Jump to content
 

A question about 'Finescale OO'


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Andy Reichert said:

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

 

 


Myself, and I suspect most others aren’t seeing any significant change in commercially available OO RTR products that fail to reach a (guess), high ninety percentile mark of working and dependable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is that not the problem that prompted the original poster's question?  Peco describe their modern commercially produced Code 75 track as 'Finescale' even although it's not quite as 'fine' in the flange-ways as the DOGA Intermediate standard (and could therefore be thought of as course scale), whereas kit wheel manufacturers produce 'Finescale 00' wheel sets (alongside EM and P4 wheel sets), which are not intended to be used on Peco's 'Finescale' track: they are intended for use on track-work built to the DOGA Fine standard (EM-1.7), which is what I always think of as being 00 Finescale.

 

In terms of a track standard, which is what the original question was about, I don't think the wider thoughts on what 'finescale' means when applied to a modelling ethos are particularly relevant.  We effectively have commercial / DOGA Intermediate / NMRA standards (there's not a lot between these) as being at the mass produced end of the market; the DOGA Fine standard (being the closest you can get to EM without actually going to EM) at the other end; and 00-SF which tries to be a hybrid between these two groups.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should drop the term 'finescale' altogether. When it was invented back in the mists of time, it implied the use of BRMSB standards as opposed to coarse scale things like Tri-ang and Trix (or even Hornby Dublo which can be persuaded to run on BRMSB track)  and for which the term 'scale' can only loosely applied.

 

1.3mm flangeways are outside BRMSB standard (but allow Dublo standard wheels as used by most R-T-R since circa 1970 and only replaced since around 2000 to run freely.

 

I think I said before, the critical dimension is not 'Back to Back' but Check Gauge' (Back to Back plus flange thickness).

Edited by Il Grifone
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

But is that not the problem that prompted the original poster's question?  Peco describe their modern commercially produced Code 75 track as 'Finescale' 


As far as I can see, only one product is actually labelled  HO/OO ‘finescale’ by Peco, their CD75 wooden sleeper streamline track. All other CD75 items are ‘HO/OO Fine Standard’. It’s clear however that retailers generally seem to list and describe the CD75 yellow packaged track as ‘Finescale’...

 

As a further note I change many of my stock wheels for Alan Gibson OO wheels for appearance’s sake. With a B2B of 14.5mm from an Gibson B2B Gauge they run perfectly well through Peco Code 100/83/75 point work in their various streamline ranges as well as Kato set track.

Edited by PMP
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Off the top of my head when CD75 was introduced in the mid 80’s, Code 100 became ‘Universal’ in description and blue packages, as it matched ‘train set’ rail standards. The CD75 was introduced/described as ‘Fine Standard’ in yellow packaging.

Edited by PMP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, under the FAQs on Peco's website (https://peco-uk.com/pages/faqs?_pos=31&_sid=359ccf854&_ss=r) is one about different rail codes which includes

 

"Today, virtually all ready-to-run locomotives and items of rolling stock can be used in conjunction with Code 75. It should not be classified as fine scale, although it would be true to say it is finer-looking."

 

I have to admit that I thought it was Peco that marketed their entire Code 75 range as 'finescale' but that's maybe just a retailer thing.  I have to say, i sympathise with the original poster's confusion with regards what 'Finescale' actually means.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

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.

 

 

I do not want to disrespect anyone who uses and is happy with RTR track products, there are many fine layouts which have been built using RTR track. More so these days what we can now buy off the shelf are in some instances nigh on museum standard, whether it be a loco, coach or building. To many of us trackwork has not improved, in fact the 4 mm 00 gauge modeller was better served in the 70's with Formway and GEM track systems than we were prior to Peco bought in the 00 bullhead system

 

I think all agree finescale means different things to different people, I just like track which is of the same quality of the stock and scenery it is with. Yes a skillful modeller can subtly  disguise track to blend into its surroundings. Did anyone notice what trackwork system Alan Downes used in his masterpieces ? But then his method of layout building was different to most.

 

Badly laid track is just what it is described as, scale gauge etc has nothing to do with it. I would strongly agree that an 00 gauge layout can be built to finescale standards. A poorly presented EM of P4 layout may be to scale/gauge but lacks the fine in its description. Simply any layout is as good as its weakest part. But the bar has been lifted by those who provide us with those magnificent (visually) models we all can buy in a box    

  • Like 2
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...