Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[polybear]

Gordon

 

Now what have you achieved to date, given plenty of food for thought, not only with your track building skills, baseboard construction, setting the scene and most of all enjoying yourself modelling.

 

 

Hi John/Gordon,

 

Bearing in mind E.T. currently has 322 "official" followers (not to mention all the unofficial ones...), then I'm sure you can't be doing too much wrong

p.s. We're all eagerly awaiting the next instalment, by the way

Cheers,

Brian

[martin_wynne]

I thought flares went out in the early 70's !!

 

They will be back -- everything always is.

 

Even this approach to layout design: http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Though I fear we won't see that elegant writing style again in our lifetime.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

I thought flares went out in the early 70's !!

 

A former colleague's father (in Ayrshire) referred to them as "John Tarbolton troosers."  (It probably doesn't translate too well.)

[Derekstuart]

Gordon S,

 

I hope you don't leave RMW. A great many people respect your work- regardless of scale and gauge that they work in.

 

It seems that a very small number of people are absolutely determined to p155 off people such as yourself and Martin to the point where you leave and then they can "rule the roost" un-challenged with their nonsense.

I'm sure a great many people appreciate being able to read about- and learn from what you are doing.

 

I have a really good idea, I think. Why not simply IGNORE these lunatics. Don't engage them. Just say "yes lunatic, whatever you say, lunatic" and move on. (re-word lunatic to whatever you think most appropriate- but don't forget some words are replaced by ****** stars.)

[martin_wynne]

It seems that a very small number of people are absolutely determined to p155 off people such as yourself and Martin to the point where you leave

 

but don't forget some words are replaced by ****** stars.)

 

Hi Derek,

 

I'm not the least upset and I will never leave RMweb simply because of what someone posts. I do have a toy popgun alongside the computer which I fire at the screen when the need arises.

 

My recent tantrum was not with the contributors to RMweb but with the moderators for locking a topic which contained my contributions.

 

You can make any banned word you like appear on RMweb by selecting one letter in the middle of it and changing its colour to black. But don't tell Andy Y I told you.

 

Like this, see: 00-SF

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

Thanks for the kind words and I accept at times I have been frustrated by the amount of nth degree technical stuff that has been used to argue against 00-SF. I'm a realist about most things in life and recognise that if I have a 100 loco's there will be problems with some of them for reasons outside the track. To try and come up with an engineering standard to cover every eventuality will simply tie people up in knots and never resolve anything. I would rather accept that I have 95 loco's that will run through everything I have built and deal with the other five.

 

I fully appreciate that I will have the same problems with 00-SF and any track built to either DOGA specification. Simply building to 00-SF will not miraculously solve the problem with a loco with a B2B way outside the required specification. I accept that and have never said anything different. To use my example, it is likely that 95 loco's will run fine through 00-SF or DOGA pointwork. I have never said anything different.

 

My frustration is the total rigidity of the 00-SF detractors to accept 00-SF will do everything that DOGA will do. For me personally it has the added benefit of 1mm flangeways, the acceptance of Ultrascale wheels and that 95 of my 100 loco's will run though it without change. Others may make a different choice. That is their right, but I would never criticise their choice or try to forcibly influence their decision. If asked, I would tell them how I made my choice and leave them to make their own. It's no problem for me whatever their choice.

 

I accept that DOGA Fine will do those things, but I will need to change my B2B's. If that doesn't bother you, then DOGA Fine will be perfectly OK.

 

If it is a problem for you, then 00-SF could be a solution. It's simply a choice each person can make dependant on their own requirements.

 

Blindly denying that 00-SF has some merits and then trying to discredit anything that is written about 00-SF is extremely frustrating and sadly has to be countered. If not questioned, then others may be put off a solution that may solve their particular choice of wheels or needs and no one has the right to deny others freedom of choice.

Edited September 27, 2015 by gordon s

[polybear]

Gordon S,

 

I hope you don't leave RMW. A great many people respect your work- regardless of scale and gauge that they work in.

Snap - please don't go .  You'll make me :cry:

In the years since I've been involved with (and reading posts about) 00-SF I've yet to read anything which has made me doubt that 00-SF is correct for me.

And I, like many others I'm sure, have learned an awful lot thru' reading about your exploits on Eastwood Town. Though if traffic doesn't increase soon the line could well be at risk from a certain Dr. Beeching

Regards,

Brian

Edited September 27, 2015 by polybear

[Grovenor]

Like this, see: 00-SF

Works with other words too.

[dasatcopthorne]

The OP question was asked in obvious bad faith (as Grovenor picked up) , the thread was essentially without factual content, you had previously said openly that you were looking to confront me, and you had also stated that you wouldn't read anything I posted. The moderators don't like fighting, and that was simply an invitation to a bunfight on your preferred ground. Another dissenter had already been moderated off track topics

 

I'm not quite foolish enough to walk into a trap with so many warning signs

What ever you might read into this, the fact still remains that you and anyone else are not able to supply a reason why anyone should NOT use 16.2.

 

This is because there simply is one.

 

Dave

[martin_wynne]

My modelling urges are slowly returning and I'm already playing around with some ideas based on previous experience.  Some new pointwork will need to be built and my question is a serious one. If there is a reason not to continue building in 00-SF please tell me.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about. If there was some significant reason not to use 00-SF you would have found it by now.

 

If we were seeing a stream of posts saying "I built some 00-SF pointwork, but xyz model wouldn't run through it" we may want to pause and have a rethink.

 

But we aren't seeing such posts, are we? I can't remember seeing even one such post, which is truly remarkable -- I would have expected a few at least. Everyone who has tried 00-SF seems to be delighted with the results. Perhaps Ravenser can explain how they are all mistaken.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

Although my own modelling has been in EM for many years, I have also had the great pleasure of getting involved with a number of other layouts built in OO gauge and I have built a good number of points for them.

 

In my experience, it is quite possible to built points to "normal" 16.5mm OO gauge with a 1.2mm check rail gap and to make them in such a way that rolling stock doesn't bump and lurch through them.

 

All the RTR stuff that we have tried to run through them has gone smoothly through although only an idiot would assume that means that all wheels that have ever been produced would go through just as nicely.

 

If I had known about the possibility of using 16.2mm gauge I would almost certainly have done so. Not because I would get better running (it would be almost impossible to get anything better than what I already get) but because the narrower flangeways would look better and because I really cannot see any disadvantage other than reducing an already undergauge track even further.

 

If the sleeper sizes are suitable adjusted so that the length of sleeper outside the rails is pretty much to true scale and the sleepers are moved slightly closer together to preserve the proportions, the narrowing of the gauge can be disguised to the point where it will not stand out until you start measuring things.

 

So I really can't imagine why anybody could possibly have any objection to people wishing to build their own points and/or track to 16.2mm gauge if they so wish. I will certainly give it serious consideration if I ever get asked to do more pointwork in OO. Nobody is forcing anybody to do it if they don't want to.

 

There are a few scales that now work with variations in gauge. The 3mm and 7mm folks seem to manage it very nicely without falling out over it. Perhaps some 4mm modellers might like to just see how the other scales manage to deal with such matters and learn a bit from it.

 

Something along the lines of realising that there is very rarely one way and only one way to do something in this hobby and that just because you find a way that works for you, it does not mean that what everybody else does must be wrong.

 

As for a name, it really matters little as long as everybody uses the same one. OO9 has precious little to do with 16.5mm gauge but people have learned what it is through useage over many years.

 

Now if different people want to call 4mm scale and 16.2mm gauge different things, that is when it gets confusing.

 

Tony Gee

 

edit for bad spelling

Edited September 27, 2015 by t-b-g

[t-b-g]

What ever you might read into this, the fact still remains that you and anyone else are not able to supply a reason why anyone should NOT use 16.2.

 

This is because there simply is one.

 

Dave

 

Count the negatives and double negatives in that one and then add another one for good luck 'cos I don't think it says what you want it to say!

[andytrains]

What ever you might read into this, the fact still remains that you and anyone else are not able to supply a reason why anyone should NOT use 16.2.

 

This is because there simply is one.

 

Dave

Because 18.2 or 18.83 is nearer scale.

I rest my case.

 

I cannot believe that DOGA, (of which I am a member), has not set a 'Set in Stone', set of standards for OO gauge and have not lobbied the manufacturers to set their standards to their parameters. 

If everybody worked to the same standard then surely we would not be discussing all this crap.

Get your bloody act together and agree on a standard for oo gauge and we can all get on with our normal or ab-normal lives!!!!!!!!!

[47137]

I agree entirely that this topic is a discussion about choice, but the root of the subject is surely the standard? To my mind, standards have objectives, set rules and provide guidance; and the 00-SF standard would be clearer and less contentious if it did more of these. Then again, I may be suggesting something which is over the top for a model railway application.

 

 

As far as I can see, the information set out at:

  http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=00-SF_Dimensions

is all that anyone needs. It seems clear and sufficient, even including some advice for 00-BF. Adding anything further would surely muddy the water?

 

Regarding both of these quotes, writing is only useful if it is understood, and I appreciate that I can achieve nothing here.

 

To tidy up some loose ends:

I think the answer is 'no'.  00-SF (or 4-SF) is a 16.2 mm track gauge intended to remove some of the 'slop' inherent in 'standard 00' and this is particularly important in the context of point work.  The gauge can be widened where curves are tight, as per the prototype, to 16.5 mm.  I don't see any reason for non-prototypical 'flaring' being specified within the 00-SF standard as a layout can be built to 16.2 mm gauge throughout (ie EM-2).

 

However, there is nothing to stop builders using 4-SF (00-SF) for the point and crossing work and standard 00 (ie 16.5 mm gauge) elsewhere (and I understand many do - probably far more than the number who use 4-SF (00-SF) throughout).  Where the builder chooses to transition from one standard to the other is up to the builder, but I think what you are seeking is a standard for the transition between standards.  I can't speak from experience, as I have yet to build a 4-SF turnout, but I intend to build my turnouts to 4-SF standard throughout and then transition the gauge over a short section of hand-built track to 16.5 mm gauge.  That is I will use the Exactoscale Fastrack sections for plain track (16.5 mm gauge), but will stop these a few inches short of the point-work shown on a template and use separate sleepers and chairs for this transition section.  This is my planned approach simply because I anticipate fewer issues if the transition is at least a full wagon length away from the wing rails.  Time will tell whether this gives me the look and running qualities that I hope for, but it's my opinion for now.  The absence of a 'standard' between standards is potentially a reflection of the relatively small number of users of 00-SF and also it will to some extent depend on the type of stock that you wish to operate. I would imagine that shorter wheelbase traditional stock will be able to cope with a gauge transition within the point work more readily than longer more modern air braked stock.

Thanks - I think this is the sort of thing which could enhance the standard.

 

Gauge flairing has been used to describe a method of incorporating some of the benefits of 00-SF into 16.5mm track instruction , or by narrowing at the common crossing and returning to 16 .5 elsewhere. To differentiate this from gauge widening , we are using the term gauge flaring

Hence absolutely 00-SF should contain instructions for gauge flaring to avoid newbies , returning the gauge to 16.5 in the wrong place

I have mentioned that flaring should be done at the exit and entry tracks of formations. I would advise against doing do within the body of the point

 

Hence a few guidance notes might help a newbie not make an error

Thanks - I agree.

 

What Richard wants to do is have some laid down practice for how and where the change to 16.5mm should take place, and call that 00-SF as a different standard from 4-SF.

No. I have tried and failed to show how the 00-SF standard might include guidance information, and also explanations of its purpose and benefits. I would love to see advice which explains potential benefits and pitfalls of using 00-SF; but certainly nothing as strong as a laid down practice.

 

Yes I have suggested 4-SF should be a particular implementation of 00-SF. This is the best way I can imagine needing two names for what is otherwise apparently the same standard. Other approaches are possible.

 

I cannot add anything further to this discussion without repetition; thanks everyone for putting up with me.

 

- Richard.

[Derekstuart]

If only people WOULD rest their case.

 

18.83 is closer to scale and that's what I've chosen. Therefore I do not contribute much to this thread.

 

But equally I do not seek to detract from it or tell other people that just because I do not use it that they should not use it either.

 

Because 18.2 or 18.83 is nearer scale.

I rest my case.

 

 

[Ravenser]

Because 18.2 or 18.83 is nearer scale.

I rest my case.

 

I cannot believe that DOGA, (of which I am a member), has not set a 'Set in Stone', set of standards for OO gauge and have not lobbied the manufacturers to set their standards to their parameters. 

If everybody worked to the same standard then surely we would not be discussing all this crap.

Get your bloody act together and agree on a standard for oo gauge and we can all get on with our normal or ab-normal lives!!!!!!!!!

 

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

[martin_wynne]

Yes I have suggested 4-SF should be a particular implementation of 00-SF. This is the best way I can imagine needing two names for what is otherwise apparently the same standard.

 

Hi Richard,

 

I wasn't intending that both names would continue in use, although of course I can't prevent it. I'm hoping, probably foolishly, that when folks start clicking on 4-SF in Templot; seeing 4-SF printed in the margin on the templates; reading posts about 4-SF; they will stop writing "00-SF", and start writing "4-SF" instead.

 

Then, without the "00" part acting as a red rag to DOGA, Andy Reichert, and others, we could have more relaxed discussions about 4-SF without constant interruptions from those who don't use it, and don't want anyone else to use it.

 

Unfortunately matters have rather run ahead in the last few days, and I need to get the next Templot update released as soon as possible.

 

Bear in mind that it is only a name change. Not a single wheel, rail, sleeper or chair will be any different as a result.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       I would like to make a contribution to reduce the confusion on this thread.

First I will start with flare and flair.

flare:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flare

flair:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flair

 

 

This is, of course, complete and utter bo**ocks.

 

You have mixspelt botox

trustytrev.

[Arthur]

Then, without the "00" part acting as a red rag to DOGA, Andy Reichert, and others, we could have more relaxed discussions about 4-SF without constant interruptions from those who don't use it, and don't want anyone else to use it.

 regards,

 

Martin.

Having mulled over the idea of adopting the name 4-SF I can now see the both the logic and the sense in the idea.

 

The logic being that, once you incorporated 16.2 mm gauge anywhere, it really isn't 00 anymore, and the sense being Martin's consideration above. If that releases us from the grip of the naysayers, removes some of their perceived 'ammunition', then I'm all for it.

[andytrains]

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

Two sets of standards.

Why?

[dasatcopthorne]

Why should I not choose OO-SF?

 

 

• Because whenever I try to learn sensibly about it, every result turns up the same half dozen entrenched individuals (males I think) arguing semantics with such vitriol that if they turned their attention and passion to something remotely meaningful, then their partners, pets, children or other good causes might be experiencing a greatly enriched quality of life.
• As a consequence of a, I shall not be choosing it because I can no longer begin to try and understand it.
• And because life is too short.  If I do decide to pursue modelling with anything better looking than Peco, I will start my own thread and explicity bar a number of bores from expounding on it.  You do yourselves, and the hobby, no favours.
• I am now considering a life in hooliganism and drug addiction to forget this wretched topic and vent my pent up anger at it and the amount of my time it has wasted.

Dave (dasatcopthorne)

 

 

That's some pretty impressive trackwork- the same applying to Gordon S.

 

I admit that when I first heard about 00-SF I didn't quite know what to make of it, so I can understand Martin's reason for changing the name. Had I realised that you could get such realistic looking track this way, then I am not sure I would have started in P4.

 

Although therefore I am not a 00SF modeller, I thoroughly respect what you chaps have done- I really wouldn't have thought it possible. As for those "I don't use it because I don't like it and therefore you must not like it either" types. 'ck them.

Derek

Thanks Derek for your kind comments but besides the good looks of 16.2, there's also the great results of using Templot.

 

Dave.

[AndyID]

Two sets of standards.

Why?

 

For goodness sake! Surely you know the great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.

[dasatcopthorne]

On what you've said the date would be about 2000-1. The first "new age" steam engines from Hornby - the rebuilt MN and one or two others - came out with their "traditional" 13.9mm B2B, and would not run on BRMSB OO. Then very briefly Hornby moved to 14.1mm B2B , before settling on 14.5mm in about 2001/2. I remember a friend showing a small layout of his using Marcway at a club open day. A new Hornby Black 5 would not go through one of the points - he was assuming the B2B would need adjusting until someone suggested scraping our the flangeway with a jewellers' screwdriver . After that it ran...  That would be one of the 14.1mm B2B models , and neatly illustrates the issue of "manufacturing tolerances" on handbuilt pointwork and the risks of very tight flangeway clearances.

 

PC wheels are before my time, I'm afraid

 

One thing about this puzzles me slightly - if it won't go through BRMSB OO (check span 14.0mm) it shouldn't then go through OO-SF (check span 14.2mm).

 

(And both Martin and I are agreed that RP25/110 wheels on 1.25mm flangeways should not result in drop in . The NMRA think the same - their maximum flangway is 1.27mm . There's something else going on here - but I'm not sure quite what)

 

Comments about the stock on the layout were based on the photos posted in the Woking show thread - featuring , amongst other things, a Hornby 56 . A modern image layout will be running RTR locos (or at least RTR motor bogies) , most rolling stock will be RTR and the main range of airbraked wagon kits is Cambrian - with no wheels supplied. Parkside (Romfords) as a supplement. Unless locos had been rewheeled with Ultrascales or Gibson wheels chosen for the kits (and that would not have been the line of least resistance) , nothing on the layout should have had any trouble with traditional OO handbuilt track.

Ravenser.

 

Looking at the last sentence, what is traditional hand built track?

 

Please let us have the dimensions for this?

 

Dave.

[dasatcopthorne]

The OP question was asked in obvious bad faith (as Grovenor picked up) , the thread was essentially without factual content, you had previously said openly that you were looking to confront me, and you had also stated that you wouldn't read anything I posted. The moderators don't like fighting, and that was simply an invitation to a bunfight on your preferred ground. Another dissenter had already been moderated off track topics

 

I'm not quite foolish enough to walk into a trap with so many warning signs

Ravenser.

 

I appreciate your concerns about posting in that subject but, of course, you wouldn't be able to answer the question posed simply because there isn't one.

 

Whilst I am comfortable with your promotion of DOGA standards, why, oh why, are you bothering us?

 

16.2 is obviously not for you so why bother to come here. I and probably many others can only surmise that you just like to wind people up.

 

Dave. (Please note, this is a real name and it's mine)

[AndyID]

Ravenser.

 

Looking at the last sentence, what is traditional hand built track?

 

Please let us have the dimensions for this?

 

Dave.

 

I think he meant one of these, although, strictly speaking, they were not actually "hand-built". (OK, its a shameless plug  )