Jump to content
 

A question about 'Finescale OO'


Recommended Posts

Perhaps an oxymoron but please bear with me. I was at the Peterborough show at the weekend and was after some wheels for a brake van I have been building. I should say that I'm a returning modeller after an absence of many years and things have changed! I have in the last few months acquired 3 locos - all current Hornby offerings - and have embarked upon a winter's construction of rolling stock. I already have snapped up some Peco Code 75 track and points and have plans well advanced. My question is, I am now confused as to what wheel and back-to-back standards I should be looking for. Or does Finescale refer to flange dimension.

 

Sorry for the simple question but I have been left confused after seeing different standard wheelsets at the weekend, both purporting to be 'OO'. Can some kind person put me right?

 

thanks in advance..

 

Hugh

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you just discovered what's wrong with "00" today.  I always thought it was supposed to be 4mm scale running on HO track, but that seems to have changed over the past coupla decades, presumably due a lack of technical understanding by UK manufacturers in particular.  HO (as defined by the US NMRA) has stayed pretty stable and problem free over the years. And checking out the wheel and track standards (and introduction) of their website will give you a better understanding of what matters and what reliable dimensions should be.  In the NMRA case correct HO wheels are 0.110" wide. Using narrower wheels requires matching track with narrower flange ways that AFAIK is not available commercially.

 

Finescale is marketing term that can be applied to anything at the whim of the writer.  My personal thoughts are that any model ystem that has a rigid chassis and relies instead on overscale depth flanges to keep the vehicles on practical model track is a "coarse" system, regardless of any other characteristics.

 

Andy

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Which is all very well as a polemic, but doesn’t answer the question.

 

This page might http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/

As another fairly recent returnee... do any of the RtR manufacturers actually adhere to those standards? - that isn't a loaded question!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both. Nearholmer, that is of great help, it makes a clear distinction between the and 14.8mm and 14.4mm wheel sets I saw that raised the question in my mind. So, to get to specifics, with my chosen track of Peco Code 75 and the 3 Hornby locos I already have on shed, where should I be looking? - At the 'Finescale' dimensions? As I say, I am about to embark on a period of stock building and want to get my wheel standards right fro the start. For instance, I have a number of Kean Maygib wheels in stock that go back aways (probably predating these standards) Should they be hurled into the night and replaced? I need to get a back to back gauge at least and want to get the 'right' one...

 

thanks for the responses so far...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Coming from many years ago I think the origin of fine scale in this sense was anything that would run on code 75 track without banging along the chairs. I recall it appearing when the Hornby tender drive started to reach the end. Those engines (mostly) wouldn't run very well on code 75 out the box, although I remember some schools classes being worked over lightly with reasonable results. What it means now I don't know other than it's more of a model than a toy?

 

Much like cars Audi's had the S line which was originally about performance then became trim package, Ford the Ztec/Ghia, BMW Sports... etc...

 

I guess you could say it's definitively not got triang pizza cutter wheels. I've used 'old' scale wheels as you mention on code 75 with no issues you just have to check the back to back but that is true of all wheels. If in doubt find a plastic RTR wagon that you can swap your wheel sets into to test them before you commit them to something precious.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, since you've already picked up Peco track and points, forget about the DOGA Fine standards and use the DOGA Intermediate standards.  What is important is that your track standards and wheel standards match.  The DOGA Fine standards are effectively as close as you can get to EM gauge standards, whilst sticking with the 16.5 mm track gauge.  That means adopting a 1 mm flange-way gap through the point and crossing work (same as EM gauge), and a correspondingly wider back-to-back dimension than ready-to-run 00 (which is typically 14.4 mm).  The wheels should technically be to the same profile as EM wheels, but just mounted 1.7 mm closer together on the axles.  If you want to work to this standard, you effectively need to build your own track.

 

Peco's turnouts and crossings are much closer to the DOGA Intermediate standard, which specifies a 1.2 mm flange-way gap.  I think the Peco turnouts are allegedly 1.25 mm but I'm not sure.  This means that you are looking for a back-to-back gauge that is around 14.4 or 14.5 mm depending on the profile of the wheels you are using.  As you have just discovered, "00" is not a consistent set of standards and the term "finescale" is often nothing more than a marketing term for something that looks closer to scale that our other product (such as Peco using the term to differentiate between their Code 100 and Code 75 ranges).

  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

...Finescale is marketing term that can be applied to anything at the whim of the writer.  My personal thoughts are that any model system that has a rigid chassis and relies instead on overscale depth flanges to keep the vehicles on practical model track is a "coarse" system, regardless of any other characteristics.

True indeed, OO for sure is 'coarse', as is HO. That the why of P4* and P87. (*Been there, worn that hair shirt, older and wiser, I just want to have fun.)

 

What is interesting is that my none to wonderful track laying of Peco code 100 streamline and various code 75 track products not only tolerates some 'deviant' product (see below) but yields the faultless operation I require. This suggests that the various standards are very conservative. Which is a sound principle for making sure that every wheelset stays on the rails, but does give those inclined to fiddle about (while having the aforementioned fun) some wiggle room.

 

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

As another fairly recent returnee... do any of the RtR manufacturers actually adhere to those standards? - that isn't a loaded question!

If we restrict it to currently active manufacturers only, then I can state that Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan and Hornby have definitely 'deviated' on product over the last 15 years. (Examples I am aware of listed, bear in mind that this is one person's very much partial sampling of what has been produced.)

 

Bachmann, class 55 outside end wheelsets, appear to be RP25/80. No ill effect on my code 75 and code 100 Streamline and appearance is enhanced.

 

Dapol, some very weird flange and tyre profiles have appeared on some wagon wheels, which fall off the track. Discard with extreme prejudice (the axles are OK).

 

Heljan, traction wheelsets have a significantly smaller flange depth than standard. No ill effect on my code 75 and code 100 Streamline and appearance is enhanced.

 

Hornby, there's some dire stuff produced from 'legacy' tooling which I have not purchased but have seen, and the item I have purchased from this 'legacy' category, the N2, has wheelsets with a very deep flange. (It is simple to reduce the flange depth however, and then all is well.)

 

1 hour ago, cabbie37 said:

...I have a number of Kean Maygib wheels in stock that go back aways (probably predating these standards) Should they be hurled into the night and replaced? I need to get a back to back gauge at least and want to get the 'right' one..

Personally I have never had any problems with 'kit' wheelsets bought since circa 1970 on current Peco code 75 and the Marcway, SMP and C&L OO products, beyond the occasional need to slightly adjust back to back. Some of the older kit wheelsets may need the flange depth slightly reduced, quick and simple to achieve.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just idle speculation from someone who models in H0 anyway, but would putting a bit of 0.2 mm (0.008 in) material on the side of the check rails turn a PECO point into Fine Standard?

Even if it would, I think I'd still stay with the Intermediate Standard as it will take most modern stock without adaptation. Plus I doubt if I could spot 0.2 mm difference anyway!

Edited by Ian Simpson
Changed "all modern stock" to "most" after reading about 34's experiences!
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Which is all very well as a polemic, but doesn’t answer the question.

 

This page might http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/

 

Unfortunately, my just acquired Hornby Gresley Suburbans don't comply with the DOGA Intermediate Standard. Wheel width is only 2.54 mm and BB is 14.25.

 

Andy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

To be honest,  I would not worry too much.  If you have bought peco code 75 track and you have bought recently manufactured locos, then you won't have problems. I have found the wheels supplied by the msinstream kit manufacturers (and both Parkside and ratio are owned by peco anyway) are perfectly ok. For kits supplied without wheels, then Alan Gibson etc will be perfect. 

The only time you need to worry is if you handbuild your own track.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

Just idle speculation from someone who models in H0 anyway, but would putting a bit of 0.2 mm (0.008 in) material on the side of the check rails turn a PECO point into Fine Standard?

 

Technically, I suppose the answer is yes, although you then have over width check rails.  The issue with adopting the DOGA Fine standards is that you need to adopt them fully.  That means since you have a track gauge of 16.5 mm, with 1 mm flange-way gaps, you have 14.5 mm between the functioning part of the check-rails, which means that any commercial stock with a back-to-back of 14.4 - 14.5 mm wouldn't pass through the gap between the check rails.  That therefore means you must re-wheel all stock to 00 'Finescale' standards.  I personally don't see the point - if you are prepared to re-wheel stock and build track, why not do to it to EM or P4 standards?  

 

However, if using commercial track and ready-to-run stock, then forget about 'Finescale' and either use the DOGA Intermediate standards or the NMRA standards for H0 when kit building.  Many manufacturers claim to use the NMRA RP25/110 wheel standards, but I'm not sure if that's the case or not - I suspect possibly not.  Some manufacturers products only partially comply with standards - the height of NEM pockets being another issue.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

Just idle speculation from someone who models in H0 anyway, but would putting a bit of 0.2 mm (0.008 in) material on the side of the check rails turn a PECO point into Fine Standard?

Even if it would, I think I'd still stay with the Intermediate Standard as it will take most modern stock without adaptation. Plus I doubt if I could spot 0.2 mm difference anyway!

 

Invisibility isn't the problem.  The key requirements of a standard are that the wheels don't fall into the crossing Vee gap and that the flanges don't run against the crossing Vee.  Either of those and you will get a significant number of apparently random random derailments and unrealistic jolts and noise when wheels traverse  the crossings. 

 

Andy

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

Invisibility isn't the problem.

 

Absolutely right, Andy, and my own post was sloppily worded.

I guess I was really saying: "since I can't spot a difference of 0.2 mm anyway, are Finescale Standards anything that returnees / new modellers need to worry about?" (But I didn't want to chuck that particular hand grenade into an interesting and for me very informative debate!)

Edited by Ian Simpson
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ian Simpson said:

I guess I was really saying: "since I can't spot a difference of 0.2 mm anyway, are Finescale Standards anything that returnees / new modellers need to worry about?"

 

I guess the answer is not really, if they are going to work with commercial ready to place / run products, which is probably the majority of modellers.  The standards applied by various manufacturers may not always be consistent and within specified tolerances, but most are probably close enough to the DOGA Intermediate standard that it won't matter much in practical terms.

 

However, if someone is thinking about moving to or adopting 00 Finescale standards (as per the DOGA Fine specification) then yes it is something that someone needs to be aware of.  Almost all ready to run stock WILL NOT be able to pass through a turnout built to the DOGA Fine standard.  0.2 mm may be a small distance, but this is the difference between something working and something not working.  Of course if anyone wants to adopt EM / 00 Finescale flange-way gaps without modifying ready-to-run stock, then there is always 00-SF or 4-SF, which uses a 16.2 mm track gauge.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One might try to define 'finescale' 00 as using RTR or kit stock built to 00 standards but replacing the couplings with scale and buffers with gently sprung so that the gap between vehicles can be kept to a scale distance.  This requires scale (or at least closer to scale) curves and turnouts, and correct transition curves, all of which require more space than a similar track plan executed in, well, in what? let's call it 'commercial scale' 00.  It also means that clearances can be tighter so that, for instance, curved platforms can be much closer to the proper scale distance from the rail centres because the end throw and centre draw in of long vehicles is less.  

 

There are fundamental problems with RTR standard 00 that cannot be resolved in this way.  The track gauge is still light years out, and the anomalies surrounding splashers, internal motion, and the correct place to hang the brakes are still there.  The manufacturers know what they are doing, though, and the compromises instituted all those years ago by Hornby Dublo and later Rovex Triang are a recognition of the indisputable fact that yer normal avrij punter didn't have enough space for his layout even then, and by and large has less now.  A system of standards suitable for domestic use in a typical home requires major compromises that the huge majority of customers are quite happy with.  The manufacturers could make models to much finer standards for very little extra cost (look at what they can achieve above the running plate); the only thing that matters about standards is that they are all the same (which is kinda what the word means), but sales would plummet as the huge majority of customers would have no room for even basic layouts.

 

I'm like most of us I guess; I try to get things as correct as I can within my budget and ability (and sometimes nearly succeed) (but not always), but have to live with compromises forced on me by space and the necessity to use tension lock couplers, as my hand/eye co-ordination is no longer up to scale couplings.  The tighter curves I have been able to use in my fiddle yard as a consequence have increased it's capacity from 4 roads to 7.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ikcdab said:

To be honest,  I would not worry too much.  If you have bought peco code 75 track and you have bought recently manufactured locos, then you won't have problems. I have found the wheels supplied by the msinstream kit manufacturers (and both Parkside and ratio are owned by peco anyway) are perfectly ok. For kits supplied without wheels, then Alan Gibson etc will be perfect. 

The only time you need to worry is if you handbuild your own track.  

I find kit wheels are usually better than RTR. It is easier to check b2bs on wheels before fitting than easing them out of the chassis if there is a problem, so I have got into a habit of checking them first with a DOGA intermediate b2b gauge. I should add that I have always found Romford wheels to be spot on.

 

RTR is another matter. They always seem to be wrong, usually requiring easing apart. My (then new) Hornby class 60 would consistently derail when passing through a crossover made from long radius code 75 Peco pointwork. I found narrow b2bs were the cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend not trying to define "finescale". First and foremost everyone else will have different ideas.  Secondly, any visual improvement is minimal compared to modelling  wheels and track close to their correct scale. (AKA as Proto- Scales).  Correct scale wheel width in 4mm is around 0.072" and in HO, 0.063". Scale flange way widths (1.75") are  0.023" in 4mm and 0.020" in HO.  Even Proto-Scales compromise a little on the flange ways, due to running clearances not scaling down proportionally.

 

IMHO, I can't honestly describe the idea of a 4mm scale flange way of 0.040" being "fine" when compared to the 0.023" of the scaled prototype or the 0.050" of RTR.

 

For anyone interested, my modelling goal is to make HO scale, Proto-87 and 4mm scale P4  become a just as easy to put together as  prresent day HO and 00 RTR.  It's pretty much there for diesel and electric modelling now, but still some ways away for steam.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Almost all RTR needs back-to-back checking, as I have found most are inside the 14.4 minimum to a lesser or greater degree, and a few are are outside the 14.5mm 'maximum'. I have noticed that Hornby tends to be most erratic when it comes to setting B2B. Fortunately it's normally possible to pull wheels out to the required B2B and not to have to replace them entirely. It helps of course to have wheel pullers/pushers, and correct B2B gauges.

 

Personally, I still prefer to pull wheels, even RTR ones, out to 14.7mm (or even 14.8), so that running on straight track is less 'wobbly'. But this does mean radii have to be far greater than set-track, with a 32"/812mm radii being my minimum.

Edited by Ian J.
speeling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

My personal thoughts are that any model system that has a rigid chassis and relies instead on overscale depth flanges to keep the vehicles on practical model track is a "coarse" system, regardless of any other characteristics.

 

Indeed Andy. Brian 'Baron' Harrap has always called it 'tinplate'!:biggrin_mini2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all. I seem to have provoked an interesting discussion - all of which has helped me greatly. If I've interpreted this all correctly, I should consider myself as having adopted the 'Intermediate' standards and that with my chosen track (Peco 75) and modern Hornby locos ('China' M7, 700, T9) I should have no issues. To be sure of that, I need to get the correct b2b gauge - such as this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/312009342235 and ensure that everything adheres to that standard. The existing wheelsets I have for the planned rolling stock should also be ok, but will be checked with the b2b to be certain.

 

As I say, I am a returning modeller from 30 years ago and, at that time, went down the EM route. But with modern R2R locos etc being of such high standard (compared to 30 years ago) and the abilty to buy code 75 track, rather than having to make my own EM, my decision was made..

 

Thanks once again..

 

Edit to add: Or indeed, the b2b here - http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm 

Edited by cabbie37
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Ian J. said:

Almost all RTR needs back-to-back checking, as I have found most are inside the 14.4 minimum to a lesser or greater degree, and a few are are outside the 14.5mm 'maximum'. I have noticed that Hornby tends to be most erratic when it comes to setting B2B. Fortunately it's normally possible to pull wheels out to the required B2B and not to have to replace them entirely. It helps of course to have wheel pullers/pushers, and correct B2B gauges.

 

Personally, I still prefer to pull wheels, even RTR ones, out to 14.7mm (or even 14.8), so that running on straight track is less 'wobbly'. But this does mean radii have to be far greater than set-track, with a 32"/812mm radii being my minimum.

 

Absolutely Ian! Correct BTB is an absolute requirement for decent running... its the first thing we do with any new stock

 

There are a few lurking in our videos - spot them if you can! Milk tanks are the worst - remember the day we hung our total available stock behind D200 for the Carlisle - Swindon milk at the Trainwest show and as the train came in to the scenic area of the layout a tank at the rear of the train derailed - and with D200 still applying traction each wagon in the train gently toppled over  towards the inside of the curve to the hilarity of the assembled throng and red faces from the operators! Instant yoghurt.... Lack of play in the centre axle of a 3 axle chassis was diagnosed as the cause....

Edited by Phil Bullock
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Invisibility isn't the problem.  The key requirements of a standard are that the wheels don't fall into the crossing Vee gap and that the flanges don't run against the crossing Vee.  Either of those and you will get a significant number of apparently random random derailments and unrealistic jolts and noise when wheels traverse  the crossings. 

 

Andy

Wheels falling into the crossing Vee gap  is what irritates me. all my latest Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol wagons do it. The points are all Peco code 100 so it must be the points that is the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cabbie37 said:

... I am a returning modeller from 30 years ago and, at that time, went down the EM route. But with modern R2R locos etc being of such high standard (compared to 30 years ago) and the abilty to buy code 75 track, rather than having to make my own EM, my decision was made...

I similarly made my return after a near 30 year absence, but this event now twenty years in the past! How time flies and all that, and I still very much enjoy the fruits of the 'transfusion' into OO of superior RTR HO technique that occurred when production shifted to China.

 

The M7 is a good example of the moment when Hornby 'hit their stride' in exploiting this technique. (Unfortunately the T9 came slightly earlier, and Hornby were still applying traction tyres, this also affects the V 4-4-0. Hornby now know how to make a tractively competent 4-4-0 without this affliction.) Enjoy! The M7 will almost certainly repay a little adjustment to the running gear.

 

12 hours ago, Dungrange said:

... if using commercial track and ready-to-run stock, then forget about 'Finescale' and either use the DOGA Intermediate standards or the NMRA standards for H0 when kit building.  Many manufacturers claim to use the NMRA RP25/110 wheel standards, but I'm not sure if that's the case or not - I suspect possibly not.  Some manufacturers products only partially comply with standards - the height of NEM pockets being another issue.

Deviations there certainly are, but most are either harmless, or can be easily worked around. I would prefer robust conformance, but offered what are generally faithful models in dimensions and appearance of 'bodywork', I can tolerate the small adjustments sometimes necessary to the running gear to correct the significant deviations.

 

9 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

For anyone interested, my modelling goal is to make HO scale, Proto-87 and 4mm scale P4  become just as easy to put together as  present day HO and 00 RTR.  It's pretty much there for diesel and electric modelling now, but still some ways away for steam.

I have italicised the 'problem combination'. The manufacturing technique is certainly available to produce this, at a price. The product will look wonderful in the display case or on straight track. But the space constraint for the minimum radius required will surely severely limit sales? I am fortunate to have the space that would accommodate curves scaling 5 to 6 chains, just about adequate to get a P4 Doncaster pacific around, slowly. But I want them to 'bomb along' with 11 or more on, so OO it has to be...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Wheels falling into the crossing Vee gap  is what irritates me. all my latest Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol wagons do it. The points are all Peco code 100 so it must be the points that is the problem.

The problem is OO.

The only way to avoid wheel drop is to model in P4, which is why the gauge was introduced.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...