A question about 'Finescale OO'

[martin_wynne]

19 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

00-SF has a huge drawback - all track pointwork has to be handbuilt.

 

Not so. You can freely mix handbuilt 00-SF pointwork with Peco or other commercial pointwork, or with handbuilt pointwork to other standards, all on the same layout.

 

The whole point about 00-SF is 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.

 

Martin.

[Enterprisingwestern]

23 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Lack of play in the centre axle of a 3 axle chassis was diagnosed as the cause....

 

. or curves that are too tight?!!

Rectified on Mk2 I presume?

 

Mike.

[Ian J.]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Not so. You can freely mix handbuilt 00-SF pointwork with Peco or other commercial pointwork, or with handbuilt pointwork to other standards, all on the same layout.

 

The whole point about 00-SF is 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.

 

Martin.

 

Ok, I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

However, I've already made my choice for my layouts and I'm not changing it at this stage.

[cabbie37]

I am compelled to say again how much this thread has helped. What I really like is it hasn't descended into 'opinionated' positions, each calling the other wrong, something that one comes across far too often. It certainly wasn't my intention to start such a discussion but it really has been very helpful, so thank you all...

 

Hugh

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

I have to admit to using a vernier caliper, though I am tempted by the NMRA gauge. Ideally use the old feeler gauge technique. size above won't fit. size below OK means it must be correct. (I don't usually bother, relying on 00/H0 slop....  https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-2_2019.07.07_track_gages.pdf

 

I had an Athearn box car the other day that insisted on derailing. One of the wheesets was out by about 0.3mm under. Very unusual for them. It was fine once reset of course. Plastic on metal axles - not the best combination*. One day....

 

* Better than plastic on plastic however!

If you make one alteration to your RTR stock after setting the b2bs, replace plastic wheels and remove any traction tyres.  Of course, that's two alterations...  Plastic wheels are brilliant for spreading crud all over your layout and messing up your pickup, and traction tyres are as bad plus they ruin slow running, wear out, and unless they are a perfect fit in their groove, which they never are, lift the other pickup wheels off the track, further compromising pick up.  The very worst are all-plastic wheelsets moulded as a single piece, which cannot be adjusted if they are out of gauge.

 

All metal wheelsets will improve your running by a factor of quantum.  I standardise on Bachmann, because they will match the profile of the majority of my locos, but Hornbys and Oxfords are just as good; the main point is to standardise on one make and stick to it.  Avoid Dapols unless you want your wagons to run like 3-legged dogs.  Parkside kits come with Gibsons, which are good but the axles are too short; you can cheat with not mounting the bearing cups fully into their rebate hole in the back of the axle box, but make sure the wheels are in line.  Easier to replace with Bachmann's. Romford/Markits have the opposite problem, the axles are too long.

[Il Grifone]

I have rather a lot of stock with plastic wheelsets* unfortunately. They are all marked for replacement eventually. I would like Kadee wheelsets but they are rather pricey....

 

* The result of madly collecting cheap U.S. freight cars!

 

The trouble with removing traction tyres is that the result won't then pull the proverbial skin off the rice pudding. I have an F series diesel that is incapable of this feat even with traction tyres. Further investigation (and a block of lead?) is required.

 

I thought Gibson and Markits axles are 26mm over pin-points and Bachann favour the NMRA standard of 25.4mm/1".  Ignoring dubious pips on the kit floor and setting the axlegaurds so that their backs are 24mm* apart and using standard (e.g. Gibson) bearings (Markits are odd dimensions - nothing wrong with them - just more fiddling required) resolves this problem. I try to avoid Bachmann wheels as far as possible.

 

Thick axleguards (like Airfix/Dapol) require thinning down and/or recessing the bearing into the back.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Il Grifone

[Andy Reichert]

5 hours ago, cabbie37 said:

I am compelled to say again how much this thread has helped. What I really like is it hasn't descended into 'opinionated' positions, each calling the other wrong, something that one comes across far too often. It certainly wasn't my intention to start such a discussion but it really has been very helpful, so thank you all...

 

Hugh

 

All model "standards" are derived in some way from the single set of engineering based track and wheel dimensions used by the prototype. And the reason it's a single set on the prototype is that changing or having multiple standards means that you end up with incompatibility issues that cause problems in some way or another.

 

ALL model standards have good and bad points, regardless of what the particular supporters of each will emphasize .  You can choose to follow the one that suits you - and perhaps  allows you and your friends to interchange vehicles, if that is a consideration.  The answer to evaluating any particular standard is to do an "Agatha Christie" and follow the numbers. 

 

Numbers don't lie and they don't push agendas. But they are critical because each variation of a standard still has to meet the same set of engineering correctness criteria as the prototype to be viable.  In most cases you can't alter a single dimension of an existing correct standard without altering several others to bring it back into engineering compliance. And all the numbers involved, if they have tolerances, must still work when the tolerances are worst case.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

19 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

See Proto;87 Stores "88 safe" range of crossings (frogs) for 00/HO with a flange way base at exactly 0.028" depth from the rail head, but with a full flange way width of 0.050" for maximum flexibility within the NMRA HO standard.  These can be used as "instant"  drop in frog replacements in all commercial 00 and HO track, as well as all hand laid track. They can certainly obviate any need to use 00-SF track gauge changes.

 

Andy

19 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

00-BF 50 thou / 1.3mm flangeways are fine for RTR wheels, but they don't support the "kit" wheels which are popular in the UK. Those wheels are 2.3mm wide, mostly to the EMGS profile. See Gordon's picture earlier in this topic of one such wheel dropping into a 50 thou flangeway gap. 00-SF solves that -- and also looks much better than 50 thou flangeway gaps. It is proving very popular in the UK and some fine model railways are being built using it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

But my (and the previous poster's) point was that the 0.0.028" accurate FW depth does support both RTR and Kit wheels from dropping.

 

Your and Gordon's alternative point is that you can hand lay the turnout to get the same support. But that is a must hand lay.  It's near to impossible to modify the gauge of a plastic based commercial turnout. But quite easy to cut out just the crossing (aka frog) and drop in a matching replacement. Not having to relay all the layout's visible turnouts is a whole different level of ease of implementation to run mixed Kit and RTR wheels.  Now you can use PECO everywhere.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

Your and Gordon's alternative point is that you can hand lay the turnout to get the same support. But that is a must hand lay.  It's near to impossible to modify the gauge of a plastic based commercial turnout. But quite easy to cut out just the crossing (aka frog) and drop in a matching replacement. Not having to relay all the layout's visible turnouts is a whole different level of ease of implementation to run mixed Kit and RTR wheels.  Now you can use PECO everywhere.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I think you are missing the point. Most folks who use kit wheels don't want to use Peco track everywhere, or carve up commercial pointwork. They actually prefer handbuilt track for the design flexibility it provides and the prototype appearance.

 

00-SF is primarily intended as an alternative option for modellers who already use handbuilt track to some other standard, such as 00-BF or DOGA Intermediate.

 

Even if not a perfect engineering solution, in practice it allows different wheel profiles to run together on the same layout, and run smoothly fully supported through pointwork.

 

On the other hand most users of Peco track are entirely happy with it for RTR models and see no reason to carve lumps out of it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin. 

[The Johnster]

I’m actually happy with Peco track for RTR and kits, and see no reason to carve lumps put of it...

[Ian J.]

Whether it be OO-SF, Finescale OO, EM* or P4* (or indeed any other tighter standard, in any scale), as I understand it the basic reasoning for using such standards is to reduce the 'slop' inherent in more coarse standards that leads to 'wobbly' running. In RTR in particular, especially with set-track curves, 'wobbly' running is very common and certainly something I find difficult to watch. It's necessary with tight curves otherwise the trains won't go round them. If less tight curves are possible (three feet is a commonly cited minimum) then much of the 'wobbly' running can be eliminated by improving the wheel check gauge (wheel back to flange front). OO-SF does this for RTR by narrowing the gauge of the track. Most others do it by widening the back-to-back on the wheels, and reducing the check rail gap.

 

Edit: * I include the stricter standards like EM and P4 for completeness. Obviously using them has as much to do with appearance to prototype as it has to do with better running qualities.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ian J.

[tomparryharry]

I use a drill bit as a back to back gauge. The diameter being a 'known value'. High quality ground drill bits to augment feeler gauges, vernier calipers and commercially-made back to back gauges should (I did say 'should') do the trick. The one big drawback is using B2B gauges, where the insulating muff interferes with accurately setting your intended adjustment.

 

For those of a mechanical persuasion,  I'd thoroughly endorse and applaud the making of suitable width gauges. Markits make a nice little B2B gauge, but it is limited by its application. For instance, the current gauge (nice as it is) can't cover any obstruction on the axle, such as gears, or (as mentioned) insulation muffs. 

 

I'd suggest there is a market for a NAMAS-quality B2B gauge. The positive outcome of this would be that people can check the width, prior to purchase. Those parts failing can be declined at purchase level. Now, you might think that this is overkill, but the entire point is to drive up the standard. "Oh no! More cost!" I hear you cry. I tend to disagree. The cost implications of buying anything related to model railways is usually top dollar requirement, for what is sometimes far less in the expectation stakes. The notion of 1:76 scale is so wide, as to be bordering on an offence under the trade description act. Driving up standards would hopefully make witterings like mine superfluous: The thought process being " The RTR standard is here, why have you not hit the standard?" Or, more telling... "Why are you selling sub-standard models....?"

 

I should categorically state that I'm talking about RTR here.  

 

I still wonder about when major producers will hit upon the idea of using 19mm as the gauge. P4 (or, S4) is still the iconic pinnacle of excellence, but it could easily be produced on a commercial scale. It only requires an absolute adherence to  whatever standard you are working with. I chose 19mm as an example, but 18:83mm is equally achievable. 

 

Finally, I'm not knocking any producer, imagined or real. The recent rises in quality & fidelity of models are to be applauded, but the erudite comments by other posters have made some very valid points. Some suggested reading material is either NAMAS, or nowadays, UKAS.

 

Back to my corner. Breakfast awaits!

 

Cheers,

Ian.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by tomparryharry
Forgetfulness.

[The Johnster]

I like the 19mm idea, Ian; it would solve the appearance issue and enable splashers and brake hangers to be much closer to the right position.  Detail between the frames could be included more easily as well.  The RTR manufacturers have proved that they can work to very fine standards of detail at what is still a very low cost, and I'm sure no great increase in prices would result, at least not much more that was going to happen anyway.

 

But the Trade is very firmly wedded to 00 standards.  We all know the historical reasons for this, and it would be a very brave, and arguably foolhardy, manufacturer that broke ranks with a range incompatible with 00/tension lock/setrack geometry.  It would be nice if they could work reliably to the existing 00 standards though.  We have seen in this thread that b2bs are anything but standard, and coupling bar heights are a movable feast as well.  Matters are not as bad as they were a few decades ago when one major contributor set it's buffers too high, and NEM standards have improved matters relating to couplings, but compatibility is still more of an issue than it should be.  We could do with an adjustable mount for NEM pockets for example.

 

19mm is a daydream, sadly, mate.

[hayfield]

Finescale is a matter which I think is not a matter of using a certain standard but rather a judgement formed in ones mind, and everyone will form their own opinion of what is finescale

 

I can very easily be argued many of the RTR models that are bought today are made to a finescale standard, providing you disregard the narrow gauge the wheels are set to

 

It can be equally argued that track has failed in the ready to run market to keep up with the ever improving rolling stock we can now buy, certainly creates a lot of discussion and slowly modellers are becoming more discerning  

[Denbridge]

5 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

I use a drill bit as a back to back gauge. The diameter being a 'known value'. High quality ground drill bits to augment feeler gauges, vernier calipers and commercially-made back to back gauges should (I did say 'should') do the trick. The one big drawback is using B2B gauges, where the insulating muff interferes with accurately setting your intended adjustment.

 

For those of a mechanical persuasion,  I'd thoroughly endorse and applaud the making of suitable width gauges. Markits make a nice little B2B gauge, but it is limited by its application. For instance, the current gauge (nice as it is) can't cover any obstruction on the axle, such as gears, or (as mentioned) insulation muffs. 

 

I'd suggest there is a market for a NAMAS-quality B2B gauge. The positive outcome of this would be that people can check the width, prior to purchase. Those parts failing can be declined at purchase level. Now, you might think that this is overkill, but the entire point is to drive up the standard. "Oh no! More cost!" I hear you cry. I tend to disagree. The cost implications of buying anything related to model railways is usually top dollar requirement, for what is sometimes far less in the expectation stakes. The notion of 1:76 scale is so wide, as to be bordering on an offence under the trade description act. Driving up standards would hopefully make witterings like mine superfluous: The thought process being " The RTR standard is here, why have you not hit the standard?" Or, more telling... "Why are you selling sub-standard models....?"

 

I should categorically state that I'm talking about RTR here.  

 

I still wonder about when major producers will hit upon the idea of using 19mm as the gauge. P4 (or, S4) is still the iconic pinnacle of excellence, but it could easily be produced on a commercial scale. It only requires an absolute adherence to  whatever standard you are working with. I chose 19mm as an example, but 18:83mm is equally achievable. 

 

Finally, I'm not knocking any producer, imagined or real. The recent rises in quality & fidelity of models are to be applauded, but the erudite comments by other posters have made some very valid points. Some suggested reading material is either NAMAS, or nowadays, UKAS.

 

Back to my corner. Breakfast awaits!

 

Cheers,

Ian.

 

 

Surely, if a wider gauge became available, it would be just as easy to make that gauge 18.83mm. I don't see why making it over scale at 19mm would have any advantages. In fact it would be a negative thing, with splashers etc needing to be wider than scale to accommodate the wider gauge. Clearances between rods and crossheads would also be tighter.

[tomparryharry]

6 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Surely, if a wider gauge became available, it would be just as easy to make that gauge 18.83mm. I don't see why making it over scale at 19mm would have any advantages. In fact it would be a negative thing, with splashers etc needing to be wider than scale to accommodate the wider gauge. Clearances between rods and crossheads would also be tighter.

 Quite right! I used 19mm as an example. In a day & age where very fine tolerances are becoming the norm, I see no earthly reason why 18:83 should not be the 00 standard.  

 

 

[martin_wynne]

35 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I like the 19mm idea, Ian;

 

The golden rule is that if you use an exact-scale track gauge, you must also use an exact-scale wheel profile (as in P4).

 

H0 breaks that rule, and as a result British H0 is a complete non-starter.

 

If you use RTR wheels, which are wider profile than scale, and set them for an exact-scale track gauge, they won't fit inside scale-width splashers, behind scale-width crossheads and valve gear, inside scale-width solebars and axle-boxes.

 

For an exact-scale track gauge, all those things have to be made over scale width to fit RTR wheels, and considerably over scale to allow sufficient side-play for sharp model curves. All H0 models are over scale width for that reason. It is especially noticeable for British-outline H0 models with splashers.

 

00 is a godsend for EM and P4 modellers for that reason, and they ought to think about that before making fun of it. Without 00 there would be no proper scale models to convert to EM and P4, everything would have to be carved back to scale width.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[tomparryharry]

44 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I like the 19mm idea, Ian; it would solve the appearance issue and enable splashers and brake hangers to be much closer to the right position.  Detail between the frames could be included more easily as well.  The RTR manufacturers have proved that they can work to very fine standards of detail at what is still a very low cost, and I'm sure no great increase in prices would result, at least not much more that was going to happen anyway.

 

But the Trade is very firmly wedded to 00 standards.  We all know the historical reasons for this, and it would be a very brave, and arguably foolhardy, manufacturer that broke ranks with a range incompatible with 00/tension lock/setrack geometry.  It would be nice if they could work reliably to the existing 00 standards though.  We have seen in this thread that b2bs are anything but standard, and coupling bar heights are a movable feast as well.  Matters are not as bad as they were a few decades ago when one major contributor set it's buffers too high, and NEM standards have improved matters relating to couplings, but compatibility is still more of an issue than it should be.  We could do with an adjustable mount for NEM pockets for example.

 

19mm is a daydream, sadly, mate.

 

I can't argue with your logic, but Peco can make EM gauge track just as easily for..... well, any gauge really.

 

The trade is, as you say, very firmly wedded to 00. This is the sort of attitude of the Medes & the Persians.. "We've always done it this way". Being the only game in town has it's bonuses, but, does it move the standards forwards or upwards? 

 

Before anyone reaches for the branding irons, I should categorically state I'm not some sort of pinnacle modeller; in fact, far from it. Someone else on the forum has quite rightly asked "why" on the forum; enough to make me think that it is a valid point.

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[newbryford]

13 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 Quite right! I used 19mm as an example. In a day & age where very fine tolerances are becoming the norm, I see no earthly reason why 18:83 should not be the 00 standard.  

 

 

 

Quite possibly so, but bear in mind the minimum radii required for the finer standards.

No more Duchesses on 30" curves.

 

Gone would be the ability to have a roundy-roundy in the spare room/shed.

I'm sure that this would discourage a lot of model railway enthusiasts, who simply want to watch trains go round.

 

 

 

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

FWIW, "American OO" with 19mm gauge and RTR flanges existed long ago, but never really caught on. That standard is still displayed on the NMRA web site. It was rumoured somewhere that my old Triang Rovex Canadian Pacific 4-6-2 was actually a 4mm scale model on the 16.5mm  toy chassis for the UK market..

 

Given the usual splashers and cylinders issues for model steam, EM is by now probably a simpler and easier to get solution than 19 mm.

 

Andy

 

 

[tomparryharry]

8 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The golden rule is that if you use an exact-scale track gauge, you must also use an exact-scale wheel profile (as in P4).

 

H0 breaks that rule, and as a result British H0 is a complete non-starter.

 

If you use RTR wheels, which are wider profile than scale, and set them for an exact-scale track gauge, they won't fit inside scale-width splashers, behind scale-width crossheads and valve gear, inside scale-width solebars and axle-boxes.

 

For an exact-scale track gauge, all those things have to be made over scale width to fit RTR wheels, and considerably over scale to allow sufficient side-play for sharp model curves. All H0 models are over scale width for that reason. It is especially noticeable for British-outline H0 models with splashers.

 

00 is a godsend for EM and P4 modellers for that reason, and they ought to think about that before making fun of it. Without 00 there would be no proper scale models to convert to EM and P4, everything would have to be carved back to scale width.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Oh dear! Martin! I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of making fun of 00. Far from it! I merely bemoaned the thought that in a world of ever-increased standards & fidelity, we appear to be wedded to a standard that has been overtaken by a finer standard, to which I consider is commercially achievable.  I'm not wedded to 00, I'm welded to 00, and that's the truth!

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[tomparryharry]

4 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

Quite possibly so, but bear in mind the minimum radii required for the finer standards.

No more Duchesses on 30" curves.

 

Gone would be the ability to have a roundy-roundy in the spare room/shed.

I'm sure that this would discourage a lot of model railway enthusiasts, who simply want to watch trains go round.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't argue with your sentiments, nor to argue against them.  Like you might agree, I wouldn't want a Duchess on 30" curves. To that end, Hornby recommend minimum  radius standards on their l locomotives.

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Oh dear! Martin! I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of making fun of 00.

...

...

 a finer standard, to which I consider is commercially achievable.

 

Hi Ian,

 

I wasn't suggesting that you yourself were making fun of 00. But it is a tendency among some EM and P4 modellers, as you can easily see online.

 

Commercially achievable for who? If you use P4 profile wheels you need space for much larger radii, and good carpentry skills to construct dead-flat baseboards, and modelling skills to lay dead-flat track on them. And it takes only a small build up of dirt on P4 wheels to cause them to lose all effective flange depth and fall off the track. Been there, got the T-shirt, with a large P4 layout in a dusty exhibition hall by the Sunday afternoon.

 

I know RTR has come a long way in my lifetime from being a children's toy, but to turn a profit the makers still need to sell enough of them to those without such space or skills. Hence RTR wheels, which are in fact now considerably finer than they used to be.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

28 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The golden rule is that if you use an exact-scale track gauge, you must also use an exact-scale wheel profile (as in P4).

 

H0 breaks that rule, and as a result British H0 is a complete non-starter.

 

If you use RTR wheels, which are wider profile than scale, and set them for an exact-scale track gauge, they won't fit inside scale-width splashers, behind scale-width crossheads and valve gear, inside scale-width solebars and axle-boxes.

 

For an exact-scale track gauge, all those things have to be made over scale width to fit RTR wheels, and considerably over scale to allow sufficient side-play for sharp model curves. All H0 models are over scale width for that reason. It is especially noticeable for British-outline H0 models with splashers.

 

00 is a godsend for EM and P4 modellers for that reason, and they ought to think about that before making fun of it. Without 00 there would be no proper scale models to convert to EM and P4, everything would have to be carved back to scale width.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Being a US HO modeler, (as well)  I can attest to a significant lack of splashers on US Steam prototypes. Definitely RTR diesel, passenger and freight trucks are over width but that can be easily remedied for Proto:87 working. There actually are bearings inboard of the side frames on the prototypes that can justify the spacing.

 

As far as a UK modelling solution, my use of scale or P4 wheels at 16.5 mm gauge looks good and has few technical problems.  As a manufacturer rather than just a theoreticist, I've designated that as 00-P and it uses the P4 standards merely adjusted for the gauge change.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

On 09/12/2019 at 23:32, martin_wynne said:

 

Not so. You can freely mix handbuilt 00-SF pointwork with Peco or other commercial pointwork, or with handbuilt pointwork to other standards, all on the same layout.

 

The whole point about 00-SF is 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.

 

Martin.

 

I do find the logic of the  "advantage" of mixing commercial "00" turnouts  that don't support "kit, etc." narrow wheels with 00-SF that does, rather at odds. If you have narrow wheels why would you want to mix in turnouts that they won't run properly on. Especially in high reliability places like fiddle yards?

 

Andy