A question about 'Finescale OO'

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

 If you have narrow wheels why would you want to mix in turnouts that they won't run properly on.

 

Hi Andy,

 

To save time?

Because you already have them and don't want to waste them?

Because you want to re-use a fiddle yard from an earlier layout?

Because you are converting an existing 00 layout to 00-SF bit-by-bit?

Because they were a present from someone, and precious to you, or you don't want to hurt their feelings?

 

Folks have all sorts of reasons for doing things. What we, or at least I, try to do here is to ensure they have good information about what is and what isn't possible. So that especially beginners can make informed decisions.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

8 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. 

 

SNIP (andy)

 

Cheers,

Ian.

 

 

 

 

Inexpensive but accurate BB gauge for Standard HO. Since it is "box" style, it also detects wobbled wheels

 

Andy

[Sol]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Ian,

 

......

 

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.

 

.....

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

And I am very familiar with that problem of baseboards and dead flat track.

Currently involved in a club building a P87  layout for 5' 3 1/2"   gauge South Australian Railways which equates to 18.37mm gauge & code 55 rail.  With the small flanges, very easy to derail if track is not laid at 110% perfect and a fly has not deposited a load on the rail head. !

[Andy Reichert]

45 minutes ago, Sol said:

 

 

And I am very familiar with that problem of baseboards and dead flat track.

Currently involved in a club building a P87  layout for 5' 3 1/2"   gauge South Australian Railways which equates to 18.37mm gauge & code 55 rail.  With the small flanges, very easy to derail if track is not laid at 110% perfect and a fly has not deposited a load on the rail head. !

 

Proto87 running 100% reliably on code 55 rail. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTDe2u797Y

 

And at 8" radius

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDkzhsIbeuY

 

Let me know if you need help.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

[Sol]

Thanks Andy, I am aware of how well it runs - it is the fact that it takes a lot more effort in tracklaying.

[Phil Bullock]

On 10/12/2019 at 08:20, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

. or curves that are too tight?!!

Rectified on Mk2 I presume?

 

Mike.

 

5ft radius on the scenic side! 3ft on the hidden sidings - which are clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Spanish Inquisition as they dont actually exist....

 

Needs someone to do a model railway overdub of that famous sketch.....

 

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to model railway fine scale standards - gauge, back to back, 3 link couplings, operation to a prototypical timetable etc etc  ..... Amongst our weapons are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

 

Is there an emoji for diabolical laughter? 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Phil Bullock

[Re6/6]

[hayfield]

On 08/12/2019 at 15:55, cabbie37 said:

Perhaps an oxymoron but please bear with me. I was at the Peterborough show at the weekend and was after some wheels for a brake van I have been building. I should say that I'm a returning modeller after an absence of many years and things have changed! I have in the last few months acquired 3 locos - all current Hornby offerings - and have embarked upon a winter's construction of rolling stock. I already have snapped up some Peco Code 75 track and points and have plans well advanced. My question is, I am now confused as to what wheel and back-to-back standards I should be looking for. Or does Finescale refer to flange dimension.

 

Sorry for the simple question but I have been left confused after seeing different standard wheelsets at the weekend, both purporting to be 'OO'. Can some kind person put me right?

 

thanks in advance..

 

Hugh

 

 

Hugh

 

Finescale means different things to different people. In reality most items which are described as 00 gauge made today will work on code 75,

[Andy Reichert]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Hugh

 

Finescale means different things to different people. In reality most items which are described as 00 gauge made today will work on code 75,

 

What I'm becoming concerned about is that they are no longer made to run on standard HO track. For reasons I don't understand. Or maybe just unintentionally?

 

Andy

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

What I'm becoming concerned about is that they are no longer made to run on standard HO track. For reasons I don't understand. Or maybe just unintentionally?

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

That is part of the problem H0 track is for 3.5 mm scale. 00 should be designed for 4 mm scale and adhere to the agreed 00 standards. Trouble is in my opinion is the standards are too loose or open to translation 

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

What I'm becoming concerned about is that they are no longer made to run on standard HO track. For reasons I don't understand. Or maybe just unintentionally?

 

Hi Andy,

 

No reason to be concerned. No-one running British 00 models is much bothered whether they comply with the current NMRA H0 standard, or not.

 

NMRA changed their system of dimensioning about 15 years ago. British 00 still complies with the old dimensions -- as I suspect still does a lot of current H0 production.

 

I'm pleased about that, because it all works fine. Whereas the newer "targeted" system of dimensioning is flawed in my view, and it is easy to find anomalies in the published dimensions.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Andy

 

That is part of the problem H0 track is for 3.5 mm scale. 00 should be designed for 4 mm scale and adhere to the agreed 00 standards. Trouble is in my opinion is the standards are too loose or open to translation 

 

Hornby has definitely altered its 00 standard since the 2-6-4 BR Tanks compared to my recent Gresley suburbans. But both fit others comments as "modern" and "finescale".

 

It seems my  way back in the 1990's decision to use P4 standards adapted to 16.55 mm gauge for both my US HO and UK 00 models (AKA "00-P") is paying off. 

 

 Andy

[newbryford]

21 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Proto87 running 100% reliably on code 55 rail. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTDe2u797Y

 

And at 8" radius

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDkzhsIbeuY

 

Let me know if you need help.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for the pictures promised back in 2015.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

12 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

No reason to be concerned. No-one running British 00 models is much bothered whether they comply with the current NMRA H0 standard, or not.

 

NMRA changed their system of dimensioning about 15 years ago. British 00 still complies with the old dimensions -- as I suspect still does a lot of current H0 production.

 

I'm pleased about that, because it all works fine. Whereas the newer "targeted" system of dimensioning is flawed in my view, and it is easy to find anomalies in the published dimensions.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

The NMRA Standard HO dimensions and tolerance ranges (max-min) didn't change. They just switched to using standard engineering practice of writing tolerances from a preferred nominal value.   The reason was to stop various track manufacturers wrongly using the sharp curve gauge widening allowance on plain track and turnouts. Which is where the false idea of US HO having not finescale check rail flange ways came from.  Sadly for you "00" modellers, my brand new Hornby "00" Gresley coaches don't comply with any recognised UK or US Standard.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

They just switched to using standard engineering practice of writing tolerances from a preferred nominal value.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I know. Thereby demonstrating that they were production engineers first, and railwaymen second. That method doesn't work for the interaction between wheels and track.

 

The previous standards were written by railwaymen who did understand that. Changing the standard because some folks were not complying with it strikes me as a daft definition of a "standard".

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

13 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

I'm still waiting for the pictures promised back in 2015.

 

 

 

That's a fair comment. I'm very late in recovering from my personal situation of that time.  Basically I stopped working on anything new for the past 4 years. I've just finally moved forward on making paved street track and I only just returned to reading RM Web. Currently I'm back making working suspension for UK 4 wheel wagons and my BR (ER) N7 0-6-2's as my top priorities.

 

Fortunately I had a good friend volunteer and keep the Proto:87 Stores running in my effective absence.  But design wise it's only a one man operation.

 

Andy

 

[The Johnster]

'Finescale' is a relative term; in the days when Hornby Dublo produced a 2-6-4T to BRSMB standards, it was considered 'fine' relative to the 2-6-2T that Triang, who later bought the rights to use the Hornby name when that firm went bust, but 'coarse' compared to kit built loco with Romford wheels, despite the wheel profile being the same, as many RTR locos were (and still are) compromised in design to enable them to run on setrack curves.  Triang's stuff was 'fine scale' compared to Trix Twin.

 

Current RTR standards are finer than they were in those days, and stock can run happily on 'finer scale' Code 75 rail which looks much better than the relatively 'coarse' code 100 from Peco.  Finescale is thus a word that everybody understands the meaning of but nobody can precisely define.  From an RTR manufacturer's point of view, finer standards are no more difficult to build than BRSMB, and models built to them are arguably easier to design for production (those compromises being less necessary), but the Marketing Dept. knows that younger users will find putting the stock on the track difficult and instruct the model designers accordingly; the trade is still wedded to the trainset for xmas and we have to accept that they know what they need to sell to stay in business.

 

Gauge is a related issue but not the same thing.  EM is basically an attempt to make the track look better while still being able to use RTR stock, albeit with modified wheelsets.  Modellers with the skill and ability to do this are likely to work to 'finer' standards, but there is a big overlap and it is possible to find 00 layouts to higher standards than some EM.  The same is true to a greater extent of P4; modellers using this gauge have to have even greater skills and abilities to produce stock that will run reliably to those specifications, and will probably be scratch building track and the running gear of their stock to a very high 'finescale' standard, but there is no requirement to improve on RTR, which is in some cases so good as not to be worth improving anyway, above the solebars and running plates.  One can always 'work up' RTR, or any standard of models, with extra detail, etched nameplates, fire irons, retrofit grilles for diesels, interiors with passengers, and so on.

 

No wonder the OP is confused, and we've probably confused him even more.  He will work in 4mm scale to whatever standards he can comfortably manage, and do his best, which is what most of us do most of the time; it is only to be hoped that he (of course he could be a she) isn't put off by it all.  

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

SNIP

 

No wonder the OP is confused, and we've probably confused him even more.  He will work in 4mm scale to whatever standards he can comfortably manage, and do his best, which is what most of us do most of the time; it is only to be hoped that he (of course he could be a she) isn't put off by it all.  

 

 

 

As many have said here. RTR "00" works well enough, and with such as current PECO track. Just don't deliberately seek out narrow wheels unless you are prepared to modify turnouts or handlay them. That's when you need to understand Standard(s) more thoroughly.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

I know. Thereby demonstrating that they were production engineers first, and railwaymen second. That method doesn't work for the interaction between wheels and track.

 

The previous standards were written by railwaymen who did understand that. Changing the standard because some folks were not complying with it strikes me as a daft definition of a "standard".

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

As you may remember from 20+ years back. I was part of the NMRA "they" you are referring to.  So since I was the one actually there, working as part of the NMRA Standards Dept at the time, let me repeat the actual facts.

 

The NMRA Standard HO dimensions and tolerance ranges (max-min) didn't change. They just switched to using standard engineering practice of writing tolerances from a preferred nominal value.

 

Your "some folks" were the major commercial track manufacturers, including PECO,  who misinterpreted track gauge max and min as freedom to make the gauge thru turnouts as wide as they wanted, presumably to get the smallest minimum radius for the largest wheel base locomotives.  Although there was previously a note to explain that the wide tolerance included a generous allowance for gauge widening where absolutely necessary, that wasn't actually part of the dimensions table, but not many track manufacturers picked up it.

 

The railways in all continents use engineers for designing track. To suggest that those are not "railwaymen" who don't understand how wheels are guided on track is going too far away from reality.

 

Andy

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Andy Reichert
accidental duplication

[Torper]

Finescale OO is an OO layout that you think is EM when you see it.

 

DT

[Il Grifone]

The HD 2-6-4T (excellent for it's time - the Tri-ang 2-6-2T is considerably inferior) was not produced to BRMSB standards. Dublo standards involve wheels 3.2mm thick, set at 14.2mm* back to back and a 0.8mm flange. (Actually measured in 'thou' but I don't have the exact imperial figures to hand.) BRMSB figures are 2.5mm 14.5mm and 0.5mm respectively. Flange depth is also greater as is the flange way (variable and 1.25mm). No tolerances are specified for BRMSB, so one has to assume the usual engineering practice of +/- half the last figure (i.e. 0.05mm).

 

*In practice variable, but track standards are sloppy/coarse enough to cope with this (gauge increases to around 18mm through points!**).

 

Tri-ang is a lot coarser (I don't recall ever having seen a table of dimensions, but the back to back appears to be 13.8mm from measurement) and Trix coarser still (12.5mm?). Tri-ang seem to have shifted to using the Dublo standards by the time they became Hornby.

 

** The result of making pointwork fit into standard curves - the curved stock rail is a continuous curve and by the time it reaches the point blades has deviated by this amount. It's just sufficient to allow BRMSB wheelsets to drop in and derail. The pre-war version has longer blades and BRMSB wheels will run, albeit with a bumpy ride.

 

1960s flexible track was designed as a compromise to accept wheels from BRMSB to Tri-ang Peco Streamline (the only survivor) was tightened slightly (1.4mm to 1.3mm IIRC) during the eighties reducing the excessive flangeway as it no longer had to cope with Tri-ang wheels.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Il Grifone

[newbryford]

35 minutes ago, Torper said:

Finescale OO is an OO layout that you think is EM when you see it.

 

DT

 

I had one of the first layouts on the exhibition circuit in the UK using Peco Code 75 track.

It confused the hell out of people with regard to what gauge it was - especially as it wasn't easy to view end-on.......................

Edited December 12, 2019 by newbryford

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

The HD 2-6-4T (excellent for it's time - the Tri-ang 2-6-2T is considerably inferior) was not produced to BRMSB standards. Dublo standards involve wheels 3.2mm thick, set at 14.2mm* back to back and a 0.8mm flange. (Actually measured in 'thou' but I don't have the exact imperial figures to hand.) BRMSB figures are 2.5mm 14.5mm and 0.5mm respectively. Flange depth is also greater as is the flange way (variable and 1.25mm). No tolerances are specified for BRMSB, so one has to assume the usual engineering practice of +/- half the last figure (i.e. 0.05mm).

 

*In practice variable, but track standards are sloppy/coarse enough to cope with this (gauge increases to around 18mm through points!**).

 

Tri-ang is a lot coarser (I don't recall ever having seen a table of dimensions, but the back to back appears to be 13.8mm from measurement) and Trix coarser still (12.5mm?). Tri-ang seem to have shifted to using the Dublo standards by the time they became Hornby.

 

** The result of making pointwork fit into standard curves - the curved stock rail is a continuous curve and by the time it reaches the point blades has deviated by this amount. It's just sufficient to allow BRMSB wheelsets to drop in and derail. The pre-war version has longer blades and BRMSB wheels will run, albeit with a bumpy ride.

 

1960s flexible track was designed as a compromise to accept wheels from BRMSB to Tri-ang Peco Streamline (the only survivor) was tightened slightly (1.4mm to 1.3mm IIRC) during the eighties reducing the excessive flangeway as it no longer had to cope with Tri-ang wheels.

 

 

I acquired a couple of ancient Triang shorty clerestories a couple of years ago, and before working them up including modern wheelsets, I test ran them for a laugh on my Peco code 100 layout.  These were what I think were the second type of Triang wheels, solid plastic mouldings with pin point axles running in plastic bearing cones moulded into the back of the bogie sideframes.  To my surprise, they ran perfectly!  The original Rovex Triang wheels were very coarse, plastic wheel and hollow half axle mouldings mounted on a steel internal axle which sat in open ended axleboxes.

Edited December 13, 2019 by The Johnster

[Andy Reichert]

On 11/12/2019 at 09:36, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

To save time?

Because you already have them and don't want to waste them?

Because you want to re-use a fiddle yard from an earlier layout?

Because you are converting an existing 00 layout to 00-SF bit-by-bit?

Because they were a present from someone, and precious to you, or you don't want to hurt their feelings?

 

Folks have all sorts of reasons for doing things. What we, or at least I, try to do here is to ensure they have good information about what is and what isn't possible. So that especially beginners can make informed decisions.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

If those are so usable anyway for kit wheels as is, why even bother to alter the gauge for no apparent reason?

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

4 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The HD 2-6-4T (excellent for it's time - the Tri-ang 2-6-2T is considerably inferior) was not produced to BRMSB standards. Dublo standards involve wheels 3.2mm thick, set at 14.2mm* back to back and a 0.8mm flange. (Actually measured in 'thou' but I don't have the exact imperial figures to hand.) BRMSB figures are 2.5mm 14.5mm and 0.5mm respectively. Flange depth is also greater as is the flange way (variable and 1.25mm). No tolerances are specified for BRMSB, so one has to assume the usual engineering practice of +/- half the last figure (i.e. 0.05mm).

 

*In practice variable, but track standards are sloppy/coarse enough to cope with this (gauge increases to around 18mm through points!**).

 

Tri-ang is a lot coarser (I don't recall ever having seen a table of dimensions, but the back to back appears to be 13.8mm from measurement) and Trix coarser still (12.5mm?). Tri-ang seem to have shifted to using the Dublo standards by the time they became Hornby.

 

** The result of making pointwork fit into standard curves - the curved stock rail is a continuous curve and by the time it reaches the point blades has deviated by this amount. It's just sufficient to allow BRMSB wheelsets to drop in and derail. The pre-war version has longer blades and BRMSB wheels will run, albeit with a bumpy ride.

 

1960s flexible track was designed as a compromise to accept wheels from BRMSB to Tri-ang Peco Streamline (the only survivor) was tightened slightly (1.4mm to 1.3mm IIRC) during the eighties reducing the excessive flangeway as it no longer had to cope with Tri-ang wheels.

 

 

 

Just in case I confused anyone, the modern plastic (and I think most recent) Hornby BR 2-6-4 tank I was referring to as different from my very recent Gresleys, is R2731. It's the one running on the code 55 HO track in my youtube video on Transition curves.

 

Andy