A question about 'Finescale OO'

[Compound2632]

In other words, we've been here pea-fore:

 

[88D]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

In other words, we've been here pea-fore:

 

Now that’s the Christmas spirit!

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Yep.

About 70 years of "Gauge Wars" and various long running topics on track standards..

Bernard

 

 

I don't think what has been discussed is so much about gauge wars, rather than standards used by various gauges, in 4 mm scale both the EM and P4 chaps have their own societies, not to say all those who model in these gauges are society members, but said societies actively manage said standards. 00 gauge is something completely different, yes it has its own society. BUT 99% of those who buy and use both RTR and kit products are not interested in joining a society, At a guess membership of manufacturers own collector clubs are far more numerous. The main trade that supports the hobby in 4 mm scale locos and rolling stock whilst building ever finer quality locos and rolling stock have not really agreed a joint approach in perhaps having a common finer wheel and track standard(s)

 

Track is something that is still in the backwoods, using 3.5 mm scale items to older coarse scale standards for some time, when finer rail profile was brought in some time ago perhaps an opportunity was missed to improve things. Most of all those who buy the models seem in the main uninterested in the track.

 

To me for a model or layout to be considered to be finescale the modeller(s) must rise above these and similar issues within the discipline of railway modelling and produce a model that both looks and performs to the highest standards irrespective of gauge. It does occur in 00 scale, more likely in other gauges. 

[Clive Mortimore]

11 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I don't think what has been discussed is so much about gauge wars, rather than standards used by various gauges, in 4 mm scale both the EM and P4 chaps have their own societies, not to say all those who model in these gauges are society members, but said societies actively manage said standards. 00 gauge is something completely different, yes it has its own society. BUT 99% of those who buy and use both RTR and kit products are not interested in joining a society, At a guess membership of manufacturers own collector clubs are far more numerous. The main trade that supports the hobby in 4 mm scale locos and rolling stock whilst building ever finer quality locos and rolling stock have not really agreed a joint approach in perhaps having a common finer wheel and track standard(s)

 

Track is something that is still in the backwoods, using 3.5 mm scale items to older coarse scale standards for some time, when finer rail profile was brought in some time ago perhaps an opportunity was missed to improve things. Most of all those who buy the models seem in the main uninterested in the track.

 

To me for a model or layout to be considered to be finescale the modeller(s) must rise above these and similar issues within the discipline of railway modelling and produce a model that both looks and performs to the highest standards irrespective of gauge. It does occur in 00 scale, more likely in other gauges. 

Peco bullhead rail and points are available for those 00 modellers who require something finer looking. If the modeller is prepared to wait the range of points and crossing will increase.

 

Otherwise plonk down either code 75 or code 100 and have some fun.

[hayfield]

27 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Peco bullhead rail and points are available for those 00 modellers who require something finer looking. If the modeller is prepared to wait the range of points and crossing will increase.

 

Otherwise plonk down either code 75 or code 100 and have some fun.

 

Clive

 

Are they actually finer scale? Certainly the timbers are the correct size, they have chairs and the rail is nearly bullhead. They do actually look so much better even if the timbering is equalised, but that end timber that has been snapped in half ? if a company took this liberty with a detail on a loco they would be hell to pay !! But then track has always been the poor relative 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

In other words, we've been here pea-fore:

 

 

I should perhaps point out that the issues discussed here apply to any track and wheel system used by multiple manufacturers. The key dimensions of track and check gauge, back-to-back and flange thickness are as relevant to Brio track as to 00. I'm glad to say that the manufacturers seem to have arrived at consistent and compatible equipment without intervention by any hobbyists' association - most probably by the simple expedient of knocking off the leading brand's stuff. Certainly we never had any problem mixing Brio with supermarket equipment. The Brio standard does in appear to derive from Playcraft's red track that I had as a child - though I have to say I don't think we've ever tried a mixed-media layout:

 

[Andy Reichert]

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.

 

Andy

[hayfield]

Andy

 

As far as I can understand that is the issue with wheels, they have moved on greatly over the years, track has remained the same!!

[Clive Mortimore]

I like these discussions on track standards. Very few of the regulars who state what the standards should be show their layout in action so the rest of us can see what fun it is to build to this standard. We do see P4 and EM layouts but this is not about their standards but 00, which as John has rightly said is H0 standards and in reality has not moved on for years. We need a bold company to offer its products to scale, i.e. P4 standards, both track and rolling stock. Will it ever happen?

 

So my flippant remarks about just bung down some Peco points and track and enjoy running your trains is relevant for most of us.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

It appears that  Hornby at least is using a narrower back to back that the original 00/HO interchangeability concept.  ( and box label )

 

The idea that the typical RTR user can easily and safely alter the BB of a model steam loco with lots of working valve gear to match a different standard, seems to me to be asking too much of most of such users. And their warranties.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

17 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

The idea that the typical RTR user can easily and safely alter the BB of a model steam loco with lots of working valve gear to match a different standard, seems to me to be asking too much of most of such users. And their warranties.

 

Where on Earth is anyone, let alone a "typical RTR user", being asked to do anything?

 

The different standards provide a choice. No-one is under the slightest obligation to take any notice of them if they don't want to. Most such users are probably entirely unaware of them.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

26 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

It appears that  Hornby at least is using a narrower back to back that the original 00/HO interchangeability concept.  ( and box label )

 

The idea that the typical RTR user can easily and safely alter the BB of a model steam loco with lots of working valve gear to match a different standard, seems to me to be asking too much of most of such users. And their warranties.

 

Andy

Andy

 

Can you please state which model steam locomotives with outside valve gear made by the leading RTR manufactures do not go through readily available trackwork. Only so I know which ones  not to buy. All the ones I have bought in recent years have no problems. Some of my older diesels have but they are 30 plus years old.

[Andy Reichert]

55 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Where on Earth is anyone, let alone a "typical RTR user", being asked to do anything?

 

The different standards provide a choice. No-one is under the slightest obligation to take any notice of them if they don't want to. Most such users are probably entirely unaware of them.

 

Martin.

 

Martin,

 

From your web site, which you recently pointed an HO OP to:

 

e. For 4-SF make sure no wheels have back-to-back less than 14.3mm.

f. For 00-BF make sure no wheels have back-to-back less than 14.1mm.

g. If you want to use the same back-to-back for everything, make it 14.4mm. Kit wheels won't run so smoothly, but they will run.

Adding some detail to that:

RTR models such as Hornby and Bachmann normally have wheels 2.8mm wide conforming to the NMRA RP25/110 profile with flanges 0.8mm thick. They should be supplied set to 14.4mm back-to-back, which is also the DOGA-Intermediate setting -- see: DOGA wheel standards

Sadly the manufacturers don't always have the best quality control. For 4-SF, such RTR wheels should be 14.4mm maximum, 14.3mm minimum, back-to-back.

14.4mm back-to-back gauges are available from DOGA shop for DOGA-Intermediate.

Most modern RTR models will be found to run fine on 4-SF straight from the box. But there is always the possibility that you will get a rogue wheel set which needs adjusting as above (or ideally returned to the supplier for replacement).

 

Describing a perfectly correct wheelset as "rogue" when It actually matches the OP's Standard, but not one you suggest he changes to, is not providing an informed choice.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Andy

 

Can you please state which model steam locomotives with outside valve gear made by the leading RTR manufactures do not go through readily available trackwork. Only so I know which ones  not to buy. All the ones I have bought in recent years have no problems. Some of my older diesels have but they are 30 plus years old.

 

According to quite recent user testing posts on the Oxford Rail N7 RM Web Topic, the new N7's I will be opening on Xmas Day, may not go through my PECO and Micro Engineering code 83 turnouts.  I'll have to provide an update after that event. They ( the N7's) have inside valve gear, but no repair services.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

25 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Describing a perfectly correct wheelset as "rogue" when It actually matches the OP's Standard, but not one you suggest he changes to, is not providing an informed choice.

 

I wrote: "Most modern RTR models will be found to run fine on 4-SF straight from the box. But there is always the possibility that you will get a rogue wheel set which needs adjusting as above (or ideally returned to the supplier for replacement)."

 

That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable statement of what is involved in running RTR models on 00-SF track. I don't wish to change any of it.

 

Nowhere is it suggested that a user should or must adopt 00-SF if he doesn't want to, or finds the above off-putting. There are pros and cons, as with anything. It is a simple choice.

 

It also seems to me that if a wheelset needs narrowing for 00-SF, it will also require narrowing to run on Peco track, and that returning it to the supplier would be an entirely reasonable thing to do in those circumstances. The most usual RTR adjustment needed for 00-SF is widening to 14.3mm min, not narrowing.

 

No 00 user in the UK is going to be much impressed by an argument that it complies with the NMRA H0 standard.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

46 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

According to quite recent user testing posts on the Oxford Rail N7 RM Web Topic, the new N7's I will be opening on Xmas Day, may not go through my PECO and Micro Engineering code 83 turnouts.  I'll have to provide an update after that event. They ( the N7's) have inside valve gear, but no repair services.

 

Andy

I do hope you are not disappointed with your N7, I cannot find anything bad about their running, in fact Steve's mini review would state they don't like Peco points.

 

As for Micro Engineering being readily available to most on this forum, sorry it is not readily available here in the UK, and this is mainly a UK focused toy train forum. 

[gordon s]

Andy, as someone who does build their own pointwork, I’m always interested in these discussions, but I’m at a loss to see what your objective is in questioning everything piece of info that’s posted here.

 

Rather than us keep posting what we are doing, why don’t you tell us what 00 standard we should adopt?
 

Unfortunately though that’s only half the problem. Unless you can get all the manufacturers of stock and track to change to a similar standard, we’ll be no better off than we are now.

 

Why not just accept there is no perfect answer and then we can all just enjoy this broad hobby of ours.....

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by gordon s

[newbryford]

26 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I do hope you are not disappointed with your N7, I cannot find anything bad about their running, in fact Steve's mini review would state they don't like Peco points.

 

As for Micro Engineering being readily available to most on this forum, sorry it is not readily available here in the UK, and this is mainly a UK focused toy train forum. 

 

Andy *may* be referring to Peco Code 83. We'll wait for his reply in a few days.

 

Ultimately, I believe Andy wants all stock fitted with 16.5 or 16.2, whatever, to be able to run on the exact same bits of track.

 

My own standard is that stuff that I own, or is brought along by friends to run on *my* layout - runs.

It just so happens that my standard uses Peco Code 75.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by newbryford

[Mel_H]

5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Peco bullhead rail and points are available for those 00 modellers who require something finer looking. If the modeller is prepared to wait the range of points and crossing will increase.

 

Otherwise plonk down either code 75 or code 100 and have some fun.

 

Certainly Peco's new 'Bullhead' range is lovely, and its appearance is helped by having the switch blade made of a single piece of rail, rather than the 'hinged' arrangement. And, because it's bullhead rail rather than flat-bottomed, it looks finer. I'm in the process of laying some over Christmas (hopefully) so can report back on how RTR stock performs on it, but I'm sure it'll be just fine.

At the moment only 'large radius' points are available, but Peco is promising 'medium radius' along with a diamond crossing, single and double slips in 2020.

Just one other [small] note, while the mainstream RTR manufacturers only offer OO, SLW's 4mm Class 24 is available in OO, EM or P4 'off the shelf'. 

It's been an interesting thread so far. 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Mel_H said:

 

Certainly Peco's new 'Bullhead' range is lovely, and its appearance is helped by having the switch blade made of a single piece of rail, rather than the 'hinged' arrangement. And, because it's bullhead rail rather than flat-bottomed, it looks finer. I'm in the process of laying some over Christmas (hopefully) so can report back on how RTR stock performs on it, but I'm sure it'll be just fine.

At the moment only 'large radius' points are available, but Peco is promising 'medium radius' along with a diamond crossing, single and double slips in 2020.

Just one other [small] note, while the mainstream RTR manufacturers only offer OO, SLW's 4mm Class 24 is available in OO, EM or P4 'off the shelf'. 

It's been an interesting thread so far. 

Hi Mel

 

I look forward to seeing your progress. I did consider using the bullhead track but it was the lack of the points and slips I wanted when I started my layout that made me adopt code 75 in the station area and code 100 on the running lines and fiddle yards. The Code 100 was used as I already had a stash of it from older layouts. I am just impatient and wanted to get things running.  Two years since I started on the baseboards I have a reliable layout with reliable stock that I can operate any time I want. I have had hours of fun driving my trains. No scenery has been done as yet but I don't care at the moment, just having the trains moving and not falling off the track gives me great pleasure. 

 

As for Mr Sutton's Sulzer Bo-Bos, he invited me to the launch, I was working so couldn't go. A few days later when I was ordering my first one you could hear the disappointment down the phone as I said I wanted a 00 one with no sound or DCC. They are lovely models and come in a very handy biscuit tin. 

[newbryford]

1 minute ago, Clive Mortimore said:

you could hear the disappointment down the phone as I said I wanted a 00 one with no sound or DCC. 

 

Less profit margin..............

[Mel_H]

14 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Mel

 

I look forward to seeing your progress. I did consider using the bullhead track but it was the lack of the points and slips I wanted when I started my layout that made me adopt code 75 in the station area and code 100 on the running lines and fiddle yards. The Code 100 was used as I already had a stash of it from older layouts. I am just impatient and wanted to get things running.  Two years since I started on the baseboards I have a reliable layout with reliable stock that I can operate any time I want. I have had hours of fun driving my trains. No scenery has been done as yet but I don't care at the moment, just having the trains moving and not falling off the track gives me great pleasure. 

 

As for Mr Sutton's Sulzer Bo-Bos, he invited me to the launch, I was working so couldn't go. A few days later when I was ordering my first one you could hear the disappointment down the phone as I said I wanted a 00 one with no sound or DCC. They are lovely models and come in a very handy biscuit tin. 

 

Code 100 is brilliant for fiddle yards etc, and I'm using this too - for the same reason! Having a reliable layout is top of the agenda, which is why this thread's been interesting

 

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, Mel_H said:

"The train now standing at platform four is the five o' four for Forfar, calling at Fife. The first four coaches are for Forfar...the far five coaches are for Fife. The first four coaches reach Forfar at four fifty-four and the far five reach Fife at five forty-five"

 

Interesting journey:

Departs 5:04

Arrives 4:54

 

I think you mixed it up with the 4:45 from Platform 5.

 

Martin.

[Compound2632]

54 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Interesting journey:

Departs 5:04

Arrives 4:54

 

 

I never do like travelling with my back to the engine.

[Andy Reichert]

20 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I wrote: "Most modern RTR models will be found to run fine on 4-SF straight from the box. But there is always the possibility that you will get a rogue wheel set which needs adjusting as above (or ideally returned to the supplier for replacement)."

 

That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable statement of what is involved in running RTR models on 00-SF track. I don't wish to change any of it.

 

Nowhere is it suggested that a user should or must adopt 00-SF if he doesn't want to, or finds the above off-putting. There are pros and cons, as with anything. It is a simple choice.

 

It also seems to me that if a wheelset needs narrowing for 00-SF, it will also require narrowing to run on Peco track, and that returning it to the supplier would be an entirely reasonable thing to do in those circumstances. The most usual RTR adjustment needed for 00-SF is widening to 14.3mm min, not narrowing.

 

No 00 user in the UK is going to be much impressed by an argument that it complies with the NMRA H0 standard.

 

Martin.

 

He was an HO user.

 

Andy