flangeways may In practice be easier and more reliable than using a roller gauge  . For your purposes , any shim you can source between 1.25mm and 1.15mm thickness will do a job for you and still fall within OO-Intermediate tolerances .

 

However the thinner the shim the wider the span across the check rails will be - and the less forgiving of tight B2Bs on wheels the point would be.   In a club context, I would aim for 1.25mm not 1.15mm

Edited by Ravenser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for the information. I think the reason I got the idea the shim was for setting the flange gap on the check rail was because in the Right Track video Normon Solomon uses a spacer made from sleeper strip for this.

Next job is to source the slip gauge,I'll need to see if I can machine one to the required accuracy, failing that I'll look into what feeler strip is available.

 

Jeremy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for the information. I think the reason I got the idea the shim was for setting the flange gap on the check rail was because in the Right Track video Normon Solomon uses a spacer made from sleeper strip for this.

Next job is to source the slip gauge,I'll need to see if I can machine one to the required accuracy, failing that I'll look into what feeler strip is available.

 

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy

 

Feeler gauges are readily available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy

 

The instructions in an old SMP kit (where a flat ali bar was included to act as both a track gauge and wing.check rail gauge as it was the correct thickness) was to use the flat track gauge included with the kit for both wing and check rails, certainly older 00 gauge stock had no problems going through the turnouts

 

I will add that a check rail gauge is the correct item for accurately setting the check rail, other than those marketed as 00SF check rail gauges sold by C&L are correct for DOGA intermediate. The common availableility of 00 gauge wing rail gauges is quite anoying/frustrating. I had a friend (who I have now lost contact with) who milled up a length of ali for me. If you can find an older SMP kit with one in buy it, and re-sell the kit after relieving it of the gauge. 

 

Is there a local model engineering society near you ?, or a kind RMweb member who would do you a favour

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view If building new track work you are better off using 00-SF standard instead of the using incorrectly dimensioned 00 standards or H0 standards that use a different check gauge to most 00 RTR wheels. The advantage is you get better looking track work that results in superior tracking with less wheel drop. It's no harder to build 00-SF compared to 00.

 

Terry Flynn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view If building new track work you are better off using 00-SF standard instead of the using incorrectly dimensioned 00 standards or H0 standards that use a different check gauge to most 00 RTR wheels. The advantage is you get better looking track work that results in superior tracking with less wheel drop. It's no harder to build 00-SF compared to 00.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

In view of recent history this looks a bit like poking the anthill with a very long stick to see what will happen....

 

- I simply note that - whatever else is in dispute - it's common ground amongst all the British posters from both sides that RP25/110 wheelsets , or British outline RTR's approximation thereof, will run on OO Intermediate or BRMSB OO without "drop in". The debate has been about wheels on non-RTR stock, and especially the behaviour of Gibson and Ultrascales when used in OO

 

- As far as I'm aware, all British posters from both sides accept that the check rail on OO Intermediate and BRMSB OO pointwork will be fully operative and effective on both RP25/110 and Romford wheelsets, provided the back to backs are within recommended values - and there is reasonable agreement on what those recommended B2B values are . (For the record, RP25/88 wheels are not found on British outline RTR)

 

However if Gibsons and Ultrascale wheels are with the B2Bs supplied by the manufacturer or set to the usual recommended values for such wheels, the check rails will not be effective in OO Intermediate or BRMSB OO - and they won't be effective in OO-SF either. Martin Wynne has several times recommended that the B2B for such wheels be reduced to 14.6mm or 14.5mm for use on OO-SF

 

All of this can be mathematically demonstrated fairly easily

 

Since Gibsons and Ultrascales do not meet the OO Intermediate wheel standard (for the good and sufficient reason that they are to the OO-Fine standard) they are not recommended for use on OO Intermediate

 

- Everyone accepts that all current production OO RTR will run through BRMSB OO and  OO Intermediate pointwork without jamming across the check span. That has been publicly demonstrated by experiment , repeatedly,  on scores of OO layouts at hundreds of shows

 

Since these are the 3 conditions that must be met for a wheelset to fit the track properly, and since all 3 are met by current OO RTR wheelsets running on OO Intermediate and BRMSB OO track, it's not merely sweeping and tendentious to dismiss all OO track standards as "incorrectly dimensioned" -as far as OO Intermediate is concerned  it's plain wrong. (Since that is the standard that everyone has been discussing in this thread I see no reason to go into a discussion of other OO standards here.)

 

Nobody has even suggested using any HO track standard, so I really don't see why you fee it necessary to warn the OP against using them, though I'm aware you feel you have a bone to pick with the NMRA about their track standards. But as this thread is about the practicalities - in terms of suitable gauges and their sources - having decided to build to OO-Intermediate, arguments about the validity of US HO track standards are a fairly long way off-topic

 

Finally - and crucially - no-one has to take this on authority. Nobody has to decide whether they believe you or me - they can just use their eyes instead. Layouts with handbuilt OO track can be found at almost every British model railway exhibition, and overwhelmingly OO layouts with handbuilt points are compliant with the OO Intermediate standard. If you want to see whether it works - just go to a few shows , watch the OO layouts with handbuilt track and decide whether you think the trains run reliably and smoothly

Edited by Ravenser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven

 

The one problem with DOGE universal standard is that the gap between the wing and check rails does look a bit wide when compared to turnouts built finer standards, as the gap in what some refer as the frog is set by multiplying the wing rail gap by the crossing angle you end up with a much longer gap between the tip of the vee and knuckle. again making it look overly large. 

 

As for running qualities of track, that is more down to the quality of workmanship and track laying. There are plenty of layouts at shows who use well known RTR track which also gives faultless performance despite being made to slightly coarser standards, simply down to both the quality of the product and the builders ability in laying it.

 

As for what hand built track is most common at shows, that depends on which shows you go to. If you go to either the higher end or the small local shows that not what I have noticed

Link to post
Share on other sites

- I simply note that - whatever else is in dispute - it's common ground amongst all the British posters from both sides that RP25/110 wheelsets , or British outline RTR's approximation thereof, will run on OO Intermediate or BRMSB OO without "drop in". The debate has been about wheels on non-RTR stock, and especially the behaviour of Gibson and Ultrascales when used in OO

 

- As far as I'm aware, all British posters from both sides accept that the check rail on OO Intermediate and BRMSB OO pointwork will be fully operative and effective on both RP25/110 and Romford wheelsets, provided the back to backs are within recommended values - and there is reasonable agreement on what those recommended B2B values are . (For the record, RP25/88 wheels are not found on British outline RTR)

 

However if Gibsons and Ultrascale wheels are with the B2Bs supplied by the manufacturer or set to the usual recommended values for such wheels, the check rails will not be effective in OO Intermediate or BRMSB OO - and they won't be effective in OO-SF either. Martin Wynne has several times recommended that the B2B for such wheels be reduced to 14.6mm or 14.5mm for use on OO-SF

 

All of this can be mathematically demonstrated fairly easily

 

Since Gibsons and Ultrascales do not meet the OO Intermediate wheel standard (for the good and sufficient reason that they are to the OO-Fine standard) they are not recommended for use on OO Intermediate

 

- Everyone accepts that all current production OO RTR will run through BRMSB OO and  OO Intermediate pointwork without jamming across the check span. That has been publicly demonstrated by experiment , repeatedly,  on scores of OO layouts at hundreds of shows

 

Since these are the 3 conditions that must be met for a wheelset to fit the track properly, and since all 3 are met by current OO RTR wheelsets running on OO Intermediate and BRMSB OO track, it's not merely sweeping and tendentious to dismiss all OO track standards as "incorrectly dimensioned" -as far as OO Intermediate is concerned  it's plain wrong. (Since that is the standard that everyone has been discussing in this thread I see no reason to go into a discussion of other OO standards here.)

 

Nobody has even suggested using any HO track standard, so I really don't see why you fee it necessary to warn the OP against using them, though I'm aware you feel you have a bone to pick with the NMRA about their track standards. But as this thread is about the practicalities - in terms of suitable gauges and their sources - having decided to build to OO-Intermediate, arguments about the validity of US HO track standards are a fairly long way off-topic

 

Finally - and crucially - no-one has to take this on authority. Nobody has to decide whether they believe you or me - they can just use their eyes instead. Layouts with handbuilt OO track can be found at almost every British model railway exhibition, and overwhelmingly OO layouts with handbuilt points are compliant with the OO Intermediate standard. If you want to see whether it works - just go to a few shows , watch the OO layouts with handbuilt track and decide whether you think the trains run reliably and smoothly

 

Well just for once I agree with everything Ravenser has said there.

 

But my answer to his question in my red is that NO they don't run reliably and smoothly -- not for stock fitted with kit wheels, even if those wheels have been adjusted to the required back-to-back (14.5mm for Romfords, 14.6mm for Gibson, Ultrascale, etc.)

 

This is the point which Ravenser and DOGA repeatedly refuse to address.

 

Whether they should or they shouldn't, a great many 00 modellers DO use kit wheels, and on the vast majority of 00 layouts with handbuilt track (i.e. which use DOGA-Intermediate or 00-BF standards), those wheels DO fall into the crossings (frogs) and can be seen to be doing so at exhibitions, especially in low-speed shunting moves or where the crossing is on the inside rail of a curve.

 

No-one is arguing otherwise than that RTR wheels run fine on DOGA-Intermediate -- but kit wheels don't. And a great many 00 modellers do like to use kit wheels, if only for appearance.

 

The advantage of 4-SF (00-SF) is that both RTR and kit wheels run smoothly without falling into the crossings. The disadvantage of 4-SF is that you have to be willing to check back-to-backs more carefully, and you have to be willing to use curves of a reasonable radius, as typically found on finescale layouts.

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just for once I agree with everything Ravenser has said there.

 

But my answer to his question in my red is that NO they don't run reliably and smoothly -- not for stock fitted with kit wheels, even if those wheels have been adjusted to the required back-to-back (14.5mm for Romfords, 14.6mm for Gibson, Ultrascale, etc.)

 

This is the point which Ravenser and DOGA repeatedly refuse to address.

 

Whether they should or they shouldn't, a great many 00 modellers DO use kit wheels, and on the vast majority of 00 layouts with handbuilt track (i.e. which use DOGA-Intermediate or 00-BF standards), those wheels DO fall into the crossings (frogs) and can be seen to be doing so at exhibitions, especially in low-speed shunting moves.

 

No-one is arguing otherwise than that RTR wheels run fine on DOGA-Intermediate -- but kit wheels don't. And a great many 00 modellers do use kit wheels.

 

The advantage of 4-SF (00-SF) is that both RTR and kit wheels run smoothly without falling into the crossings. The disadvantage of 4-SF is that you have to be willing to check back-to-backs more carefully, and you have to be willing to use curves of a reasonable radius, as typically found on finescale layouts.

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin:

 

Two points:

 

- Terry Flynn was specifically directing his fire at an alleged incompatibility of OO RTR wheels - hence my reply focused on that

 

- I did in fact point out that Gibson and Ultrascale wheels are not designed for OO-Intermediate , and their use on OO Intermediate track is not recommended (either by me or by DOGA) - 'cos there is a OO-Intermediate wheel standard , and they don't meet it

 

Since Gibsons and Ultrascales do not meet the OO Intermediate wheel standard (for the good and sufficient reason that they are to the OO-Fine standard) they are not recommended for use on OO Intermediate

 

- That leaves the remaining point of debate as whether there is really an "issue" with Romford wheels and "drop-in" on OO-Intermediate.

 

I stress that I'm much more concerned by a failure of the check rails to operate , and I believe that it's been adequetely shown that any "drop-in" is very minimal indeed unless very shallow crossing angles are involved. In fact , it appears that filing a tapered lead onto the point nose as you have suggested will cause at least as much "drop-in" if not more, but that effect would be accepted by yourself as permissable and not a problem.  

 

As a practical issue I doubt whether many OO modellers would find themselves using the sort of large radius points where dropin might become a significant issue with Gibsons and Ultrascales - simply because an awful lot of people work in OO precisely because they cannot afford the luxury of the sort of very large radii expected in EM and P4 (Folk who want to run 2-8-0s on a mainline layout and who can't possibly accomodate 5' radius curves)

 

But rather than see this degenerate into another long heated round of "Oh yes it is!" - "Oh no it isn't!"  the simplest and most sensible thing is to leave it there and let people observe the running of OO layouts with handbuilt track at shows and decide for themselves whether the vehicles run smoothly and reliably through the pointwork or not

Edited by Ravenser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ravenser,

 

OK, but what is DOGA's answer to the great many 00 modellers who do want to use RTR and kit wheels on the same track? Just saying that they shouldn't use kit wheels on DOGA-Intermediate doesn't help them very much (helping 00 modellers being DOGA's declared aim).

 

Whereas 4-SF (00-SF) does support both types of wheel properly. And a great many small layouts are of an end-to-end design, typically fiddle yard to terminus, where there is no need for sharp curves. These are usually the sort of layouts where smooth slow-speed running is most desirable, and 4-SF provides that (along with improved appearance) in a way that DOGA-Intermediate does not. Why can't you simply accept this, and maybe even have DOGA recommend 4-SF (00-SF) for such layouts?

 

I agree entirely that the NMRA H0 track standards are completely irrelevant to all this, and such a flawed dog's breakfast that they can safely be ignored on this side of the pond.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a practical issue I doubt whether many OO modellers would find themselves using the sort of large radius points where dropin might become a significant issue with Gibsons and Ultrascales - simply because an awful lot of people work in OO precisely because they cannot afford the luxury of the sort of very large radii expected in EM and P4 (Folk who want to run 2-8-0s on a mainline layout and who can't possibly accomodate 5' radius curves)

 

 

 

 

Simon

 

I think that you have completely missed the point, in that most who build their own turnouts and crossings DO rather than DO NOT build turnouts and crossings larger than RTR turnouts and crossings. Secondly those who do build their own track are more likely to build rolling stock kits and in some cases re-wheel some stock

 

At least we must be in agreement that finer gaps through the common crossings do look much better.

 

That now leaves 2 options DOAG fine and 00-sf as solutions

 

Now we are starting to agree on the main issue

Edited by hayfield
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This post on RMweb today is a sad indictment of the present situation for 00 gauge modellers:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61309-wormdale/page-5&do=findComment&comment=2069516

 

Brought about mainly I would say by DOGA, who in publishing the DOGA-Fine standard, and watching C&L for years sell DOGA-Fine kits and gauges without any explanation of what that involved and the consequences, have done 00 modellers no favours whatsoever.

 

It is now over 40 years, yes 40, since the blindingly obvious solution of changing the track gauge rather than the back-to-back was seen by Roy Miller, Frank Dyer and others as the best way to create a finer-scale version of 00. I was manufacturing 00 pointwork to order at that time, could clearly see the advantage of that approach, and adopted it for my 00 products. My 00 customers agreed, and were entirely satisfied with my "EM minus 2" (now 4-SF) products.

 

If DOGA had done some proper research on behalf of 00 modellers who they claimed to be helping, they could have adopted 4-SF (00-SF) "EM minus 2" as their fine-scale standard, and so much heartache, confusion and disappointment in recent years could have been avoided.

 

If DOGA are seriously claiming to represent and support the 00 modelling community in the UK, it is not too late to do something about it:

 

1. withdraw and deprecate the existing DOGA-Fine standard.

 

2. post clear warnings and explanations about which trade products are being supplied to this standard and the consequences of using them.

 

3. adopt "EM minus 2" as their new Fine standard, under whatever name they wish to give it. They wouldn't need to do much work, all the information is already on the web and can be simply linked to: http://4-sf.uk

 

------------

 

edit: I'm not sure I have posted the above in the most appropriate topic. Sorry about that. I have now copied it here:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf-4-sf-in-templot/?p=2069636&do=findComment&comment=2069636

 

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This post on RMweb today is a sad indictment of the present situation for 00 gauge modellers:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61309-wormdale/page-5&do=findComment&comment=2069516

 

Brought about mainly I would say by DOGA, who in publishing the DOGA-Fine standard, and watching C&L for years sell DOGA-Fine kits and gauges without any explanation of what that involved and the consequences, have done 00 modellers no favours whatsoever.

 

It is now over 40 years, yes 40, since the blindingly obvious solution of changing the track gauge rather than the back-to-back was seen by Roy Miller, Frank Dyer and others as the best way to create a finer-scale version of 00. I was manufacturing 00 pointwork to order at that time, could clearly see the advantage of that approach, and adopted it for my 00 products. My 00 customers agreed, and were entirely satisfied with my "EM minus 2" (now 4-SF) products.

 

If DOGA had done some proper research on behalf of 00 modellers who they claimed to be helping, they could have adopted 4-SF (00-SF) "EM minus 2" as their fine-scale standard, and so much heartache, confusion and disappointment in recent years could have been avoided.

 

If DOGA are seriously claiming to represent and support the 00 modelling community in the UK, it is not too late to do something about it:

 

1. withdraw and deprecate the existing DOGA-Fine standard.

 

2. post clear warnings and explanations about which trade products are being supplied to this standard and the consequences of using them.

 

3. adopt "EM minus 2" as their new Fine standard, under whatever name they wish to give it. They wouldn't need to do much work, all the information is already on the web and can be simply linked to: http://4-sf.uk

 

------------

 

edit: I'm not sure I have posted the above in the most appropriate topic. Sorry about that. I have now copied it here:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf-4-sf-in-templot/?p=2069636&do=findComment&comment=2069636

 

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin:

 

-  C+L were selling their gauges and track components for at least a decade before DOGA drew up the OO Finescale standard to define and codify it , so everyone could see what the complete package entailed and had some chance of working out which products were compatible with what.  DOGA did not invent the OO-Finescale standard - they merely described it, so everyone knew what it was.

 

- The gentleman concerned is in a mess because he has bought (mostly) OO-Intermediate pointwork under the impression he was buying OO-Finescale. Except for the bits of his pointwork which haven't been built to Intermediate. The blame for this lies with the purchaser and the supplier (the latter seems to have worked to two different standards within the order) . DOGA's not involved in that in any way - other than the fact that datasheets clearly defining each standard are available on the website, which should have helped the parties avoid this ("Build to this spec here")

 

- The gentleman has also pulled out RTR wheels to a different back to back : it bears saying that the results do not comply with the OO-Fine wheel standard and never could, and since the wheel and track standards are paired datasheets, this is a bodge that has not been advocated by anyone within DOGA.

 

He started with RTR that complied with the OO Intermediate standard . He then ignored the matching datasheet that defines a track that fits those wheels properly, and decided to use as different track standard, not designed for those wheels. He then bodged his wheels so they complied with no wheel standard  at all. He then ordered one track spec from his supplier - and they supplied him with a different one (mostly)  

 

I can't help saying here that if he had left well alone and not touched his wheels, and gone with his supplier's preferred track spec he'd have found himself happily running OO-Intermediate as a complete package , and everything would have worked fine.

 

But as a user of Intermediate standard and an advocate of it - what other response do you expect if someone ignores the datasheets, tries to avoid Intermediate - and ends up in no-mans land?? Don't try blaming DOGA if someone ignores the sheets

 

I fear the only thing that can be done now for him is damage control

 

I note you are now demanding that DOGA withdraw and publicly denounce their OO-Finescale standard. Since the unfortunate gentleman's layout isn't compliant with it in ANY way - neither his wheels nor his track - that's nonsense, and I doubt if those who do actually work to that standard would waste 2 seconds considering your view

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ravenser,

 

I can't see Nick (or anyone else) joining DOGA if that response is DOGA's idea of helping and supporting 00 modellers when they get stuck.

 

You do use strange words. I don't recall demanding anything. I made some helpful suggestions about how DOGA might better support 00 modellers, but if you are deaf to even discussing such matters, so be it.

 

But that being so, perhaps you could explain the actual purpose and intent of the DOGA-Fine standard? Yes sure you provide data sheets. (With some daft numbers, such as a wheel profile dimensioned to 1/1000th of a mm -- not something likely to give confidence that whoever compiled it had the faintest idea what he was doing: http://www.doubleogauge.com/fwheelstd1.pdf )

 

But what is DOGA-Fine actually FOR? I can't find a single word of advice on the subject on the DOGA web site.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<sniped>

 

I can't help saying here that if he had left well alone and not touched his wheels, and gone with his supplier's preferred track spec he'd have found himself happily running OO-Intermediate as a complete package , and everything would have worked fine.

 

But as a user of Intermediate standard and an advocate of it - what other response do you expect if someone ignores the datasheets, tries to avoid Intermediate - and ends up in no-mans land?? Don't try blaming DOGA if someone ignores the sheets

 

<sniped>

 The fact is no 00 track manufacturer makes track within the DOGA limits, thus the 'complete 00 intermediate package' is not defined properly by DOGA,

 

I also blame DOGA making a 00-intermediate standard that does not add up if you want to make  a K crossing. Consider the following necessary relationship. For a crossing the K crossing acts as both wing rails and Check rails. Therefore the following simple rule applies. The maximum check span = The maximum track gauge- (2 x the minimum flange way gap). Using the DOGA values, and assuming a track gauge of 16.55mm we get 16.55 -( 2 x 1.15) = 14.25mm.  Unfortunately their standard specifies a maximum check face to check face distance of 14.1mm. Clearly to make a K crossing that complies with the DOGA standard the tolerance needs to be tighter than +/- 0.05mm. Using my spread sheet I cannot fully get a set of dimensions that comply with the DOGA standard to make a K crossing. Considering this I think it's time DOGA reviewed their standards.

 

Cheers,

Terry Flynn.

Edited by nswgr1855
Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask a basic question please? What is the b-t-b setting created by Romford/Markits driving wheels on standard 16.5mm axles (Not having used Romfords for years I am asuming the wheel standards the two use is the same - overall thickness, tyre profile).

 

Thanks,

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask a basic question please? What is the b-t-b setting created by Romford/Markits driving wheels on standard 16.5mm axles (Not having used Romfords for years I am asuming the wheel standards the two use is the same - overall thickness, tyre profile).

 

Hi Izzy,

 

Markits 00 driving axles = 14.5mm back-to-back

Markits EM driving axles = 16.5mm back-to-back

 

Notice the 2.0mm difference there -- a clear hint to anyone devising track standards to match. smile.gif

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Izzy,

 

Markits 00 driving axles = 14.5mm back-to-back

Markits EM driving axles = 16.5mm back-to-back

 

Notice the 2.0mm difference there -- a clear hint to anyone devising track standards to match. smile.gif

 

Martin.

 

Many thanks Martin. Although I have some recent Romford wagon wheels via a selection of Parkside/Dapol kits - all for a little P4 test track layout - the differing standards I have encountered with the wheels in the Dapol ones ( brass/aluminium, same overall width but 1.00/0.8mm flange width and correspondingly different tread width) has me a bit perplexed and just added to general confusion over what OO standards are actually used by those making OO wheels these days, and hasn't helped in trying to understand the debate over OO track standards. It does help however to remind me why I decided to just 'go for it' with P4 in the late 1970's even though it was much more of a shot in the dark than it is today.

 

I really don't envy those trying to cope with modelling to OO now. Too many disparate wheel standards for my liking. Rather like trying to juggle large (Blue Ray - 7/8 Gb a time) video files between Mac and Win computers and HFS+ and NTFS HDD/USB drives which I'm doing at the moment!

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Izzy

 

Whilst it would be much better if the manufacturers of 00 gauge stock all used the same standards, in reality it is not as bad as some paint due to the coarseness of the gauge standards which allow much wider tolerances than the finer standards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hayfield,

 

Yes you are no doubt right. It's probably my rather pedantic attitude to running qualities and indeed with most construction that leads me to want consistent standards whatever I'm doing. I often envy those who are able to take seemingly disparate items/standards and meld them together so that they not only look right but work reliably as well. Something I have great difficulty with, and often with little or very limited success.

 

Izzy

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.