Mark Laidlay Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 I am planning to build some H0 scale Standard Gauge turnouts with the gauge set at 16.2mm at the crossing (out to 16.5 for the rest). The crossing angle is 1:10.5. This will reduce the gap between the stock rail and the check rail on both routes thus improving appearance. I I know that are some 4mm scale users doing similar, any issues when using NMRA (110 mainly) wheels properly gauged? Mark in Melbourne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 12, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 12, 2019 Hi Mark, No issues if the code110 wheels are set to the normal 14.4mm back-to-back. Use the 00-SF standard, i.e. use the standard 00 15.2mm check gauge. This means your flangeway gaps will be 1.0mm. Gauges available from C&L and DCC Concepts. There is also the H0-SF standard from AMRA/Terry Flynn which uses 16.25mm gauge with 1.05mm flangeways. Fractionally more tolerant of back-to-back variations. (Not used in the UK because "EM minus 1.95" doesn't sound so good. ) cheers, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 I'm coming late to this topic, but am wondering why the incorrect statement that normal HO BB is 14.4 mm? RTR HO has a Standard in which the BB dimension is specified as 14.38 MIN thru 14.61 MAX. RTR HO models can therefore be expected to have their wheel BB's set anywhere in that range. Thus there is a serious issue of unmodified out of the box RTR HO model wheels striking the frog vee on a continuous basis.. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 It does depend on which H0 you are using, the NMRA is not the only standards organisation. https://www.morop.org/downloads/nem/de/nem310_d.pdf Rgds 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 20, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Grovenor said: It does depend on which H0 you are using, the NMRA is not the only standards organisation. https://www.morop.org/downloads/nem/de/nem310_d.pdf And also: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 I'm not sure what the point of quoting the other Standards is? MOROP BB 14.4 mm MIN, 14.6 MAX DOGA BB 14.35 MIN 14.45 MAX None of them are set to 14.4 mm, so all have ranges that break the 00-SF dimensions limit and presumably all will Scrape the Frog Vee if the OP follows the use 00-SF advice and has a 15.2 mm CK. Unless he alters all his BB settings to 14.4 mm MAX. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2019 47 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said: so all have ranges that break the 00-SF dimensions limit and presumably all will Scrape the Frog Vee if the OP follows the use 00-SF advice and has a 15.2 mm CK. Unless he alters all his BB settings to 14.4 mm MAX. Hi Andy, Yes they will, but only by a fraction, and ONLY if the flange thickness is on the 0.8mm MAX. In practice most current RTR production flanges are thinner than max. But setting to 14.4mm max back-to-back cures any problems which do arise. I don't know how many times I have to say this -- 00-SF was devised in the early 1970s as "EM minus 2". At that time it was not intended for RTR. It was never intended to be compatible with NMRA standards. At no time in the last 50 years has anyone ever claimed that it is. It was intended for kit wheels such as Romford/Markits, and EMGS-profile wheels (close to RP25/88). Which models used to be called "Scale 00" to differentiate them from RTR trains (which at that time were children's toys). I have a Peco booklet called "Starting in Scale 00" dating from that time. I will look it out and maybe scan a few pages, copyright permitting. Subsequently, in recent times it has been found that modern RTR runs very nicely on 00-SF, provided some care is taken to check back-to-backs and correct any rogue wheelsets. RTR runs equally well on 00-BF and DOGA-Intermediate of course, but running it on 00-SF offers 3 advantages which make taking a bit of care over back-to-backs worthwhile -- a. you can mix it with kit wheels on the same track without any bumpy running, and b. the narrower flangeway gaps look much better, and c. C&L can supply ready-made V-crossing (frog) assemblies having 1.0mm flangeways (originally intended for EM, they don't do wider 1.3mm flangeways). In practice many users report that their modern RTR models run just fine on 00-SF without needing any attention to back-to-backs. Your constant disparaging of 00-SF is getting a bit tiresome. It is not and never was engineered to be remotely relevant to RTR mass-production, or to comply with NMRA or any other standards. It is solely for handbuilt track in home workshops by modellers who prefer to do their own thing. Almost everyone who has tried 00-SF has been well-pleased with the results, so it's not clear what you are trying to achieve. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Standards are interrelated sets of dimensions with specific tolerances. It's the interrelationship that makes them work. Alter one dimension and/or it's tolerance and you must alter any others needed to maintain the relationships. That makes the result at least a different standard and any inter-operating compatibility with the original standard is usually lost. Worse, if you don't maintain the relationships, you won't end up with a safely working standard at all. It's purely a numbers game. It's what keep trains on track. No amount of speeches, promotion or optimism will make wrong numbers work right. The OP asked about a making modification to HO that isn't in the HO standard. I just ran the numbers you inserted in to the topic. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2019 The OP explained what he intended to do and asked for some advice. I provided what I believed and still believe is helpful information. The OP didn't say that he was intending to set up an RTR manufacturing plant and sell his products worldwide, certified to comply with international standards. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 On 21/12/2019 at 08:50, Andy Reichert said: It's purely a numbers game. It certainly is and the difference between 14.38 mm and 14.40 mm is less than one thou! Not only that the NMRA "target" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is six thou greater. I don't think there's going to be a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 9 hours ago, AndyID said: It certainly is and the difference between 14.38 mm and 14.40 mm is less than one thou! Not only that the NMRA "target" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is six thou greater. I don't think there's going to be a problem. So how much breaking the standard is going to be wrong? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 27, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 27, 2019 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said: So how much breaking the standard is going to be wrong? To answer that you need to know 2 things: 1. whether you claimed to be complying with a standard, and in which case, 2. which standard you are referring to. The OP is in Australia, so if we are going to break a standard, this one seems to be the one to have a go at: https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/finewheeltrack.pdf From which for H0 (correctly shown as such, not HO): page 2: Flange thickness 0.7mm MAX -- same as Romford/Markits wheels Back-to-back 14.5mm MAX -- same as 00-SF for Romford/Markits wheels page 5: check gauge: 15.2mm MIN -- same as 00-SF track gauge: 16.2mm MIN -- same as 00-SF Martin. Edited December 27, 2019 by martin_wynne 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 That was sarcasm Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Given the OPs question was specifically about crossings you should be quoting page 4 for minimum gauge, not page 5. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neil Posted December 27, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said: So how much breaking the standard is going to be wrong? Andy None of it will be wrong; it's a hobby and we can do as we please. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 On 12/08/2019 at 11:35, martin_wynne said: There is also the H0-SF standard from AMRA/Terry Flynn which uses 16.25mm gauge with 1.05mm flangeways. Fractionally more tolerant of back-to-back variations. (Not used in the UK because "EM minus 1.95" doesn't sound so good. ) 1 hour ago, martin_wynne said: The OP is in Australia, so if we are going to break a standard, this one seems to be the one to have a go at: https://amra.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/finewheeltrack.pdf Is this the same standard that you were referring to earlier, since I note that in each case the H0 is still EM-2. I'm just not sure why the minimum gauge for plain track is listed as 16.2 mm (page 5), but the minimum for crossings is quoted as 16.25 mm (page 4). I'd have assumed that the minimum would be based in the radius - ie the radius would determine whether gauge widening from 16.2 mm is required. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 27, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 27, 2019 31 minutes ago, Dungrange said: Is this the same standard that you were referring to earlier, since I note that in each case the H0 is still EM-2. I'm just not sure why the minimum gauge for plain track is listed as 16.2 mm (page 5), but the minimum for crossings is quoted as 16.25 mm (page 4). I'd have assumed that the minimum would be based in the radius - ie the radius would determine whether gauge widening from 16.2 mm is required. Hi David, Only Terry Flynn at AMRA can answer that. He always refers to it as H0-SF at 16.25mm gauge/1.05mm flangeway (as shown in Templot for H0-SF). The difference between the 2 pages is a mystery to me, since "check gauge" is mostly relevant to crossings. Either way it is 15.2mm MIN, which is the critical dimension. When I asked him about the gauge difference, his reply was that it related to the manufacture of the track gauges, in that there is no 3-point gauge available. cheers, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 7 hours ago, Neil said: None of it will be wrong; it's a hobby and we can do as we please. Agreed. Just so long as you don't suggest what non-standard stuff works for you, then works for everyone else. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Terry always referred to his own standard as an alternative to the NMRA HO Fine. A different gauge But with the same name it was much later that he took it to the AMRA and it became their fine standard i It's actually redundant because it is merely a subset of the existing ho standard if you want narrower flange ways. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 14 hours ago, AndyID said: The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. Fortunately for 16.5 millimeter gauge there are only two in widespread use. HO and whatever 00 now is. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 28, 2019 33 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said: Fortunately for 16.5 millimeter gauge there are only two in widespread use. HO and whatever 00 now is. Hi Andy, Have you given up on Proto87? Also there are several narrow-gauge options using 16.5mm gauge -- in 7mm/ft, 10mm/ft, 1:45, 1:64, 1:32 scales. The better versions of those use a wheel profile matching the scale, which often means handbuilt pointwork. p.s. millimetre is spelled like that. cheers, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 I seem to have settled on P4-2.33. What I think you are saying is that the better version of EM-2 therefore specificly uses EM size and profile Wheels. Just as EM does. Re the metric system, I'm bilingual, but Android voice wreck ignition isn't. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 Guys , the great thing about standards , is there are so many to choose from 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharris Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 29 minutes ago, Junctionmad said: Guys , the great thing about standards , is there are so many to choose from Modelling the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway would solve a lot of these problems. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now