Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[martin_wynne]

Really there is no difference between 16.2 with widening to 16.5 and 16.5 with narrowing to 16.2.

 

Surely the difference is that 16.2mm is widened to 16.5mm only where necessary, i.e. for very sharp curves (and widened a bit less for not so sharp curves). Where widening is not needed it can remain at 16.2mm.

 

Whereas 16.5mm would be narrowed to 16.2mm for every crossing, regardless of radius, even for straight ones.

 

That strikes me as a fundamental difference in concept and intent.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Taz]

It just seems like semantics to me.

 

I would be willing to bet what most people actually do (including myself) is model in OO (16.5mm) and then narrow the gauge to 16.2mm (OO-SF/ 4-SF) at the crossings to get improved running and visual appearance.

I certainly don't model in 16.2mm and gauge widen my plain track to 16.5mm.

 

Regardless of what it is called I will continue to do what works for me and everyone else is free to do  likewise.

[47137]

Well, I think my explanation is clear and it represents a reasonable and workable point of view - but then I guess I would. I am no longer a user of Templot, if that helps.

 

If my post adds "confusion" then this needs to be assessed by objective argument, not a burst of vitriol. To put it bluntly, 00 gauge is full of slop and the easiest way to get rid of this is make the gauge narrower.

 

My layout has about 25 feet of track, and the gauge narrows in six locations which add up to barely two feet including an inset siding. This means over 90% of the layout is 16.5 mm gauge. I am happy to call this '00 gauge', in the same way that a person who builds 00-BF or 00-anything calls their layout 00 gauge. And, I see this approach as cost-effective, interoperable and above all sensible, and most certainly not a 'kludge'.

 

I uninstalled Templot many months ago. I got the impression the software does not handle gauge widening (or narrowing), at least automatically. For my purposes it was more nuisance than it was worth - it is easier to just draw something with a flexi curve and then make it. If precise timbering locations (as I believe Templot provides) are a part of the 00-SF standard, this needs to be clarified. If specific prototypical crossing angles (say, 1:3.5 but not 1:3.45) are a part of the 00-SF standard, this needs to be clarified too.

 

I'm intrigued to find out the real reason why "4-SF" has now appeared. The endless weasel words make me suspect it is because Templot cannot handle gauge flaring. I'm sure I won't wait long to be told I'm wrong; but I'm equally sure I could wait forever to find the real reason.

 

In the meantime, 4-SF makes the 00-SF wiki and domain name look a bit awkward. Perhaps this is all dividing into two camps: the people who start with 00 and narrow the gauge as needed, and those who start with EM-2 and then widen it out for specific locations.

 

All the more reason not to use it in reference to 16.2mm.

 

I'm not worrying too much. I am maybe explaining too much. Writing too much. Spending too much time at the keyboard. I shall stop now.

 

Martin.

 

Martin, don't take this personally but you could help yourself a great deal by adopting a style which lets the reader separate mandatory requirements from background information, subjective opinion and possible details of implementation. Or, get someone to do it for you; but I get the feeling that "teamwork" isn't really your thing. Otherwise, you will find yourself going over the same ground over and over again; and moreover, you will alienate the people you are trying to help. As it stands, a great deal of your narrative can only be understood and used in practice by someone who already knows what you are writing about. As I wrote some time ago, most standards used in industry (EN, BS, ISO, whatever) contain mandatory requirements and informative annexes. The solution is clear enough; but most of these works are team jobs and you will need to approach people who you can work with. I write this with sincerity; the message may well be better in a PM, but you explained some months ago that you wish all correspondence to be placed in an open forum. 

 

I think that's enough of my objection to 00-SF.

 

- Richard.

 

[AndyID]

Richard,

 

I don't think there is any justification for resorting to ad hominem attacks on Martin and denigrating the fantastic work he has done on Templot.

 

Martin has been quite clear and consistent throughout. 4-SF is simply EM minus 2, that makes the gauge 16.2 mm. Of course you can use any variant of it that you choose to. All Martin is trying to do is make sure there is no confusion.

 

Please do not take it personally.

 

Andy

[Junctionmad]

00-SF is intended for modellers who might be considering EM, but want the improved appearance and running of kit wheels, without needing to modify 00 wheels. It is a track standard in its own right, it is misleading to describe it as a variant of 00. The details are at: http://00-sf.org.uk/...0-SF_Dimensions

 

 

 

a quote by Martin

 

That may be Martins " intended " use for 00-SF  or 4-SF or whatever its called today.  But its not MY intent, or several other peoples,  I have a right to my intent.  I know what I am doing whenI gauge narrow from 16.5 to 16.2.

 

personally anyway Im gone to 00-DN 

[Junctionmad]

What Richard said looks to me to be exactly what has been discussed on all these 00-sf topics for the last couple of years, ie the whole thrust has been a means of obtaining finer flangeways through the crossings in handbuilt 00 pointwork. It has been repeatedly stated that there is no need to change plain track and that the whole idea is to get better running for 00 stock. All of which made sense.

It seems very obtuse to me to suddenly decide it has nothing to do with 00. IMHO, far from clearing up confusion this change will just create more.

regards

+1, however that discussion which has now been going on for the best part of two years  has suddenly lead to much confusion it seems 

 

I would never suggest gauge narrowing  in the middle of complex formations, or attempting to use a 16.5 template and narrowing it to 16.2, that will cause loads of issues in diamonds and elsewhere.  Its merely an idea to flair the entry and exit tracks from such formations back to 16.5

 

its clear  that such technique is now known as 00-SF,   a correct derivative. Templot provides no support for 00-SF , but of course you can use 4-SF or 00-DN templates to " simulate 00-SF point work ".  remembering to flair back to 16.5 ( using track gauges) only at  on the plain exit and entry track of such point work or point work formations

[Junctionmad]

I never narrow the gauge, I model in 00 scale with 16.2mm track , I widen the gauge to accommodate flex track  I call that concept  00-SF.  in fact it seems because i simulate SMP sleeper spacing and length, which itself is a compromise , I'm actually using 00-DN

 

 

 

 

 If the notion that narrowing the gauge is a good idea gains credence in the hobby, I don't want my name to be on it.

seriously Martin you are having a laugh ,  in the thread about mixing 00-SF and 00-BF you specifically mentioned it could be all used together along with PECO, when the trains are running over the 00-SF or 4-SF sections, there is defacto gauge narrowing 

 

I mean , really , this is angels on a pin stuff.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Junctionmad

[gordon s]

To me Templot is a layout planning tool that allows me to 'draw' and print full size layout templates. The templates are a guide to building turnouts, nothing else. All turnout construction is done with the correct gauges and an assortment of basic engineering tools.

Anyone who builds turnouts just using templates generated in Templot is asking for trouble.

There are so many variables that may be introduced by paper quality and printer accuracy that you should never use templates alone to build turnouts. They are a guide nothing more, so the whole question of templates in mixed gauge is purely academic. Select 00-SF and use that as a guide for the critical positions of the crossing components and then use your gauges to build it accurately. Use 00 (16.5mm) gauges to create the 0.3mm flare to join to flexi track. It's irrelevant whether or not it exactly aligns itself to the template.

Likewise for curved track. The centre line and sleeper ends are the guides and when using SMP track or equivalent it is simply laid over the template and fixed in position on the board.

In my opinion, the question of gauge widening or narrowing is a complete red herring as far as Templot is concerned.

I'm staggered how something so straightforward can be made so complicated.

Whilst I have a basic understanding of engineering principles, most of my working life has been spent in sales/management, so if a sales guy can do it, anyone can......:-)

Edited September 26, 2015 by gordon s

[Junctionmad]

 

 

Select 00-SF and use that as a guide for the critical positions of the crossing components and then use your gauges to build it accurately. Use 00 (16.5mm) gauges to create the 0.3mm flare to join to flexi track.

tsk tsk, thats so last year, now its 00-DN

[Junctionmad]

I think we can use this as a parable , assign the characters as you will 

 

[gordon s]

Not in this house it isn't.......:-)

[martin_wynne]

I'm intrigued to find out the real reason why "4-SF" has now appeared. The endless weasel words make me suspect it is because Templot cannot handle gauge flaring. I'm sure I won't wait long to be told I'm wrong; but I'm equally sure I could wait forever to find the real reason.

 

Hi Richard,

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the real reason. Certainly Templot can't do gauge flaring at present. That's because it's not a prototypical thing to do, which is my usual starting consideration for what happens in Templot. The code is written by me, so within reason I can make it do whatever I choose. At present that doesn't include variable gauge, and I have no current plans to implement it. My NOD book ("nice one day") includes some notes about automatic gauge-widening on sharp curves, but they have been there for years waiting attention, and at present I think other things are more important. Such as the split-deflection switches which have been waiting for 15 years and will be my next big project when I am satisfied that the sketchboard is complete.

 

Trackwork is normally constructed using gauge tools, so if a varying gauge is wanted there is nothing on the printed template to prevent it being built. For proper gauge-widening or for 4-SF flaring. Where there is gauge-widening there is usually a continuous check rail, and Templot can do that.

 

Martin, don't take this personally but you could help yourself a great deal by adopting a style which lets the reader separate mandatory requirements from background information, subjective opinion and possible details of implementation.

 

Sorry, I have no idea what such a style would look like. I do my best to answer questions in a way that will be understood, but I'm aware that my writing style doesn't suit everyone. A subject which we have discussed on the Templot Club forum in the past. As for what you call "mandatory requirements", I'm not too clear what you are expecting beyond what is on this page:

 

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

 

Although in building a model railway, nothing is ever "mandatory".

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

 

 

In my opinion, the question of gauge widening of narrowing is a complete red herring as far as Templot is concerned.  

 

I'm staggered how something so straightforward can be made so complicated.

+1 Gordon, however the issue is now the wholesale confusion as newbies grapple with 00-SF, 4-SF etc etc etc 

 

Templot has never supported variable gauge and in fairness Martin made that clear to me.  however Templot is a template generator as you say and as such  is irrelevant to whats actually made by the respective track builder.

 

There was never any confusion on this subject , and even Andy R, was arguing about wheel drop not about gauge narrowing. however confusion has now been generated for no real reason and thats a great pity 

[Junctionmad]

 

 

Trackwork is normally constructed using gauge tools, so if a varying gauge is wanted there is nothing on the printed template to prevent it being built. For proper gauge-widening or for 4-SF flaring. Where there is gauge-widening there is usually a continuous check rail, and Templot can do that.

 

a very model of a reasonable answer Martin , but , then , why change the moniker , by " flaring 4-SF" we are back to 00-SF

[dasatcopthorne]

It just seems like semantics to me.

 

I would be willing to bet what most people actually do (including myself) is model in OO (16.5mm) and then narrow the gauge to 16.2mm (OO-SF/ 4-SF) at the crossings to get improved running and visual appearance.

I certainly don't model in 16.2mm and gauge widen my plain track to 16.5mm.

 

Regardless of what it is called I will continue to do what works for me and everyone else is free to do  likewise.

 

I'm FREE, FREE I tell you. I'm allowed to do what I want at last!!

 

[AndyID]

Anyone who builds turnouts just using templates generated in Templot is asking for trouble.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

That's exactly what I'm doing, and in my case, it's not causing any trouble at all. I'm importing the Templot generated templates into a CAD program and using them to position the various turnout elements in precisely the correct positions to produce a model for a 3-D printer.

 

There's always an exception that proves the rule

 

Cheers!

Andy

[Junctionmad]

Hi Gordon,

 

That's exactly what I'm doing, and in my case, it's not causing any trouble at all. I'm importing the Templot generated templates into a CAD program and using them to position the various turnout elements in precisely the correct positions to produce a model for a 3-D printer.

 

There's always an exception that proves the rule

 

Cheers!

Andy

Your application is somewhat specific Andy, to say the least .  I think what Gordon means is that ultimately you build using track gauges not paper templates.  However for diamonds and slips etc, a great reliance on the template is needed 

[dasatcopthorne]

a very model of a reasonable answer Martin , but , then , why change the moniker , by " flaring 4-SF" we are back to 00-SF

 

Not if you flare it by 2mm. That would be EM.

[Junctionmad]

 

 

That strikes me as a fundamental difference in concept and intent.

really depends on who is setting the " concept and intent ".  The track builder is surely  king here.

[Junctionmad]

Not if you flare it by 2mm. That would be EM.

OMG , Ive just realised  4-SF is EM-2, gauge narrowed EM, the sky is falling    

Edited September 25, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

why change the moniker

 

I think I have explained that. But just to repeat:

 

The track gauge for 00-SF is 16.2mm.

 

Not fully appreciated by me when I coined the term 00-SF, for many modellers "00" means strictly 16.5mm. So applying "00" to 16.2mm is causing confusion, which much talk about flaring back and forth between the two gauges.

 

By removing any reference to 00 in the designation, it is clear that the track gauge for 4-SF is 16.2mm only, and that 16.5mm plays no part in it.

 

That's not preventing anyone building or using 16.5mm track if that's what they want to do.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

I think I have explained that. But just to repeat:

 

The track gauge for 00-SF is 16.2mm.

 

Not fully appreciated by me when I coined the term 00-SF, for many modellers "00" means strictly 16.5mm. So applying "00" to 16.2mm is causing confusion, which much talk about flaring back and forth between the two gauges.

 

By removing any reference to 00 in the designation, it is clear that the track gauge for 4-SF is 16.2mm only, and that 16.5mm plays no part in it.

 

That's not preventing anyone building or using 16.5mm track if that's what they want to do.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

but given nothing changes Martin and we have a body of information out there for 00-SF and track gauges etc being offered by two commercial companies, all this does is create massive confusion 

 

Simply removing 00 , will in effect do nothing,  its clear the gauge is designed for 00 scale models

 

people are not going to see any issue that 4-SF clears up over 00-SF , 

 

I fail to see why you would feel that the confusion generated by a moniker change  for what is in effect a completely nebulous benefit is worth doing that .  I appreciate its your ball ( Templot) and you can play with it as you like, but I dont see the gain and I do see a very real confusion being generated as a downside 

 

 

You could easily say the same thing for 00-DN or any 00 gauge that in effect isn't  PECO. because the rail spacing is only on aspect of what we have to deal with in 00 modelling 

 

As a compromise why not leave 00-SF and add 4-SF , you make it clear that 4-SF is a EM-2 gauge whereas 00-SF  is similar to OO-DN clearly designed for 00 use 

 

just my tuppence , 

 

Dave 

Edited September 25, 2015 by Junctionmad

[gordon s]

Hi Gordon,

 

That's exactly what I'm doing, and in my case, it's not causing any trouble at all. I'm importing the Templot generated templates into a CAD program and using them to position the various turnout elements in precisely the correct positions to produce a model for a 3-D printer.

 

There's always an exception that proves the rule

 

Cheers!

Andy

 

With respect Andy, you are doing something totally different. If I understand correctly, you are exporting data from one programme to another and then manufacturing via CAD driven equipment.

 

You are not reliant on paper nor a paper printer that will print to exact dimensions. Yes, it will be close but nothing like the accuracy of gauges. Then add parallax errors of the human eyeball and you have no chance of building something to the tolerances we require.

[AndyID]

Your application is somewhat specific Andy, to say the least .  I think what Gordon means is that ultimately you build using track gauges not paper templates.  However for diamonds and slips etc, a great reliance on the template is needed 

 

Hi JM

 

(BTW, what is your name?)

 

Yes, I did fully understand Gordon's point, and my post was, I hope, obviously tongue in cheek. As far as my application being specific, if might be for now, but I suspect it will be a lot more general in a few years. I could be wrong. Time will tell.

 

Cheers!

Andy

[AndyID]

Oh sheesh!

 

Sorry Gordon. I was only pointing out there might be an exception to your general statement. I agree that gauges are essential for the method you use (in fact, I've posted a lot on the subject in other threads.)

 

Cheers!

Andy