Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[Junctionmad]

This means that every subsequent post (some utterly irrelevant) has been superfluous to the topic (yes, including this one) and has largely revolved around the same old arguments being recycled. That is to say recycled arguments here and in every other post that has the misfortune to have the words/letters/mnemonics OO-SF or 4-SF somewhere in the text - to no advantage and for no purpose other than, so far as I can tell, for the antagonists to see their name on the internet again, and again, and again. ('Whoo look Mum I'm on the Interweb thing' (again). "That's nice dear. Come and eat your rissoles")

 

I find it incredibly strange that people who find threads " boring " somehow persist in reading them, then feel it's necessary to remind everyone they are bored with it and typically try and denigrate the people who are quite happily having the " discussion"

 

I mean it not like we using up a finite number of electrons or something

Why read and even bizzarely contributed to a topic that bored you.

 

There are hundreds of topics on RMweb I have no interest in at all , do I visit each one , point out how 'boring it is " , denigrate the contributors and leave !!!

 

There are several issues being discussed here , and we have passionate adherents on all sides , battling the ball back and forth. What's not useful is those on the sidelines shouting insults

Edited September 28, 2015 by Junctionmad

['CHARD]

In fairness Martin has repeatedly posted links to the 00-SF site that explains all the basics.

You have a good point. But the 'basics' as you guys see them are a minefield for others.

 

It's written from the perspective of practitioner rather than ingenue or willing convert.

 

I could write you a well meaning guide to punk rock but you'd risk confusing your straight-edgers with anarcho or Celtic derivative when what you were actually looking for was street.

[martin_wynne]

Yet again we have two overlapping topics running, causing great confusion. They will be merged. Links in old email notifications may no longer work.

 

Martin.

['CHARD]

I feel I should add at this point that elsewhere on this site enlightenment is breaking through.

Some of us feel less shut out and more enabled to ask the right questions for us in a common language, for which opportunity - Thanks!

[Junctionmad]

You have a good point. But the 'basics' as you guys see them are a minefield for others.

 

It's written from the perspective of practitioner rather than ingenue or willing convert.

 

I could write you a well meaning guide to punk rock but you'd risk confusing your straight-edgers with anarcho or Celtic derivative when what you were actually looking for was street.

Well ask your questions and I'm sure many will try and answer. But be aware as you can tell there are disagreements about some of the semantics !!

 

In essence it's quite simple , build turnout formations to 16,2 gauge with 1mm flange ways , which gives better looking 00 gauge track , with some benefits to the smooth running of kit ( iie narrower ) wheels. In general the combination of reduced gauge allows a narrow flange way but retains the ability to accept RTR back to back

 

Either transition the gauge to 16.5 to use commercial flexi-track or remain completely within 16.2mm for all track

 

There's nothing more really to be said ( well we have yet to discuss sleeper length and spacing compromises !!! )

Edited September 28, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Derekstuart]

Someone has just told me that clockwork is no longer fashionable and it has been replaced by electric motor.

 

Is this true?

Does this mean I'm going to have to use a third rail to power it? There goes my 4 wheel Duchess of Hamilton...

['CHARD]

Well ask your questions and I'm sure many will try and answer. But be aware as you can tell there are disagreements about some of the semantics !!

In essence it's quite simple , build turnout formations to 16,2 gauge with 1mm flange ways , which gives better looking 00 gauge track , with some benefits to the smooth running of kit ( iie narrower ) wheels. In general the combination of reduced gauge allows a narrow flange way but retains the ability to accept RTR back to back

Either transition the gauge to 16.5 to use commercial flexi-track or remain completely within 16.2mm for all track

There's nothing more really to be said ( well we have yet to discuss sleeper length and spacing compromises !!! )

I worked out sleeper lengths and spacings a long time ago. This new frontier is opening up rather nicely!

[Ravenser]

Yes Martin

 

But today , what is the common 00 hand built track standard. I'm genuinely interested. Would it be DOGA fine , even inadvertently , given the turnout kits.

 

Personally I know of so few modellers that choose 00 hand built. Most live with PECO. The hand builders have mostly gone to p4 it seems

 

The majority - probably a substantial majority - of OO layouts using handbuilt pointwork actually build it to the traditional BRMSB OO standard [which is just within the working tolerances of the DOGA OO Intermediate standard, so such layouts comply with the Intermediate standard]

 

Despite the perception that BRMSB OO is "an obsolete standard", it remains the dominant standard for handbuilt OO - aided by the fact that modern RTR fits it perfectly.

 

(As far as I can make out, amongst DOGA members a clear majority of those using handbuilt pointwork work to BRMSB/Intermediate standard , not to OO Fine . )

 

I would say that for every P4 layout on the exhibition circuit there are 2 or 3 OO exhibition layouts with handbuilt track. (And probably 2 EM layouts to every P4 one) . In fact I'd expect to see at least one OO layout with handbuilt track at any decent exhibition, and quite often there will be a couple. I think there were 3 or 4 at Shenfield last weekend out of 20-odd - though they seemed to be having a OO-themed show

 

Obviously a large majority of OO layouts at shows use Peco, and the balance among home layouts is probably even more in favour of Peco

 

But when you stop to count the actual numbers at a few exhibitions, there are quite a lot of layouts with handbuilt OO track around, and only modest numbers of P4 layouts   

[Paul Cram]

Which were the layouts with handbuilt oo track at Shenfield because I must have missed them?

[RichardS]

Ref 'Chard' and 'Junctionmad'

 

With respect I'm not late to the party I have been following the 16.2 saga for some time, maybe not commenting often, but certainly following. I don't read all of the threads daily I tend to come back at intervals and each time I find the to'ing and fro'ing of the same arguments and it doesn't really progress despite all the 'stimulating discussion.' 

 

Since Martin Wynne described 16.2 nothing has basically changed. He has on countless times reiterated what it's all about and yet still some people don't seem to get it. It only takes one side of A4 to explain. It's not very complicated.

 

Personally, I see no room for passionate adherents in a hobby. (For goodness sake this one is playing with trains at the end of the day - however seriously one might take it.) You find adherents in dogmatic religions and look where that gets people. Furthermore an adherent by definition must be stuck - so debate is fruitless. If you read my posting you will find that I said that the recycling arguments were boring. From which it can be inferred that new meaningful debate is not boring. What is particularly irksome for the quiet observer is when a correspondent hijacks what may be a new thread to continue banging their own drum. (referred to by me as an antagonist.)

 

Yes, we don't have to read - the 'discussion' - and to be honest I've stopped following a lot of threads because they became so repetitive in the way I described. And it is entirely up to the protagonists in a debate whether they have a discussion about whether the sky is blue or is in fact 'not blue.' But if some of us are seeking to learn from 'listening' to the dialogue it would be nice if sometimes an agreement to differ could result so the debate might move on.

 

If the same debate between such passionate adherents took place in a clubroom week after week there would be very few other members left before very long. (Yes you've guessed - I don't belong to a club)

 

Apologies if anybody felt insulted by my previous post, I certainly didn't write it with that in mind. (If I had, you'd have been in no doubt, trust me!) It was just a point of view.

 

And yes, I am seriously considering using track with a gauge of 16.2 for my own 'project.'

 

Regards

Richard Slipper

Norwich

[Ravenser]

Which were the layouts with handbuilt oo track at Shenfield because I must have missed them?

 

The club's new layout at the far end of the show with various RTR stuff belting round, Belmont Rd outside the entrance to that room, and I think there was at least 1 other elsewhere in the show  . I haven't kept my programme so I can't be entirely sure . There were 2 EM layouts I think, and I can't recall a P4 layout, though you would be more conscious of P4 than I am.  

 

Towcester uses Peco from memory, though Bedlam George would be able to confirm for certain, and I think the TMD layout at the far end of the gym was Peco as well

[Clive Mortimore]

Which were the layouts with handbuilt oo track at Shenfield because I must have missed them?

Display 47 Easthorpe, which I believe I saw you on was a few yards away from dispaly number 49, Great Tey, 00 handbuilt point work.

 

Edit, Ravenser beat me to it, whoops.

  Edited September 28, 2015 by Clive Mortimore

[Clive Mortimore]

You have a good point. But the 'basics' as you guys see them are a minefield for others.

 

It's written from the perspective of practitioner rather than ingenue or willing convert.

 

I could write you a well meaning guide to punk rock but you'd risk confusing your straight-edgers with anarcho or Celtic derivative when what you were actually looking for was street.

Oi!!!!

 

I hope that will be in your guide, do like a bit of Exploited and GBH.

[Junctionmad]

Since Martin Wayne described 16.2 nothing has basically changed. He has on countless times reiterated what it's all about and yet still some people don't seem to get it. It only takes one side of A4 to explain. It's not very complicated.

 

Indeed. What has bedevilled 00-SF debates has been the persistent criticism of the " standard" by one or two people, who seem to put such criticism into every thread of 00-SF topics , much to the annoyance of the actual practical practitioners of 00-SF. Often the perspectives so advanced are related to US HO standard which have no relevance. Despite making their objections clear they persist in communicating them.

 

Within the adherents of 00-SF there is little disagreement, with a few posts/debate on gauge transition etc. most of the threads, have been full of people who use 00-SF to good advantage trying to combat the couple of people that persist in trying to run it down.

 

Dave

Edited September 28, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

The majority - probably a substantial majority - of OO layouts using handbuilt pointwork actually build it to the traditional BRMSB OO standard [which is just within the working tolerances of the DOGA OO Intermediate standard, so such layouts comply with the Intermediate standard]

 

Despite the perception that BRMSB OO is "an obsolete standard", it remains the dominant standard for handbuilt OO - aided by the fact that modern RTR fits it perfectly.

 

(As far as I can make out, amongst DOGA members a clear majority of those using handbuilt pointwork work to BRMSB/Intermediate standard , not to OO Fine . )

 

I would say that for every P4 layout on the exhibition circuit there are 2 or 3 OO exhibition layouts with handbuilt track. (And probably 2 EM layouts to every P4 one) . In fact I'd expect to see at least one OO layout with handbuilt track at any decent exhibition, and quite often there will be a couple. I think there were 3 or 4 at Shenfield last weekend out of 20-odd - though they seemed to be having a OO-themed show

 

Obviously a large majority of OO layouts at shows use Peco, and the balance among home layouts is probably even more in favour of Peco

 

But when you stop to count the actual numbers at a few exhibitions, there are quite a lot of layouts with handbuilt OO track around, and only modest numbers of P4 layouts

 

Thank you for that. My own exhibition viewing has tended to focus on p4 layouts as I'm a closet p4 wanabe. I built considerable amounts of copperclad to BRSMB back in the " day ". I had formed a few that with C&l kits being to DOGA fine , it must have demonstrated a move to such a standard, but it seems I'm mistaken.

 

Dave

[hayfield]

Which were the layouts with handbuilt oo track at Shenfield because I must have missed them?

 

 

Paul

 

The best layouts with hand built turnouts are those where you do not necessary notice the track, as the quality of the track blends in with the overall quality of the layout being shown into one high quality standard. This is not either a gauge thing or chaired verses copperclad, for instance this year at Railex there was a large layout where the track flowed with curved turnouts etc. 

 

As it happened this layout had copperclad turnouts and crossings. It was beautifully designed, built and laid. There were one or two other layouts also there with hand built track, these were equally well executed.

 

Personally I can accept the arguments of the individual using commercially made track. I find it strange that a club uses H0 track on a 4 mm scale layout, especially when they are basing their layout in an era when bullhead track was used, I guess I am about to be shot down now, but when they go to all the trouble of getting the correct stock, hand making the buildings etc, why go and spoil it with wrong scale and era track?

[Junctionmad]

but when they go to all the trouble of getting the correct stock, hand making the buildings etc, why go and spoil it with wrong scale and era track?

 

Usually in my experience , because there is a desire to " get trains running " to maintain enthusiasm

 

Dave

[Paul Cram]

Thanks for the info. I didn't really look at Belmont Road as I am not a fan of shed layouts. I didn't get a close look at the club layout as it was in its very early stages of construction. I was on Eastthorpe Road which is OO Peco but bizarely enough operated by 4 P4 modellers including  Len Newman.

[vitalspark]

Our current layout has enjoyed success at high quality shows all over the country including Wigan..Stafford..Aylesbury and many many more.

We have been on the covers of Model Railway Journal and Hornby Magazine and had articles in both.

I have lost count of the times I have been asked if the layout is EM.

Point of all this is that the track work which is hand built regardless of what name you give it..is 16.5 with EM flangeways..EM minus 1.7!

We didn't see the need to go down to 16.2 when everything from latest rtr to kitbuilkt runs perfectly.

Its a large layout 34ft long with some complex track work which includes scissors crossovers diamonds etc plus trains run at scale speeds and pull realistic loads all with excellent reliability.

If it wasn't the case we wouldn't have had the success we have enjoyed.

We possibly built it in ignorance of the much talked about 4mm sf as it was constructed back in 2007. 

It was also the groups first attempt at hand built track and was more or less left to one individual to construct as he saw fit.. however it all works and works well.

We are currently constructing a new large exhibition layout and see no need to change the standards employed on the present layout as running and reliability are excellent however we all agree that if a change was to be made then EM would be the preference..there are two large EM layouts under construction by individual members within the group..not P4 as actual running of scale length trains at scale speeds will be required and P4 just doesn't convince that it can deliver on that without extensive reworking/replacing of chassis and compensation and with perhaps a hundred odd locos already built it would be a formidable task.  

I know this last statement is controversial and I also know layouts such as Charlotte Rd and Mostyn do run just such trains and superbly well but they seem to be in the minority suggesting that P4 is more suited to smaller less intensively worked layouts.

I am impressed by the standards of P4 modelling..you couldn't not be.. and admire the guys that can make it work..but usually it is down to their skills in chassis construction and compensation but as said for our large layout it is just too much to consider.

This is an interesting thread but sometimes i think we overcomplicate things..if it looks reasonable and and works well..why change?

Couple of pics of our old first attempt hand built track that has served us well..BRMSB?..DOGA.?.John the track builder special?

 

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by vitalspark

[Derekstuart]

That's impressive, no doubt about it.

 

But I take issue with your suggestion that P4 cannot permit prototypical speeds without springing and other clever stuff. Even as a P4 beginner I can make track and turnouts capable of taking a scale 90MPH through a B7 which would be limited to 15MPH in real life.

 

Some people might suggest that the need for compensation is to hide poorly built trackwork.

 

Like this forum or not, you can't deny it is controversial.

[martin_wynne]

the track work which is hand built regardless of what name you give it..is 16.5 with EM flangeways..EM minus 1.7!

 

That's looking very good.

 

16.5mm gauge with 1.0mm EM flangeways is the DOGA-Fine standard. Certainly it looks great and works just fine with both RTR wheels and kit wheels.

 

But what you didn't say is what adjustments have had to be made to the RTR wheel back-to-backs?

 

If you subtract two 1.0mm flangeways from 16.5mm the resulting check span for DOGA Fine is 14.5mm. So it is physically impossible for most RTR models with wheels 14.4mm apart to run without having their wheels widened -- as supplied they physically won't fit across the wing and check rails. Even if the wheels are 14.5mm back-to-back they are going to bind or jam on a size-for-size check span. The minimum back-to-back to run on DOGA-Fine is 14.6mm, and almost no UK RTR models are supplied with wheels that far apart.

 

Which means that all your RTR models have had to have their wheels widened on back-to-back. And having done that, they won't run properly on most other 00 layouts which are not built to the DOGA-Fine standard -- the wheels will be bumping against the crossing noses.

 

The difference in wheels is only 0.2mm or 0.3mm -- less than half a millimetre. For many it will seem that such a small change can't possibly make any difference. But it does, because it is the difference between something fitting and not fitting.

 

Had you used 4-SF instead, most of the RTR wheel adjustments would have been unnecessary. And they would still run well on all other 00 layouts.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited October 3, 2015 by martin_wynne
typo

[mightbe]

Vitalspark, the description of the track is DOGA-Fine (16.5 mm, 1mm flangeways), though it would have to be an extreme fluke if RTR stock actually ran through the turnouts as-described. The B2B's would have to be slightly widened, and so too, (IIRC) would Markits/Romford driving wheels. Anything kit built would have to be built to the correct B2B. However, it almost looks like there are larger wing rail gaps than check rail gaps. Probably just the photo.

 

I see Martin commented while I was busy reading and writing. He's more qualified that I am. Haha

 

Quentin

Edited October 3, 2015 by mightbe

[martin_wynne]

However, it almost looks like there are larger wing rail gaps than check rail gaps.

 

What often happens (I'm not saying it has happened here) is that modellers have bought C&L turnout kits and gauges (which are DOGA-Fine, but until recently were not labelled as such). And finding that their stock won't run, have assumed that they must be doing something wrong (after all the kits are advertised as 00). So they have then "adjusted" the flangeways to suit. Then someone who didn't actually build the track claims that their unmodified RTR stock runs perfectly on DOGA-Fine, when in fact it isn't now DOGA-Fine track at all.

 

Martin.

[vitalspark]

What often happens (I'm not saying it has happened here) is that modellers have bought C&L turnout kits and gauges (which are DOGA-Fine, but until recently were not labelled as such). And finding that their stock won't run, have assumed that they must be doing something wrong (after all the kits are advertised as 00). So they have then "adjusted" the flangeways to suit. Then someone who didn't actually build the track claims that their unmodified RTR stock runs perfectly on DOGA-Fine, when in fact it isn't now DOGA-Fine track at all.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin I suspect you may be right on this one..as said I didn't build the track but was the work of one guy.

I do understand the logic in the btb needing to be adjusted but apart from a few most stock was as built and rtr and does run well.

I will look more closely at the flangeways next visit as said this was built a good few years ago with the gauges supplied then.

Knew this would be can of worms!

On the P4/EM issue I accept that both can work well as mentioned layouts like Charlotte Road and Mostyn to name the two that I have watched and been very impressed with do however seem to be in the minority and the level of engineering employed in their chassis is I am sure part of their success.

I agree that compensation can be seen as 'compensating' for less than perfect track however the finer we go the more critical every gap becomes and it is only my opinion but I do feel it is just too critical in P4 to allow a large layout to operate satisfactorily under exhibition conditions where hall temperature and other factors can affect this scale more so than the others..that is the reason I would probably opt for EM.

Off to measure the trainset now.

Dave 

[polybear]

DOGA go so far as to state a minimum B2B of 14.8mm for the Fine Standard on their website - aimed at replacement/kit wheels such as Gibson/Markits maybe?

 

Regards,

Brian

Edited October 3, 2015 by polybear