Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[dasatcopthorne]

I recall that was the problem you had when you first asked me about the 00-SF setting which you had found in Templot. You were using C&L 00 gauges (which are for DOGA Fine) but didn't think it was reasonable to ask your club members to widen back-to-backs on all their stock.

 

You do realise that this commotion on RMweb is entirely your fault? 00-SF might even now be hiding unknown and unloved on the Templot gauge list, but for you!

 

Or maybe we should blame Brian Lewis at C&L, for selling folks DOGA-Fine gauges without telling them.

 

I'm fearful about what other settings on the list might be about to burst into fire. I have now hastily removed American 19mm 00, just in case.

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I think you are trying to pass the buck now and relieve the pressure on yourself.

 

I don't mind at all. My shoulders are very wide Martin.

 

Notorious of West Sussex. :-)))

[Izzy]

If no one minds me saying, having followed all the threads on OO-SF/4-FS and been rather bemused at all the fuss over what is really a very simple concept now I better understand it, that of reducing the gauge to tighten up flangway clearance, and which also applies I believe to O-MF & O-SF, then having a joint description to signify exactly what they are might be of benefit so there is no mis-understanding. i.e. OO-SF/16.2mm, O-MF/31.5mm, O-SF/31.2mm ( I think I have them right, forgive if I haven't).

 

I would also like to thank Gordon S for detailing how he ended up using OO-SF. If anyone can't understand the logic behind it even if they might choose to use another standard, well...........knocking your head against a brick wall does come to mind.

 

Izzy

[AndyID]

I think you are trying to pass the buck now and relieve the pressure on yourself.

 

I don't mind at all. My shoulders are very wide Martin.

 

Notorious of West Sussex. :-)))

 

Maybe this is the buck you had in mind?

 

 

 

[hayfield]

Two sets of standards.

Why?

 

Perhaps their title explains (I jest) 

 

I assume they are trying to cater for what is called a broad church within their membership and the fact they are accommodating older coarser scale wheel standards. The problem they have is the coarser standards used by manufacturers in the past is not finescale friendly

 

Quite clearly they have adopted one set of standards to be inclusive with previous models built to coarser standards, and a second to cater for those who wish to model finer standards. The flaw in the system is that some stock will have to have their wheel back to backs altered to suite.

 

My club built a layout using DOGA fine standards, those working on the layout were supplied with back to back gauges. The layout went dormant with most of the original members leaving and the remaining pair meeting on a different night to the main club night. The problem arose when new members tried running their stock without realising the potential problems. Need I say any more

[Arthur]

I would also like to thank Gordon S for detailing how he ended up using OO-SF. If anyone can't understand the logic behind it even if they might choose to use another standard, well...........knocking your head against a brick wall does come to mind.

Izzy

As you have said Izzy, the concept is very simple. Unfortunately, any apparent complexity has been introduced by a small number of posters who seem hell bent on imposing their views on others and deliberately introducing confusion.

 

Yes, because it's essentially a craft solution rather than a commercial or organisational one, there is not what you might call a fully developed, all encompassing, set of standards. For example, some modellers mix it with commercial, 00, plain track, and there are differing views on where to make the transition between the two if you adopt that practice. Whatever works for the individual is right.

 

Nobody has to use 4-SF, nobody has to believe it works, nobody has to believe it's the best (or even any) solution.

 

It would just be nice if those who don't use it let those who do, discuss it openly and constructively.

[martin_wynne]

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

 

Just to point out that Andy has "handbuilt" those with 8ft-6in sleepers (34mm).

 

For 4ft-1.5in gauge (00) the correct prototype length is 8ft (32mm). Andy will be handbuilding some of those for comparison.

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

While I can understand completely why Martin has felt it necessary to drop the 00 in the name (to avoid the shrieks of those who will say it isn't  00) it does seem a shame as I understand the whole point is to be able to run modern RTR 00 rolling stock on track with finer crossing and checkrail clearances.

 

Does anyone here happen to know what wheel standards Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol et al are using for the 00 market these days? Are they simply using the same (NEM?) standards as for their European H0 ranges or something less well defined? 

[mightbe]

I believe Bachmann uses NMRA, while Hornby does something that defies categorization.

[dasatcopthorne]

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

 

Absolutely shameless Andy. Take 5000 de-merits.

 

Truthfully though, the DOGA promotes 3 standards. So what one is the Traditional One?

 

You see, I think the DOGA has done much similar to the originator of 16.2. They've found that ONE standard on 00 is not enough. They've had to find an extra two. They may as well now add 16.2. They could call it '00 Second Thoughts' or '00 Core Blimey Mate, That's a Good Idea'.

 

 

Dave

[Arthur]

 

More likely, 'FO Not Invented Here'.

[dasatcopthorne]

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!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Andytrains but this is about 16.2 and we have a set of standards already

 

As you say, it's the DOGA that need to settle on one standard but that has no place here. We already know all that.

 

P4 may well be more accurate but that is not a reason not to use something else. In this instance 16.2.

 

I'm guessing that you are a P4 modeller and if so, good luck but I also guess you have no interest in using 16.2 and if this is the case I can only sum miss you are here to try to wind everyone up.

 

Dave

[dasatcopthorne]

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!

I think it does though.

 

Nobody is able to supply a reason why I should not use 16.2.

 

Dave.

[dasatcopthorne]

Martin has warned of the potential risks in variable gauge construction.

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

Where would a newbie make an error if they knew that the 'point' had to be 16.2. This measurement clearly affects the crossing and the blades area, so all that's left are the area beyond these.

 

Dave

[gordon s]

…but not the whole blade area.  (For me, anyway. Others may choose to do it differently…)

 

This only applies to single turnouts.  As has been said many time before, for crossovers or more complex formations, I would continue with 16.2mm right through the crossings and then go back to 16.5mm where it joins SMP etc flexible track.

 

 

 

 

[gordon s]

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

 

I think t-b-g is referring to the last sentence and I'm sure you meant 'is' to be 'isn't'…….

[Junctionmad]

Ravenser.

 

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

 

Please let us have the dimensions for this?

 

Dave.

My thoughts too, what exactly is British outline 00 hand built track ? Ravenser ? ( ps your answer cannot include mention of nmra )

[dasatcopthorne]

I think t-b-g is referring to the last sentence and I'm sure you meant 'is' to be 'isn't'…….

 

Oh bug*er. Yes.

 

Sorry.

 

Dave

['CHARD]

Goad

 

 

verb (T)

 

/ɡəʊd/

 

to make a person or an animal react or do something by continuously annoying or upsetting them:

 

• She ​seemed ​determined to goad him into a ​fight.
• He ​refused to be goaded by ​their ​insults.
• The ​runner was goaded on by his ​desire to ​keep up with the ​others.
• A ​group of ​children were goading (= ​laughing at or ​pushing) another ​child in the ​school ​playground.

[Junctionmad]

Where would a newbie make an error if they knew that the 'point' had to be 16.2. This measurement clearly affects the crossing and the blades area, so all that's left are the area beyond these.

 

Dave

Because in complex formations it would be unwise to transistion anywhere except in a plain track segment

[Junctionmad]

<p>

 

Goad

 

 

verb (T)

 

/ɡəʊd/

 

to make a person or an animal react or do something by continuously annoying or upsetting them:

 

• She ​seemed ​determined to goad him into a ​fight.
• He ​refused to be goaded by ​their ​insults.
• The ​runner was goaded on by his ​desire to ​keep up with the ​others.
• A ​group of ​children were goading (= ​laughing at or ​pushing) another ​child in the ​school ​playground.

CHARD , could I ask what you wish to contribute to this thread , you have previously stated you would not consider 16.2mm .

 

I mean are you just looking for threads on rmweb to create confusion and obfuscation. Why come here? . There are people here who have different views , but at least they have a view on track standards.

I don't see what you expect with your contributions

['CHARD]

CHARD , could I ask what you wish to contribute to this thread , you have previously stated you would not consider 16.2mm .

 

I mean are you just looking for threads on rmweb to create confusion and obfuscation. Why come here? . There are people here who have different views , but at least they have a view on track standards.

I don't see what you expect with your contributions

 

I simply pointed out that you are continually goading other members. I don't see how that contributes anything.

 

I have plenty of views on track standards, but no amount of your willy-waving is going to coax  them out of me.

[Junctionmad]

I simply pointed out that you are continually goading other members. I don't see how that contributes anything.

 

I have plenty of views on track standards, but no amount of your willy-waving is going to coax them out of me.

I've not goaded anyone. I am a proponent of 16.2 , please withdraw that and aim your bile at other threads thanks.

 

What is it that attracts this sort of poster to these threads , I despair

 

By the way I asked Ravenser a straight forward serious question about hand built 00 track

 

Oh and I'm sure that if in the unlikely chance that Ravenser feels " goaded " he will say so. He doesn't needs the likes of you sh&t stirring

Edited September 28, 2015 by Junctionmad

['CHARD]

I've not goaded anyone. I am a proponent of 16.2 , please withdraw that and aim your bile at other threads thanks.

 

What is it that attracts this sort of poster to these threads , I despair

 

By the way I asked Ravenser a straight forward serious question about hand built 00 track

 

If you think that's bile, you've led a sheltered life 

 

What attracts me to the 00-SF space - as I have said repeatedly - is to seek understanding on how to apply the use of finer appearance track to my next major project.  

 

However, what occupies much of the space is a kind of smart-arse tennis between a few members, deliberately goading others - you goaded Ravenser very specifically by name.  This provides no more enlightenment than my ironic definition of goading: my post was as a direct result of the despair I feel every time I have to trawl through all this meaningless $hit.

[Derekstuart]

Oh junction mad- your name is half right.

 

I too do not use 16.2. I also do not model LSW Railway circa 1886, but I've just enjoyed reading a thread about it.

 

I do not personally enjoy reading your comments at all- (especially as you write multiple posts together)- but I accept you have the right to post your views. As does 'chard.

 

There is civil war in a dozen or so Countries at the moment with people fighting about all sorts. I would not be surprised to learn that some are fighting over this thread.

[Derekstuart]

Beginners seldom jump straight into complex formations, and if they do their margin of error is likely to be more than .3mm anyway.

 

Also there is a huge amount of information available to beginners (even if they have to wade through pages of cr4p to find it), so people will surely be aware of this point.

 

 

 

Because in complex formations it would be unwise to transistion anywhere except in a plain track segment