C&L Finescale

[hayfield]

I don’t get fussed about wheel and track standards , if you think OO is bad try O , and find the same mess , it’s simple really

 

In OO you have a couple of choices

 

DOGA intermediate , and accept wheel drop

DOGA fine , and change you wheels / and or B2B , arguably a worthless move because you might as well go EM

OO-SF which produces a very acceptable compromise if you wish to stay in the OO camp

 

In my view , speaking as someone who is a scalefour member , and has built P4 track , it’s quite a lot of work to convert to that track standard and in many cases the gains over EM are small and issues can be large

 

Bemoaning where RTR is re track and the continuation of using HO track is a useless activity , the reality is that something like SF pointwork and chaired bullhead plain track 00 rail, like the new PECO , can produce track that upon inspection ( and after careful ballastingband weathering etc) by the ordinary “ eye” , looks very good indeed

 

Dave

 

 

Dave

 

For my own purposes I do agree with you about EM being an easier set of standards to work to when migrating from 00 gauge, for me a bit of a no brainer as I have mostly kit built items which can be easily built or converted to EM gauge, plus I will not be building a large layout with plenty of RTR stock of varying age. However had I decided to stay with 00 gauge I would have built my track to 00SF standards and ensured the wheels on my stock were totally compatible with 00SF 

 

If modellers had not bemoned about ready to run H0 track being used for 4 mm scale then Peco would not have taken any notice. True in the past ignoring the ranges that ceased we had 3 suppliers of 4 mm scale 00 gauge track, but it was not until Peco's introduction of firstly flexi track, then a pair of turnouts soon to be joined by 3 crossings that better scale track has become mainstream. Modellers now justify paying over £100 for locos and £50 for coaches because they want highly detailed models with few compromises, now they want track to complement their models 

 

You are also very right about how high quality ballasting and weathering can hide a myriad of sins, but not from all viewing angles and certainly not improving the running qualities. In the end H0 track is H0 no matter how you try to disguise it, as are coarse scale standards, which not only looks out of place by affects running qualities. Now if you are happy accepting this then that's fine.

 

2 years ago the main comment about wanting better looking track was "why bother" Now we have a small but growing band of discerning modellers demanding a track system to compliment the quality of locos, rolling stock and buildings they can buy off the shelf, added to that some are far more concerned with how the stock performs, looking good whilst in action

[sharris]

I thought I might canvass opinions on various forums before making the final decision...…………………..

 

  Andy, can we have a 'Here be dragons' icon on RMWeb? 

[martin_wynne]

I have had this clarification from Tony Wright ....

 

Thanks Tim.

 

I believe Norman Soloman for 00 uses 16.5mm gauge with 1.1mm flangeways. In other words his own standard half-way between DOGA-Intermediate and DOGA-Fine, with a check gauge of 15.4mm and a check span of 14.3mm.

 

This is borne out by Tony Wright's comments:

Romford/Markits/Jackson wheels run fine -- At 2.5mm wide they would do (although a wider back to back than 14.5mm would run better).

Gibson wheels are not so good -- At 2.3mm wide they wouldn't be. 1.1mm flangeways are borderline for such wheels, allowing for a blunt nose on the crossing and typical rail top section and wheel profile chamfers. The same applies to Ultrascale, EMGS, and other RP25/88-like wheels 2.3mm wide.

RTR wheels often need widening -- On a check span of 14.3mm they would do.

 

In the past I've been tempted to include this standard in Templot (00-MF, modified fine?). It's sole claim over 00-SF is that it preserves the 16.5mm gauge, which is a matter of religious belief for some 00 modellers (but actually has no prototype meaning at all at 4mm/ft scale), I haven't included it because there are surely enough 00 standards already, and anyone contemplating it would almost certainly do better to use 00-SF instead -- then all kit wheels run fine, and RTR wheels are less critical and few if any would need widening.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks for the explanation Martin.

 

I still think that having a look at Tony's track work shows how good a 00 gauge track set up can look.

 

Admittedly looking straight down the tracks in close up photos, to a P4 eye the narrowness jars somewhat, but for all intents and purposes when viewing such a large scale layout from operating distances, the impact of the gauge is minimal and it is the flowing lines and correct sleeper spacing that gives a good sense of realism and authenticity.

[Junctionmad]

In the end H0 track is H0 no matter how you try to disguise it, as are coarse scale standards, which not only looks out of place by affects running qualities. Now if you are happy accepting this then that's fine.

 

 

 

I’ve seen p4 layouts that ran poorly and couldn’t seem to keep stock on the rails at times and OO that ran beautifully , I don’t think the gauge has much to do with it , actually

 

Dave

[Finsbury]

I’ve seen p4 layouts that ran poorly and couldn’t seem to keep stock on the rails at times and OO that ran beautifully , I don’t think the gauge has much to do with it , actually

Dave

That wins the internet for the most obvious statement. Have an 'informative'.

[hayfield]

I’ve seen p4 layouts that ran poorly and couldn’t seem to keep stock on the rails at times and OO that ran beautifully , I don’t think the gauge has much to do with it , actually

 

Dave

 

 

Dave

 

Poor track laying has nothing to do with either gauge od scale, During a 2 day show organised by the Watford and District MRC we had a reasonably sized 00 gauge layout using RTR track where the standard of track laying in one area led to constand derailments during the first day. Thankfully for the operator it was where the scenic and non-scenic areas met, A frantic bit of relaying track occurred between closing and re-opening the next morning.

 

Yes when building a P4 layout both quality of building must be at a higher standard and better quality components must be used. An example again with the same club an early P4 layout was built using chipboard as a base, which warped over time, also steel rivets were used in track building, some of which over time rusted

 

As a rule of thumb, badly built and or laid track will perform badly. Track designed and built to higher standards (build quality and standards) with complementing wheelsets will perform better. Simply any system is as good as its weakest link 

 

Regarding to my comment on H0 track, this was what was being said by those 00 gauge modellers wanting better quality 00 gauge RTR track. 

 

The reason I went into track building was that the 00 products available looked wrong both in scale and design, also operation could be improved simply by tightening up on both track and wheel standards.

 

Why then is accepting putting H0 scale coaches behind an 00 gauge loco is wrong, but its not wrong putting 00 gauge stock on H0 scale track, 

Edited September 8, 2018 by hayfield

[PenrithBeacon]

...

Yes when building a P4 layout both quality of building must be at a higher standard and better quality components must be used. An example again with the same club an early P4 layout was built using chipboard as a base, which warped over time, also steel rivets were used in track building, some of which over time rusted

 

...

So which layout was this, John? As a member of the W&DMRC I can only remember one P4 layout, Callowland, which is now in the possession of the NLG, and hasn't ever had problems with baseboard warping

[hayfield]

So which layout was this, John? As a member of the W&DMRC I can only remember one P4 layout, Callowland, which is now in the possession of the NLG, and hasn't ever had problems with baseboard warping

 

Mike's Eion Bridge, it was built much earlier, the baseboards were rebuilt long before my time. The thing is. it was built in the 70's and as far as chipboard was concerned no problems were envisaged, and the original rivets from Studiolith if my memory is correct were steel which dislikes flux, certainly I have both steel and NS rivets in my tin. Steep learning curves with some new products and processes. Think of Triang plastic coaches which now fail the EU curved banana test !!

 

Callowland had the usual ply and rivet issues with the odd solder joint failing, and if track cleaning was too vigorous the odd half chair came adrift

[muddys-blues]

Sorry to say but if someone sees Phil, can they kindly ask him to look at his emails, really what is the point of having an email address if the owner doesn't bother to look at it ? as that is what Phil told me when I spoke to him the other day chasing up an order I paid for over 3 weeks ago, the order arrived yesterday, but part of it is wrong ...... if he is snowed under, get some help then.

 

7mm modellers don't really have much choice in track building UK outline track, but my recent experience with C&L has tested my patience somewhat !!! lets see how long it takes to rectify the mistake.

 

Best regards

Craig.

[sharris]

Think of Triang plastic coaches which now fail the EU curved banana test

I thought they were made like that so they would go round the set-track tight radius curves.

[hayfield]

I thought they were made like that so they would go round the set-track tight radius curves.

 

But loop the loop is for fairgrounds not railways

[Junctionmad]

Dave

 

Poor track laying has nothing to do with either gauge od scale, During a 2 day show organised by the Watford and District MRC we had a reasonably sized 00 gauge layout using RTR track where the standard of track laying in one area led to constand derailments during the first day. Thankfully for the operator it was where the scenic and non-scenic areas met, A frantic bit of relaying track occurred between closing and re-opening the next morning.

 

Yes when building a P4 layout both quality of building must be at a higher standard and better quality components must be used. An example again with the same club an early P4 layout was built using chipboard as a base, which warped over time, also steel rivets were used in track building, some of which over time rusted

 

As a rule of thumb, badly built and or laid track will perform badly. Track designed and built to higher standards (build quality and standards) with complementing wheelsets will perform better. Simply any system is as good as its weakest link 

 

Regarding to my comment on H0 track, this was what was being said by those 00 gauge modellers wanting better quality 00 gauge RTR track. 

 

The reason I went into track building was that the 00 products available looked wrong both in scale and design, also operation could be improved simply by tightening up on both track and wheel standards.

 

Why then is accepting putting H0 scale coaches behind an 00 gauge loco is wrong, but its not wrong putting 00 gauge stock on H0 scale track,

 

I wasn’t specifically referring to track laying , I was countering your post that 00 provides poor running while P4 is better , P4 most certainly “ looks “ better , but good OO is just as good at running and bad P4 is really terrible.

 

Let’s not descend into the why have we 16.5mm track for 4mm/foot models , we all know it’s an accident of history.

[hayfield]

Dave

 

Its not the gauge which is at fault, its the fact that the tolerances used by the gauge were designed for the use of much coarser wheels than those available on RTR items today, and the visual appearance of what has been available 

 

Totally agree that anything which is well built/installed will work better than a badly built or installed item.

 

Standards of the wheels RTR stock are now fitted with have moved on and are much finer than the tolerances which are used on the RTR track available today. 

 

Secondly we now have locos and rolling stock which are far more visually accurate now that ever before, sadly this cannot be said for most of the track being sold

 

Not saying don't use 00, but lets improve the standard of what we use in these two areas

[Ian J.]

Am I right in thinking the key component of good running turnouts (which seems to be where many problems occur in handbuilt track) is the check rail gap vs wheel thickness?

[Jol Wilkinson]

Others may go into more specific detail, but in my experience it is using a set of consistent and matching wheel/track standards. No one "standard" works in isolation.

 

And what is wheel thickness? Tread width, flange width and profile, overall wheel width, all of these combined? 

[hayfield]

Am I right in thinking the key component of good running turnouts (which seems to be where many problems occur in handbuilt track) is the check rail gap vs wheel thickness?

 

Ian

 

Martin Wynne is one of the more knowledgeable members in this area, from my understanding its a combination of both wheel design and back to back settings.

[Ian J.]

Others may go into more specific detail, but in my experience it is using a set of consistent and matching wheel/track standards. No one "standard" works in isolation.

 

And what is wheel thickness? Tread width, flange width and profile, overall wheel width, all of these combined? 

 

I suppose I mean tread width, from where I was coming from, as is that not fundamental to whether the wheel can comfortably cover the gap at the nose of the turnout? I think my original statement includes the idea of both track and wheel standards having to be compatible, as it covers both the check rail gap and the wheel thickness.

[Jol Wilkinson]

One of the most obvious differences I noticed when I first built some P4 track was the fact that the wheels didn't drop at all at the crossing vee, something I always experienced with 00. But then, it wan't until I took up P4 that I actually became aware that track/wheel standards (other than gauge) actually were important, because I had never read anything to that effect in the mainstream magazines.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Jol Wilkinson

[Guy Rixon]

Am I right in thinking the key component of good running turnouts (which seems to be where many problems occur in handbuilt track) is the check rail gap vs wheel thickness?

 

Not exactly. The distance between the outer face of the check rail and the inner face of running rail opposite has to suit the distance from the back of a wheel flange to the front of the flange on the opposite wheel. It's not just that the flanges have to small enough to fit through the flangeway.

 

As Jol says, it's a whole suite of related dimensions that have to be compatible. 

[Ian J.]

Not exactly. The distance between the outer face of the check rail and the inner face of running rail opposite has to suit the distance from the back of a wheel flange to the front of the flange on the opposite wheel. It's not just that the flanges have to small enough to fit through the flangeway.

 

As Jol says, it's a whole suite of related dimensions that have to be compatible. 

 

That's it. If I remember rightly, isn't this called the 'wheel check gauge'? And it applies both to the track and wheels, as you've illustrated. I think I was trying to sum it up in a more succinct form.

[martin_wynne]

Am I right in thinking the key component of good running turnouts (which seems to be where many problems occur in handbuilt track) is the check rail gap vs wheel thickness?

 

Hi Ian,

 

It has been explained many times on RMweb and the full details are at: http://4-sf.uk/

 

 

 

A is the check gauge. It is the most critical dimension in pointwork. If this dimension is too small, wheels running from left to right can hit the nose of the vee and very likely derail, or at least bump. If this dimension is too large, the wheel backs will bind or jam on the check rail. To make sure it's correct, the check rail is set using check gauge tools. For 4-SF and 00-BF this dimension should be 15.2mm. You can use the same check gauge tools for both these standards (they are both running the same wheels).

 

B is the crossing flangeway gap. It's also important. If this dimension is too small, the wheel backs will bind or jam on the wing rail. If this dimension is too large, the gap in front of the nose of the vee will be too wide, and the wheels may drop into it with a bump. This gap is set using a small piece of metal shim called a crossing flangeway gauge shim. For 4-SF it should be 1.0mm thick. For 00-BF it should be 1.3mm thick.

 

C is the track gauge. It shouldn't be less than the specified dimension, but it can be wider. It is often widened on sharply curved track to ease the running of long-wheelbase vehicles. The track gauge is normally set using roller gauge tools, or alternatively using a 3-point gauge tool, which automatically widens the track gauge on sharp curves. For 4-SF this dimension shouldn't be less than 16.2mm. For 00-BF it is normally 16.5mm.

 

D is the check rail gap. The width of this gap doesn't matter, providing it is wider than the wheel flanges. It's whatever you end up with after setting A and C correctly.

 

 

The problems in 00 are constantly exaggerated by those trying to promote EM and P4. If you take the same care in 00 as is needed in EM and P4 it works just as reliably, and without wheels dropping into crossing gaps.

 

The big advantage in 00 is that you can buy models ready-to-run. The disadvantage is that it is modelled on a gauge of 4ft-1.5in, which is not used on the prototype in the UK. 00 is not running on H0 track, 00 has its own 4ft-1.5in track modelled at 4mm/ft.

 

H0 has its own track, based on 4ft-8.5in gauge modelled at 3.5mm/ft. If you run 00 models on H0 track it looks daft. This silly combination is usually described as 00/H0, not 00.

 

Martin.

Edited September 9, 2018 by martin_wynne

[Junctionmad]

I’m not sure what people are arguing about here. If you lay track to DOGA intermediate , then in certain ( many ) cases you will have wheel drop and or considerable slop in the b2b which can make using “finer “couplings more problematic. I don’t think any of this should be of any surprise to anyone at this stage

 

But 1000s of modelers are happy with a certain amount of wheel drop and in most cases it does not cause any practical issues , as a result well laid standard 00 track ( ie 16.5 mm) gives good running

 

If you want better running in OO , you can close up the pointwork, using either different wheels and or back to back changes , you can also use OO-SF which essentially trades check rail gap for flangeway gap ( ie non symmetrical ) this supports the wheel through the crossing , without changes to wheel standards or B2B

 

After that it’s EM or P4 depending on the level of self flagalation you prefer , however there not much if any improvement in running qualities , once you have supported the wheel through the crossing , ie OO-SF , all EM and P4 is improve the “ look” of a particular aspect of the track, while placing , the case of P4 far more emphasis on tolerances which when not adhered to can result in poorer running then 00-SF

 

 

Note that 16.5mm track in 4mm , despite Martins oft claim IS NOT an attempt to model a non existing gauge , it’s merely an “ underscale “ representation of the prototype , no more then reducing platform lengths or using 2’6” as a ruling radius that the prototype wouldn’t attempt in a Dock siding , it’s merely “ modelers license “

 

Making your track “ look” better is a different subject entirely , and has more to do worth ballasting , weathering , etc

 

Dave

Edited September 9, 2018 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

If you lay track to DOGA intermediate , then in certain ( many ) cases you will have wheel drop

 

Hi Dave,

 

That's not true and I don't think it is fair to beginners to suggest otherwise.

 

If you use DOGA-Intermediate for what it is intended, the running of RTR models, it works just fine and there is no wheel drop.

 

It is only when DOGA-Intermediate is used with finer kit wheels where problems arise. DOGA-Intermediate is not promoted by DOGA for such use.

 

 

you can also use 00-SF which essentially trades check rail gap for flangeway gap ( ie non symmetrical )

 

 

00-SF is not non-symmetrical. The nominal flangeway gap and check rail gap are the same, 1.0mm. Use of non-symmetrical standards can cause problems in complex pointwork such as tandem turnouts.

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Hi Dave,

 

That's not true and I don't think it is fair to beginners to suggest otherwise.

 

If you use DOGA-Intermediate for what it is intended, the running of RTR models, it works just fine and there is no wheel drop.

 

It is only when DOGA-Intermediate is used with finer kit wheels where problems arise. DOGA-Intermediate is not promoted by DOGA for such use.

 

 

 

 

 

00-SF is not non-symmetrical. The nominal flangeway gap and check rail gap are the same, 1.0mm. Use of non-symmetrical standards can cause problems in complex pointwork such as tandem turnouts.

 

Martin.

I said in “ certain “ cases you may have wheel drop , and you will experience wheel drop on DOGA intermediate from certain RTR wheels. Anyone you has used a full gamut of what we loosely define as rtr will experience wheel drop , I’ve seen it myself

 

As for OO-SF, what I meant was that the gauging process pays no attention per se to the check rail gap , and the reduction in overall gauge is to facilitate an equal gap , my use of the term non symmetrical was incorrect