A question about 'Finescale OO'

[hayfield]

13 hours 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.

 

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.

 

Thanks Paul.

 

10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The above quote comes from this post.

 

Hi Martin

 

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

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.

 

 

Tim's report of both the quality of running and the varying wheel standards of what some RTR providers are now supplying is quite disturbing and quite the opposite of  you have reported, but then you have chosen to use an older universal standard designed at a period when standards were much coarser and detail not so important, which is perfectly fine if that is what you require

 

The initial question was about the latest wheelsets many of which are purporting to be "finescale" which come with locos and stock which now are correct down to the last rivet. For me having track that actually looks prototypical is important, sadly even the latest Peco bullhead offering visually falls far short of the standards set by the trade of the visual appearance of modern RTR locos and stock, more concerning is the wide tollarences of wheelsets. 

 

Many have built track that both looks finescale and performs well which are built within published finescale standards, the trouble is whilst the bodywork of modern RTR stock is up to finescale standards they are producing wheelsets and in some cases mechanisms that are not made to similar high standards. The statement about running qualities of certain stock on finer scale track is nothing to do with the quality of the track, but the standards used by some manufactures. 

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

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

 

Many thanks for reminding me of my web page at:

 

 http://4-sf.uk/history.htm

 

I have repeated myself so often over the years that I have forgotten what I wrote where. I prepared a long reply overnight basically repeating all that, but it got lost when RMweb crashed.

 

I think in future I shall just keep posting that link in reply to these topics. Over and over again. I doubt many will actually read it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

12 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Hi Martin

 

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

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.

 

[pirouets]

http://4-sf.uk/history.htm - read it. 

 

I'm not going to comment on the whole debate going on (That would the equivalent lying face up in a pool filled with 1 inch of water and still being out of my depth) but reading thread and the 4-SF history site, I now get the whole back to back measurement and why it matters plus every now and then you get a a rogue wheel set. That might explain 1 wagon I have an issue with as it derails in 2 place on the layout where none of its compatriots in the rake do so. Time to have a look and see what I can do.

[PMP]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

 

Tim's report of both the quality of running and the varying wheel standards of what some RTR providers are now supplying is quite disturbing and quite the opposite of  you have reported, but then you have chosen to use an older universal standard

 

Tim mentioned two locomotives that he had problems with running through one crossover of hand built track, so get the problem into perspective and context! The answer to the OP is on page one post no eleven.

If there was such a problem in running contemporary OO RTR releases on contemporary OO track, we would undoubtedly heard about it through the reviews and various posts on here, and other forms of digital and analog media.
There simply isn’t a widespread problem that affects running contemporary models on contemporary track. Also as @Clive Mortimorehas related(and shown) older stock will work through much of the contemporary ready to run track.  
 

I have both the models Tim mentions in his post, the J70 is no problem, the DJM 14xx will exhibit on occasion a knock on the tip of the frog of Peco Code 75 curved points. It has however never taken the wrong route, and the least said about DJM chassis design the better. I have very very rarely found a wheelset on a RTR item that needs B2B adjustment, usually too narrow. The problem is I’ve done it so infrequently I can’t even recall the last problem item.

 

So to summarise the answer to the OP, paraphrasing post 11, if you have contemporary OO RTR stock and contemporary OO RTR track, you are unlikely to have a problem with satisfactory running. Get your track and trains out, play with them and enjoy the hobby.

Edited December 23, 2019 by PMP

[Captain Kernow]

12 minutes ago, PMP said:

Tim mentioned two locomotives that he had problems with running through one crossover of hand built track, so get the problem into perspective and context! The answer to the OP is on page one post no eleven.

That's right, plus the two Heljan bogie diesels, although their 05 runs very happily through my OO-SF crossover (that's an excellent runner and a purchase that was 100% inspired by the example that Paul uses on his layouts!).

 

Will we ever find sufficient common ground to be able to stop debating this issue? I doubt it! But no matter.

 

My preference is always to see well laid and weathered track, which can only be conducive to good running. In terms of 'finescale', good, smooth running layouts already tick several boxes for me.

 

My personal preference is to be anal about track laying and take (probably) far too long to do so, in order to be completely happy with the running, before I take it any further and paint and weather the track, let alone start on any scenery. Yet even so, I usually manage to inadvertently lay traps for myself, which come back to bite me later on.

 

Sacrilegious though this sounds to those who advocate a pure and consistent set of standards, I think there is much to be said for 'fettling' the track to suit the locos and rolling stock and vice versa. 99% of the time, I only run my own stuff on my own layouts (the 1% represents illegal incursions of Continental or other HO locos, when I am off at lunch), so I don't worry too much if a 'guest' loco doesn't like my track, as long as all the home-based stock is OK. If that means a slight adjustment on clearances through a set of points, to ensure that a signature loco can run OK (and providing this action doesn't adversely affect anything else that I need to run), then in the words of Barry Norman, I say, 'why not?'

 

[hayfield]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

Tim mentioned two locomotives that he had problems with running through one crossover of hand built track, so get the problem into perspective and context! The answer to the OP is on page one post no eleven.

If there was such a problem in running contemporary OO RTR releases on contemporary OO track, we would undoubtedly heard about it through the reviews and various posts on here, and other forms of digital and analog media.
There simply isn’t a widespread problem that affects running contemporary models on contemporary track. Also as @Clive Mortimorehas related(and shown) older stock will work through much of the contemporary ready to run track.  
 

I have both the models Tim mentions in his post, the J70 is no problem, the DJM 14xx will exhibit on occasion a knock on the tip of the frog of Peco Code 75 curved points. It has however never taken the wrong route, and the least said about DJM chassis design the better. I have very very rarely found a wheelset on a RTR item that needs B2B adjustment, usually too narrow. The problem is I’ve done it so infrequently I can’t even recall the last problem item.

 

So to summarise the answer to the OP, paraphrasing post 11, if you have contemporary OO RTR stock and contemporary OO RTR track, you are unlikely to have a problem with satisfactory running. Get your track and trains out, play with them and enjoy the hobby.

PMP

 

But the thread is not about "contemporary track", and as I said I have no issues with those who are happy using such products.  The title of the thread is  "Finescale 00" now quite simply is no RTR support from the trade with track which has the same quality about prototypical looks as there is for both locos and rolling stock. 

 

The attention to detail of the bodies available now are superb and can quite easily be classified as finescale models, also from a side view, the chassis do look finescale. however when you have such a wide range of back to back within the trade, this is where parts which look finescale fail to be, as you say contemporary

 

For instance if a company bought out an A3 loco with as many visual defects as we have with ready to run turnouts there would be an outcry from those with an interest in the subject. The products we have are fine for those happy with what's available, its not an attack on them. Its a shame the trade cannot get together and agree which standard to use and stick to it, then all parties would be catered for

 

Tim has proved that by using finescale wheels that comply with a set standard he can obtain excellent running on track which looks better than RTR items

 

Two others have adopted 00-FS standards and find that stock which adheres to the standards used run perfectly, this does not include contemporary products who decide on a set of standards which are outside these or coarser scale items 

[PMP]

1 minute ago, Captain Kernow said:

That's right, plus the two Heljan bogie diesels,

My apologies Tim, I missed those two. However I have both those models, and have had their other early release diesels with the grubby wheelsets all work through my track with no problems. 
In absolute agreement with Tim there’s no substitute for well laid track and well made mechanisms to assist in a well running layout. 

[PMP]

12 minutes ago, hayfield said:

PMP

 

But the thread is not about "contemporary track", 

In best panto tradition

 

‘OH YES IT IS!’

 

The OP has bought CD75 Peco points and track. 
 

I have a rough idea about the subject 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by PMP

[hayfield]

13 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

That's right, plus the two Heljan bogie diesels, although their 05 runs very happily through my OO-SF crossover (that's an excellent runner and a purchase that was 100% inspired by the example that Paul uses on his layouts!).

 

Will we ever find sufficient common ground to be able to stop debating this issue? I doubt it! But no matter.

 

My preference is always to see well laid and weathered track, which can only be conducive to good running. In terms of 'finescale', good, smooth running layouts already tick several boxes for me.

 

My personal preference is to be anal about track laying and take (probably) far too long to do so, in order to be completely happy with the running, before I take it any further and paint and weather the track, let alone start on any scenery. Yet even so, I usually manage to inadvertently lay traps for myself, which come back to bite me later on.

 

Sacrilegious though this sounds to those who advocate a pure and consistent set of standards, I think there is much to be said for 'fettling' the track to suit the locos and rolling stock and vice versa. 99% of the time, I only run my own stuff on my own layouts (the 1% represents illegal incursions of Continental or other HO locos, when I am off at lunch), so I don't worry too much if a 'guest' loco doesn't like my track, as long as all the home-based stock is OK. If that means a slight adjustment on clearances through a set of points, to ensure that a signature loco can run OK (and providing this action doesn't adversely affect anything else that I need to run), then in the words of Barry Norman, I say, 'why not?'

 

 

Tim

 

There is a world of difference between a pure standard, and a set of standards which allow a degree of tolerance either side of the standard. I do not think anyone working in 00 gauge works to a pure standard, just it would be nice if we could have a common standard used by all RTR providers, even better if they got their act together and got the accuracy to a set known standard

[PMP]

3 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Tim

 

There is a world of difference between a pure standard, and a set of standards which allow a degree of tolerance either side of the standard. I do not think anyone working in 00 gauge works to a pure standard, just it would be nice if we could have a common standard used by all RTR providers, even better if they got their act together and got the accuracy to a set known standard

What you seem to be missing is that the standards the RTR manufacturers are currently using, work.

[hayfield]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

In best panto tradition

 

‘OH YES IT IS!’

 

The OP has bought CD75 Peco points and track. 
 

I have a rough idea about the subject 

 

 

 

When a product is described as 00/H0 is it finescale 00 or finescale H0 ?

 

 

[hayfield]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

What you seem to be missing is that the standards the RTR manufacturers are currently using, work.

 

Not necessarily on Finescale, also quite a few comments about some products on poor running !! 

Edited December 23, 2019 by hayfield

[PMP]

Just now, hayfield said:

 

 

When a product is described as 00/H0 is it finescale 00 or finescale H0 ?

 

 

As anyone knows ‘Finescale’ means whatever the reader or writer wants it to mean. Most sensible people feel it’s an ethos/approach or state of mind.

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, PMP said:

As anyone knows ‘Finescale’ means whatever the reader or writer wants it to mean. Most sensible people feel it’s an ethos/approach or state of mind.

 

This is what I said many posts ago, and something which we both seem to agree on. Plus with most RTR track being for the want of a better word contemporary rather than finescale 

[PMP]

3 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Not necessarily on Finescale, also quite a few comments about some products on poor running !! 

Oddly enough despite over the years having had possibly few hundred various steam and D&E UK and ‘Foreign’ outline modelsthrough my hands I’ve only ever had two or three that needed to be returned for varieties of ‘poor running’

[PMP]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

This is what I said many posts ago, and something which we both seem to agree on. Plus with most RTR track being for the want of a better word contemporary rather than finescale 

Who markets OO track described as ‘Finescale’?

[gordon s]

Will you have a word with them or shall I......

 

Very tongue in cheek I hasten to add....

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by gordon s

[Il Grifone]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

When a product is described as 00/H0 is it finescale 00 or finescale H0 ?

 

 

 

It depends on the sleeper size and spacing.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Il Grifone

[gordon s]

Sadly it would appear we need to tell a few others....

 

I wonder where they got the idea from?

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by gordon s

[Captain Kernow]

Absolutely no disrespect to anyone in this thread so far, but this term 'finescale' can be a bit of a poisoned chalice, can't it?

 

However, I do agree with Paul when he considers it an ethos or state of mind.

 

There are some OO layouts out there, some of which feature on this forum, with Code 100 track, but which is well-laid, ballasted and weathered and sits amid excellent scenery and structures. Such components combine to form wholly believable and excellent layouts.

 

By the same token, I've seen P4 layouts, with badly laid track, indifferent or bad running and with poor scenery and structures.

 

[Andy Reichert]

It must be in the Kernow Shorter English Dictionary.  And it means shorter rail.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gordon s]

As it’s getting near Christmas, shall we wish peace and goodwill to all men, lay down our track gauges and meet in no mans land for a fun running session and mince pies......

[Andy Reichert]

You can have a terrific layout giving a wonderful impression of realism, atmosphere, and amazing illusion of realism. But it still needs the engineering solidity of having a real Standard for its wheels and track, to be 100% working and dependable. Normal HO and apparently past 00 have done that.

 

Andy

 

 

[PMP]

28 minutes ago, gordon s said:

Will you have a word with them or shall I......

 

Very tongue in cheek I hasten to add....

 

 

 

 

I’d missed that box! Peco’s CD75 pointwork though is labelled as fine standard which were the items I’d looked at, and Peco describe the ranges as HO/OO, not the other way round.

Edited December 23, 2019 by PMP