Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[Junctionmad]

 

 

(BTW, what is your name?)

A quick scan of any of several posts above will reveal that mystery 

 

[martin_wynne]

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

 

Hi Dave,

 

The important issue for me is that when 00-SF with variable gauge causes problems, as I'm sure it will in the end, my name and Templot is not associated with it.

 

It will cause problems when such pointwork becomes more widely used and is bought and sold on ebay and elsewhere. When something which is 16.5mm won't join to something else that is 16.2mm. And when less-knowledgeable builders try to vary the gauge within diamond-crossings and slips.

 

In truth 16.2mm was not invented by me and does not belong to me, but I seem to have become personally associated with it on RMweb and elsewhere.

 

I'm happy to be associated with track built to 16.2mm throughout, and such track is now called 4-SF in Templot.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

A quick scan of any of several posts above will reveal that mystery 

 

 

Ah! I see that now. Thanks, Dave.

 

Maybe you could add it to your signature?

[Junctionmad]

 

 

I'm happy to be associated with track built to 16.2mm throughout, and such track is now called 4-SF in Templot.

indeed

 

and no doubt people will gauge vary that just as much as they did 00-SF and the  wheel bumpers will argue 4-SF just like 00-SF.  

 

And its clear that you have taken certain made up criticisms  of 00-SF far too much to heart 

 

however I think you have made up your mind and that that 

Edited September 25, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

however I think you have made up your mind

 

Yes I have. In Templot the designation "00" will in future be applied only to settings having a track gauge of 16.5mm.

 

00-SF has been changed to 4-SF.

00-DN has been changed to H00-DN.

00-NMRA has been removed.

 

In the next program update, which I am hoping to have ready in the next few days.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Ah! I see that now. Thanks, Dave.

 

Maybe you could add it to your signature?

 

 

Are you certain Dave is not Rodney !!

 

As Del Boy says "what a plonker" 

[Dungrange]

I would point out to people that 00 is first and foremost a SCALE. in fact there is no such thing as 00 track at all, proper scale 00 track is.called P4. What we have today is 00 scale models running on H0 dimensioned track , or derivatives or it. Hence the 00-SF moniker is just as valid. And it is a derivative of 16.5 mm HO track ( it's matters not where the dimensions came from, it's clearly intended to be used by 00 SCALE stock )

 

I disagree.  00 is NOT a scale, but a scale / gauge combination.  The scale is 1:76.2 or 4 mm on the model represents 1' on the prototype (often referred to as 4mm scale).

 

00 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm

P4 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 (exactly the same as 00), but with a track gauge of 18.83 mm (which is a true 1:76.2 scale dimension).

H0 is the combination of a scale of 1:87 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm (exactly the same as 00).

 

Taking all of that into account, can we really call sections of track with a gauge of 16.2 mm 00-SF (which from standard nomenclature would imply that the gauge is 16.5 mm and the SF is yet another variation on the other dimensions such as the check rail gap)?  The scale element of the track is 'correct' to be classed as 00 (ie it is 1:76.2 or 4 mm scale), but the gauge element is not.

 

I agree that there is a bit of semantics with regards narrowing 16.5 mm to 16.2 mm or widening 16.2 mm to 16.5 mm, but although I have just got used to 00-SF and made a decision to work to the standard and purchased a set of gauges this year, I fully understand Martin's reasons for seeking a new name (in Templot at least).  The premise of the 'standard' is that the track gauge is 16.2 mm and it is widened as required as per the prototype and for plain track it can be 'widened' to 16.5 mm and still provide satisfactory running, even if the curve geometry does not technically require gauge widening.  This allows 00 flexi-track to be used.  Whether 4-SF is the best choice of name, I'm not sure, but at the end of the day, it is just a name and if it stops all of the bickering, then that is a bonus.

[47137]

This has taken a while to write so it is a bit out of sync.

 

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.

I've not studied the Templot forum, but here is a worked-out example, perhaps this helps. This is a clause I have copied from the 00-SF Wiki:

http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_00-SF

 

It's important always to bear in mind that 00-SF was derived from EM, it's not a modification from RTR 00. So it shares the same EM conditions such as minimum radius, which for running lines should not be less than about 750mm or 30". 00-SF is not suitable for layouts with sharp train-set curves.

 

This clause has limitations. We don’t know what a “train set curve” is. We don’t know which train-set curves are “sharp”. We don’t know why it is “important” to think about EM. We wonder whether “running lines” are different from sidings. The idea that 00-SF is not a modification from RTR 00 is rather confusing - are we talking about trains or track? We don’t know why the 30” minimum radius applies. And the word “it” appears three times, but we have to work out what “it” means.

 

For me, I use 00-SF at 24-inch radius, so I know the 30-inch figure must be talking about something not described here; and at a personal level I think the terminology “train set” is derogatory.

 

All in all, this is a rather negative clause - it tells the reader what 00-SF isn’t, but not what it is. The writing is characteristic of someone who knows their subject, but doesn't practice it much; and would be better if it was more inspiring. To do this, have a think about what the typical reader already knows. It is quite possible they are currently using 00, and pondering a shift to something a bit better. You don’t need to know anything at all about EM to use 00-SF, so mentioning EM as “important” is potentially quite misleading.

 

We can use the present tense instead of the past tense too (this should liven things up), so we might try this:

00-SF is derived from EM. The 00-SF standard shares some EM conditions such as minimum radius, which for running lines should be about 750mm (30 inches) or greater. Sidings can use sharper curves, but this needs some gauge widening.

 

This is a bit more upbeat, but begs new questions. I am looking at the diagram book for BR shunters, this tells me about locos which can negotiate one- and two-chain curves. One chain is 66 feet, about 10 inches in 4 mm scale. Two chains are about 20 inches. We want to know which locos can go into the sidings, and why sidings differ from running lines, and then realise we should be writing about the trains not the tracks:

00-SF is derived from EM. The standard shares some EM conditions such as minimum radius, which should be about 750mm (30") or greater for main-line locomotives. Shunters and small industrial locomotives (and many items of rolling stock) can use sharper curves, typically around 600 mm (24 inches) depending on wheelbase, axle sideplay and the sideways overhang of couplings.

 

My last sentence here is a bit overblown, and so

Shunters and small industrial locomotives (and many items of rolling stock) can use sharper curves, typically around 600 mm (24 inches) depending on the sideways overhang of couplings.

 

At this point, the space-starved 00-gauge modeller looking for something better but used to fairly crippling curves may feel 00-SF is not for them. The specification should try to embrace as many users as possible, and so we might add:

Gauge widening lets you use tighter curve radii.

 

We can then say something about wheels to drive the nail home and complete the deal:

00-SF trackwork supports RTR wheels and finer-scale ‘kit’ wheels. Wheels set up for 00-SF will continue to run through Peco and similar pointwork. Gauge widening goes out to 16.5 mm (normal 00) and more on plain track, and trains will run through Setrack curves.

 

We now have enough for two paragraphs, but I don’t like my “set up” and “will” - they are too off-putting, and the reference to “the standard” seems a bit pompous. I’ll use the imperative voice in the second paragraph too. And so, I get:

 

00-SF is derived from EM. 00-SF shares some EM conditions such as minimum radius, which should be about 750mm (30") or greater for main-line locomotives. Shunters and small industrial locomotives (and many items of rolling stock) can use sharper curves, typically around 600 mm (24 inches) radius depending on the sideways overhang of couplings.

 

Gauge widening lets you use tighter curve radii. Use gauge widening out to 16.5 mm (normal 00 gauge) where needed. 00-SF trackwork supports RTR wheels, and wheels set up for 00-SF still run through Peco and similar turnouts, and through Setrack curves

 

Sold?

 

This is very much introductory stuff. The idea is to stay balanced, keep clear of too many restrictions, and get the reader to click a link for ‘specifications’ and stay hooked. Essentially, it (!) is iteration, not confrontation.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

Thanks Richard. That's great.

 

It is not actually my job to explain 00-SF.

 

That's why there is a 00-SF wiki. Why not post all that on there?

 

Details how to gain access here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94567-00-sf-and-00-bf-can-you-mix/page-16&do=findComment&comment=2006814

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      

 

47137, on 25 Sept 2015 - 17:24, said:

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.

 

I think you are failing to recognise gauge flaring is not the same as gauge widening. Gauge widening is something done prototypically on curves with varying degree to avoid longer wheelbase locomotives spreading the track to excess and causing short wheel base wagons etc becoming derailed. The amount of gauge widening on prototypical track is carefully worked out by the permanent way engineers totaly defined by the type and size of locomotives. In real life not all locomotives can run on all lines especialy in goods yards.That is why short tank engines tend to do most shunting because it is just not practical to use huge locomotives for such tasks. It is also why they have limitations imposed with regard to the sharpness of curves for certain types of traffic.

 Instead of permanet  way engineers, people who build model track, usually use something called a three point guage, which automatically  widens the gauge to a varying amount depending on the tightness of the curve. If you use it the wrong way round you will get gauge narrowing that renders the curve tighter than the locomotives or vehicles can negotiate. I fail to understand why narrowing plain 16.5 gauge track to match 4-SF is considered more difficult than the complexity involved faffing about varying the point and crossing gauge in multiple places.As far as I am aware points and crossings are not possible without curves in some form or other. It is a concept that is irrational  and without logic or any sense whatsoever. As far as I am aware it is not the purpose of Templot to handle gauge flaring as it is not a prototypical concept. I wish those whom delight in causing confusion and engaging in obfuscation would go elsware for their childish and spiteful games. Better still they could spend the time mentioned in the previous sentence creating something superior to Templot and really impress us all. I won't hold my breath on that count. Some of the conduct on this Handbuilt Track and Templot topic prevents many people from deriving any pleasure. Is that not why we choose to engage in this hobby?

trustytrev.

[AndyID]

it seems because i simulate SMP sleeper spacing and length, which itself is a compromise , I'm actually using 00-DN

 

 

Hi Dave,

 

SMP is not as close to 00-DN as I originally thought. The sleepers on my SMP are a bit too close together, and rather too wide. The differences in the dimensions are not large, but I was surprised at how different 00-DN track looks when compared with SMP. I'm considering scrapping my SMP, or relegating it to less visible areas on the layout.

 

Cheers!

Andy

[47137]

Thanks Richard. That's great.

 

It is not actually my job to explain 00-SF.

 

That's why there is a 00-SF wiki. Why not post all that on there?

Well, I'd want to keep only the very last part!

 

I am reluctant to contribute to the Wiki at the moment, because I would want to separate out my contribution (be it practical advice, guidance or background information) from the mandatory requirements of the standard. By mandatory requirements, I mean things you must do to be able to call your track 00-SF. The obvious examples are crossing flangeway and check gauge (which are in the standard) and gauge flare (which is currently missing).

 

If we were to add gauge flare to the standard for 00-SF, then we could write about the options for how to include the flare - inside a turnout, where a turnout joins plain line, or not at all, and the implications for doing this like buying second-hand trackwork. Choosing 'not at all' would equate to 4-SF. The mandatory part of the standard would specify the minimum flare length (needed for good running rather than aesthetics) and the maximum flared gauge (needed to keep all approved wheels on the tops of the track).

 

To put my own cards on the table, I put the flare where it was easiest, sometimes inside a turnout and sometimes on plain line, but not between two turnouts.

 

How about a quick straw poll (here, now)? If a majority say yes, we can proceed to thrash out the details.

 

Should the 00-SF standard allow a gauge flare?

 

(This is assuming we don't need ten posts to agree the question!)

 

- Richard.

[Junctionmad]

00-HO , as in scale -gauge is a compromise standard , a very severe compromise. Hence discussions talking about 16.2 or 16.5 are entirely superfluous, Both are clearly incorrect. Hence sorting about gauge faring or narrowing are utterly ridiculous in the context of what is 00 gauge running on H0 track.

 

To argue then 4-SF is EM -2 and not 16.5 - .3 plus a mpd to flange ways is just semantics. It's like insisting athat 1'4" is defined by saying its 2' - 8" rather then others arguing its 1' plus 4".

 

Nobody is confused , nobody is assured by either arguments.

 

As for Templot users will continue to use whatever gauge suits them , and WILL continue to modify the template to suit or build track to their own specific requirements. Whether it's 4-SF , H00-DN or 00-SF or whatever blooming moniker people want to assign, they will build it.

 

Martin explained why he believes a variable gauge template isn't a good idea and actually thinking about it , I have no issue what so ever with his comments in relation to that. To suggest that retaining 00-SF or renaming it to 4-SF will " protect " him from so called blame seems utter nonsensical. Firstly it's nothing to do with him how his templates are used in practice and secondly he would be well advised to ignore such " banter " as has been witness about wheel bump etc on this sub-forum.

 

My argument is merely we have now two monikers that apply to the same track standard. That just generates confusion

 

Ps to be consistent H00-Dn should be 4-DN , since 00-DN in fact is a derivative of 00-SF to accommodate SMP sleeper spacing but retain the gauge advantages of 4-SF

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Hi Dave,

 

SMP is not as close to 00-DN as I originally thought. The sleepers on my SMP are a bit too close together, and rather too wide. The differences in the dimensions are not large, but I was surprised at how different 00-DN track looks when compared with SMP. I'm considering scrapping my SMP, or relegating it to less visible areas on the layout.

 

Cheers!

Andy

I'm actually looking at building 16.2 mm turnouts with 1mm flange ways and marrying to 16.5mm C& L track and trying to set that up in templot . I have 150 metres of plain track to build and I ain't hand building that !!

I'm calling it 00- DAVE , it's derived from gauge 1 finescale with decimal fractions of mm added as appropriate !!

 

Regards

 

Dave

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

My argument is merely we have now two monikers that apply to the same track standard. That just generates confusion

 

Hi Dave,

 

Not in Templot we don't. That is my only area of concern.

 

Richard is proposing adding a specified gauge-flare to 00-SF, so that would make it a different standard from 4-SF. That's not something I would want to be associated with, but obviously it is a matter for 00-SF users. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf/page-10&do=findComment&comment=2032976

 

Ps to be consistent H00-Dn should be 4-DN

 

H00-DN is a different scale (3.75mm/ft) so would be 3.75-SF on this scheme. I have no plans to change it in Templot. AndyID is using 1:82 instead of 3.75mm/ft, so strictly that would need some other name.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited September 26, 2015 by martin_wynne
link added

[Junctionmad]

I disagree. 00 is NOT a scale, but a scale / gauge combination. The scale is 1:76.2 or 4 mm on the model represents 1' on the prototype (often referred to as 4mm scale).

 

00 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm

P4 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 (exactly the same as 00), but with a track gauge of 18.83 mm (which is a true 1:76.2 scale dimension).

H0 is the combination of a scale of 1:87 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm (exactly the same as 00).

 

Sorry, this is not the origins of the term "00". It was clearly intended to be primarily first a SCALE. The track issue was merely a compromise because nothing else was available. I'm sure if at the time 00 was popularised an RTR track builder could have been convinced to d0 an 18mm track , 00 would have continued to mean just that , ie 4mm modelling.

 

In the interim we have got used to the shortened monikers like p4, em, 00 etc.

 

P4 is purely a track and wheel standard. And it's clearly not 18.83mm because 21mm irish gauge modellers are clearly p4. You will notice that scalefour does not specifically mention a track gauge. It encompasses all 4mm modellers ( OO) that wish to use close to proto- typical track and wheel standards in whatever gauge they use.

 

Note that EM is also not defined as 18.2 . But also supports p4

 

Hence to properly define 00 modellers you have to seperate track standards from scale.

 

A p4 modeler is clearly a 00 modeller, often they are called finescale 00. P4 is not a scale per se

 

Dave

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

Two currently active topics on this subject have been merged. Links in old email notifications may no longer work.  

[Junctionmad]

Martin. 00-DN , is clearly using a mathematical scale to generate an equivalent to SMP or similar flexi track sleeper spacing as I understand it. It's clearly not a 3.75mm ft scale., in the sense that it's clearly designed for 4mm models. Equally the rail profile remains unchanged.

 

This obsession with ratios , most merely designed to achieve a drawing to match a real life thing is quite baffling.

 

Clearly Andy is designing for 4mm 00 scale models.

 

The ratios used in Templot to achieve that end are completely superfluous in achieving that goal , merely being a way to " render" a particular " look and feel" to 00 gauge track . This occurs all the time in railway modelling. If I reduce my platform length to 2/3 of the proto type I am clearly not changing scale. Equally if I reduce my sleeper length to produce a particular visual effect , I am clearly not changing scale from 4mm. How I achieve that in templot is entirely irrelevant to the scale I am modelling in.

 

To suggest otherwise is to give templot gauge generating abilities. Templot doesn't produce or define gauge standards , it merely may or may not reflect what users want from it and whatever names they give to the process to achieve that. As an example, autocad doesn't design buildings, buildings are designed in autocad. It aids the design process. Templot is the same. It has no control over the final production of the trackwork

 

Hence H00-DN , 4 -SF et all are merely names assigned to a set of parameters collated together in templot ( might be easier of you had no names and let users define their own ! )

 

Gauge standards are set by bodies attempting to define wheel and track standards. Gauges are set by physically producing products to a particular set of dimensions. Templot has no roll in defining that. Track builders do.

 

This is where I feel you mix up roles. Advocating a gauge is entirely different from simply configuring a series of settings under a settings name

 

00-SF is clearly out there in the market place and is clearly defined by its usage amongst modellers. 4-SF is a collection of settings in Templot. Which may be used to build a number of track standards including 00-SF for example.

 

Whether you coined 00-SF or not is irrelevant , it's defined by its usage.

 

Regards

 

Dave

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

Martin. 00-DN , is clearly using a mathematical scale to generate an equivalent to SMP or similar flexi track sleeper spacing as I understand it. It's clearly not a 3.75mm ft scale.

 

Hi Dave,

 

The term "00-DN" was coined by me, so if I say it is 3.75mm/ft then it is 3.75mm/ft.

 

In any event I have now changed it to "H00-DN" to indicate the hybrid scale.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Hi Dave,

 

The term "00-DN" was coined by me, so if I say it is 3.75mm/ft then it is 3.75mm/ft.

 

In any event I have now changed it to "H00-DN" to indicate the hybrid scale.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

If you cannot see the issue Martin, I'll leave it at that. I shall continue to use and recommend your fine software to help me achieve what I regard as the best track work for my needs and compromises, in that, templot aids me greatly in my design process , irrespective of what the specific menu settings are named , which as you say is solely your purvey

 

Thanks

 

Dave

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

it's clearly designed for 4mm models. Equally the rail profile remains unchanged.

 

To use overscale 4mm/ft rail section on a H00-DN template in Templot, it is necessary to change the rail-width accordingly. i.e. at real > rails > rail section data... change the default UK rail width from 2.75" to 2.93". (2.75 x 4 / 3.75 = 2.93)

 

Martin. 

[Junctionmad]

Hello,

 

 

 

I think you are failing to recognise gauge flaring is not the same as gauge widening. Gauge widening is something done prototypically on curves with varying degree to avoid longer wheelbase locomotives spreading the track to excess and causing short wheel base wagons etc becoming derailed. The amount of gauge widening on prototypical track is carefully worked out by the permanent way engineers totaly defined by the type and size of locomotives. In real life not all locomotives can run on all lines especialy in goods yards.That is why short tank engines tend to do most shunting because it is just not practical to use huge locomotives for such tasks. It is also why they have limitations imposed with regard to the sharpness of curves for certain types of traffic.

Instead of permanet way engineers, people who build model track, usually use something called a three point guage, which automatically widens the gauge to a varying amount depending on the tightness of the curve. If you use it the wrong way round you will get gauge narrowing that renders the curve tighter than the locomotives or vehicles can negotiate. I fail to understand why narrowing plain 16.5 gauge track to match 4-SF is considered more difficult than the complexity involved faffing about varying the point and crossing gauge in multiple places.As far as I am aware points and crossings are not possible without curves in some form or other. It is a concept that is irrational and without logic or any sense whatsoever. As far as I am aware it is not the purpose of Templot to handle gauge flaring as it is not a prototypical concept. I wish those whom delight in causing confusion and engaging in obfuscation would go elsware for their childish and spiteful games. Better still they could spend the time mentioned in the previous sentence creating something superior to Templot and really impress us all. I won't hold my breath on that count. Some of the conduct on this Handbuilt Track and Templot topic prevents many people from deriving any pleasure. Is that not why we choose to engage in this hobby?

trustytrev.

What a rather strange reply. Templot neither supports " flaring" or gauge widening . So any such " techniques " are a function of track builders. This is the key here, templot has nothing to do with actually building real " model " track. It's a design aid.

 

For example I asked Martin to add a feature to flare exit and entry tracks. He refused and gave good reasons why he didn't want templot to support it. , that's fine and I have no issue. It doesn't in any way invalidate the technique of using 16.2mm point work connected to 16.5mm plain track , this is a " build " technique and it's perfectly valid.

 

 

Whether people use 16.5 mm and narrow to 16.2 at the crossing ( I don't reccomend that ) or they flair on the entry and exit tracks of formations back to 16.5 ( which I do ) is purely a function of the track builder. It has nothing at all to do with templot ( or whatever name Templot assigns to a collection of its settings )

 

This is what annoys me about this debate. Templot is a template producer , it doesn't build track to any standard. The track Builder does that. ( mostly with a collection of track gauges by the way , template is merely a guide, rather like the pirates code )

 

As for " prototypical concept '" really , let's review 00 track work for its " proto type concepts " I could mention incorrect tie bars , , improbable flange way, check rail gaps ", locking apparatus , stretchers , , sleeper lengths and widths , the gauge itself , vast over sized " fishplates " , improbable over springs, strange chairing , strange turnout operating methods , " insul frogs " , incorrect track formations ,incorrect rail profiles and on and on . What's proto- typical about a PCB strip soldered to a nickel silver rail or a copper rivet etc etc . Railway modellers are NOT network rail

 

You need to seperate templot , which is a design aid , from the requirements to build good , working 00 nominal gauge model railway track, which requires compromises that " may " involve subtle changes in gauge if the builder wishes to achieve certain running advantages. Whether that's 00-SF ,0r 00-my elbow , is irrelevant , what works , s what works.

 

The issue is to build superior trackwork, whatever that's means to the builder , not about building a superior TEMPLOT which is purely in martins domain and if I'm not mistaken has NEVER. Been the subject of any criticism in these threads.

 

Regards

 

Dave

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

You need to separate Templot , which is a design aid , from the requirements to build good , working 00 nominal gauge model railway track, which requires compromises that " may " involve subtle changes in gauge if the builder wishes to achieve certain running advantages.

 

Hi Dave,

 

To build working diamond-crossings and slips the last thing you need is "subtle changes in gauge" anywhere within them. You do need an accurate template matched to the gauge, and Templot will print one for you.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[HeeleyBridge]

8. ...  you never grow sick and tired of wasting your life on things which obviously don't work and are not HO scale anyway.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

I'm just wondering where this topic went?

 

Andy