00 gauge Standards

[Clive Mortimore]

I notice on this and other threads that the C&L 00 gauges are not compatible with each other.......that is just daft. Any how I don't have any C&L gauges, so where do my Markits, J&M and Hamblings gauges fit in or are they useless?

 

Another few things I have noted, first when I stated that no matter what gauge /scale you model all the track and wheels have to be to the same standard, it felt I was being poo pooed. If you are using one type of wheel that should be the only one you use, not mixing wheel dimensions. Second "kit wheels", my experience of Gibson wheels not running true does not make me want to rush out and buy more and I cannot be bothered to wait for Ultra-scale ones. Third thing is building a layout so others can run their stuff on it. Done that, disaster, especially at shows where I have allowed a guest operator to bring their locos. If they work, they are normally not suitable livery, or region wise and guess which loco hogs the operating session................not the ones built for the layout. 

[Grovenor]

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

Regards

Richard

You could do what I did 48 years ago, change to P4 and avoid the whole 00 morass. You do, of course, get a whole new bunch of challenges.

Regards

[hayfield]

Clive

 

In one way it is very confusing in another its quite simple. My biggest hobby horse is that manufacturers should just mill the outer groves for 00 gauge and not have the second check/wing rail gauge groves, secondly the easily accessibility and at reasonable cost of wing and check rail gauges

 

Romford/Markits roller gauges do two code 100 and code 75 and as far as I remember they have 1.25 wing and check rail gaps (J&M I think are much the same) and are fine for what I refer to (Peco's terminology) 00 universal  (00bf & DODA intermediate)

 

C&L standard 00 roller gauge is also 16.5 track gauge, which is fine for all 16.5 track, but the check and wing rail gaps are 1 mm (DOGA fine) some RTR and Romford/Markit wheels may not work through them. Code 75 rail

C&L also sell 00sf gauges as do DCC Concepts, the roller gauges are 16.2 mm gauge and are for code 75 rail (DCC Concepts do a code 82 flatbottom gauge which is slightly finer than bullhead), Most RTR locos, Romford wheels etc are fine through these and as far as I know Gibson and Slaters wheels can be set for 14.5 back to back to work through them. If using this gauge you will need a 1 mm wing rail gauge (from the EM gauge society) and a check rail gauge (C&L) also a 3 point gauge for gauge widening in sharp radius curves. The check rail gauge is also very useful for setting the check rails for both 00bf & GOGA intermediate 

 

For the average modeller 00BF/ DOGA intermediate in my opinion is best.

 

Those requiring finer looking crossings would need to go to either 00sf or DOGA fine, I prefer the former as there is less chance of a ready to run loco needing its back to back measurements altering and most importantly there is a larger range track building gauges available

[Grovenor]

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.

I see no problem building a K crossing to the DOGA Intermediate standard, why don't you tell us what exactly does not add up?

Regards

[Grovenor]

Ravenser said,

 

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.

Thanks for the clarification, I missed that bit, 00 being outside my normal interests.

Regards

[Ravenser]

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.

 

Terry , I'm sorry but you're on a hiding to nothing here.

 

The traditional BRMSB OO track standard falls within the permitted tolerances of the DOGA OO Intermediate standard. That's accepted by all. The two can be treated as approximately equivalent.  

 

Many hundreds of layouts have been built in Britain over many decades with handbuilt pointwork to BRMSB OO standard. There are scores of such layouts currently on the exhibition circuit. You can see examples at shows up and down the country every weekend. They have complex trackwork . They work. You can stand next to them and watch the trains staying on the track.

 

Nobody in the hobby in Britain is going to accept the proposition that complex track formations can't be built in BRMSB OO or OO Intermediate. We've seen it done far too often.

 

Just a few photos which I have on file and are already reduced for web. I don't have anything immediately to hand of Dewsbury Midland, Gresley Beat, Leicester S Goods, or Bradfield Gloucester Square (than which nothing runs better) - all 16.5mm gauge , all handbuilt track, all as far as I'm aware to BRMSB OO/OO Intermdiate track standard - and all extremely highly regarded exhibition layouts in Britain.

 

You're in the position of the man stating that he has conclusively demonstrated that bumblebees can't fly and swans can't take off. We've seen the physical evidence to the contrary with our own eyes

 

Leicester S Goods

 

Gresley Beat

 

Ackthorpe?

 

 

and the thread for Bradfield Gloucester Square

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28198-bradfield-gloucester-square-br-1962-ish/

[Junctionmad]

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'm not quite sure what you mean by " typing your own comments for you " , I merely used the quote feature which as you may be aware is used to retain the context of the comments in a multi context thread.

 

You'd be pissed with Jaguar, if you found it didn't fit between you driveway gates , cause they had decided to make the wheels 2 feet wider then the car.

 

The fact is for various historical reasons, C& L have produced turnout kits and gauges that produce track that will not run a large proportion of RTR 00 . That fact was and is not made clear and hence misleads the neophyte . That's not a fishing rod and jaguar analogy.

 

You seem to wish to descend into ad hominem attacks but I just stated my views. As I said it's not helped by the DOGA codifying the finescale 00 standard, which is basically a nonsense idea , 00 by definition can't be " finescale "

[Derekstuart]

Yes, this appears to be going around in circles.

 

I you have clarified that you were not attacking C&L, merely offering constructive criticism (whether or not I agree with that criticism is irrelevant, as each is entitled to their own opinion).

I have clarified that I was not accusing you of telling C&L what to do.

 

But on a vastly more important issue, no I would not be irritated with Jaguar if they made the back wheels wider than the car (the back wheel arches are nicely flared to take them) as I would expect to be told "the size of the car and wheels are well published and it is down to you to measure your own driveway."

 

The Jaguar and fishing rod comparison serves one purpose: If I am going to go fishing, it is reasonable to expect that I have a basic competency in doing so- knowing what rod, reel, bait and sleeping tablets I need and if buying a Jaguar then I would be expected to know how to drive it. It is obvious to anyone that a Jaguar is not a fishing rod; I exaggerated the difference to your CL issue in order to make a point, but it was tongue in cheek.

 

I am not sure I would agree with you about 00 not being able to be a fine scale, though I can understand why you say it. It is not an accurate representation of the prototype, but then neither is 00sf/004 or EM. Even P4 is not accurate, with only S4 being truly accurate. But if it is being made to finer tolerances than rtr set track, what should it be called? 00 not so coarse? But even though I do not 100% agree with you, I can respect that viewpoint. I might even click the agree button to your post (though I might need a brandy first).

 

Now how about sitting back and watching Mr Siddle Vs the world slogging it out.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by " typing your own comments for you " , I merely used the quote feature which as you may be aware is used to retain the context of the comments in a multi context thread.

You'd be pissed with Jaguar, if you found it didn't fit between you driveway gates , cause they had decided to make the wheels 2 feet wider then the car.

The fact is for various historical reasons, C& L have produced turnout kits and gauges that produce track that will not run a large proportion of RTR 00 . That fact was and is not made clear and hence misleads the neophyte . That's not a fishing rod and jaguar analogy.

You seem to wish to descend into ad hominem attacks but I just stated my views. As I said it's not helped by the DOGA codifying the finescale 00 standard, which is basically a nonsense idea , 00 by definition can't be " finescale "

[Junctionmad]

Thanks.

 

Part of the issue is the history behind 00 , itself a massive compromise , within that compromise, there have been , and continue to be ( 00-SF ) attempts to " improve" that original compromise. But it's the original silk purse and sows ear issue. Which is why I do t think the term finescale cant be applied to 00 track and wheel standards. ( such as they are ).

 

The problems with mis aligned hand built track as mentioned in the link, is more a function of the incorrect ( as I see it ) application of mixed standards in a series of turnouts and the lack of initial testing and acceptance , then any specific 00 standard issues

 

But the fact is, all gauges benefit from a single standard. But we rarely get that it seems

[Derekstuart]

But isn't that the 'job' of a gauge association- to publicise standards and to work with modellers and the trade alike?

I'm sure representation from such a large and successful organisation such as doga to CL would surely result in them agreeing to modify their site accordingly.

 

I chose to work to P4 (though I came close to 00SF/4SF) and I am lucky that there is a huge amount of information published and a large number of people willing to help with advice and even then I've managed to find dozens of ways to not get things right.

 

As for whether to refer to any 00 based gauge as fine scale I think is just semantics. It is not prototypically accurate, but can still be fine. If we accept Martin's point that 00SF (as was) is a narrowed version of EM, is that fine scale? Is EM for that matter, after all it has track some 2.5 inches too narrow. Do we call EM finescale? EM, P4 and S4 all have very detailed (too detailed perhaps) published standards to work from.

 

What about those who use 16.5mm gauge but otherwise keep to prototype, such as gentle sweeping curved turnouts etc. Are they fine scale?

The above is a point of view and not a cue for an argument of course.

[martin_wynne]

I really don't believe there is any problem at all with the 00 standards themselves. The problems lie entirely with the model trade failing to properly label or explain what they are selling.

 

This is the short gauge list in Templot. There are just two standards for 00, which in my view cover the entire requirements for handbuilt 00 track, and both work absolutely fine:

 

 

Use 00-BF if you want to run only RTR models, or kits fitted with wheels sourced from the RTR manufacturers.

 

Use 4-SF if you want to run narrower kit wheels and RTR wheels on the same track. Realising that in order to do so you will need to take a bit more care in checking wheel back-to-backs, and be willing not to use train-set radius curves.

 

Both of them use the same check gauge (15.2mm) and the same optimum back-to-back settings (although 00-BF will accept a wider divergence from the optimum).

 

Now if we had an organisation properly supporting 00 modellers, these two options could be explained on their web site, and the trade could be supplied with leaflets, product stickers, etc., to help beginners understand what they were buying.

 

There is nothing wrong with the standards themselves.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

"Finescale"

 

What is "finescale" ? in fact "finescale" means different things to different people

 

For some moving from code 100 00/H0 track to code 75 00/H0, others its going the whole hog in track, stock, buildings and terrain

 

Does the gauge of track make it finescale, of course not I have a Triang Polly with P4 wheels and chassis. Has the right gauge, but hardly finescale

 

Then you have Pendon, does modelling in EM gauge mean its not finescale

 

Look at the work "Mr Plasticard" Ron Heggs is doing.

 

"Finescale is an attitude to modelling, for me its where the whole layout is in harmony with its self but but being highly detailed

 

Look at the trackwork on Gordon'd  ET, or Coachmans coaches on his equally well built 00 gauge layout. What about Alan Downs layouts !!

 

Finescale is in the eye of the beholder, just because for what ever reason you cannot model in P4, does not mean you cannot model in finescale

[Junctionmad]

I think we can argue the existential qualities of fine-scale all day, however a track gauge that is 10% out of scale can hardly be called finescale. Thats not to say that around this conundrum , many accurate and skilful layouts have been built. 

 

One can have finescale layouts without finescale track of course, but in the context of this present discussion , the notion that DOGA fine , is a "fine" scale version of 00-BF is a bit of a contrived nonsense 

[nswgr1855]

Terry , I'm sorry but you're on a hiding to nothing here.

 

The traditional BRMSB OO track standard falls within the permitted tolerances of the DOGA OO Intermediate standard. That's accepted by all. The two can be treated as approximately equivalent.  

 

Many hundreds of layouts have been built in Britain over many decades with handbuilt pointwork to BRMSB OO standard. There are scores of such layouts currently on the exhibition circuit. You can see examples at shows up and down the country every weekend. They have complex trackwork . They work. You can stand next to them and watch the trains staying on the track.

 

Nobody in the hobby in Britain is going to accept the proposition that complex track formations can't be built in BRMSB OO or OO Intermediate. We've seen it done far too often.

 

Just a few photos which I have on file and are already reduced for web. I don't have anything immediately to hand of Dewsbury Midland, Gresley Beat, Leicester S Goods, or Bradfield Gloucester Square (than which nothing runs better) - all 16.5mm gauge , all handbuilt track, all as far as I'm aware to BRMSB OO/OO Intermdiate track standard - and all extremely highly regarded exhibition layouts in Britain.

 

You're in the position of the man stating that he has conclusively demonstrated that bumblebees can't fly and swans can't take off. We've seen the physical evidence to the contrary with our own eyes

 

 

The BRMSB standard and the DOGA standard both do not add up correctly.

 

To quote from the scale four society's web page "It is clear from the Study Group's investigations that the BRMSB standards lack the basic dimensions to ensure complete reliability, i.e., standard wheel and rail contours designed to work together. Secondly the BRMSB dimensions can be shown to be critical in certain situations, and in the case of TT3, clearly defective. Under these circumstances, the Model Engineering Trade Association's task is indeed a thankless one."

 

The many layouts shown no doubt use track dimensions that are close to BRMSB dimensions,  but do not match either standard in ALL dimensions.

 

I would suspect most of the layouts you used as as examples have more chance of complying fully with the AMRA HO intermediate standard or the old NEM than the DOGA 00 standard.

 

Terry Flynn.

[martin_wynne]

I think we can argue the existential qualities of fine-scale all day, however a track gauge that is 10% out of scale can hardly be called finescale.

 

00 is only out of scale if you decide that it is intended to represent 4ft-8.5in track gauge. That's an entirely arbitrary decision. If you decide that it is intended to represent 4ft-1.5in gauge track it is spot-on dead scale. And bearing in mind that 00 rolling-stock models are made for that gauge, it is surely the more logical track gauge to build for them to run on. Or in the case of 4-SF, 4ft-0.6in track gauge.

 

Why modellers are so focused on the distance between the rails is a bit of a mystery. Around the world the prototype uses dozens of different track gauges. And a large chunk of the UK uses 5ft-3in gauge, not 4ft-8.5in.

 

A model railway can never be the real thing, shrunk in the wash. If you approach it as a miniature railway system in its own right, it becomes a much more interesting and satisfying engineering challenge. And adopting a scaled down track gauge of 4ft-1.5in is an entirely reasonable thing to do for such a miniature railway. It also saves a lot of heartache when folks come along and tell you it is 10% wrong, if you can point out that it is actually spot-on for its intended prototype.

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

 

 

 if you can point out that it is actually spot-on for its intended prototype.

Except there is no such prototype, modelling something that did not exist is usually referred to as "freelance". Why stop at just the gauge? You may as well arbitrarily decide that your prototype had larger rail and smaller timbers closer together, and wider wheels etc. And consequently Peco code 100 is actually spot on for the intended prototype.

Regards

[hayfield]

The BRMSB standard and the DOGA standard both do not add up correctly.

 

To quote from the scale four society's web page "It is clear from the Study Group's investigations that the BRMSB standards lack the basic dimensions to ensure complete reliability, i.e., standard wheel and rail contours designed to work together. Secondly the BRMSB dimensions can be shown to be critical in certain situations, and in the case of TT3, clearly defective. Under these circumstances, the Model Engineering Trade Association's task is indeed a thankless one."

 

The many layouts shown no doubt use track dimensions that are close to BRMSB dimensions,  but do not match either standard in ALL dimensions.

 

I would suspect most of the layouts you used as as examples have more chance of complying fully with the AMRA HO intermediate standard or the old NEM than the DOGA 00 standard.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

 

Terry

 

I totally agree with you, even though both of you are probably correct

 

Now take the average modeller, mostly RTR stock but likes making kits so has a few wagons and coaches, perhaps even the odd loco no idea about the different standards within 00 and has happily bought what was available not caring what makes of wheels were in the kits or on the stands.

 

Now this same Mr average decided to build a few turnouts, and was one of the lucky ones without knowing it bought a roller gauge with 1.25 mm flangeways. Now this person built a turnout and it worked, so he built a couple more and each one he built was slightly better than the previous. All worked fine and were doing the job very well. Mr average was by now getting than average so built a diamond crossing and after a bit of tinkering with it again worked well

 

Now full of confidence having mastered this part of the hobby decided to build a diamond crossing on the curve, some stock worked most others derailed. 00bf and DOGA intermediate had reached their limits, whilst with standard crossings the standards just about coped, when momentum wants to go a different way than the tracks and the gaps are big enough to allow this is where the standards fall down

 

Now there will be many (well the odd on) who know that there are limits to each and every standard within the 00 gauge family and these standards do not mix, though some are more forgiving than others. But the vast majority of modellers expect (and rightly so) that if they see 00 gauge it should work on 00  gauge not just the odd variant within that gauge.

 

Given these facts what we should do is find the best compromise ( though it may not be the best for all). Those wanting a finer appearance of their track without having to either change or re-gauge their wheels should adopt in my opinion 00sf certainly works for me and many others, it certainly is supported much better by the trade in making a range of gauges easily available. And is compatible with most modern RTR stock and given Romford/Markit wheels are the most common now enclosed in kits and freely available like Hornby and Bachmann wheels are, I guess the same must be said for kits as well

[martin_wynne]

Except there is no such prototype, modelling something that did not exist is usually referred to as "freelance". Why stop at just the gauge? You may as well arbitrarily decide that your prototype had larger rail and smaller timbers closer together, and wider wheels etc. And consequently Peco code 100 is actually spot on for the intended prototype.

 

Indeed, except that it is not a sensible engineering design. The rail is too heavy, wasteful of materials and more difficult to transport and install. While the sleepers are too small to properly support the weight of traffic. The pyramid of ballast below each rail is too small, and the track would need constant packing to level, and expensive maintenance. It is not a good engineering design, and entirely unnecessary, because in the UK we have perfectly acceptable track components which would be used to build 4ft-1.5in track. In fact the UK bullhead track design is so fit-for-purpose that it has barely changed in the last 90 years since the REA designs were introduced:

 

 

From: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64940-exeter-old-yard-sidings-being-relaid/

 

There are lots of things in a model railway for which there is no matching prototype -- even P4 has 2" flangeway gaps instead of 1.75". That's a 14% difference -- more than the 12% difference in the 00 track gauge.

 

Martin. 

[Grovenor]

 

There are lots of things in a model railway for which there is no matching prototype -- even P4 has 2" flangeway gaps instead of 1.75". That's a 14% difference -- more than the 12% difference in the 00 track gauge.

Indeed we all compromise in lots of ways, but we don't usually try to claim we are modelling an imaginary prototype with 2" flangeways, just that that discrepancy is our chosen compromise, just as 16.5 mm gauge to represent UK std guage is a chosen compromise, and putting electric motors in a steam engine is a chosen compromise, not modelling of a different prototype.

Regards

[martin_wynne]

but we don't usually try to claim we are modelling an imaginary prototype with 2" flangeways

 

I would. It's a much more satisfying approach, lets you exercise your engineering skills, and doesn't require any compromise at all.

 

Martin.

[Derekstuart]

Chaps, can you possibly hold up any argument on these points for 20 mins or so. I am going for pizza, popcorn and lager.

 

Then sit back for an evening's entertainment.

[LooseHead]

Studied all those fine photographs looking hard for a K-crossing, which I thought was the point of the debate, but apart from the street track (where I presume the cars are expected to run on their flanges, as per the prototype) I'm finding it hard to pick one out - indeed, some of the formations seem to have gone to strange lengths to avoid one (but please correct me and point them out if I've just missed them). Have to feel sorry for that poor old F-84G, though, stuck on an unpaved surface when it had one of the highest ground pressures of the early jets = should be sunk in up to its tip-tanks by now. Less sure about the Albatross, although most amphibians need a pretty solid surface when out of the water - more struck by ts wing-floats being seriously under-developed, is that an example of applying DOGA standards?

[RichardS]

I can't wait for people to eat Pizza! :-)

 

As a relative novice still investigating this whole subject I was surprised to read the following answer to a question on the Ultrascale Wheels website in their FAQs.   

 

What is 'OO' Fine scale?

'OO' Fine scale is the standard to which we manufacture our 'OO' wheel sets. These sets use the same track gauge as 'OO' (16.5mm) together with our 'OO'/E.M. wheel profile. This means that they are not suitable for out of the box 'set track' and should only be used for fine scale track work like Peco code 75 and code 100 as well as other fine scale track. (my italics and u/l)

 

(Me again) Following on John's and others' comments regarding what "fine-scale" is I found the allusion to PECO as 'finescale' quite surprising especially as I regard Ultrascale as one of the high-end manufacturers. After all a set of wheels from them can cost more than a Loco and you have to wait 6 months in to the bargain. (I think I've read the website correctly.)  



  

Personally, I don't like the word 'fine-scale' as it tends to have an elitist edge to it and unfortunately can be misused to imply greater quality to the overall result when in reality one is faced with a quite modest creation. Yes, you can use specialist track to a specialist gauge but if the rest of the model is a pile of walrus poo - well you know what I mean. 

 

A high quality model of a railway does not need vague and undefinable adjectives to speak for it. If an observer cannot see the difference for whatever reason - and many will not - between it and one which is more 'run-of-the-mill' then they probably won't be interested anyway.

 

I know that if a layout is described as P4, then I should (should; mark you) see something which is of a higher quality OVERALL. But of course this isn't always the case and sometimes one is disappointed, whereas, the undefined OO layout in the corner might be a little gem. (I offer Bredon as an example. Remember that? Set track if I recall but still one of my muses along with many other fine creations of all sorts that I have found since.)

 

I shall be trawling Warley looking for all the hand built OO gauge track on layouts and mercilessly grilling the operators about their standards

 

It's a wide world.

 

regards

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ravenser]

The BRMSB standard and the DOGA standard both do not add up correctly.

 

To quote from the scale four society's web page "It is clear from the Study Group's investigations that the BRMSB standards lack the basic dimensions to ensure complete reliability, i.e., standard wheel and rail contours designed to work together. Secondly the BRMSB dimensions can be shown to be critical in certain situations, and in the case of TT3, clearly defective. Under these circumstances, the Model Engineering Trade Association's task is indeed a thankless one."

 

The many layouts shown no doubt use track dimensions that are close to BRMSB dimensions,  but do not match either standard in ALL dimensions.

 

I would suspect most of the layouts you used as as examples have more chance of complying fully with the AMRA HO intermediate standard or the old NEM than the DOGA 00 standard.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

Terry:

 

I'm afraid you don't quite understand what you are quoting , or its context, never mind actual standards used on OO layouts on the British exhibition circuit. 

 

A paragraph of very general comments , half a century old, doesn't actually help your argument.

 

There's no doubt that the BRMSB OO wheel standard did not quite match the BRMSB OO track standard. I would accept that a Romford wheelset (which is to the BRMSB OO wheel standard) might well experience drop in on a 1:12 crossing - though the actual drop will be very very slight. In that respect  I'd accept the MRSG quote

 

 

 Secondly the BRMSB dimensions can be shown to be critical in certain situations

 

(In the historical context , they were probably trying to suggest that the then EM gauge standard , drawn up by the BRMSB in 1941-2, was unsatisfactory and should be replaced by their P4 standard)

 

However RP25/110 is slightly broader than the BRMSB OO wheel , and is a perfect fit for BRMSB OO track. There's no wheel drop if the maximum flangeway is 1.27mm or less . BRMSB OO is 1.25mm - DOGA OO-Intermediate permits flangeways in the range 1.25mm-1.15mm

 

The MRSG was probably also criticising the BRMSB dimensions as untoleranced

 

Most importantly in all cases with wheels to either BRMSB OO or Intermediate the checkrails are properly operative  (Wheels commonly known as RP25/110 and Romfords..). Slight dropin under certain circumstances could be tolerated (if you have to use Romfords as "nearest equivalent")- checkrails that don't do their job are a much more serious problem  with genuine consequences

 

What your quote does not support is your claim that it isn't possible to build complex pointwork to 16.5mm gauge with 1.25mm flangeways, and that such pointwork won't work if you build it

 

To be honest I think you've made the same objection to every 16.5mm gauge track standard you've ever come across, and therefore you're implicitly claiming that complex pointwork can't be built successfully in 16.5mm gauge at all. Nobody in Britain will buy that. We've seen it done in practice far too often

 

(I've got a 16.5mm gauge single slip on my own layout. To borrow a notorious phrase "It works just fine")  

 

Very few people in Britain work to 16.2mm gauge - most of them have probably posted in this or associated threads . Next to nobody has heard of the NEM track standard. Most British modellers think that NEM is the name of a type of socket for couplings. Those layouts are all , to the very best of my knowledge, handbuilt OO track to BRMSB OO standard  

 

P.S:  Does the AMRA still recognise 16.5mm as the track gauge for standard gauge Australian outline in HO . Or have you used your position as AMRA Secretary to "derecognise" 16.5mm gauge for HO in Australia? And has the hobby at large followed that lead?

[Ravenser]

 

 

As a relative novice still investigating this whole subject I was surprised to read the following answer to a question on the Ultrascale Wheels website in their FAQs.   

 

What is 'OO' Fine scale?

'OO' Fine scale is the standard to which we manufacture our 'OO' wheel sets. These sets use the same track gauge as 'OO' (16.5mm) together with our 'OO'/E.M. wheel profile. This means that they are not suitable for out of the box 'set track' and should only be used for fine scale track work like Peco code 75 and code 100 as well as other fine scale track. (my italics and u/l)

 

(Me again) Following on John's and others' comments regarding what "fine-scale" is I found the allusion to PECO as 'finescale' quite surprising especially as I regard Ultrascale as one of the high-end manufacturers. After all a set of wheels from them can cost more than a Loco and you have to wait 6 months in to the bargain. (I think I've read the website correctly.)  



  

 

..........

 

 

regards

Richard

 

There are moments when you start to despair, and reading Ultrascale's comments is one of them....

 

I think there are 2 things on which Martin and I can agree whole heartedly

 

- in no sense can Peco Streamline be called "finescale"; and

 

- Ultrascale wheels will not run particularly well on it (especially when set to 14.8mm  B2B) , and they are NOT recommended for use on Peco track   

 

Even worse, you could read that as supporting the use of Ultrascale wheels on Setrack (which is code100). They'll derail about 30-40% of the time. You'll end up scrapping your layout

 

One obvious reason for having a OO-Finescale standard is that it stops this kind of misuse of language, and points out what track you actually need to run Ultrascale wheels reliably 

 

Yes, that's the price and yes the wait is now 6 months...... 

 

Personally I' d strongly advise leaving well alone with modern RTR diesel and electric traction - do not rewheel with Ultrascales, keep the RP25/110 wheels they came with  unless changing to EM or P4