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

[martin_wynne]

many commercial turnouts can be inexpensively and reversibly modified to run to either standard 00, or 00-P.

 

Andy, please post some photos of such commercial turnouts available in the UK, before and after conversion to 00-P, and after reversion to 00.

 

Can this conversion/reversion be performed on turnouts in situ on a layout? Can it be done only once, or can they be swapped over for an evening's running and then swapped back?

 

Here's a nice pic of a German swing-nose crossing:

 

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Description: Swing-nose Crossing. Photographed in Bonn main railway station. Date: 10 February 2005. Source: Own work. Author: user:Qualle

 

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

 

More info here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73384-sprung-frog-turnouts/&do=findComment&comment=1081695

 

In contrast, here is another swing-nose crossing:

 

 

Thanks to Brian O’Donovan. See: http://85a.co.uk/for...178&forum_id=22

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

For those those that mistakenly went off topic, as per the OP, this is a description of a standard that will demonstrate and run wheels that appear to be scale models of real wheels.

 

From the most common layout viewpoint of sideways, models fitted with such wheels can appear to be scale models and not regular RTR models with their OT highly visible double scale sized flanges.

 

There are quite a few modellers in all parts of the world that find railway models fitted with scale wheels to be cosmetically and operationally more satisfying.

 

Andy

Andy

I can see the shallower flanges looking better but won't the use of wheelsets with the much narrower scale tyres without any increase of gauge simply emphasise the narrowness of 16.5mm gauge for 4mm/ft standard gauge? The outer surfaces of the wheels will surely be even further inboard, relative to the rest of the vehicle, from where they should be than with conventional 00. 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Andy Reichert]

Andy

I can see the shallower flanges looking better but won't the use of wheelsets with the much narrower scale tyres without any increase of gauge simply emphasise the narrowness of 16.5mm gauge for 4mm/ft standard gauge? The outer surfaces of the wheels will surely be even further inboard, relative to the rest of the vehicle, from where they should be than with conventional 00. 

 

I think you are correct in that some may perceive that.

 

But please bear in mind the inner sides of the wheels are now much further apart. And the wheels now sit more realistically on the top of the rails rather than, steamroller like, inside them. So I suspect this will be a case of swings and roundabouts and the like/dislike will depend on the eye of the particular beholder.

 

Enough UK modellers seem to find the less than scale gauge acceptable, that I think changing to the scale wheel profile isn't going to upset too many of that community.

 

Andy

 

PS FWIW, My experience with converting to scale wheels is that are cosmetically very addictive, and very hard to walk back from.  And as a side effect, the wheels now match and fit in all the various model blueprints that once we used to build our models from.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

Andy, please post some photos of such commercial turnouts available in the UK, before and after conversion to 00-P, and after reversion to 00.

 

Can this conversion/reversion be performed on turnouts in situ on a layout? Can it be done only once, or can they be swapped over for an evening's running and then swapped back?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

(Picture credit from past RM Web posting)

 

Here's what we used to have in the UK. These "00/HO prototype " versions would only allow their cast crossing to be swapped between the two standards.  (Of course back then there were no alternative standard crossings to provide)

 

However, their "00/HO universal" version (no picture unfortunately) had moving wing/point rails with just a cast vee, so would run all standards of 16.5 mm gauge mixed. 

 

In my case, you'd have to modify today's UK (plastic) offerings to have a flat base in the crossing position, so that you can  affix either an 00-P or an 00/HO pre-formed crossing. I make those as interchangeable in terms of size and rail position. For temporary or exchange mounting, I find using rubber cement extremely simple and completely successful in matter of seconds. To change just pull off the current crossing and glue back the replacement. Even works for already laid track.

 

Andy

 

PS  OT (Note back then PECO used UK size and spaced timbers - So who you gonna blame for today's lousy non UK looking commercial track?  )

Edited June 27, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[martin_wynne]

you'd have to modify today's UK (plastic) offerings to have a flat base in the crossing position, so that you can  affix either an 00-P or an 00/HO pre-formed crossing. I make those as interchangeable in terms of size and rail position. For temporary or exchange mounting, I find using rubber cement extremely simple and completely successful in matter of seconds. To change just pull off the current crossing and glue back the replacement. Even works for already laid track.

 

PS  OT (Note back then PECO used UK size and spaced timbers - So who you gonna blame for today's lousy non UK looking commercial track?  )

 

Andy, Peco turnouts have a wire spot-welded to the underside of the crossing rails for the polarity connection. If your above suggestion of converting such turnouts to and fro in situ is intended seriously, you are on the wrong planet.

 

Peco themselves introduced the small timber spacing when they first introduced plastic-based track circa 1960. "Peco Streamline with the finescale longer look" was the slogan. Presumably to get the tooling cost back the idea was to create an international product which could be sold around the world. They were a comparatively small company at the time, so a first step into plastic injection moulding would have been a significant investment. Unfortunately as the range expanded they were then locked into the design. And of course some 00 modellers like it, because a proper scale turnout of such short length looks like something found at the back of the gasworks, not in a running line. As your picture shows.

 

Martin.

Edited June 27, 2015 by martin_wynne

[Andy Reichert]

Andy, Peco turnouts have a wire spot-welded to the underside of the crossing rails for the polarity connection. If your above suggestion of converting such turnouts to and fro in situ is intended seriously, you are on the wrong planet.

 

Peco themselves introduced the small timber spacing when they first introduced plastic-based track circa 1960. "Peco Streamline with the finescale longer look" was the slogan. Presumably to get the tooling cost back the idea was to create an international product which could be sold around the world. They were a comparatively small company at the time, so a first step into plastic injection moulding would have been a significant investment. Unfortunately as the range expanded they were then locked into the design. And of course some 00 modellers like it, because a proper scale turnout of such short length looks like something found at the back of the gasworks, not in a running line. As your picture shows.

 

Martin.

 

Well the PECO packet does say 36" radius (peco second radius today?) instead of a much longer #6 or #8 turnout that would perhaps be more popular for discerning track modellers nowadays.  OTOH, I think the universal versions I had on my teenage layout were as sharp as 14" radius. But back then, that was all I could afford and have space for.

 

But then as stated, 00-P has nothing to do with (nor depends on) making track more scale. It is solely designed to allow you to try out P4 wheels on any radius appropriate 16.5 mm gauge track. A quite separate topic or goal of having scale looking track in any of the 4mm standards is something that only hand laying is going to help with.

 

>>>>>>

 

My recommended process for removing the original crossing (HO turnout shown) involves using a Dremel cutting disk.

 

 

 

 

 

No spot welded wire will stop the original crossing removal in that case. My own replacement crossings are all Nickel Silver, so soldering a single replacement power wire back (if required)  for permanent ongoing operation is not a difficult proposition for someone who is already interested in replacing wheelsets.

 

Andy

[Pacific231G]

 

 

Peco themselves introduced the small timber spacing when they first introduced plastic-based track circa 1960. "Peco Streamline with the finescale longer look" was the slogan. Presumably to get the tooling cost back the idea was to create an international product which could be sold around the world.

 

Which they did and how many British model railway manufacturers are succesfully exporting British made products on any scale? They clearly made a decision that since16.5mm gauge was the correct scale for H0 then they might as well go for scale H0 track. The sleeper dmensions and spacing are accurate for modern European main line track in H0 scale and there have been any number of articles in European magazines about creating "hyper realistic" track based on Peco code 75. 

[mightbe]

Are the check rails metal or plastic? In the  photos they looked plastic at first but now I'm not sure if they're that or blackened metal.

 

Quentin

[Andy Reichert]

Are the check rails metal or plastic? In the  photos they looked plastic at first but now I'm not sure if they're that or blackened metal.

 

Quentin

 

Metal rail shortened to match the near to scale crossing.  They have to be relocated anyway for the different check gauge. This isn't a fully painted finished example but I generally paint the check rails the appropriate exposed steel colour for the location. Ditto for any other rail parts whee the wheels don't actually wear them shiny.

 

The reason for shortening the check rails is that having coarse flange way widths automatically (fundamentally) extends the crossing wing rail lengths unrealistically and make the whole crossing look more oversize. So many RTR turnout makers add lengthened check rails to keep everything in the crossing to the same proportions. That's partly why coarse flange way model track standards have that "narrow gauge" look, regardless of the gauge actually used. Merely moving the wing rails back to compensate for the wide flange way gives a quite unrailwaylike different shape to the crossing, so it's not usually done.

 

Andy

Edited June 28, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

Andy

I can see the shallower flanges looking better but won't the use of wheelsets with the much narrower scale tyres without any increase of gauge simply emphasise the narrowness of 16.5mm gauge for 4mm/ft standard gauge? The outer surfaces of the wheels will surely be even further inboard, relative to the rest of the vehicle, from where they should be than with conventional 00. 

 

 

Here's the best I could do quickly as a well lit "end-on" comparison. It was difficult to make out anything with the wheels mounted in the coach, as it was too dark.  A very long telephoto shot would be  better comparison of course, as the perspective distorts this close-up.

 

 

Ditto for sideways. Which is pretty much the normal view you'd see on my layout (and most others) I suspect.

 

Andy

Edited July 3, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

 

A quick look on the web came up with this angled view of the wheel end of a MK1, although with a commonwealth bogie in this case.

 

Overall I was quite surprised at how this demonstrates the potential for a much more scale-like "look"  using 00-P over the various coarse wheel standards.

 

Andy

[Jeff Smith]

I suppose that other than looking better from the side as shown in your initial post, using P4 coach wheels set to OO spacing would allow tighter radii even than OO! You might get away without compensation but I suspect it may be desirable.

[Andy Reichert]

I suppose that other than looking better from the side as shown in your initial post, using P4 coach wheels set to OO spacing would allow tighter radii even than OO! You might get away without compensation but I suspect it may be desirable.

 

If I understand that as serious technical comment, then No and No. . 

 

The P4 profile  wheels have to be set to P4 Standards B-B minus 2.33 mm, just to adjust for the gauge difference. If set to 00 B-B, they would most likely fall between the rails even when standing still.

 

I think I covered this in post #1. I'm not describing another toy train alternative. This a standard specifically for modelling to closer to scale sideways appearance without having to re-lay every single inch of your 16.5 mm track investment to 18.83 mm. And without losing your ability to change back to 00, or run/evaluate/play with both standards initially to a limited extent.

 

So that means that there is no suggestion or claim that the min. operating radii will be any smaller than Normal 18.83 mm P4. Equally, there is no claim that some form of working suspension will not be required.  Except that, if using only good quality, well laid factory produced, commercial track, it may be flat enough to not require it. Typically it is hand made track that can have more ups and downs, depending upon the skill and know-how of the maker. (there is no height spec in any track standard yet).

 

(The one slightly less relevant point I will add, is that I'm continually working on making simpler and less expensive working suspension technologies, which have functional and cosmetic benefits for all standards, including normal 00. These of course include better pick-up, greater pulling power and smoother more stable movements)

 

 

Andy

[Jeff Smith]

Andy - it was a serious comment but merely based on the fact that the P4 wheels being thinner would allow for greater movement (rotation) of the bogie within the coach chassis......I did not really mean that the P4 wheels should be set to OO B-B.....

[Andy Reichert]

Andy - it was a serious comment but merely based on the fact that the P4 wheels being thinner would allow for greater movement (rotation) of the bogie within the coach chassis......I did not really mean that the P4 wheels should be set to OO B-B.....

 

If the wheels hitting the inner sides solebars is a max rotation issue, then yes you have a very valid point. Thanks - It had not occurred to me and it would appear from my last picture to be true.

 

Andy.

[davefrk]

Well Andy, thanks for marking some of my perfectly reasonable posts elsewhere as funny just because I found one of your above statements as laughable and I marked it as funny. The fact is, we in this country don't need another set of standards especially one that confuses the issue of the look of the wheels in relation to the vehicle. You say you're looking from the side on view but I've heard it more often said it's the end view of OO gauge particularly on locomotives that offends not the sideview, in any case the view is more often a three quarter view so the discrepancy of P4/S4 wheelsets set to OO is still very noticeable.  

I've admired some of the things you have done for P87 etc but this idea is just pure fantasy. Sorry.

 

Dave Franks

[sp1]

Well Andy, thanks for marking some of my perfectly reasonable posts elsewhere as funny just because I found one of your above statements as laughable and I marked it as funny. The fact is, we in this country don't need another set of standards especially one that confuses the issue of the look of the wheels in relation to the vehicle. You say you're looking from the side on view but I've heard it more often said it's the end view of OO gauge particularly on locomotives that offends not the sideview, in any case the view is more often a three quarter view so the discrepancy of P4/S4 wheelsets set to OO is still very noticeable.

I've admired some of the things you have done for P87 etc but this idea is just pure fantasy. Sorry.

 

Dave Franks

And, more importantly, he hasn't said whether this idea works with 00-SF !! ....any chance of you testing this Andy, 'cos I'm sure we'd all like to know? Edited July 6, 2015 by sp1

[Andy Reichert]

Well Andy, thanks for marking some of my perfectly reasonable posts elsewhere as funny just because I found one of your above statements as laughable and I marked it as funny. The fact is, we in this country don't need another set of standards especially one that confuses the issue of the look of the wheels in relation to the vehicle. You say you're looking from the side on view but I've heard it more often said it's the end view of OO gauge particularly on locomotives that offends not the sideview, in any case the view is more often a three quarter view so the discrepancy of P4/S4 wheelsets set to OO is still very noticeable.  

I've admired some of the things you have done for P87 etc but this idea is just pure fantasy. Sorry.

 

Dave Franks

 

Because of your comment, I went to your website and saw your exclusively just EM/P4 tender chassis, then your postings showing your exquisite BH chaired hand laid track, and then I discovered to my surprise it was all just for your main "00" layout.

 

So you seemed to have found my long term use of scale looking wheels on non-scale gauge track funny, but not your own running coarse looking wheels on non scale great looking track. IMHO, that's just as funny isn't it?

 

Andy

Edited July 6, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

And, more importantly, he hasn't said whether this idea works with 00-SF !! ....any chance of you testing this Andy, 'cos I'm sure we'd all like to know?

 

You'll note this topic was specifically not posted in the Hand Laid Track section.

 

If you want to see my very thorough testing of deliberately narrowed gauge track for running RTR in special and limited circumstances, check out "Electric Avenue" which has been a successful and still growing commercial product for almost 10 years.  By Martin's parlance, presumably it should be called "00-SFFF", but I won't use the "00'" label for a different gauge as I consider that completely misleading.

 

So that maybe why several of you who are included in your "we'd" are under the completely wrong impression that I haven't fully investigated gauge narrowing and don't know anything about it.

 

(Re: FFF: Electric Avenue in "00/HO mode" is three times narrower gauge than 16.2 mm and has a flange way more than two times narrower)

 

Following you off topic only for the moment. Scale wheels can always be set to run on almost any constant gauge, but of course will not handle variable gauges, anymore than the prototype will. So having huge gauge width variation tolerance is obviously not a suitable candidate for running other than coarse wheels.

 

Andy

Edited July 6, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[sp1]

You'll note this topic was specifically not posted in the Hand Laid Track section.

 

If you want to see my very thorough testing of deliberately narrowed gauge track for running RTR in special and limited circumstances, check out "Electric Avenue" which has been a successful and still growing commercial product for almost 10 years. By Martin's parlance, presumably it should be called "00-SFFF", but I won't use the "00'" label for a different gauge as I consider that completely misleading.

 

So that maybe why several of you who are included in your "we'd" are under the completely wrong impression that I haven't fully investigated gauge narrowing and don't know anything about it.

 

(Re: FFF: Electric Avenue in "00/HO mode" is three times narrower gauge than 16.2 mm and has a flange way more than two times narrower)

 

Following you off topic only for the moment. Scale wheels can always be set to run on almost any constant gauge, but of course will not handle variable gauges, anymore than the prototype will. So having huge gauge width variation tolerance is obviously not a suitable candidate for running other than coarse wheels.

 

Andy

Just had a quick look - is 'Electric Avenue' just meant for trams? I don't do those, and what I read doesn't seem complementary?

And, I do take your point about scale wheels being able to run on track made to suit. This is just the point about 00-SF that you seem to choose to ignore - it works for a WIDE variety of wheels, whether MODERN RTR or what might be used in kits (or as replacement) eg Romford/ Gibson etc.

 

And, it works with wheels that, not surprisingly, are NOT 'modern' eg some Mainline/ Airfix that I HAVE tried.

 

Just about the only wheels I haven't tried with 00-SF are P4, but I bow to your superior knowledge ........

[Andy Reichert]

Just had a quick look - is 'Electric Avenue' just meant for trams? I don't do those, and what I read doesn't seem complementary?

And, I do take your point about scale wheels being able to run on track made to suit. This is just the point about 00-SF that you seem to choose to ignore - it works for a WIDE variety of wheels, whether MODERN RTR or what might be used in kits (or as replacement) eg Romford/ Gibson etc.

 

And, it works with wheels that, not surprisingly, are NOT 'modern' eg some Mainline/ Airfix that I HAVE tried.

 

Just about the only wheels I haven't tried with 00-SF are P4, but I bow to your superior knowledge ........

 

For non-tram radii, try "Industrial Avenue" and create a new separate topic on that if you wish to check it out further.

 

To say it yet again. This topic is a description of a Standard for running 4mm scale wheels (not coarse ones) on pre-existing 16.5 mm gauge track.

 

There appear to be a dozen or so 16.2 mm gauge promotion threads that you can ask such questions and still be welcome and on topic on. And I think Martin can put you right on your sentence 4.

 

Andy

Edited July 6, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[sp1]

For non-tram radii, try "Industrial Avenue" and create a new separate topic on that if you wish to check it out further.

 

To say it yet again. This topic is a description of a Standard for running 4mm scale wheels (not coarse ones) on pre-existing 16.5 mm gauge track.

 

There appear to be a dozen or so 16.2 mm gauge promotion threads that you can ask such questions and still be welcome and on topic on. And I think Martin can put you right on your sentence 4.

 

Andy

Aah,....but... Your second sentence said 'Electric Avenue' did it not....... Edited July 6, 2015 by sp1

[davefrk]

Because of your comment, I went to your website and saw your exclusively just EM/P4 tender chassis, then your postings showing your exquisite BH chaired hand laid track, and then I discovered to my surprise it was all just for your main "00" layout.

 

So you seemed to have found my long term use of scale looking wheels on non-scale gauge track funny, but not your own running coarse looking wheels on non scale great looking track. IMHO, that's just as funny isn't it?

 

Andy

 

 Andy, just to surprise and amuse you even more. The layout you are referring to as OO 'coarse scale' is actually EM and even at that, the spec. has been tightened up to make the best use of modern 'finescale' wheels like Gibson, Ultrascale etc. not RTR or Romford as you have alluded to. The B2B being set to 16.65mm and the check gauge through the points being adjusted accordingly as per a number of us EM users who have found that the running is so much better, there have been tests of 100+ wagon trains run round the layout at breakneck pace and even reversed at speed over the very pointwork you have commented on.... I'm happy with the 99.9% reliability.

I have also worked on P4 projects like 'Burnisland', re-chassised and built quite a few P4 locos for customers and even built compensated and sprung locos for customers in OO.

So you see Andy, I do have a little experience in the scale end of the hobby thanks.

 

But my thought still is, why would anybody go down the route you are advocating - running on track that is 2.33mm under scale but looking at the wheels to see how scale they look.... Just go the whole hog and go for P4 or the next best thing of EM. Both proven specifications.

 

I realise all this is you just thinking out loud about what you want to do on your own railway, that's fine by me but the fear is you'll end up confusing a lot of prospective P4 modellers.

 

Dave Franks.

Who is working in EM just because he wants to.

[Clive Mortimore]

As a 00 modeller I find the various standards by the 00 Association, 00-SF by Martin's gang and the "standards" set by the RTR manufacturers over confusing so do we need another one?

 

My RTR stock, my kit built stock and my scratchbuilt stock all run to a standard that I am happy with on Peco track...................yes I am a luddite but if it ain't broke why fix it.

 

As for the expense and time to re-wheel everything to match a new track standard, might as well renew my membership to the Saclefour Society, or fill in one of the EM gauge society's membership application forms that are under the short leg on my layout (they do stop it wobbling).

[Andy Reichert]

Aah,....but... Your second sentence said 'Electric Avenue' did it not.......

 

They are identical rails sections and gauges. The naming difference is to help those who are looking for solutions in different modelling applications and wouldn't necessarily assume or understand the technical overlaps.

 

I'll start a separate street track topic, so you can ask away on that. Perhaps even another one on 10 years plus mixed wheel size running on 16.5 mm gauge.

 

Andy

Edited July 6, 2015 by Andy Reichert