00 gauge Standards

[hayfield]

My little hobby horse with 00 gauge track building is the lack of track gauges which other scale/gauges enjoy, also historically too many variants. Answer is choose the set which meets your requirements

 

As far as the 00 trade is concerned with we will have to put up with what they supply, having said that a person who models in 00 can keep the same standards for their stock.

 

For instance 00sf (4sf) is a derivative of EM gauge, so with minor gauge narrowing at the common crossing ( see Gordons ET thread) you can have a decent looking turnouts and crossings that work with most 00 gauge wheels, added to that you could either swap non conforming wheel setts with Markits/Gibson/Slaters wheels or swap all the wheels to one make.

 

You can buy a full set of 00sf gauges from C&L and build your turnouts and crossings to a clear set of standards (which do work). Though if you do decide to change all the wheels I would suggest moving to EM gauge for the visual apperance

[hayfield]

This afternoon I went to see a member of a local club who wanted some advice and assistance with track building, Now he models in 00 gauge and up until recently used Peco code 100 track. He now wants better looking track with a finer look and flowing pointwork, and has come to the conclusion he will have to build it himself.

 

He has had a go at building one of C&L's basic chaired turnout kit and for a first time build has made quite a good job of it, however completely oblivious to the fact that he has built it to DOGA fine standards with the potential problem of some of his stock would not go through it. Without going too deep into the gauge variates to me 00BF/DOAG intermediate would be his best option

 

Now I have come away with some track rubbing's as he has a junction he wishes to rebuild, I will try and scan these into Templot so I can produce a better flowing plan. As it happens it is at a part of the layout where he does not mind it being built with copperclad sleepers (which he has) as he wishes to save the turnout kits for the station area.

 

I have told him to buy a couple of new files and will invite him round to see my workbench and watch how I make turnouts. Looks like I have an apprentice

 

The reason for the post is that most modellers think 00 gauge is all the same, his gauges stated they were 00 gauge (think the site has altered the name now), even with the new name DOGA fine had no idea of the implications of this gauge over 00BF/DOGA intermediate. Thankfully he had a friend to turn to who knew of someone who could help.  Two things have come out of this, the benefits of club membership and the absolute muddle the trade and various associations have made out of 00 standards

[martin_wynne]

Two things have come out of this, the benefits of club membership and the absolute muddle the trade and various associations have made out of 00 standards

 

And it doesn't end. For example C&L are currently in the extraordinary position of selling incompatible back-to-back and track gauges: 

 

http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376

 

Which means that wheels set to their back-to-back gauge will not run on track made with their track gauges.

 

You and I know this reading that page, but how many innocent buyers would never imagine the situation could be so daft? And are going to end up in a fix?

 

If DOGA really are claiming to represent 00 modellers they should be sorting this out.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Martin

 

One step at a time please, at least Peter is doing something.

 

By the way like the new track centres on the latest version of Templot

[Junctionmad]

I agree with Martin. DOGA-fine has no place as a standard, since it's anything but a standard. It merely serves to mislead , because modellers assume that 00 means there RTR 00 will run ( not an unreasonable assumption )

 

However in reality the real issue is C& L , because it perpetuates , in supplying track kits that do not make it clear they are to standards that will not allow RTR wheelsets to run properly. This has mislead more people.

 

Of course the moral of the story is the purchaser of track especially custom track m should build test setups the track is acceptable.

 

In industry this is known as the acceptance test !

[hayfield]

Sadly the 00 gauge modeller does not have a society that firstly creates a set of standards that suits 00 gauge modellers and leaises with manufactures as both the EM and P4 society's have.

 

I am not knocking the DOGA but RTR standards still vary too much and their fine scale standard does not seem to be compatible with all RTR and kit wheels. I may be doing them an injustice and if they were able to show me tangible benefits of joining them I would and I guess many others would join their ranks if there were real benefits of being a member.

 

I will add I wish they would promote their own 00 intermediate gauge more, it is the ideal set of standards for the average modeller wanting to progress from ready to run track to hand built track. 

 

I  am sorry to the DOGA but just looked at the site

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/index.htm

 

And with my interest in building better trackwork I am looking at tools/gauges

http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm

 

Just a set of roller gauges (I expect) either fine or intermediate and no information about the difference between the two?

[Grovenor]

 

and their fine scale standard does not seem to be compatible with all RTR and kit wheels

Well now, if it was compatible with all RTR then it would not be "fine scale" would it!

 

IMHO the concept of 00 fine scale dates from the years when RTR wheels from Triang, Trix and HD were horrible and serious modellers would change the wheels even if staying with 00.

Perhaps now that the RTR wheels are so much better the 00 fine scale concept should be abandoned.

Regards

[hayfield]

Keith

 

In one way you have a valid point, lets face it EM changed from 18 mm track gauge to 18.2 mm track gauge, but lots of modellers are committed to 00 gauge but want something of the same quality standard and in 4 mm scale to run their new high quality models without having to alter the wheels. So a finer standard is required in 00 gauge which is compatible with both modern RTR and kit built models

[Ravenser]

Well now, if it was compatible with all RTR then it would not be "fine scale" would it!

 

IMHO the concept of 00 fine scale dates from the years when RTR wheels from Triang, Trix and HD were horrible and serious modellers would change the wheels even if staying with 00.

Perhaps now that the RTR wheels are so much better the 00 fine scale concept should be abandoned.

Regards

 

That's a proposition which it would be possible to argue - given certain concessions.

 

- The first being that you're not attacking the OO-Finescale standard as "wrong", "invalid", incoherent "shouldn't exist" or "damaging the hobby" but simply saying "that standard is a coherent option, but personally in today's conditions I think that particular game isn't worth the candle. If starting from a clean sheet I'd choose different option"

 

- The second being that it must be recognised that there are numbers of modellers currently working to that standard, and they will naturally require a convenient and coherent codification of the standard they work to. And obviously that standard should have a name, so everyone knows what it is, and what products meet it.

 

- The third - flowing from the second - is that there is no question of standards being withdrawn , or officially "deprecated", or repudiated or their use disapproved of and discouraged. This is a matter of OO modellers as a whole making up their minds about whether that an option worth pursuing: not of a few people deciding that everyone ought to model in something else.

 

Put another way - does Martin (or anyone else) really fancy marching up to Bath Green Park and telling the group that they shouldn't be working to those standards, that their standard are wrong and should not be countenanced in the hobby, that the layout doesn't work properly, that they have decided those standards should no longer exist or be recognised and the group must accept that etc etc etc?? 

 

Because I don't.

 

(And to the best of my knowledge that layout is built to the OO Finescale standard, and in fact predates the publication of the OO-Finescale datasheet by DOGA by some years. I certainly remember being told by a member of the group that Romford wheels could not be used on the layout)  

 

I'm very glad that DOGA has always recognised and defined 2 standards in OO. Because it means that they are not saying "This is the one true path. You ought to model to this standard, and this alone." (Unlike say the Protofour Society). It's a question of saying  "Here are two coherent, workable standards. Your choice which one you want to adopt" (Remembering that a wheel standard and a track standard are a matched pair)

 

Many years ago someone (I think the late Ken Garrett) defined the "TM" standard for 3mm scale / 13.5mm gauge . You might feel that times have moved on, that these days the choice in 3mm is between 12mm and 14.2mm gauge , and that nobody now would chose t go into 13.5mm . But there are still some modellers who work to it, the 3mm Society still recognise and maintain the standard. There has been no question of withdrawing , repudiating, or abandoning it. Nobody is demanding that the 3mm Society officially discourage people from using it.

[Grovenor]

 

(And to the best of my knowledge that layout is built to the OO Finescale standard, and in fact predates the publication of the OO-Finescale datasheet by DOGA by some years. I certainly remember being told by a member of the group that Romford wheels could not be used on the layout)

Now you are confusing me!  When I was involved with 00 finescale Romford wheels were the ones mostly used to replace the RTR wheels.

Regards

[Ravenser]

 

.....I am not knocking the DOGA ...

 

I will add I wish they would promote their own 00 intermediate gauge more, it is the ideal set of standards for the average modeller wanting to progress from ready to run track to hand built track......

 

 

It's really quite difficult not to feel these remarks are disingenuous

 

 After 6 weeks of sustained, intense daily flaming of myself , often quite personal, for doing precisely that - saying that OO Intermediate is a viable effective standard, not a "problem" , and offers a good readily available package for anyone looking to improve their track -  it's quite difficult for me to  not to feel that the comments quoted were written with tongue firmly in cheek

[martin_wynne]

After 6 weeks of sustained, intense daily flaming of myself , often quite personal, for doing precisely that - saying that OO Intermediate is a viable effective standard, not a "problem" , and offers a good readily available package for anyone looking to improve their track

 

Ravenser, we have said over and over again that DOGA-Intermediate is absolutely fine, wonderful, ok, works well, IF you want to run ONLY RTR wheels.

 

The point you refuse to admit or continually skate over is that it is NOT SUITABLE for kit wheels (Alan Gibson, Ultrascale), and only marginally suitable for Romford/Markits wheels. As everyone who has tried it knows full well. Gordon S even posted a photo of an Ultrascale wheel clearly fallen off the wing rail into the crossing gap.

 

How about a pact? You agree loud and clear for all to see that DOGA-Intermediate isn't suitable for kit wheels, and we will sing from the rafters that it is absolutely fine for RTR wheels.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Now you are confusing me!  When I was involved with 00 finescale Romford wheels were the ones mostly used to replace the RTR wheels.

Regards

 

Noted - but that was a while ago. OO-Finescale is essentially about Gibson and Ultrascale wheels and C+L components , as an EM-1.7mm approach.

 

What seems to have happened is that in the late 80s/90s it became felt that Romford wheels were terribly old hat and clunky and why not rewheel with sleek new Gibsons to EM profile instead. So much more cutting edge.....

 

So during that period "finescale OO " split into 2 groups :

 

- those "cutting edge" folk rewheeling with Gibsons (or Ultrascales if it was modern image) and using shiny new C+L components to "EM minus 1.7mm" - though it was never clearly formulated as such

 

- those who kept using Romfords and the traditional OO BRMSB track.

 

The latter were largely dismissed as a rump clinging to obsolete standards but in fact they remained a large majority of those in "finescale OO"

 

The OO-Finescale standard represents the practice of the first group.

 

Then , when RTR manufacturers adopted RP25/110 around 2000, OO RTR effectively merged with the second larger group . Lots of "finescale OO" layouts started reporting they could run new RTR without any rewheeling.

 

At that point it became clear that the second group's OO BRMSB track actually fitted modern RTR perfectly - arguably even better than it fitted Romfords

 

The OO-Intermediate standard represents the practice of this second, and larger group.

 

Peco simply sat where they had always been and refused to budge

 

(Hence my continual frustration about  "finescale OO" (meaning simply OO with handbuilt points) being  continually presented by interested parties as a straight choice between OO-SF and OO-Finescale, with the latter being criticised as a deeply flawed concept allegedly invented by DOGA)

[Derekstuart]

I take issue with that comment.

 

Whilst I respect the sentiment that both you and Martin have expressed, surely one who is going to make one's own track and turnouts can be reasonably expected to have researched at least a little and will know what questions to ask to make sure they are getting what they think they are getting.

 

When I first returned back to this 'hobby' 54 weeks ago, I knew very little (as those whom I have interrogated over the past year will confirm) but recognised that if I wanted to do something other than 00 I had to learn.

 

If you feel strongly about C&L perhaps writing to Pete explaining your viewpoint would be a good idea. With the exception of a brass etching magician and a Professor of track design software, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has done as much for this hobby as Pete (and in fairness, his predecessors).

 

They may have contributed to the confusion, but to imply they are the sole or main reason is, I submit, ridiculous.

 

However in reality the real issue is C& L , because it perpetuates , in supplying track kits that do not make it clear they are to standards that will not allow RTR wheelsets to run properly. This has mislead more people.

[Ravenser]

Ravenser, we have said over and over again that DOGA-Intermediate is absolutely fine, wonderful, ok, works well, IF you want to run ONLY RTR wheels.

 

The point you refuse to admit or continually skate over is that it is NOT SUITABLE for kit wheels (Alan Gibson, Ultrascale), and only marginally suitable for Romford/Markits wheels. As everyone who has tried it knows full well. Gordon S even posted a photo of an Ultrascale wheel clearly fallen off the wing rail into the crossing gap.

 

How about a pact? You agree loud and clear for all to see that DOGA-Intermediate isn't suitable for kit wheels, and we will sing from the rafters that it is absolutely fine for RTR wheels.

 

Martin.

 

I've repeatedly pointed out that Gibson and Ultrascale wheels are not to OO-Intermediate, but to the OO- Finescale wheel standard, and don't go with OO-Intermediate, repeatedly said that wheel and track standards are two sides of the same coin, and you should use the wheel standard that goes with the corresponding track standard - so this is a bit rich.

 

For the record - I personally would not recommend rewheeling modern RTR OO diesels and electrics with Ultrascales. Leave the RP25/110 wheels alone , save money save time . "Give your seat to a shell" or at least your place in the UItrascale queue to an EM gauge modeller.

 

And if building steam locomotive kits , or diesel shunters -  I personally would fit Romfords , not Gibsons , if working to Intermediate.

 

And for wagon and coach kits - if no wheels are supplied, use packs of Hornby and Bachmann wheels . Though if - as with Parkside - Romfords are supplied , they might as well be used. I personally would - and have - replaced Gibson wheels if supplied in a kit

 

Is that quite clear enough?

[Derekstuart]

Clearly you've never heard of the difference between P4 and S4 then.

 

I'm very glad that DOGA has always recognised and defined 2 standards in OO. Because it means that they are not saying "This is the one true path. You ought to model to this standard, and this alone." (Unlike say the Protofour Society). It's a question of saying  "Here are two coherent, workable standards. Your choice which one you want to adopt" (Remembering that a wheel standard and a track standard are a matched pair)

 

 

[martin_wynne]

For the record - I personally would not recommend rewheeling modern RTR OO diesels and electrics with Ultrascales. Leave the RP25/110 wheels alone , save money save time . "Give your seat to a shell" or at least your place in the UItrascale queue to an EM gauge modeller.

 

And if building steam locomotive kits , or diesel shunters -  I personally would fit Romfords , not Gibsons , if working to Intermediate.

 

And for wagon and coach kits - if no wheels are supplied, use packs of Hornby and Bachmann wheels . Though if - as with Parkside - Romfords are supplied , they might as well be used. I personally would - and have - replaced Gibson wheels if supplied in a kit

 

Is that quite clear enough?

 

Very clear. But how does it square with your previous "00-Intermediate is a viable effective standard, and offers a good readily available package for anyone looking to improve their track." If such a modeller has stock fitted with kit wheels? Or wants to use them for improved appearance.

 

Also your recommendations are a bit flawed -- in order to support Romford/Markits wheels (and then only marginally) 00-Intermediate requires sharp-nose vees. Which look awful to anyone familiar with permanent way, and certainly wouldn't appeal to anyone "looking to improve their track".

 

If you are going to promote 00-Intermediate, I think you should make clear that it is suitable for RTR wheels only, and no others.

 

I would also question your "a good readily available package" when I can't find anywhere from the trade or DOGA suitable 15.3mm check gauges or a 1.2mm crossing flangeway gauge shim.

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

I take issue with that comment.

 

Whilst I respect the sentiment that both you and Martin have expressed, surely one who is going to make one's own track and turnouts can be reasonably expected to have researched at least a little and will know what questions to ask to make sure they are getting what they think they are getting.

 

When I first returned back to this 'hobby' 54 weeks ago, I knew very little (as those whom I have interrogated over the past year will confirm) but recognised that if I wanted to do something other than 00 I had to learn.

 

If you feel strongly about C&L perhaps writing to Pete explaining your viewpoint would be a good idea. With the exception of a brass etching magician and a Professor of track design software, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has done as much for this hobby as Pete (and in fairness, his predecessors).

 

They may have contributed to the confusion, but to imply they are the sole or main reason is, I submit, ridiculous.

I didn't argue that C&L shouldn't produce track kits in DOGA fine. But that they don't make it clear that they are not suitable for standard 00

[Derekstuart]

I never said you were arguing that.

 

Please don't try to type my own comments for me.

 

My new company car arrived last month and Jaguar never told me that it isn't suitable for use as a fishing rod; I was expected to work that out for myself.

 

I didn't argue that C&L shouldn't produce track kits in DOGA fine. But that they don't make it clear that they are not suitable for standard 00

[hayfield]

 

 

It's really quite difficult not to feel these remarks are disingenuous

 

 After 6 weeks of sustained, intense daily flaming of myself , often quite personal, for doing precisely that - saying that OO Intermediate is a viable effective standard, not a "problem" , and offers a good readily available package for anyone looking to improve their track -  it's quite difficult for me to  not to feel that the comments quoted were written with tongue firmly in cheek

 

 

 

I really take issue with you, if you want me to be disingenuous to you, you will really know I have. But I have to much respect to the vast majority of open minded modellers on this site to be that rude. Please read my replies and do not take issue with the odd one

 

How many times do I and others have to explain to you we are quite happy for others to use which ever gauge they like, I am waiting for some good reasons to join that band of 00 gauge group who claims To welcome ALL modellers with an interest in OO.   There is nothing on their website that I can read about track building and as for track building aids, 2 types of what I believe are roller gauges, one of which should come with a warning to less well informed modellers who believe anything made from code 75 rail is finescale and yes they do exist in their thousands.

 

As for C+L products, why bring them into the discussion ? Their track parts with few exceptions can be used in most 4 mm gauges, yes even DOGA intermediate gauge

 

As for Gibson wheels are you telling me they cannot be used with a back to back of 14.5 mm ? Thank you I will remember this and bring it up with them on their stand next time I see them

[hayfield]

I didn't argue that C&L shouldn't produce track kits in DOGA fine. But that they don't make it clear that they are not suitable for standard 00

 

C&L are not the only traders that fall foul of the confusing standards which abound in the hobby around 00 gauge. Historically I think a previous owner decided he could simplify his range of products by using the same part for both EM and 00 (DOGA fine) gauge which is why their range or 00 gauge roller gauges are to DOGA fine standards (but sold as 00 gauge). Its the passage of time/changing of owners failed to realise the consequences for the less well informed

[Pacific231G]

I may well never use 16.2mm gauge track (though It's tempting for the finer appearance even in 1:87 scale)  but, thanks to this and related threads and very much thanks to Martin's explanations I now know a lot more about how and why wheels behave on pointwork than I've ever seen explained properly anywhere else. The fact that Frank Dyer ended up advocating it is pretty convincing in itself and I do now know how and why SMP pointwork built to BRMSB standards should work with European H0 stock that has wheels close to RP25/110 (as opposed to the opposite end of the MOROP standard that makes a Pizza cutter a precision instrument)

[nswgr1855]

Sadly the 00 gauge modeller does not have a society that firstly creates a set of standards that suits 00 gauge modellers and leaises with manufactures as both the EM and P4 society's have.

 

I am not knocking the DOGA but RTR standards still vary too much and their fine scale standard does not seem to be compatible with all RTR and kit wheels. I may be doing them an injustice and if they were able to show me tangible benefits of joining them I would and I guess many others would join their ranks if there were real benefits of being a member.

 

I will add I wish they would promote their own 00 intermediate gauge more, it is the ideal set of standards for the average modeller wanting to progress from ready to run track to hand built track. 

 

I  am sorry to the DOGA but just looked at the site

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/index.htm

 

And with my interest in building better trackwork I am looking at tools/gauges

http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm

 

Just a set of roller gauges (I expect) either fine or intermediate and no information about the difference between the two?

 

 

I am glad DOGA does not promote its intermediate standard because it is impractical to make. It does not add up.

 

Terry Flynn.

[nswgr1855]

 

 

It's really quite difficult not to feel these remarks are disingenuous

 

 After 6 weeks of sustained, intense daily flaming of myself , often quite personal, for doing precisely that - saying that OO Intermediate is a viable effective standard, not a "problem" , and offers a good readily available package for anyone looking to improve their track -  it's quite difficult for me to  not to feel that the comments quoted were written with tongue firmly in cheek

 

Hello Ravenser,

 

As stated in an earlier post, there is a problem with the DOGA 00 intermediate standard if you want to make a complex track work with K crossings. The standard does not add up, therefore it cannot be viable or effective. No tongue in cheek, I'm serious. That is in addition to the many valid reasons to build track to a better alternative fine scale standard that works with most 00 RTR and kit wheels.

 

Terry Flynn.

[RichardS]

Keith (Grovenor), you're confused? What hope is there for the rest of us?

Regards

Richard