Current / future 4mm finescale track option clarification

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

Actually having the extended nose platform set to the depth to just carry DOGA fine wheel flange tips  completely obviates any need for the extra skill and effort  of hand hand building for 00-SF.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

Not again. How many more times?

 

The whole point and purpose of 00-SF is to allow the mixing of RTR wheels with kit wheels. There are at least 3 flange depths in the mix, and it is impossible to set the spacer height to support all of them. The same applies to EM modellers who are mixing say Romford and Ultrascale wheels, and maybe widened RTR wheels too.

 

The best solution is to copy the UK prototype and have the spacers clear of all wheels, which run on the rails at all times. With 1mm flangeways for EM/00-SF and 1.2mm flangeways for RTR/DOGA Int, the wheels will be supported on the rails at all times and there is no need for any flange support.

 

No-one wishes to "obviate" the need for hand-building. Please get it into your head that some folks enjoy and want to build their own track.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

No-one wishes to "obviate" the need for hand-building. Please get it into your head that some folks enjoy and want to build their own track.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

It not just that modellers like hand building turnouts, though a few of us do. One of the main drivers is that some modellers are more discerning in that rather than being  hamstrung to what the RTR market has on offer, they actually want something that is bespoke in size, and or looks and performs better with finescale wheels. 

 

One would have thought by now the members of the flat earth society would have woken up and smelled the roses. Perhaps we should have asked the EU for protected status for 00SF before we left !!!

[AndyID]

10 hours ago, hayfield said:

One would have thought by now the members of the flat earth society

 

There's a society?!? How/where can I sign-up?

[5050]

On 12/11/2020 at 09:54, Wayne Kinney said:

Many thanks, Martin (especially coming from yourself).

 

First to be released will be a 00 Gauge B7, with DOGA Intermediate' (1.2mm flangeway) so Ready to Run models can run on it without modification. Also the option for thick timber (to match Peco & thick C&L) or thin sleeper (to match C&L thin or SMP track)

 

EM Gauge & option for 'DOGA fine '(1mm flangeway for those that want it) will follow, and I have also been considering 00-SF version.

00 Gauge DOGA fine shown in the pictures.

These look excellent Wayne - but will there ever be a P4 option?  Seeing as how the EM Soc. now have both the Peco option and yours, P4 is left a bit out in the cold.  (Some people might say 'deservedly so' but I won't go there)  Personally I'm quite happy building my own P4 pointwork but I'm sure that there are many potential 'P4 Competent' individuals for whom the necessity to build points (even with the Exactoscale ranges) may be the only reason they don't try P4.

[Wayne Kinney]

Thanks 5050,

 

I haven't really considered P4 as I am not sure I could manufacture to the necessary tight tolerances that are needed.

[5050]

1 hour ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks 5050,

 

I haven't really considered P4 as I am not sure I could manufacture to the necessary tight tolerances that are needed.

Well, C&L and Exactoscale do and, looking at your product, I can't see a great deal of inferiority.  If you can produce a double slip in N then a B6 in P4 could be possible?

[Wayne Kinney]

But that uses gauges, my system doesn't, so relies purely on the accuracy of the chairs and manufacturing tolerances....It's a slightly different approach with it's own challenges...

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, Wayne Kinney said:

But that uses gauges, my system doesn't, so relies purely on the accuracy of the chairs and manufacturing tolerances....It's a slightly different approach with it's own challenges...

 

 

 

Central Valley curvable turnouts bases in the US have used that approach 100% successfully for US HO since the 1970's.  The only requirement is that the correctly positioned rail fixings match the rail base width sufficiently accurately.  Then using a pre-assembled crossing and pre-machined points, no gauges or paper templates are needed at all, even for Proto:scales. And the build time is usually between 30 minutes and 1 hour, even for novices.

 

 

The preformed bases fix all the rail positions relative to the few centre line alignment points provided on the base. Track planning software over here in the US is usually just used for overall layout design..

 

Since Wayne's bases are also curvable, the special requirement for UK track building templates using individual loose sleepers will reduce to just plotting track centre lines in most cases.

 

Andy

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Hi Andy,

 

The EM flangeway gap is 1.0mm , the check gauge is 17.2mm, and has been for 50 years:

 

 

Some history of EM minus 2 and my renaming of it as 00-SF for Templot is here:

 

https://00-sf.org.uk/history.php

 

There were and are no dimensional differences between 00-SF and EM minus 2. It was a name change only.

 

Martin.

Edited November 17, 2020 by martin_wynne

[Wayne Kinney]

51 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Hold On!   EM (and hence EM-2) doesn't have "1mm flange ways" that you specify for 00-SF.

 

On EM and hence EM-2 the check check rail - stock rail gap is 0.95 mm

 

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

If you could please elaborate where/how the above information was ascertained and how you feel this fits in with published EM Gauge standards?

Thanks for both your experience on the matter and time to reply.

 

[roythebus]

On 15/11/2020 at 07:05, AndyID said:

 

There's a society?!? How/where can I sign-up?

The Flat Earth Society has members all round the globe.

 

[Andy Reichert]

 

This was part of the information sent to me by the EMGS just one year ago this month. I respect their authority on the matter.

 

So Martin, please promptly delete your incorrect and unnecessary edit of my accurate post.  And  desist in future.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Hi Andy,

 

Thanks for posting that, but it's new to me, and it doesn't correspond to other EMGS material in my possession.

 

There are some problems in it:

 

1. scale bullhead rail is 0.92mm wide, not 1.00mm as shown.

 

2. the crossing flangeway is correctly shown as 1.00mm, but the check gauge is incorrectly shown as 17.25mm. That would result in a check flangeway of 0.95mm and therefore asymmetric flangeways. That would make it impossible to construct complex formations such as tandem turnouts and crossovers having parallel-wing crossings.

 

I would urge all EM modellers to ignore that document and refer instead to the EM track building handbook which I posted previously, correctly showing the check gauge as 17.20mm.

 

When EM minus 2 was invented in the 1970s, the EM check gauge was very definitely 17.20mm and reduced to 15.20mm for EM minus 2. It was simply renamed 00-SF for Templot with no dimensional changes.

 

There are several multi-slot EM gauge track gauge tools on the market, and as far as I know none of them are asymmetric and required to be used only one way round. The flangeway gap is 1.0mm on both sides.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Beechnut]

Martin

Seeing Andy’s data sheet and your reply, which I don’t disagree with, made me check my data sheets. I joined in ‘92 and the copy Andy illustrated is identical to mine dated 9:83.

Unfortunately I can’t check the latest as it’s on CD.

Having built lots of EM track over the years I’ve never actually measured anything, just used society gauges and never had any problems.

Cheers

Brendan

[hayfield]

6 hours ago, Beechnut said:

Martin

Seeing Andy’s data sheet and your reply, which I don’t disagree with, made me check my data sheets. I joined in ‘92 and the copy Andy illustrated is identical to mine dated 9:83.

Unfortunately I can’t check the latest as it’s on CD.

Having built lots of EM track over the years I’ve never actually measured anything, just used society gauges and never had any problems.

Cheers

Brendan

 

Brendan

 

You have got it in a nutshell. Use the correct gauges and the right methods and you cannot go wrong. How many modellers work to 0.05 mm anyway I bet most of their commercially obtained gauges vary by that amount or more anyway !!!

 

A good job Columbus never listened to the so called experts of his day, but after some of the rubbish (wacky theories) we see coming back over here sometimes I wish he had

Edited November 17, 2020 by hayfield
clarification

[Wayne Kinney]

Maybe it's best we all get back on foggyjames's original topic....

Edited November 17, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[foggyjames]

Don't worry, I'm enjoying the discussion! I'll pipe up if I need anything! Waiting for a rainy day to have another crack at Templot. It's now installed on my main PC - I decided that was better for my patience than the laptop!

 

cheers

 

James

[Andy Reichert]

It's pseudo science to say that two different numeric values are the same.

 

Either RM WEB throws it's weight behind and publicly supports the EMGS standards, or publicly denies them. The EMGS deserves to know, so it can post it's own response or otherwise if necessary. Just quietly urging EMGS members to ignore their own Society dimensions is crossing a heck of a red line for a forum supported by the widely read BRM magazine

 

A more useful position would be to ask the EMGS WHY it has more vee check running clearance that the dimensions Martin supports.

 

We  can't discuss current/future finescale dimensions if the forum authority is disputing the values of one of the major finescale standards were are working from.

 

Andy

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Andy Reichert
clarification

[hayfield]

I think everyone can say the EMGS rail measurement is incorrect

 

Also Andy's statement is Martin's own when it is clearly the BRMSB, and I mys have misses the statement from RMweb, all I have seen is members posts ?

 

 

[martin_wynne]

16 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

A more useful position would be to ask the EMGS WHY it has more vee check running clearance that the dimensions Martin supports.

 

 

For the umpteenth time I am not supporting anything. Like everyone else on RMweb I post a personal opinion, and readers can take as much or as little notice of it as they choose. My opinion is that the correct and optimum check gauge for standard EM is 17.20mm. There are some other EM variants listed in Templot which a few modellers are using and others might like to try.

 

The real question to ask is why we should take any notice of a document drawn by someone who quotes the rail width as "1.00mm" to 2 decimal places. It could at a stretch be rounded to "1mm", but writing it as "1.00mm" when it is actually 0.92mm shows that whoever drew that diagram didn't have the faintest idea what they were doing.

 

The EMGS published a very good guide to trackbuilding in 1970, and I suggest EM modellers refer to it:

 

 

 

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

I guess a relevant question would be what specification is Peco using for the commissioned points?

[Andy Reichert]

40 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

For the umpteenth time I am not supporting anything. Like everyone else on RMweb I post a personal opinion, and readers can take as much or as little notice of it as they choose. My opinion is that the correct and optimum check gauge for standard EM is 17.20mm. There are some other EM variants listed in Templot which a few modellers are using and others might like to try.

 

The real question to ask is why we should take any notice of a document drawn by someone who quotes the rail width as "1.00mm" to 2 decimal places. It could at a stretch be rounded to "1mm", but writing it as "1.00mm" when it is actually 0.92mm shows that whoever drew that diagram didn't have the faintest idea what they were doing.

 

The EMGS published a very good guide to trackbuilding in 1970, and I suggest EM modellers refer to it:

 

 

 

 

Martin.

Because as in all tech drawings, laws, legal documents, Templot versions, etc. the latest date always supersedes the earlier version. Otherwise nothing could ever be repaired/improved.

 

Andy

 

 

[martin_wynne]

24 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Because as in all tech drawings, laws, legal documents, Templot versions, etc. the latest date always supersedes the earlier version. Otherwise nothing could ever be repaired/improved.

 

 

So EM modellers must change to using 1.00mm rail? And throw away their track gauges?

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

IMHO, this rail width goes back to the 1950s, early 1960s before Kings Cross introduced the scale bullhead rail, the previous oversize bullhead was, IIRC that width. Came with the wire chairs that had tails to be fitted through holes in the fibre sleepers and were squeezed into the web by a special tool. I think they were very early Peco but not sure on that, could have been someone else like ABC or Hamblings. Should be findable in the ads in late 50s mags.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Grovenor
error correction

[Andy Reichert]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

I think everyone can say the EMGS rail measurement is incorrect

 

Also Andy's statement is Martin's own when it is clearly the BRMSB, and I mys have misses the statement from RMweb, all I have seen is members posts ?

 

 

 

Martin has the demonstrated authority from RM WEB to alter and/or delete others posts on RM WEB's behalf. I.e he is an authorized (and de facto) agent of RM WEB policy. 

 

The rail width measurement, if reasonable, is only cosmetic, like the sleeper dimensions are for the DOGA. It (they)  have no other effect on the running aspects of the standard.

 

Andy