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

[martin_wynne]

1 minute ago, Andy Reichert said:

Established proven Standards usually come from a recognised Society

 

What does "recognised" mean in this context? Who is doing all this recognising?

 

I hereby establish the T-55 Society, for all those Templot users who forgot to set their track gauge before starting on a track plan.

 

I do hope we can become officially "recognised" soon. How will we know when it's happened? 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

10 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Andy,

 

Please don't put words into my mouth. I have never recommended "gauge-narrowing" in any shape or form. The correct gauge for 00-SF is 16.2mm. It is NOT a narrow version of something else. It is derived by subtracting 2.0mm from the current EM standards. What the other 00 or H0 standards happen to be is irrelevant.

 

Modellers are obviously free to use whatever plain track they prefer. Often 16.5mm flexi is a sensible choice where there are sharp curves needing gauge-widening. For a smallish mostly straight or gently curved layout, I have suggested that modellers using 00-SF might prefer to hand-build 16.2mm plain track.

 

Hand-built turnouts are not "extra work". For many they are the whole point and purpose of a finescale layout, to enable the track to be modelled on the prototype in the same way as the rest of the models. And to allow the creation of bespoke track formations matching the prototype, or best fitting the available space.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

I don't know how else to describe the difference in representation of 00 being a well known gauge narrowed representation of Prototype Standard Gauge in 4mm scale - 2.33 mm., and your term 00-SF being slightly further narrowed to still represent the same Prototype Standard Gauge in the same 4mm scale - 2.53 mm. 

 

I think It's only a minus 2.00 mm derivation of EM standards if it is restricted to EM - 2.00 mm wheels. Which I understand is absolutely not the goal. 

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

36 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

What does "recognised" mean in this context? Who is doing all this recognising?

 

I hereby establish the T-55 Society, for all those Templot users who forgot to set their track gauge before starting on a track plan.

 

I do hope we can become officially "recognised" soon. How will we know when it's happened? 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Getting a set of appropriate dimensions recognised as a Standard is deservedly solely the problem of the instigator. Building one or more desirable demo layouts and showing them to lots of people who then want to use the same dimension set is is probably the best way to start.  Just publishing the dimensions and leaving the rest to everyone else to hopefully actually do something with is far less credible.  Advertising it as suddenly fixing problems on long established existing standards that don't or can't actually occur is the least productive way AFAIAC.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

17 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

I think It's only a minus 2.00 mm derivation of EM standards if it is restricted to EM - 2.00 mm wheels. Which I understand is absolutely not the goal.

 

Yes it is. That was the entire original point and purpose of "EM minus 2" -- to provide better running for EMGS and similar "kit" wheels when used on 00 models. That was my original reason for including it in Templot.

 

It was just a lucky chance discovery -- several years later, and not by me -- that many modern RTR models also run nicely on it, if a bit of care is taken in checking back-to-backs.

 

Lots of folks are now doing exactly that. What have you got against them, to justify this relentless opposition to their chosen preference?

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

6 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Just publishing the dimensions and leaving the rest to everyone else

 

Well I haven't yet published the T-55 standard, so I had better get on with it. We do know a few things -- the scale is 5.5mm/ft. The track gauge is 1 inch. The flangeway gap is 1mm. Nothing is yet known about the wheel profile. You are a wheel manufacturer, do you have anything in stock for 5.5mm/ft scale?

 

George Mellor used to produce narrow-gauge models in that scale, there is an active society:

 

http://www.55ng.co.uk

 

Perhaps we should be starting merger discussions already, even though the T-55 Society was founded only an hour ago?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[DCB]

I find it completely ridiculous that none of the major manufacturers have correct Australian teak sleepered 75lb ft bullhead rail with 2 bolt fixing chairs in scale 60 foot lengths nor any pointwork available for this popular T-55 standard despite the T-55 society being founded more than 2 hours ago.   

Edit  Have you considered getting someone famous like Paddy Hopkirk who famously drove Rally cars including Mini's for BMC in the Monte Carlo Rally  to endorse T-55?    He used to produce or endorse heel and toe throttle and brake pedals for MInis among other accessories.   There must be a lot of redundant politicians, MEPs  and cabinet members who could lend their names, not that that would be all that positive.   How about Michael Portillo? 

Edited February 20, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

What does "recognised" mean in this context? Who is doing all this recognising?

 

This topic has reminded me of a petrol can which I owned, and probably still have somewhere.

 

On the side of the can was clearly embossed the statement "Approved by Paddy Hopkirk".

 

For years I wondered who was this Mr Hopkirk, who apparently made it his business to go around the country approving petrol cans? And in what way would a petrol can need to be deficient in order to fail to secure his approval?

 

I have now discovered that the said Mr Hopkirk is still very much alive and well:

 

 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/paddy-hopkirk-85-rally-driver-excommunicated-by-catholic-church-has-no-intention-of-slowing-down-37882133.html

 

Perhaps he could be persuaded to come and approve the 00-SF standards?

 

And perhaps Mr Reichert could take over the task of approving petrol cans?

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

One of my heroes who convinced me a 1071 Cooper S was the only way to get from A to B, even if we were a bit short of snow and special stages in North London...
 

A pocket rocket it was in those days, but look at the figures now. 0-60 in 13 seconds and 70 bhp......about the same as my wife’s Toyota Yaris...

 

Edit: Bargain.....

 

https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1161443

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by gordon s

[hayfield]

8 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

This topic has reminded me of a petrol can which I owned, and probably still have somewhere.

 

On the side of the can was clearly embossed the statement "Approved by Paddy Hopkirk".

 

For years I wondered who was this Mr Hopkirk, who apparently made it his business to go around the country approving petrol cans? And in what way would a petrol can need to be deficient in order to fail to secure his approval?

 

I have now discovered that the said Mr Hopkirk is still very much alive and well:

 

 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/paddy-hopkirk-85-rally-driver-excommunicated-by-catholic-church-has-no-intention-of-slowing-down-37882133.html

 

Perhaps he could be persuaded to come and approve the 00-SF standards?

 

And perhaps Mr Reichert could take over the task of approving petrol cans?

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

You surprise me, even I know who Paddy Hopkirk is, also endorsed rally lights for cars and roof racks (What's this got to do with rallying) I think I can also remember steering wheels and car seat covers, no doubt car radios and 8 track machines as well

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Yes it is. That was the entire original point and purpose of "EM minus 2" -- to provide better running for EMGS and similar "kit" wheels when used on 00 models. That was my original reason for including it in Templot.

 

It was just a lucky chance discovery -- several years later, and not by me -- that many modern RTR models also run nicely on it, if a bit of care is taken in checking back-to-backs.

 

Lots of folks are now doing exactly that. What have you got against them, to justify this relentless opposition to their chosen preference?

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

I look at a pack of Alan Gibson wheels and it clearly states 00-EM and there are two axles enclosed one for 00 the other for EM gauge

 

Clearly these wheels are produced to EM gauge standards, though they can also be successfully be used for 00 gauge. I assume therefore to obtain the best results from these wheels 00SF/4SF would be the optimum gauge for these wheelsets using the standard 00 back to back measurements ?

[Junctionmad]

Seemingly we need to get the T-55 standard excommunicated by the Catholic Church ,!  .  These days that seems a difficult thing to do. I suggest Martin nail a copy of said standard on the door of a suitable nearby parish church as a start ! 
 

I mean it worked once before 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Junctionmad

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Getting a set of appropriate dimensions recognised as a Standard is deservedly solely the problem of the instigator. Building one or more desirable demo layouts and showing them to lots of people who then want to use the same dimension set is is probably the best way to start.  Just publishing the dimensions and leaving the rest to everyone else to hopefully actually do something with is far less credible.  Advertising it as suddenly fixing problems on long established existing standards that don't or can't actually occur is the least productive way AFAIAC.

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

The history of model railways is full of different groups of like minded modellers agreeing on a set of standards to suite their own requirements, 00 being a complete mish mash to get H0 mechanisms into smaller UK style of locomotives

 

Then a group came along wanting a wider track gauge nearer the prototype, hence the EM gauge society was born using initially 18mm gauge later changing to 18.2

 

For some modellers this still was too course so the Protofour Society was formed, then another group started the S4 society. thankfully amalgamated into the P4 society

 

Now nothing wrong with either societies wanting something superior to 00 gauge  and forming their own societies

 

The DOGA has for years tried to support the 00 gauge modellers, however most who model in 4 mm scale either see no need  or are just not interested in joining a society. Within the UK there is not a combined lobby speaking for all of those who use 00 gauge for a better defined wheel and track standards. Therefore it is up to like minded individuals who require a better looking and performing track system to match the ever improving RTR models they can buy or  able to build without having to regauge or change the gauge of their models.

 

Clearly there is nothing wrong with modellers wanting to model in either EM or P4 gauges, so why is it so wrong to want to model in 00SF?  Building layouts to both EM and P4 standards to prove the standard is exactly the what both societies did !! Many are now doing the same in 00SF,

 

Now if 00sf does not interest you that's fine, the standards work and the genie is out of the bottle. This is how life evolves and develops 

[Talltim]

The standards have been fixed in G scale

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Talltim

[Talltim]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

Martin

 

I look at a pack of Alan Gibson wheels and it clearly states 00-EM and there are two axles enclosed one for 00 the other for EM gauge

 

 

That's for people who do forced perspective modelling...

[Dungrange]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

I look at a pack of Alan Gibson wheels and it clearly states 00-EM and there are two axles enclosed one for 00 the other for EM gauge

 

Clearly these wheels are produced to EM gauge standards, though they can also be successfully be used for 00 gauge. I assume therefore to obtain the best results from these wheels 00SF/4SF would be the optimum gauge for these wheelsets using the standard 00 back to back measurements ?

 

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that these axles are actually intended for use with the DOGA - Fine standard (EM - 1.7 mm) with a back to back dimension of around 14.8 mm, but if they can be set to about 14.5 mm, then yes, I think they're an ideal wheel for 00-SF / 4-SF.

[hayfield]

6 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that these axles are actually intended for use with the DOGA - Fine standard (EM - 1.7 mm) with a back to back dimension of around 14.8 mm, but if they can be set to about 14.5 mm, then yes, I think they're an ideal wheel for 00-SF / 4-SF.

 

 

Packing clearly states "00" rather than DOGA fine, I guess as you say they can be used for DOGA fine just as easy as 00 gauge or 00SF, just depends on which back to back gauge you use

 

The EM axles are a tad under 22mm 00 are 20.15mm. The wheels are 2.95 over the axle holes or 2.2mm over the treads. Still makes no difference when we are talking about 0.15 mm per side

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

I look at a pack of Alan Gibson wheels and it clearly states 00-EM and there are two axles enclosed one for 00 the other for EM gauge

 

Clearly these wheels are produced to EM gauge standards, though they can also be successfully be used for 00 gauge. I assume therefore to obtain the best results from these wheels 00SF/4SF would be the optimum gauge for these wheelsets using the standard 00 back to back measurements ?

 

Hi John,

 

Those wheels are produced to the EMGS profile or the very similar NMRA RP25/88 profile, having flanges 0.6mm thick. The back-to-backs should be set as follows:

 

for EM: 16.6mm

 

for 00-SF (and 00-BF): 14.6mm

 

for DOGA Fine: 14.9mm

 

Those back-to-backs are the maximum dimensions. For optimum running get as close to them as you can without exceeding them.

 

Note that they are too narrow for 00-BF and will likely bump in the crossings. It would be interesting to know if that fact is mentioned in the instructions?

 

For back-to-back settings for other wheels, see: http://4-sf.uk

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited February 20, 2020 by martin_wynne
link added

[gordon s]

I'll let you know shortly as I have some Alan Gibson 10 spoke pony truck wheels winging their way to me as I type. Tony Wright kindly pointed out an error on my 01 which had 12 spoke wheels fitted by mistake. I'll get them fitted and see how they run through 00-SF.

[martin_wynne]

3 minutes ago, gordon s said:

I'll let you know shortly as I have some Alan Gibson 10 spoke pony truck wheels winging their way to me as I type. Tony Wright kindly pointed out an error on my 01 which had 12 spoke wheels fitted by mistake. I'll get them fitted and see how they run through 00-SF.

 

Gordon, surely you could have cut out 2 spokes without paying for new wheels?

 

Set them to 14.6mm back-to-back for 00-SF.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

Those wheels are produced to the EMGS profile or the very similar NMRA RP25/88 profile, having flanges 0.6mm thick. The back-to-backs should be set as follows:

 

for EM: 16.6mm

 

for 00-SF (and 00-BF): 14.6mm

 

for DOGA Fine: 14.9mm

 

Those back-to-backs are the maximum dimensions. For optimum running get as close to them as you can without exceeding them.

 

Note that they are too narrow for 00-BF and will likely bump in the crossings. It would be interesting to know if that fact is mentioned in the instructions?

 

For back-to-back settings for other wheels, see: http://4-sf.uk

 

I note your comment regarding the similarity of the EMGS wheel profile and those meeting the NMRA RP25/88 profile.  However, according to their website, Accurascale plan to issue their forthcoming KUA Nuclear Flask Carriers with "Blackened metal 12 mm disc wheels on metal axles, RP25.88 profile sets with 14.4 mm back to backs and 26 mm over pinpoints" - see https://accurascale.co.uk/products/kua-nuclear-flask-carrier.  Note that there is no warning on their website that these "will likely bump in the crossings of 00-BF track work" or that the back to back dimension seems to be too small for these narrower wheels. 

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I note your comment regarding the similarity of the EMGS wheel profile and those meeting the NMRA RP25/88 profile.  However, according to their website, Accurascale plan to issue their forthcoming KUA Nuclear Flask Carriers with "Blackened metal 12 mm disc wheels on metal axles, RP25.88 profile sets with 14.4 mm back to backs and 26 mm over pinpoints" - see https://accurascale.co.uk/products/kua-nuclear-flask-carrier.  Note that there is no warning on their website that these "will likely bump in the crossings of 00-BF track work" or that the back to back dimension seems to be too small for these narrower wheels. 

 

Hi David,

 

14.4mm is the back-to-back for RP25/110 wheels.

 

RP25 profile is here:

 

 https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25 2009.07.pdf

 

RP25/88 has a flange thickness of 0.025" = 0.635mm

 

So the maximum back-to-back at 15.2mm check gauge is 15.2 - 0.635 = 14.565mm, say 14.55mm in practical terms for optimum running.

 

They will work ok on 00-SF and 00-BF at 14.4mm back-to-back (minimum for 00-SF is 14.3mm), but the check rails may pull them sideways with a lurch in some situations.

 

They have a width of 0.088" = 2.235mm. The maximum flangeway for full support is therefore 2.235/2 = 1.12mm for crossings having sharp vees, or (2.235-0.25)/2 = 0.99mm for full-width prototypical blunt-nose vees.

 

00-BF flangeways are wider than either of these dimensions, which means these wheels will drop into them with a bump.

 

EMGS wheels are slightly wider (0.090"), and thus a fractionally better fit to the EM and 00-SF track standard:

 

 

They also have a slightly thinner flange (0.021" = 0.533mm), so the maximum back-to-back is 15.2 - 0.533 = 14.67mm, say 14.65mm in practical terms for optimum running on 00-SF (16.65mm on EM).

 

The EMGS and RP25/88 wheels are not easy to tell apart, and subject to production variations, so the general back-to-back setting for both in 00 is 14.6mm max to the nearest 0.1mm in practical modelling.

 

If you have a choice, go for the EMGS profile rather than RP25/88.

 

N.B. There are reports of some wheels on the USA market which are to the RP25/110 profile but reduced in width to 0.088", and sold as "code88" wheels. These are not RP25/88 profile wheels and should be treated as RP25/110 wheels, set to 14.4mm back-to-back.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited February 20, 2020 by martin_wynne
note added

[gordon s]

6 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Martin

 

I look at a pack of Alan Gibson wheels and it clearly states 00-EM and there are two axles enclosed one for 00 the other for EM gauge

 

Clearly these wheels are produced to EM gauge standards, though they can also be successfully be used for 00 gauge. I assume therefore to obtain the best results from these wheels 00SF/4SF would be the optimum gauge for these wheelsets using the standard 00 back to back measurements ?

.

10 spoke wheels have just arrived and they come with three axles. 00, EM and a pin point axle for internal bearings. I haven’t opened the pack yet, but happy to measure the tread or flange thickness. I’ll set them at 14.6mm B2B and fit them over the weekend.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      Where does one get these various back to back gauges for the different OO settings? I had more than one but seem to have misplaced them.

Had them ages and just when I need them they have disappeared.

trustytev.

[Dungrange]

33 minutes ago, trustytrev said:

Hello,

      Where does one get these various back to back gauges for the different OO settings? I had more than one but seem to have misplaced them.

Had them ages and just when I need them they have disappeared.

trustytev.

 

The Double O Gauge Association shop sells them for both their Intermediate and Fine standards - http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm

 

DCC Concepts also produce back to back gauges for various standards - https://www.dccconcepts.com/product-category/gauges-tools-and-fasteners/dccconcepts-gauges/

 

I thought C&L Finescale did as well, but couldn't see any listed on their website.  There are other suppliers.

[Andy Reichert]

For the many who have not yet read and understood the restriction criteria kindly posted by the Scalefour Society and CLAG, here is a text summary to save you looking it up. Basically it applies to ALL standards in ALL Scales. Note, some of the practical standards do increase the possible sloppiness of some dimensions to allow for expected construction inaccuracy and such practical issues as usual less than perfectly wobble free wheel mounting.

 

Track and Wheel Standards, Track Viability Conditions

 

1. Back to Back Max + 2 x Effective Flange Max + Running Clearance  <= Track Gauge Min

 

2. Check Gauge Min >= Back to Back Max + Effective Flange Max

 

3. Track Gauge Min – Crossing Flange way Max  >= Check Gauge Min

 

4. Wheel Width Min  >= 2 x Crossing Flange way

 

5. Check Gauge Max – Crossing Flange way Min + Running Clearance  <= Back to Back Min

 

6. Effective Flange Max + Clearance  <= Crossing Flange way Min.

 

I'll leave it up for further consideration.  Also Martin, you still haven't substantiated your repeated claim that NMRA US HO is critically flawed on meeting the above . 

 

Andy