00-P A track and wheel compromise standard with a lot of potential and practical support

[47137]

How will this system fix the replacement crossings onto a commercial track base like Peco, which is rigid polythene?

 

- Richard.

[Andy Reichert]

How will this system fix the replacement crossings onto a commercial track base like Peco, which is rigid polythene?

 

- Richard.

 

 

Knowing that polythene does not retain fully hard setting glues well, I would remove the original frog down to the rail base level and glue the (one piece) replacement down with an impact adhesive that retains it's flexibility and stickyness over time. Alternatively some holes drilled in the poly under the frog will fill with the glue as well and act as retaining  plugs to a great extent.

 

For US prototype appearance, (US PECO as shown) over here we might add real spikes around the frog rail base for extra strength if permanence is desired.

 

In the UK case, if the original track is sufficiently realistic that chairs are involved, and the outer parts if them can't be saved, then I would suggest that UK cosmetic chairs be added. (Or oversized, similarly appearing spikes). I'm not a fan of substituting copperclad for some of the turnout timbers, but others may suggest that as a  method they might prefer.

 

Andy

 

I

[47137]

OK thanks for this. I was wondering, if the crossing was made from steel, it could have some locating pegs to protrude downwards into the sleeper base, and a neodymium magnet buried into the base to hold it down. I would not have a use for 00-P, but the technology might allow an upgrade of Setrack points to 00-BF.

 

- Richard.

[Junctionmad]

See post #1. To repeat:

 

I'm not building to P4 standards, nor needing any tight tolerance (or skilled) hand made track laying. 00-P can work 100% reliably on appropriate radius plain commercial track with easy and simple modifications to commercial turnouts.  I've also created my own easy to add suspension systems, so don't need any of the usual complex P4 parts and extensive work to make such upgrades.

 

I will say,  I found your well thought through and precise technical adjectives hilarious. So the enjoyment is mutual.

 

Andy

Andy , if " one " use P4 wheel sets. , " one" in effect buys into the whole kit and caboodle to ensure good running

 

You can't use p4 and run then around poor track on uncompensated vehicles , like you can rtr.

 

It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise

[Andy Reichert]

Andy , if " one " use P4 wheel sets. , " one" in effect buys into the whole kit and caboodle to ensure good running

 

You can't use p4 and run then around poor track on uncompensated vehicles , like you can rtr.

 

It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise

 

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvQsvkGpEs0

 

I work very hard designing and testing, long and to extremes,  to make sure that what I claim works, does in every expected way. Those cars are running on a smaller wheel base equivalent of the MK1 bogie shown in Post #1

 

I don't like to use the term compensation, as it is rather vague and often has some far from ideal implementations.  I went back to basics and designed my working suspension and track systems from scratch, deliberately avoiding the need for the sort of major skills and effort that doing P4/EM  the craftsmanship way requires. I have implementations for all bogie types in the works already and similar designs in my head for most steam locomotives. ITMT Bill Bedford's springing units for 4 wheel vehicles would seem to OK as is.

 

I'm not one of the armchair suggesters. If I can't show it, I don't suggest it.

 

Andy

[47137]

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvQsvkGpEs0

 

I work very hard designing and testing, long and to extremes,  to make sure that what I claim works, does in every expected way. Those cars are running on a smaller wheel base equivalent of the MK1 bogie shown in Post #1

 

I don't like to use the term compensation, as it is rather vague and often has some far from ideal implementations.  I went back to basics and designed my working suspension and track systems from scratch, deliberately avoiding the need for the sort of major skills and effort that doing P4/EM  the craftsmanship way requires. I have implementations for all bogie types in the works already and similar designs in my head for most steam locomotives. ITMT Bill Bedford's springing units for 4 wheel vehicles would seem to OK as is.

 

I'm not one of the armchair suggesters. If I can't show it, I don't suggest it.

 

So I suppose it's reassuring to conclude, your repeated bad-mouthing of 00-SF is founded on ignorance and prejudice?

 

- Richard.

[Grovenor]

You can't use p4 and run then around poor track on uncompensated vehicles , like you can rtr.

 

 

It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise

 

For example:

 

 

But Andy, your example is not poor track and more importantly is not uncompensated vehicles.

Regards

Keith

[martin_wynne]

I've completely lost Andy's intentions with his latest topics.

 

Here in the UK some folks are happily running RTR models on Peco track. Some are using handbuilt track to build P4 layouts, EM layouts, 00-SF, and 00-BF layouts.

 

As far as I know everyone modelling at 4mm/ft is happy. No-one is complaining about a problem with wheel and track standards. There is a choice to suit everyone's requirements.

 

It's a mystery what the problem is that Andy is trying to solve?

 

The main grumble is not about the track standards, but the dimensions of Peco timbering. If Andy was to address his innovation skills to that problem, there are many here who would be grateful.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

I've completely lost Andy's intentions with his latest topics.

 

Here in the UK some folks are happily running RTR models on Peco track. Some are using handbuilt track to build P4 layouts, EM layouts, 00-SF, and 00-BF layouts.

 

As far as I know everyone modelling at 4mm/ft is happy. No-one is complaining about a problem with wheel and track standards. There is a choice to suit everyone's requirements.

 

It's a mystery what the problem is that Andy is trying to solve?

 

The main grumble is not about the track standards, but the dimensions of Peco timbering. If Andy was to address his innovation skills to that problem, there are many here who would be grateful.

 

Martin.

HI Matin

 

You seem to have walloped the track pin on its head.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Clive Mortimore

[Andy Reichert]

So I suppose it's reassuring to conclude, your repeated bad-mouthing of 00-SF is founded on ignorance and prejudice?

 

- Richard.

 

 

When you and Arthur dig up a quote, you can put it up on a relevant list and I'll apologize.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

But Andy, your example is not poor track and more importantly is not uncompensated vehicles.

Regards

Keith

 

It's terrible track. This is one of the best bits. Twist and humps over some of the board joints are worse. The system has had temperature swings inside of 30-120 F over many years with permanent open to the sky ventilation, very dry heat and a humid marine later coming in at nightfall for much of each year. All the tools in the shop have to be grease sprayed in winter, or they rust heavily.

 

As per post #1, I propose always using working suspension, except for when perfect, new sectional track is involved.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

I've completely lost Andy's intentions with his latest topics.

 

Martin.

 

But it's my sole topic and my personal idea You have been free to post dozens of threads on your own particular track gauge idea, so why does that matter?

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

But it's my sole topic and my personal idea You have been free to post dozens of threads on your own particular track gauge idea, so why does that matter?

 

Hi Andy,

 

It doesn't matter. RMweb is a forum for anyone to post their ideas. But I was hoping for an explanation of where you are trying to get to, because at present I'm baffled. I think I'm not the only one.

 

I don't have a track gauge idea. If you are referring to 00-SF, it is not my idea. It was invented by Roy Miller in the 1970s and rediscovered by Dave Smith 30 years later. My only interest is to ensure as far as I can that it is properly explained and not misrepresented. It is of no consequence to me whether anyone adopts it -- there are equally good arguments for 00-BF, EM and P4. It is all a question of choice to suit a modellers requirements. My own modelling has been in EM, Irish P4, and nowadays in 7mm scale.

 

By the way, topics do not have an owner on a forum. It is not your sole topic. If that's what you want, you should be using the blogs section of RMweb.

 

Martin.

Edited July 14, 2015 by martin_wynne

[Arthur]

The point is Andy that you have haunted the 00-SF threads for years with uninformed, unhelpful and misleading postings and yet have absolutely no practical experience of it. Yet you have the cheek to say above that you are no armchair critic and all your observations are based on rigorous testing. Clearly not.

 

I really couldn't care less about 00-P because it has no interest to me. However, so long as you and any others find it useful, great. Good luck with it and enjoy it. I just wish that you could have adopted that attitude with 00-SF and those who are interested in it.

 

I'll confess now to an element of schadenfreude seeing your frustrations at the criticisms and 'off topics' on these threads. We know how you feel.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Arthur

[Andy Reichert]

The point is Andy that you have haunted the 00-SF threads for years with uninformed, unhelpful and misleading postings and yet have absolutely no practical experience of it. Yet you have the cheek to say above that you are no armchair critic and all your observations are based on rigorous testing. Clearly not.

 

So you really don't have a quote to back any of your continuous negative postings ?  

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Andy,

 

It doesn't matter. RMweb is a forum for anyone to post their ideas. But I was hoping for an explanation of where you are trying to get to, because at present I'm baffled. I think I'm not the only one.

 

I don't have a track gauge idea. If you are referring to 00-SF, it is not my idea. It was invented by Roy Miller in the 1970s and rediscovered by Dave Smith 30 years later. My only interest is to ensure as far as I can that it is properly explained and not misrepresented. It is of no consequence to me whether anyone adopts it -- there are equally good arguments for 00-BF, EM and P4. It is all a question of choice to suit a modellers requirements. My own modelling has been in EM, Irish P4, and nowadays in 7mm scale.

 

By the way, topics do not have an owner on a forum. It is not your sole topic. If that's what you want, you should be using the blogs section of RMweb.

 

Martin.

Post #1.

 

Having scale wheels without having to hand lay an incompatible different gauge track fro RTR. I find that very clear and simple to understand.

 

Of course it's a forum. But most bona fide responders at least try to stay on topic.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy

[Arthur]

 

You will not find a single negative posting from me on the subject of 00-P.

 

I have challenged you over the irony of some of your statements here compared to your postings on several 00-SF threads.

 

This being a perfect example;

 

But it's my sole topic and my personal idea You have been free to post dozens of threads on your own particular track gauge idea, so why does that matter?

 

Andy

[raymw]

Seems to be some battle lines being drawn up here? All I see is a guy, in the USA who has a fair bit of ho scale USA outline stuff, with relatively fine scale wheels, which runs fine on his track. Wanting to run UK outline (00) stuff on the same track, but the 00 rtr wheels are too course, possibly don't work right and look like rubbish. So, either change the track, or change the wheels. What is the problem?  If I was in the same situation, then I can't see a problem with that. It just seems others have been reading into it aspects that may effect them, wouldn't work for them, not commercially viable in the UK, whatever.

 

The whole world does not have to dance to the same tune.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[martin_wynne]

Having scale wheels without having to hand lay an incompatible different gauge track fro RTR. I find that very clear and simple to understand.

 

I don't find it clear or simple to understand. What ready-to-lay turnouts are available with scale flangeways? Having the same track gauge as RTR achieves nothing if the flangeways are not compatible. While you are hand-laying the turnouts with scale flangeways for scale wheels you may just as well be using the scale track gauge. Because RTR models won't run on them either way.

 

Admittedly, your idea of hot-swapping crossings (frogs) and check rails for an evening's running and swapping them back the next day gets round that objection. But you still can't run RTR models and scale wheels at the same time. I find it difficult to take that idea seriously for a finished scenic layout. Please provide some evidence of a layout where that is being done. Thanks.

 

Martin.

[Arthur]

Seems to be some battle lines being drawn up here? All I see is a guy, in the USA who has a fair bit of ho scale USA outline stuff, with relatively fine scale wheels, which runs fine on his track. Wanting to run UK outline (00) stuff on the same track, but the 00 rtr wheels are too course, possibly don't work right and look like rubbish. So, either change the track, or change the wheels. What is the problem? If I was in the same situation, then I can't see a problem with that. It just seems others have been reading into it aspects that may effect them, wouldn't work for them, not commercially viable in the UK, whatever.

 

The whole world does not have to dance to the same tune.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

Ray, you need to have followed the 00-SF threads to understand some of the postings and sentiments here. You are suggesting 'live and let live'. Would that Andy had adopted that philosophy over 00-SF. I have no issue with Andy's development of 00-P, good luck to him. Edited July 14, 2015 by Arthur

[martin_wynne]

Seems to be some battle lines being drawn up here? All I see is a guy, in the USA who has a fair bit of ho scale USA outline stuff, with relatively fine scale wheels, which runs fine on his track. Wanting to run UK outline (00) stuff on the same track, but the 00 rtr wheels are too course, possibly don't work right and look like rubbish. So, either change the track, or change the wheels. What is the problem?

 

Hi Ray,

 

No  problem with that at all. Andy could simply convert his 00 RTR models to Proto-87 and run them on his Proto-87 layout.

 

But in that case there is no need for this topic or anything called 00-P. The Proto-87 standards already exist and work fine. This topic could consist instead of some practical posts about fitting Proto-87 wheels to various 00 models. Several modellers might be interested in the techniques involved, even if they don't plan to do the same.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Again Andy , and I agree with Martin, why would a 00 modeller , modelling in 4mm, need your so called 00-P solution. Who is the intended audience. The 3 people on the planet, trying to mix H0 p-87 with p4 in 00 , seriously. ? , the other two have already been committed , that just leaves you.

00-SF Adresses a clear issue in 00 track work , 00-P Seems to be an attempt by you to invent the unnecessary and then look to, justify it

 

I mean replaceable frogs etc , your clearly pulling people's legs here.

 

This is like dealing with an argument for a 5 wheeled car

Edited July 15, 2015 by Junctionmad

[47137]

 

When you and Arthur dig up a quote, you can put it up on a relevant list and I'll apologize.

 

Andy

Andy,

 

I've never met Arthur, but we have exchanged a few PMs and it does seem we are equally cheesed off by the same thing. If you will excuse me replying on my own (without asking Arthur) I think straight away of this topic: Minimum radius for industrial sidings in 00-SF. A chap asked an innocent if possibly slightly naive question, and you waded in with the second reply: Since 00-SF automatically causes a greater minimum radius restriction, why not use plain 00. Tight radii with RTR is one of it's main features. If the section is going to part of a larger layout, you are bound to get larger engines entering the section occasionally. So trial and error has to include those size locos as well.

 

No one in their right mind builds 00-SF plain track, but you launched your offensive with the most confusing reply you could manage ("a greater minimum" and "why not use plain 00") at the earliest opportunity. By the end of the whole topic, you had managed to move on to self-guarded frogs - as if a first-time track builder would want to try such a thing!

 

I don't want to come across as a prig, but I do try to post constructive posts which might help other modellers. I've stopped posting in the hand-built track forum (except here) because I am totally fed up with being trolled, ridiculed and put down by ignorant, uniformed, twisted and deceptive posts made by a couple of people who never offer examples of their own work, but would rather come across as competing members of a faux standards board.

 

Is that enough for you?

 

- Richard.

 

Edit: Addendum: Perhaps the worst thing is that by 11:30 today, two people (not including Arthur) have found themselves voting this post as a "like". That's a pretty poor thing to happen for a post which no-one (including me) should feel the need to write in the first place.

 

- Richard.

Edited July 15, 2015 by 47137

[sp1]

Andy,

 

I've never met Arthur, but we have exchanged a few PMs and it does seem we are equally cheesed off by the same thing. If you will excuse me replying on my own (without asking Arthur) I think straight away of this topic: Minimum radius for industrial sidings in 00-SF. A chap asked an innocent if possibly slightly naive question, and you waded in with the second reply: Since 00-SF automatically causes a greater minimum radius restriction, why not use plain 00. Tight radii with RTR is one of it's main features. If the section is going to part of a larger layout, you are bound to get larger engines entering the section occasionally. So trial and error has to include those size locos as well.

 

No one in their right mind builds 00-SF plain track, but you launched your offensive with the most confusing reply you could manage ("a greater minimum" and "why not use plain 00") at the earliest opportunity. By the end of the whole topic, you had managed to move on to self-guarded frogs - as if a first-time track builder would want to try such a thing!

 

I don't want to come across as a prig, but I do try to post constructive posts which might help other modellers. I've stopped posting in the hand-built track forum (except here) because I am totally fed up with being trolled, ridiculed and put down by ignorant, uniformed, twisted and deceptive posts made by a couple of people who never offer examples of their own work, but would rather come across as competing members of a faux standards board.

 

Is that enough for you?

 

- Richard.

 

Edit: Addendum: Perhaps the worst thing is that by 11:30 today, two people (not including Arthur) have found themselves voting this post as a "like". That's a pretty poor thing to happen for a post which no-one (including me) should feel the need to write in the first place.

 

- Richard.

I've given you an agree, just to round the numbers up!

[Andy Reichert]

Andy,

 

SNIP

 

I think straight away of this topic: Minimum radius for industrial sidings in 00-SF. A chap asked an innocent if possibly slightly naive question, and you waded in with the second reply: Since 00-SF automatically causes a greater minimum radius restriction, why not use plain 00. Tight radii with RTR is one of it's main features. If the section is going to part of a larger layout, you are bound to get larger engines entering the section occasionally. So trial and error has to include those size locos as well.SNIP

 

- Richard.

 

I absolutely recommend anyone read the entire topic above for all its postings in context.

 

In the meantime, I'm continuing working on CAD for power trucks that will be suitable for HO, 00, 00-P, EM, P4 and Proto:87.

 

Hopefully I'll have prototypes to take pictures of in about 6 weeks.

 

Andy