A question about 'Finescale OO'

[Andy Reichert]

I'll be travelling until early Jan, but here's quick update on modern 00 vs. PECO code 83.

 

I just hand propelled  a single new Hornby Gresley Suburban coach through a new Peco code 83 #8. No apparent obstruction, but the wheelsets actually "squeaked" as they passed thru the check rails. They were quiet everywhere else.

 

My suspicion is that the wheelset backs are so close to the check and wing rail span,  that they could be touching both at once.  Both PECO flange ways are 0.050". So It's unlikely the wheels were running against the frog vee rails. I don't have time to investigate further now, but will on my return. 

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

37 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

He was an HO user.

 

But he was asking for advice from 4mm scale modellers using 16.2mm gauge: "I know that are some 4mm scale users doing similar, any issues when using NMRA (110 mainly) wheels properly gauged?"

 

I answered that specific question -- 00 RTR in the UK mostly uses RP25/110 profile wheels, and "properly gauged" means 14.4mm max back-to-back for use in the UK on 00-SF.

 

Martin.

[newbryford]

54 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

I'll be travelling until early Jan, but here's quick update on modern 00 vs. PECO code 83.

 

I just hand propelled  a single new Hornby Gresley Suburban coach through a new Peco code 83 #8. No apparent obstruction, but the wheelsets actually "squeaked" as they passed thru the check rails. They were quiet everywhere else.

 

My suspicion is that the wheelset backs are so close to the check and wing rail span,  that they could be touching both at once.  Both PECO flange ways are 0.050". So It's unlikely the wheels were running against the frog vee rails. I don't have time to investigate further now, but will on my return. 

 

Andy

 

I see what your problem is:

Peco 83 is sold as H0. The Hornby coaches are sold as 00.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

Peco 83 is sold as H0. The Hornby coaches are sold as 00.

 

 

Back in the day when we had Coachman on here rebuilding his garden shed layout three times a week, he was happily slapping down Peco code 83 and code 75 will-nilly and running out-of-the-box RTR through them. As far as I can recall, he never complained of flangeway issues - if there had been a problem, he would have been memorably forthright on the topic.

[newbryford]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Back in the day when we had Coachman on here rebuilding his garden shed layout three times a week, he was happily slapping down Peco code 83 and code 75 will-nilly and running out-of-the-box RTR through them. As far as I can recall, he never complained of flangeway issues - if there had been a problem, he would have been memorably forthright on the topic.

 

 

Maybe Coach is hard of hearing and couldn't hear the squeaking.............................

 

Quick - add a smiley.........

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by newbryford

[Captain Kernow]

I wasn't initially going to comment on this thread, but now I am.

 

I've been modelling in what I refer to (to anyone who asks) as 'OO finescale' for over 40 years.

 

Until recently, I didn't try anything in 'OO-SF', but kept the gauge to 16.5mm throughout the whole layout, including turnouts.

 

I re-chassis a lot of my locos, using Markits wheels (going further back, it tended to be Romford wheels, which a friend with a lathe turned down to a more acceptable flange profile). In all cases, the back-to-back has been 14.5mm, but now I'm wondering if it's actually 14.4mm and I need my eyes tested again.

 

Anyway, it all works well for me. I don't tolerate poor running on my layouts ('Engine Wood', 'Bleakhouse Road' and now - under construction - 'Bethesda Sidings').

 

In the meantime, I have also been modelling in P4 ('Callow Lane').

 

When planning 'Bethesda Sidings' a couple of years ago, I was tempted to try 'OO-SF'. Some of the pointwork was already extant, (the overall theme behind this layout has been to use various items that I have had for a while, which needed a home).

 

I did build an A5 crossover especially for the layout, however (it's a very small goods yard with a compressed track layout).

 

Each piece of pointwork that I build (usually copper clad sleepers and code 75 bullhead rail, with cosmetic chairs added afterwards) is thoroughly tested with all the rolling stock that is likely to be used on it.

 

So far, so good. All Markits wheels-fitted locos and mainstream RTR stuff (Bachmann, Hornby, Dapol and a Heljan 05) ran through the A5 crossover with no problem, no hesitation etc.

 

I then laid the track, painted and weathered it.

 

In the meantime, I acquired a Model Rail J70 tram engine (an outrageously improbable type of motive power but I just liked it). This did not like the OO-SF points and stalled at slow speed, even on the straight section.

 

I was (and remain) satisfied that all clearances, tolerances etc. on the OO-SF points are correct. They were built with the correct gauges and checked as I went along.

 

What I have found, however, is that the back-to-back of the J70 is about 14.7 or 14.8mm. So that's not getting used until I can do something about the wheels (an example of an RTR loco with valve gear that seems to require a fair bit of intervention to get it to run on OO-SF track).

 

I have documented elsewhere on this forum the awful running problems of the Hattons/DJ Models 14XX. This type of loco is the signature motive power for this layout, so my first example received an etched brass chassis with Markits wheels. That runs quite happily through the OO-SF crossover.

 

I then succumbed to an offer from Hattons for a second one. On plain track, that loco seemed to run just about OK enough to satisfy me. Faced with the OO-SF points, however, it stalls again, just like the J70, even on the straight. Examination of the back-to-backs of this loco shows them to be approx 15mm. Another loco requiring further attention (I don't trust it's mechanism, though, and have another etched chassis kit and another set of Markits wheels waiting in the wings).

 

I would add that the J70 and the second 14XX run fine through the other points on the layout, which are built to what I would call 'conventional OO finescale' standards.

 

I have also found that some Heljan diesels (Class 33 and Hymek specifically) also don't like the OO-SF points. The fix here is relatively simple - substitution of the horrid early Heljan wheels with Branchlines 'Black Beetle' coach wheels of the same diameter.

 

I don't know if the above is helpful or just confusing. I don't have any current plans for a further OO layout, as I have to complete the P4 layout, once I've finished 'Bethesda Sidings', but one thing I know already, is that any future OO layouts will not use OO-SF standards.

 

Here is a photo of the A5 (OO-SF) crossover on 'Bethesda Sidings', by the way:

 

[Dungrange]

3 hours 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"

 

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Interesting journey:

Departs 5:04

Arrives 4:54

 

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

 

Martin.

 

Is that all you noticed Martin?  I was more perplexed by the fact that the train purports to be destined for Forfar and calling at Fife on route, yet arrives at its destination (Forfar) at 4:54 before it's intermediate stop (Fife) at 5:45.   Maybe there is a bit of time travelling going on (forwards and backwards simultaneously).  No idea if any of the journey is on Finescale track.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

What I have found, however, is that the back-to-back of the J70 is about 14.7 or 14.8mm.

...

Examination of the back-to-backs of this loco shows them to be approx 15mm.

...

 

Hi CK,

 

You didn't mention the type of wheels. The back-to-back limits for 00-SF are:

 

RTR wheels: 14.3mm MIN, 14.4mm MAX.

 

Romford/Markits wheels: 14.3mm MIN, 14.5mm MAX.

 

Kit wheels such as Ultrascale: 14.3mm MIN, 14.6mm MAX.

 

If you use wheels with back-to-backs outside this range, they won't work reliably on 00-SF, as you found.

 

00-SF was not designed for such an odd assortment of RTR wheels. In fact it wasn't originally designed for RTR wheels at all. It was designed back in the 1970s for kit wheels such as Romford and Ultrascale. It has been found that most modern RTR does run on it quite well. But unless you have a need to run kit wheels at the same time it would probably be better to stick to ordinary 00 if you have a wide assortment of RTR models.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

 

I see what your problem is:

Peco 83 is sold as H0. The Hornby coaches are sold as 00.

 

 

 

 

As "00 Scale" actually.  But not "00 fine scale". 

 

But. . . . Now you've brought up naming again.

 

I like Martin's earlier point that 00-SF is actually EM-2. 

 

Calling it that absolutely clears up any misunderstandings (and benefits/downsides) about what wheel sets and settings it uses. You just look up the EM Soc specs and that's what you use. EM wheels, EM BB - 2 and EM gauge -2 with EM flange ways.  No additional claims outside of the EM standard claims and no ambiguous issues to concern number counters like me. 

 

Andy

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Has anybody noticed that "OO SF" is closer to 3mm scale track gauge than the 4mm gauge the rolling stock purports to be?

 

Mike.

[PMP]

21 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Has anybody noticed that "OO SF" is closer to 3mm scale track gauge than the 4mm gauge the rolling stock purports to be?

 

Mike.

 Probably not. We're too busy running our RTR stock on RTR track that works.

[martin_wynne]

15 minutes ago, PMP said:

 Probably not. We're too busy running our RTR stock on RTR track that works.

 

Like this?

 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

What I got from reading Tim's (aka Captain Kernow) post was some of his RTR locos would not run through 00-SF points despite the claim that 00-SF means your mates can run their RTR stuff straight out the box without having to adjust their wheels.

 

If you go back to page 7 and view the video my mate Mat took of the four trains arriving and departing my model Sheffield Exchange, three of those trains were his, no wheel modifications and one was mine, a 4 car Lima DMU coupled to a 4 car Hornby DMU, again no mods to the wheels and all running through the same make and type of points Hugh (the OP) purchased before asking the question.

 

27 minutes ago, PMP said:

 Probably not. We're too busy running our RTR stock on RTR track that works.

Thanks Paul.

[PMP]

^^ That's not RTR track on those scenic sections..

[martin_wynne]

4 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

What I got from reading Tim's (aka Captain Kernow) post was some of his RTR locos would not run through 00-SF points despite the claim that 00-SF means your mates can run their RTR stuff straight out the box without having to adjust their wheels.

 

The actual claim (if you want to call it that, I would call it simply a report) is:

 

"Most modern RTR models will be found to run fine on 00-SF straight from the box. But there is always the possibility that you will get a rogue wheel set which needs adjusting."

 

Note the words most (not all) and modern (not stuff you have had for years).

 

I tell folks that they should not use Templot if they are not prepared to read the words. I think I shall start doing the same for 00-SF.

 

Martin.

[newbryford]

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

As "00 Scale" actually.  But not "00 fine scale". 

 

 

 

Irony doesn't scale......................

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

 

Irony doesn't scale......................

 

OK, Fine.

 

Andy

[Captain Kernow]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

00-SF was not designed for such an odd assortment of RTR wheels. In fact it wasn't originally designed for RTR wheels at all. It was designed back in the 1970s for kit wheels such as Romford and Ultrascale. It has been found that most modern RTR does run on it quite well. But unless you have a need to run kit wheels at the same time it would probably be better to stick to ordinary 00 if you have a wide assortment of RTR models.

That's interesting, thanks. Wasn't aware of the background to OO-SF.

 

My preference is normally to replace RTR chassis if the running isn't up to scratch, those RTR locos I still have running on their original chassis do so, because their slow speed abilities and smooth running characteristics are OK. 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Quote

The whole point about 00-SFis that you don't modify the wheels. You can therefore use any track or pointwork which those wheels would normally run on. Many 00-SF modellers use Peco track for their fiddle yard, for example.

The above quote comes from this post.

 

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The actual claim (if you want to call it that, I would call it simply a report) is:

 

"Most modern RTR models will be found to run fine on 00-SF straight from the box. But there is always the possibility that you will get a rogue wheel set which needs adjusting."

 

Note the words most (not all) and modern (not stuff you have had for years).

 

I tell folks that they should not use Templot if they are not prepared to read the words. I think I shall start doing the same for 00-SF.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

I am confused, do you or don't you need to adjust some wheel sets?
 

Quote

 

Hi Hugh

 

I use code 75 in the station/scenic area of my layout and code 100 elsewhere. I run all sorts of wheels, many I have to open out using my very old J&M back to back gauge but once set they stay put under the coach, loco or wagon and stay on the track. Oddly I have never had to open out a Lima wheel set and they never derail unless pulled off by the vehicle they are coupled to. In the past I have built my own track but these days having a layout working as soon as I can is more fun, I can concentrate on making rolling stock buildings etc and enjoying running my layout.   

 

From an earlier post of mine. I think it says much the same as your "report" but it about Peco code 75 which I believe Hugh says he purchased. 

 

Last word from me as I am off to build more things like these and to run my reliable trains on my reliable track.

 

The last photo is of a scratch built building for my small layout that was exhibited at Ally Pally this year.

[Andy Reichert]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Like this?

 

 

Like the wheel drop and rock at 1:12, ???

 

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The actual claim (if you want to call it that, I would call it simply a report) is:

 

"Most modern RTR models will be found to run fine on 00-SF straight from the box. But there is always the possibility that you will get a rogue wheel set which needs adjusting."

 

Note the words most (not all) and modern (not stuff you have had for years).

 

I tell folks that they should not use Templot if they are not prepared to read the words. I think I shall start doing the same for 00-SF.

 

Martin.

 

You won't find "found"; "most"; "modern"; "run fine"; "possibility"; "rogue"; "adjusting"; as part of a "Real" Standard. 

 

Just dimensions with tolerances. That's what you need to design to. Not indefinite words.

 

Andy

 

 

[Dungrange]

Clive,

 

Since 00-SF is simply another name for EM-2, then any wheels that fit with the specification for EM gauge wheels will obviously work fine with EM-2.  The only difference is that the track gauge is 2 mm narrower.  Apart from that, 00-SF  is exactly the same as EM.  If the wheels don't comply with the EM standard (other than the back-to-back being different) then they may need to be replaced.  However, in practice, most modern 00 stock is fitted with much finer wheels compared to 20 years ago, and therefore there is generally no need to change the wheels, provided the back-to-back dimensions are as Martin has indicated.  Those that don't comply would need to be changed.

 

Compare this with the DOGA Fine standard, which is effectively EM - 1.7 mm (where the back-to-back dimensions of all ready-to-run stock would have to be increased) and you might understand why 00-SF is gaining popularity.  However, if you're not interested in building point work with a 1 mm flange-way gap, then it's really irrelevant - just stick with the commercial / intermediate standard.

[gordon s]

Andy, if that is the case, can you please tell me what dimensions and tolerances I should build my 00 pointwork to?
 

If it helps I want to run modern RTR stock plus kit built stock with Markits and Ultrascale wheels.

 

I’ve said before I am happy with 00-SF, but if you can give me a set of standards that will improve the running quality for me, I will give it serious consideration.

 

Will you be able to supply the various gauges required?

 

 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

You won't find "found"; "most"; "modern"; "run fine"; "possibility"; "rogue"; "adjusting"; as part of a "Real" Standard. 

Just dimensions with tolerances. That's what you need to design to. Not indefinite words.

 

Hi Andy,

 

You don't find those words applying when 00-SF is used with its original intended kit wheels set to EM minus 2.0mm. For those wheels it is just as much a "Real" standard as EM.

 

But those words do apply -- IF, IF, IF (how many times do I have to explain this?) you ALSO want to use RTR wheels on 00-SF.

 

Unlike NMRA modellers in your part of the world, many 00 modellers in the UK do want to mix kit wheels with RTR models on the same track. 00-SF has been "found" to allow that with "most" "modern" RTR models, without causing wheel drop for the kit wheels.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to make that fact known - for modellers who are prepared to take a bit of trouble checking the back-to-backs of their RTR models. Many modellers who have tried it have been well-pleased with the results. The narrower flangeways also look much better than regular 00.

 

• Currently Peco pointwork has exactly the same check gauge as 00-SF at 15.2mm. (1.3mm flangeways on 16.5mm gauge). Ideally therefore RTR back-to-backs should be set to 14.4mm MAX, to run smoothly on Peco pointwork. That just happens to be exactly the same as 00-SF for RTR wheels.

 

Martin.

 

[Happy Hippo]

Is it some sort of perverted brain twist that gets these discussions about track/points/wheels going on a very regular basis?  They can be of differing scales, but are usually from the 4 mm stable.

 

All the track and wheel standards for the various combinations that the railway modelling world has created are laid down somewhere, as are the deviations (tolerances) that are considered workable.

 

If it isn't working as it should, then the user has usually got something wrong.

 

Sometimes I think that  poor Martin Wynne must get up of a morning and bang his head hard against a spiked wall before having to try and explain to yet another the hows and whys of track and wheel combinations 

 

Surely there is no Finescale? when you build a single model railway, you are modelling to a set scale.   

 

Although I suppose you could argue against that when some very fine 'Finescale' models have been built with scenery in graduating scales to force depth perception!

 

I believe it was Iain Rice who pointed out that 'Finescale' was not about the wheels and track as they were to to a set standard, but to the high levels of detailing put into the layout to make it as believable /realistic as possible.  

 

If you build A highly detailed 00 railway is is deemed Finescale:  Build an identical version, but with P4 track and that is also deemed Finescale.

 

I believe the standing joke in the G0G is that although the model railway is built to 7mm FS standards, the scenery is built to S7 standards.

 

Instead of the recurring whine about Finescale track, which it cannot be but is just built to a set standard whichever scale/gauge combination you adhere to, let us get onto the far more important issue of when we should be applying the term Finescale to the rest of the railway in question.

 

Does it pass the Finescale test because of that home etched fencing you lovingly crafted, or does it fail because somewhere you bought in some Greenscene ballast chips instead of going out and crushing your own, or using some rtp Peco fence posts instead of cutting your own Finescale fence posts from custom milled timber?

 

Now where can I get some rtp 1.5"gauge finescale  track to represent 18" gauge at 1:12 scale?

[Il Grifone]

All wheels for any standard need checking before use. There is always the odd wheelset that has slipped through quality control. The slop loose tolerances of say Peco Streamline (as an example - other makes are available) allows wheels to vary more and still stay on the track*. However tightening the tolerances will improve running. (This applies to any form of engineering of course.)

 

*Usually and often with the odd bump and jerk....

 

 

I've been fighting through the NMRA standards (quoted to a thousandth of an inch - good luck). Headache generating....

I need to compare with  this  https://4-sf.uk/history.htm

Edited December 23, 2019 by Il Grifone