RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 31, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2020 4 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: Stick to real numbers. You'll have much better looking models. Hi Andy, 00 gauge models are built to 4ft-1.5in gauge at 4mm/ft scale. I stick to my simple-minded view that the best-looking track to run them on is a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track. That was the view of the BRMSB 60+ years ago for 00 gauge track, and remains equally valid today. It's a great shame that Peco took a different view when they introduced their Streamline range. It has been so market-dominant in the UK for half a century that there are whole swathes of modellers who do not know that such a thing as proper 00 Gauge track exists. At long last Peco have admitted as much with their latest 00 Bullhead range. Presumably you think they should scrap that and make bullhead versions of their Code83 range? Where the NMRA comes into it escapes me. Martin. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37Oban Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 5 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: Stick to real numbers. You'll have much better looking models. I know what is meant, I think, but.. pedant mode engaged! All numbers used by modellers are, in mathematical terms, 'real' numbers, be it 1, 3.5, 1:43 or whatever. The square root of minus one is an imaginery number, an I doubt any modellers have a use for that! Pedant mode disengaged! Roja Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 1, 2020 Share Posted November 1, 2020 17 hours ago, 37Oban said: I know what is meant, I think, but.. pedant mode engaged! All numbers used by modellers are, in mathematical terms, 'real' numbers, be it 1, 3.5, 1:43 or whatever. The square root of minus one is an imaginery number, an I doubt any modellers have a use for that! Pedant mode disengaged! Roja The square root of -1, aka "i", is an IMAGINARY number, pedantically writing. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 1, 2020 Share Posted November 1, 2020 19 hours ago, martin_wynne said: Hi Andy, 00 gauge models are built to 4ft-1.5in gauge at 4mm/ft scale. I stick to my simple-minded view that the best-looking track to run them on is a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track. That was the view of the BRMSB 60+ years ago for 00 gauge track, and remains equally valid today. It's a great shame that Peco took a different view when they introduced their Streamline range. It has been so market-dominant in the UK for half a century that there are whole swathes of modellers who do not know that such a thing as proper 00 Gauge track exists. At long last Peco have admitted as much with their latest 00 Bullhead range. Presumably you think they should scrap that and make bullhead versions of their Code83 range? Where the NMRA comes into it escapes me. Martin. Scaling down the prototype fantasy 49.5" gauge UK by 1:76.2 gives a model gauge of 16.5 mm. As that's (your quote above) your view of the best model compromise, then please stop confusing newcomers on the forum by also promoting incompatible 16.3 mm gauges and 16.2 mm gauges for the same model equipment. UK targeted PECO track isn't my problem. Whatever you want to complain about is between you and them. I have no interest in that. Their US HO "electrofrog" 3.5 mm scale product works and while not entirely realistic is visually acceptable to a very large number of US style modellers. In the same way a UK style 3.5 mm scale, interchangeable popular 16.5 mm gauge, track would be 100% operational for UK (00) models and highly (in dimensional correct proportions) realistic in most most UK layout situations. As someone knowledgeable who produces Templot for building scale track accurately, to describe a hypothetical UK 3.5 mm scale track as "Skinny" is deliberately grossly misleading, as it is in fact a faithful 7/8 ths reduction of P4 track, which is definitely not "skinny". Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 1, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said: then please stop confusing newcomers on the forum Hi Andy, Pots and kettles come to mind. by also promoting incompatible 16.3 mm gauges and 16.2 mm gauges for the same model equipment For the umpteenth time of saying so, I am not "promoting" anything. I have only ever tried to "explain" the different standards available. It is of no consequence to me what standards modellers choose to adopt. Gauge tools for 16.2mm 00-SF are available from at least two suppliers (C&L and DCC Concepts), and I have no connection or financial interest in any of them. Also for the umpteenth time of saying so, 16.5mm is absolutely fine and works well if running ONLY RTR models. I have said this over and over again. The whole point and purpose of 16.2mm 00-SF is that it allows you ALSO to run kit wheels alongside RTR models on the same track. If you don't want to do that, there is no reason to adopt 00-SF, other than the improved appearance of the narrower flangeways. What I don't understand, is why are you so adamant that modellers shouldn't use 00-SF? They are entirely free to do whatever they want, and what the NMRA thinks about it doesn't come into it. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 1, 2020 Share Posted November 1, 2020 25 minutes ago, martin_wynne said: Hi Andy, Pots and kettles come to mind. For the umpteenth time of saying so, I am not "promoting" anything. I have only ever tried to "explain" the different standards available. It is of no consequence to me what standards modellers choose to adopt. Gauge tools for 16.2mm 00-SF are available from at least two suppliers (C&L and DCC Concepts), and I have no connection or financial interest in any of them. Also for the umpteenth time of saying so, 16.5mm is absolutely fine and works well if running ONLY RTR models. I have said this over and over again. The whole point and purpose of 16.2mm 00-SF is that it allows you ALSO to run kit wheels alongside RTR models on the same track. If you don't want to do that, there is no reason to adopt 00-SF, other than the improved appearance of the narrower flangeways. What I don't understand, is why are you so adamant that modellers shouldn't use 00-SF? They are entirely free to do whatever they want, and what the NMRA thinks about it doesn't come into it. Martin. Martin I am going to have to nominate you for a Saint hood, most of us would have given up years ago, I think I will start a group to reclaim the 7" we have lost between the rails 2 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 On 01/11/2020 at 06:00, 37Oban said: I know what is meant, I think, but.. pedant mode engaged! All numbers used by modellers are, in mathematical terms, 'real' numbers, be it 1, 3.5, 1:43 or whatever. The square root of minus one is an imaginery number, an I doubt any modellers have a use for that! Pedant mode disengaged! Roja Those running their models on AC might find it useful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37Oban Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 4 hours ago, PatB said: Those running their models on AC might find it useful. Especially if using 2 separate ac power supplies. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 On 01/11/2020 at 12:45, hayfield said: Martin I am going to have to nominate you for a Saint hood, most of us would have given up years ago, I think I will start a group to reclaim the 7" we have lost between the rails Given that the running dimensions for 00SF are entirely Faith based, it would seem most appropriate. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted November 3, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 3, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: Given that the running dimensions for 00SF are entirely Faith based, it would seem most appropriate. Andy Have you actually tried building some 00SF and operated the current UK rtr rolling stock? I suspect not, so how can you say that it shouldn't or doesn't work. What your NMRA standards has to do with what we get up to on our side of the pond is totally irrelevant as few or none of our manufacturers bother to use them for the wheel standards. Edited November 3, 2020 by Siberian Snooper 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 6 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: Given that the running dimensions for 00SF are entirely Faith based, it would seem most appropriate. Andy Well at least its both understandable and believable, unlike some of the dribble that has been written Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 2 hours ago, hayfield said: Well at least its both understandable and believable, unlike some of the dribble that has been written Yes, I've been very careful to only use the numbers from Martin's 00SF promoting website. So I have to agree again. When you checked the numbers yourself, you did notice that EM-2 and 00SF are quite different, didn't you? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted November 4, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 4, 2020 Why don't Andy and Martin hide each other's posts from themselves so we don't have to have this crappy debate every other month?? Yawn Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said: Have you actually tried building some 00SF and operated the current UK rtr rolling stock? I suspect not, so how can you say that it shouldn't or doesn't work. What your NMRA standards has to do with what we get up to on our side of the pond is totally irrelevant as few or none of our manufacturers bother to use them for the wheel standards. My only reference to the NMRA is that Martin's off the wall 16.3 mm gauge idea basically duplicates the flange way widths already possible using the NMRA HO standard and not needing to use hand laid track. . As far as designing and running gauge narrowed track, I've gone far further than EM-2. I I have been successfully run unmodiified Bachmann, Roco and other RTR on 15.54 gauge for the past 15 years or so. There are various videos on Youtube showing those in operation. But doing that requires clear, unambiguous statements of the various mandatory restrictions such gauge narrowing IMPOSES on users and their equipment. Gauge narrowing techniques are not unconditional methods that anyone can just pick up and use for whatever layout design they want. Unfortunately that message has been conspicuously absent from the 00SF promotional website and the many, many only positive postings. Andy Edited November 4, 2020 by Andy Reichert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Dagworth said: Why don't Andy and Martin hide each other's posts from themselves so we don't have to have this crappy debate every other month?? Yawn Andi And spoil all the fun? Nothing like a bit of banter. They are both wrong of course, the only OO dimensions which really work are Hornby Dublo 3 rail where the flange runs along the bottom of the flange way and prevents the wheel dropping into rail gaps.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 9 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: Yes, I've been very careful to only use the numbers from Martin's 00SF promoting website. So I have to agree again. When you checked the numbers yourself, you did notice that EM-2 and 00SF are quite different, didn't you? Andy Andy I thing if you took a straw pole the outcome would be very different to what you believe To be honest some of the products look to have quite a lot of possibilities this side of the pond, I would have thought you would be better off building bridges and see if their is a secondary market open to you. Still others may take a different view Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianb3174 Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 I'm hiding out in the hills with the correct gauge rebels until this blows over. http://www.s-scale.org.uk/standards.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted November 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 4, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Andy Reichert said: My only reference to the NMRA is that Martin's off the wall 16.3 mm gauge idea basically duplicates the flange way widths already possible using the NMRA HO standard and not needing to use hand laid track. . As far as designing and running gauge narrowed track, I've gone far further than EM-2. I I have been successfully run unmodiified Bachmann, Roco and other RTR on 15.54 gauge for the past 15 years or so. There are various videos on Youtube showing those in operation. But doing that requires clear, unambiguous statements of the various mandatory restrictions such gauge narrowing IMPOSES on users and their equipment. Gauge narrowing techniques are not unconditional methods that anyone can just pick up and use for whatever layout design they want. Unfortunately that message has been conspicuously absent from the 00SF promotional website and the many, many only positive postings. Andy Nothing is mandatory, we choose to use 00SF standards, they work well enough for us. I will refrain from commenting further as the mess deck phraseology I am likely to use would probably get me suspended or worse. Edited November 4, 2020 by Siberian Snooper 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 HO has the gauge to scale but the wheels stick out too far. OO looks much better. (Posting from my disused missile silo in North Idaho.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now