Fixing "00" Turnouts for "modern" "00" drifting Standards

[martin_wynne]

6 minutes ago, hayfield said:

C&L Common crossings with a 1.25mm flangeway are now available

 

Hi John,

 

Wow! that's fantastic news. I haven't seen it yet reported anywhere else? Phil may not realise it, but this completely changes the landscape for hand-built track in 00 gauge. Beginners at long last have a route to getting started with hand-built 00 pointwork and learning the basics. Phil should be shouting about this from the rooftops.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Dungrange]

19 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

00/HO, EM and P4 exist separately for sound reasons and all work and run 100% if built to their specific definitions. I'm not arguing against any of them.

 

In the case of 00-SF, the "sound" reasons and the claims appear to be a continually moving (and recycling) target.  Hence the huge number of posts trying to pin down an actual answer to any particular factual question.  In spectator sport terms,  00-SF probably holds the record for the fastest moving goalposts in the history of RM WEB.

 

Okay, I'll describe my rational for considering 00-SF (at the moment I haven't got any further than buying gauges) and maybe you can point out what is flawed with that reasoning.

 

If I want to adopt a 1 mm flange way dimension for aesthetic reasons, then arguably the 'best' option is quite simply to move to EM.  Many modellers do just that and produce beautiful EM gauge layouts.

 

However, for those of us who want to stick to 00 for various reasons, then the next best compromise would initially appear to be to adopt the DOGA Fine standards, which are effectively EM-1.7.  Since the EM standards work fine, why shouldn't EM-1.7?  This gives the standard 00 track gauge of 16.5 mm and the narrower flange ways of EM, which at first glance seems ideal.  The problem that I have with the DOGA Fine standards is that if I'm going to have to go to the bother of re-wheeling all stock with EM wheels and widen the back-to-back dimensions to the point that they are no longer compatible with commercial 00/HO track then why stick with 00?  There really shouldn't be any additional work in taking the leap to EM and the argument for compatibility with 00/HO is lost.

 

Introduce EM-2.  If you define standards by how close the track gauge is to a true scale representation of the prototype, then this is clearly a poorer option and initially I failed to see the rational, as you obviously do to.  To get the best running characteristics, EM wheels should be used, so that means the same work as converting to DOGA Fine or EM.  I'm assuming that you have no issues with the use of EM wheels on axles that are 2 mm shorter than EM axles running on track built to EM-2 standards.  That is effectively what 00-SF or 4-SF is as far as a standard is concerned if you want to consider a standard as encompassing both recommended track and recommended wheel standards.

 

However, what others have demonstrated is that carefully ensuring consistency of back-to-back dimensions (as EM and P4 modellers would always do) the majority of modern ready to run stock that is fitted with wheels produced to NMRA RP25/110 and therefore have a flange width of 0.762 mm will pass through that 1 mm flange-way.  Yes, the clearances are obviously much tighter than the NMRA specification for HO and are much closer to P4 clearances, but that's the main reason for the general interest in 00-SF / 4-SF.  It allows for the possibility to run unmodified modern ready to run with RP25/110 wheel sets alongside stock that has been built with finer wheels (ie EM gauge and RP25/88).  That therefore means that unlike the DOGA Fine standard, there is no longer the need to re-wheel all stock before it is used on the layout and the stock used on a 00-SF layout can also be used on a layout built using commercial 00 track or has been built to the DOGA Intermediate standard.  It's that lack of need to change the wheel sets that is the draw to 00-SF rather than the DOGA Fine standards for 00.

 

I guess that the only people to miss out are those who sell wheels for a living.  Is that your issue with 00-SF?

[hayfield]

21 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi John,

 

Wow! that's fantastic news. I haven't seen it yet reported anywhere else? Phil may not realise it, but this completely changes the landscape for hand-built track in 00 gauge. Beginners at long last have a route to getting started with hand-built 00 pointwork and learning the basics. Phil should be shouting about this from the rooftops.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

I have mentioned this on one of the threads on here after the Stevenage show

 

Phil is holding back a bit as stocks are limited (owing to the sub contractor being on holiday) He is stepping up his advertising a bit, but its not only been a steep learning curve but the business was in a bit of a mess and some products being very tired.

 

2+ years down the road and the business is on the up. Certain things have been learnt the hard way and Phil has pumped many thousands back into the business. Latest product is code 40 rail now come in. New 2 & 3 bolt chairs  not far away. 2 bolt will now be the first to arrive.

 

The business is still developing, with less emphasis on non trackwork stock, toe being dipped into 2 mm/N gauge trackwork. Several related areas being looked at including servos etc 

 

He would like your thoughts on T55 is it worth supporting ?

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, hayfield said:

He would like your thoughts on T55 is it worth supporting ?

 

Hi John,

 

No.

 

The whole point and purpose of T-55 is that no-one uses it, or has even heard of it. If folks start using it, I would have to change the default start-up in Templot to something else.

 

Over the years, several users have pointed out that it is the ideal size for a model railway. A bit bigger than S scale, offering chunky models with fine detail, but needing a lot less space than 0 Gauge. If the hobby was starting with a blank sheet of paper, who knows? But as it is anyone looking at 5.5mm/ft for standard-gauge is going to have to make every single thing from scratch. I suspect Phil's sales would be on the thin side of meagre.

 

Even so, there is at least something to start from:

 

     http://www.55ng.co.uk/

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

On  22/02/2020 at 07:05, Dungrange said:

 

Okay, I'll describe my rational for considering 00-SF (at the moment I haven't got any further than buying gauges) and maybe you can point out what is flawed with that reasoning.

 

If I want to adopt a 1 mm flange way dimension for aesthetic reasons, then arguably the 'best' option is quite simply to move to EM.  Many modellers do just that and produce beautiful EM gauge layouts.

 

However, for those of us who want to stick to 00 for various reasons, then the next best compromise would initially appear to be to adopt the DOGA Fine standards, which are effectively EM-1.7.  Since the EM standards work fine, why shouldn't EM-1.7?  This gives the standard 00 track gauge of 16.5 mm and the narrower flange ways of EM, which at first glance seems ideal.  The problem that I have with the DOGA Fine standards is that if I'm going to have to go to the bother of re-wheeling all stock with EM wheels and widen the back-to-back dimensions to the point that they are no longer compatible with commercial 00/HO track then why stick with 00?  There really shouldn't be any additional work in taking the leap to EM and the argument for compatibility with 00/HO is lost.

 

Introduce EM-2.  If you define standards by how close the track gauge is to a true scale representation of the prototype, then this is clearly a poorer option and initially I failed to see the rational, as you obviously do to.  To get the best running characteristics, EM wheels should be used, so that means the same work as converting to DOGA Fine or EM.  I'm assuming that you have no issues with the use of EM wheels on axles that are 2 mm shorter than EM axles running on track built to EM-2 standards.  That is effectively what 00-SF or 4-SF is as far as a standard is concerned if you want to consider a standard as encompassing both recommended track and recommended wheel standards.

 

However, what others have demonstrated is that carefully ensuring consistency of back-to-back dimensions (as EM and P4 modellers would always do) the majority of modern ready to run stock that is fitted with wheels produced to NMRA RP25/110 and therefore have a flange width of 0.762 mm will pass through that 1 mm flange-way.  Yes, the clearances are obviously much tighter than the NMRA specification for HO and are much closer to P4 clearances, but that's the main reason for the general interest in 00-SF / 4-SF.  It allows for the possibility to run unmodified modern ready to run with RP25/110 wheel sets alongside stock that has been built with finer wheels (ie EM gauge and RP25/88).  That therefore means that unlike the DOGA Fine standard, there is no longer the need to re-wheel all stock before it is used on the layout and the stock used on a 00-SF layout can also be used on a layout built using commercial 00 track or has been built to the DOGA Intermediate standard.  It's that lack of need to change the wheel sets that is the draw to 00-SF rather than the DOGA Fine standards for 00.

 

All the above is correct, but the last paragraph illustrates the lack of sufficient running clearance need to have multiple different B-B settings depending on wheel flange width. But none of the suppliers of any of those wheels (or apparently most importantly - RTR mechanisms) rely on any of the three (?)  00-SF "standards" to be made reliably to, or in the future to, the 00-SF multiple stated required dimensions.  I.e It is a group of related  "standards" without any control of it being adhered to by even wheel suppliers.  Since the "Standards" each effectively very exactly set the B-B, to correct each wheel type to a common wheel check gauging, they would be considered as completely separate standards for each case using the  standards verification criteria.  E.g. They should be 00-SFA, 00-SFB and 00-SFC, to just pick a useful name out of the air. 

 

This topic only exists because that has been a drift of 00 away from 00/HO full interchangeability and there is no guarantee that that drifting isn't going to continue, or change suddenly in the near future. Calling the current state a "handy co-incidence" is very appropriate. There is no certainly that such a coincidence will last.

 

I haven't checked, but I think the concept of "1mm flange ways" is actually an extreme case for 16.2 mm gauge and RTR wheels'. With the Check Gauge being so critical, I'm not sure if CG min at 1mm flange way is also CG max, which would be a difficult dimension to achieve in practice.  My apologies in advance for guessing here. I'm happily open to be being corrected.

 

 

On 22/02/2020 at 07:05, Dungrange said:

 

I guess that the only people to miss out are those who sell wheels for a living.  Is that your issue with 00-SF?

 

Not sure what the last line is about. I retired early in 2000. I don't do anything "for a living". Just what I think helps me make what I like, but accurately and reliably.

 

Sponsoring the Proto:87 SIG Stores is part of my designing and making working model railway systems hobby. I make what I want for myself and copies if wanted for the World-Wide Proto:87 and P4 crowd. Some of my own design Proto:87 parts are easily manufactured to HO/00  standard as well, and selling those in addition at a little over cost helps keep the Proto:87 website and overheads funded. otherwise it wouldn't be there.

 

The Stores doesn't sell any wheels currently although in the past I have passed through both AG and NWSL P87 (only) extra wheels over and above those I purchased for myself at a large discount.  I expect to re-offer the new NWSL wheels later this year for again for my and other users convenience, but I am also looking into actually manufacturing my own P:87/P4 wagon and coach wheels as I don't like the high prices of existing sources. I don't see any of the above being relevant to the many suppliers of wheels that are used for any of the common NMRA HO or UK 00 RTR Standards. I don't have any interest in using those, or making them.

 

However, because I use a wide range of mostly low cost engineering and manufacturing techniques, I do find the "for a living" prices of other suppliers similar parts for 00 and HO surprisingly expensive. E.g. Fully assembled crossings that just got Martin so excited are UKP 17.92 from their UK supplier and less that UKP 10.00 from the Proto:87 Stores, despite mine being similarly made in the UK, expensively shipped to California for final assembly and then sold.

 

Andy

[Nearholmer]

6 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

17.92 from their UK supplier and less that UKP 10.00 from the Proto:87 Stores, despite mine being similarly made in the UK, expensively shipped to California for final assembly and then sold.

 

What % purchase/sales tax do you have to add to what you sell in California? 7.5%?

 

In the UK (and everywhere else in Europe) it is 20%.

 

That might not explain the whole difference, but it might well explain some of it. More might be explained by the difference between a person doing it to part-fund a hobby-orhanisation and a person doing it to pay their gas bill and feed the kids.

 

K

[martin_wynne]

25 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

All the above is correct, but the last paragraph illustrates the lack of sufficient running clearance need to have multiple different B-B settings depending on wheel flange width. But none of the suppliers of any of those wheels (or apparently most importantly - RTR mechanisms) rely on any of the three (?)  00-SF "standards" to be made reliably to, or in the future to, the 00-SF multiple stated required dimensions.  I.e It is a group of related  "standards" without any control of it being adhered to by even wheel suppliers.  Since the "Standards" each effectively very exactly set the B-B, to correct each wheel type to a common wheel check gauging, they would be considered as completely separate standards for each case using the  standards verification criteria.  E.g. They should be 00-SFA, 00-SFB and 00-SFC, to just pick a useful name out of the air.

 

Hi Andy,

 

You do love to blind us with a lot of meaningless twaddle.

 

The mystery is why? What are you trying to achieve with this utterly unnecessary topic? Modellers in the UK are happily building 00-SF layouts, are pleased with them, and you haven't added a single thing to benefit or assist them in any way. 

 

There are not 3 different 00-SF standards. There is one. The 00-SF dimensions are at: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

Here are the wheel dimensions:

 

 

It is extremely unlikely that manufacturers will stop making wheels which comply with the above, because if they do, such wheels would not run on the vast majority of existing 00 layouts. Are you seriously suggesting they would do that?

 

With the Check Gauge being so critical, I'm not sure if CG min at 1mm flange way is also CG max, which would be a difficult dimension to achieve in practice.

 

Andy, for the umpteenth time of telling you, this is a compliance standard, not a manufacturing specification. The CG compliance dimension is 15.2mm MIN. THERE IS NO MAXIMUM. Since you seem unable to grasp that concept I will repeat it yet again: THERE IS NO CG MAXIMUM

 

There is however a limit on the check span of 14.25mm MAX, and a limit on the crossing flangeway gap of 1.05mm MAX. Between them, those two limits prevent the CG exceeding 15.3mm.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

What % purchase/sales tax do you have to add to what you sell in California? 7.5%?

 

In the UK (and everywhere else in Europe) it is 20%.

 

That might not explain the whole difference, but it might well explain some of it. More might be explained by the difference between a person doing it to part-fund a hobby-orhanisation and a person doing it to pay their gas bill and feed the kids.

 

K

 

13 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

You do love to blind us with a lot of meaningless twaddle.

 

The mystery is why? What are you trying to achieve with this utterly unnecessary topic? Modellers in the UK are happily building 00-SF layouts, are pleased with them, and you haven't added a single thing to benefit or assist them in any way. 

 

There are not 3 different 00-SF standards. There is one. The 00-SF dimensions are at: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

Here are the wheel dimensions:

 

 

It is extremely unlikely that manufacturers will stop making wheels which comply with the above, because if they do, such wheels would not run on the vast majority of existing 00 layouts. Are you seriously suggesting they would do that?

 

 

 

 

Andy, for the umpteenth time of telling you, this is a compliance standard, not a manufacturing specification. The CG compliance dimension is 15.2mm MIN. THERE IS NO MAXIMUM. Since you seem unable to grasp that concept I will repeat it yet again: THERE IS NO CG MAXIMUM

 

There is however a limit on the check span of 14.25mm MAX, and a limit on the crossing flangeway gap of 1.05mm MAX. Between them, those two limits prevent the CG exceeding 15.3mm.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Bit too late Martin, Hornby has already drifted past 00-SF compatible dimensions. My Hornby Gresley suburbans have 2.5 mm B-B's as measured. Altering it is near to impossible.

 

As per postings on your Templot Forum:

 

Quote:

"

I too have some Hornby Gresley Suburban coaches of the latest generation and the wheels are indeed 2.5mm wide ( 0.1" ). The back-to-backs are between 14.2 and 14.3mm as supplied. I also have a few Hornby BR( ex LMS ) surburban coaches purchased recently and they are the same in wheel width and BtB settings. All other RTR coaches of recent vintage from Bachmann/Hornby etc seem to have 2.8mm wide wheels.

The wheels can of course be pulled out on the axles with a NWSL puller or similar if required.

Rob

"

Then after checking further, Quote:

"

No it isn't easy getting the wheels out on the Gresley coaches. You can risk spreading the bogie frames but be ready for the sound of cracking plastic The BR(ex LMS ) ones are very simple.

Rob

"

And of course that's exactly what's happened in the USA. Code 88 wheels for HO Fine use were mistakenly introduced for HO by smaller suppliers but drifted into popular use since about 1990. But they are not compatible with the NMRA HO Standard.  See what the owner of Model Railroad Hobbyist Magazine says about using code 88 wheels. His well known  HO Layout, The Siskiyou Line, isn't allowed to run any.

 

So please forgive me showing up your significant error yet again. And of course I'm still waiting for your expert explanation of the "flaws" in the successful NMRA HO Standard.

 

Andy

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Sigh. Andy, I have repeatedly explained that "EM minus 2" (00-SF) was originally devised to offer better running for EMGS and other "kit" wheels when used on 00 models.

 

And that it was subsequently found that most modern RTR models also run on 00-SF just fine. I have always explained that RTR back-to-backs need to be checked, and a few might need adjusting. I'm sorry to learn that you have some Hornby coaches which fall into that category, but it isn't actually my fault. If you are not happy with your purchase, you should return them to the supplier, or maybe contact Hornby direct.

 

I have also suggested that 00 modellers who do not wish to use kit wheels, or are unwilling to be concerned with back-to-back dimensions, or wish to use sharp radii, should probably stay with the 00-BF or DOGA Intermediate standards rather than 00-SF. Which is why I was pleased that C&L can now supply assembled bullhead crossings for those standards, for modellers wishing to learn track-building skills.

 

The relevance to 00-SF modellers in the UK of "what the owner of Model Railroad Hobbyist Magazine says about using code 88 wheels" escapes me entirely.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited February 24, 2020 by martin_wynne

[polybear]

 

On ‎22‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 14:25, martin_wynne said:

What I find amusing in all this is the idea that 00-SF is a new insult that has been visited upon the hobby, and that I'm the perpetrator of this outrage.

 

 

 

Martin Wynne.  The new Prince Of Darkness....

 

As for the rest of this thread, why oh why did I start reading it?  I'm sure that getting hit by a bus on the way home would be less painful

And the Gold Medal is awarded to.... Martin Wynne, for managing to keep his cool in the face of such utter....

 

[Siberian Snooper]

As I said earlier, we're going round and round, I wonder who will disappear up their own orifice first! The banging of heads against brick walls is permissible.

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

 

4 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

As I said earlier, we're going round and round, I wonder who will disappear up their own orifice first! The banging of heads against brick walls is permissible.

 

 

 

Who really gives a f f as to what gauge/standard/level/accuracy/correctitude anybody models to, as long as it works for you and you're enjoying yourself, what the hell?

 

Mike.

[hayfield]

I thought drifting was something Essex boys did in car parks at night !!!

[Chris White]

31 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Who really gives a f f as to what gauge/standard/level/accuracy/correctitude anybody models to, as long as it works for you and you're enjoying yourself, what the hell?

I don't feel I have the time nor patience to hand build turnouts and track. I would like to be able to buy stuff off the shelf that looks a little better, e.g. smaller gaps, as well as not have rolling stock nod and duck as wheels roll through the the gap at the crossing V. As a bonus I'd like the wheels to be round so I don't get things wobbling along the track :-)

 

I'd also like to be able to use one style of coupler where for all my stock these ride at the same height, and don't droop or drop out.

 

I'm quite happy to do some wheel swapping and back to back checking and adjustment if someone somewhere can provide a definitive statement as to what the measurement should be and for that to apply consistently without caveats, provisos, and special cases to all my rolling stock.

 

To be drowned in a Tsunami of EM-2, DOGA BF, DOGA IF, DOGA SF, 00-SF, 4-SF (particularly where some of these are different names for the same thing) just doesn't help.