Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[Arthur]

 

I respect your position Martin, and as I and others have said, your patience with Andy is a constant source of amazement. I also have no doubts about his credentials as an engineer.

 

However, I take nothing back from my posting. 00-SF, or 4-SF if you will, and the constant bickering on relevant topics has become a source of ridicule on this site. And I can see why. It does none of us any credit.

 

I lay a large proportion of the blame for that with Andy. Not one of us understands what his issue is, he seems completely oblivious to the dilemmas/choices facing the 4mm modeller in the UK and I have lost count of the number of times that you have reminded him that this is a handbuilt track/turnout topic, something which he seems unable, or unwilling to grasp.

 

The threads on 00-SF would be shorter, more useful and helpful, and more encouraging to those wishing to give it a try if Andy were to desist from posting. However, it is clear that he cannot help himself, that he is oblivious to the intense irritation his unwarranted posts cause (or is that his motivation?) to those who wish to discuss the topic in a rational and sensible manner. He has raised the same irrelevant points time and time again, enough I say.

 

So, I urge you all to ignore his postings on 00-SF/4-SF threads opened by others and to let the tumbleweed blow across any of the trolling 00-SF/4-SFthreads he initiates. I have ceased to respond to any of his postings myself.

 

(I do not, by the way, include in this his threads on tram and trolley ways, nor his Proto 87 stuff, or indeed any other topic).

 

I would be genuinely interested to know if other followers of these threads think that I am being unfair or unwarrantedly rude to Andy in my comments.

[Junctionmad]

My experience is in building test formations in 00-SF. To me this is 16 .5mm plain track , in my case tests with both smp and C&l , with the entry and exit track flared in to 16.2mm to ( a) visually improve the common crossing and (b) allow the common crossing to better handle a diverse range of wheelsets. My tests show like Gordon S , that the concept works.

 

The rest is a discussion on semantics that's all

 

Regards

 

Dave

[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

[trustytrev]

:scratchhead:

trustytrev.

[Junctionmad]

What I object(ed) to in 00-SF

 

1. The name overlapping with the widely understood meaning of 16.5 mm gauge - This confusion has now been somewhat fixed, but mostly only by Martin.

 

2. The many postings going above and beyond Martins claims of RTR and EM wheels fault free-running above a min radius of ~30 in and no-drop support for EM type wheels. No only are those postings still happening, but Martin almost never corrects any of those, despite them basically over-expanding his claims. I.e His continual silence gives tacit acceptance.

 

3. Objection 2 where the claims are expressed as overcoming problems with 16.5 mm gauge which don't actually exist or occur.

 

 

Andy , your objection is noted , and has been " sigh " repeatedly noted. To those that use 00-SF , in particular those who gauge narrow , have shown the the technique helps. So let's call that 00-SF. ( since the majority track gauge is 16.5 ) I don't see why you repeat your objections ad nauseum

 

4-SF is a group of 1-2 people working in 4mm to the foot who have adopted a 16.2mm track gauge for the complete layout. They obviously see some. advantages , but I would suggest given the motivations I would suggest p4 would be a more rewarding home.

 

I personally see no real difference in min radius between any of them, min radius tends to be determined by the choice of coupler and locomotive rather then anything else. It's clear that 16.2 gauge widened can be laid to very tight radius , even it it's not practical to do so, in practice 16.5 mm track tends to have working min radius of 30" if any sort of non tension lock is being used in my experience

 

Also Andy. When mentioning 16.5mm you need to specifically reference what variant you mean ie what flangeway clearance and check rail clearance , are you referring to 16.5 by PECO , DOGA-fine, DOGA -intermediate , etc etc or perhaps you are referring to HO standards from somewhere else on the planet

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[trustytrev]

:scratchhead: :scratchhead:

trustytrev.

[trustytrev]

:scratchhead: :scratchhead:

trustytrev.

[trustytrev]

:scratchhead: :scratchhead: :scratchhead:

trustytrev.

[Junctionmad]

And there are a lot of less informed modellers here who are picking up on that, and thinking that they must use 4-SF for hand-laid track in order to run RTR reliably. Whereas hand-laid "00" would serve them just as well, without the min radius restriction.

 

 

 

Again Andy when you mention 16.5 mm handmade what 16.5 standard are you referring to. Over here I suppose the defacto 16.5mm is PECO and handmade track to finer 16.5mm crossing standards does clearly provide better running.

 

Builders of hand built 16.5mm track including plain track are as rare as hens teeth this side of the pond.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

:scratchhead: :scratchhead: :scratchhead:

trustytrev.

Fine , I think we get you don't understand

[martin_wynne]

Not one of us understands what his issue is, he seems completely oblivious to the dilemmas/choices facing the 4mm modeller in the UK and I have lost count of the number of times that you have reminded him that this is a handbuilt track/turnout topic, something which he seems unable, or unwilling to grasp.

 

Hi Arthur,

 

That's because he is closely involved in the American hobby, from where things take on a different perspective. The primacy of conformity to nationally agreed standards for example, where the NMRA and the RTR manufacturers dominate the hobby. He really does believe that it is better to allow code 88 wheels to bump through crossings, rather than risk disrupting the universal adoption of the NMRA H0 standard. It's a valid point of view, even if it does seem crazy to us.

 

Much more irritating to me are the interruptions from the DOGA representative, because he clearly does know how the UK hobby works, but chooses to object to 00-SF purely on religious grounds.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

Again Andy when you mention 16.5 mm handmade what 16.5 standard are you referring to. Over here I suppose the defacto 16.5mm is PECO and handmade track to finer 16.5mm crossing standards does clearly provide better running.

 

Builders of hand built 16.5mm track including plain track are as rare as hens teeth this side of the pond.

Yeah we all build to 16.2mm ....................................not.

 

 

Some of us are still trying to work out if 16.2mm is better than 16.5mm but the lack of layouts (apart from Dave's lovely Harton Gill) is not very convicing as yet.

[hayfield]

My experience is in building test formations in 00-SF. To me this is 16 .5mm plain track , in my case tests with both smp and C&l , with the entry and exit track flared in to 16.2mm to ( a) visually improve the common crossing and ( B) allow the common crossing to better handle a diverse range of wheelsets. My tests show like Gordon S , that the concept works.

 

The rest is a discussion on semantics that's all

 

Regards

 

Dave

 

Dave

 

Many have very good reasons like you to use 16.5 flexi track with turnouts built to 00sf standards. Martin has come up with a good reason for keeping Templot templates as they are and not confuse matters further. The one certain fact is that if building a complex of turnouts and crossings together they should be to 16.2 gauge throughout. where the modeller makes the transition from 16.5 to 16.2 is up to them.

 

A template is just what it says a template, to build a turnout or crossing you need to use gauges, if you cannot see the gauge narrowing effect in Gordon's build method they you would not see the flaring back to 00 on the template . Both Martin and Gordon have given good reasons why they use their chosen methods, both of which are very sound

[hayfield]

Many still build to 00 gauge even GOGA fine (unknowingly) depending on when and where they buy gauges, most of which are described as 00 gauge

[Guest bri.s]

Yeah we all build to 16.2mm ....................................not.

 

track 5.png

 

Some of us are still trying to work out if 16.2mm is better than 16.5mm but the lack of layouts (apart from Dave's lovely Harton Gill) is not very convicing as yet.

That is some nice pointwork

 

Brian

[Grovenor]

(apart from Dave's lovely Harton Gill)

Are there two "Harton Gills" now?

http://www.csmrc.co.uk/layoutpageHartongill.html

Regards

[martin_wynne]

Some of us are still trying to work out if 16.2mm is better than 16.5mm

 

Hi Clive,

 

That's the wrong thing to be working out. The track gauge is not a significant dimension.

 

The most significant dimension is the check gauge -- and nearly everyone building track for 00 models uses the same 15.2mm check gauge.

 

(The only ones not doing that are those who adopt the DOGA Fine standard, either intentionally -- probably not very many of those -- or by accident by virtue of buying C&L turnout kits or gauges.)

 

What you should be working out is whether it is better for you to use 1.3mm or 1.0mm crossing flangeway gap.

 

If you run only RTR models it makes no difference, both will work equally well and 1.3mm allows you a bit more leeway on the wheel back-to-back settings.

 

If you also run models with kit wheels, such as Romford/Markits, Ultrascale, Alan Gibson wheels, it does make a difference. Those wheels will run much better on 1.0mm flangeways than on 1.3mm. But then you do have to take a bit more care to check wheel back-to-backs, and not use very sharp curves.

 

Having decided on the check gauge and the flangeway gap, the track gauge decides itself:

 

15.2mm + 1.3mm = 16.5mm. (This is called 00-BF in Templot.)

 

15.2mm + 1.0mm = 16.2mm. (This is called 4-SF in Templot, or 00-SF).

 

Forget the track gauge. Think about the crossing flangeway gap.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Are there two "Harton Gills" now?

http://www.csmrc.co.uk/layoutpageHartongill.html

 

I think Clive means "Oil Drum Lane" from the same club: http://www.csmrc.co.uk/layoutpageOilDrumLane.html

[polybear]

Hi Arthur,

 

That's because he is closely involved in the American hobby, from where things take on a different perspective. The primacy of conformity to nationally agreed standards for example, where the NMRA and the RTR manufacturers dominate the hobby. He really does believe that it is better to allow code 88 wheels to bump through crossings, rather than risk disrupting the universal adoption of the NMRA H0 standard. It's a valid point of view, even if it does seem crazy to us.

 

Much more irritating to me are the interruptions from the DOGA representative, because he clearly does know how the UK hobby works, but chooses to object to 00-SF purely on religious grounds.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Careful Martin....you could be accused of bringing racism, politics and religion all into the same thread.  You'll get it locked down :jester:

[polybear]

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

Confused - what is 00-DN?  I've checked Templot for dimensions but can find no reference as yet (though of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist). Thanks.

Brian

[polybear]

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.

Hi Richard,

I'd suggest clarifying the term "RTR Wheels" a little more - in general (there will be exceptions no doubt) 00-SF is suitable for recent RTR wheels, not older "steamroller" wheel profiles.  HTH

Brian

[AndyID]

Confused - what is 00-DN?  I've checked Templot for dimensions but can find no reference as yet (though of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist). Thanks.

Brian

 

Hi Brian,

 

You'll find far more about it than you really wanted to know here.

 

Cheers!

Andy

[polybear]

 

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

 

Dave

Why not stand up at the next S4Soc. AGM and mention that.  Good luck - we'll send flowers :jester:

[bgman]

 

Just saying .........

[martin_wynne]

Confused - what is 00-DN?

 

Hi Brian,

 

H00-DN uses the same track standard as 4-SF, but the timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., is scaled at 3.75mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft. See:

 

 

AndyID of this parish is using the same idea for his experiments with 3D printed track bases, although he prefers the 1:82 ratio rather than mm/ft.

 

"DN" means "Double N" -- i.e. approx double the size of 1:160 (American) N Gauge. (Which strictly would be 1:80.)

 

I added the "H" to indicate the hybrid scale (and avoid the same friction as using "00" for 00-SF).

 

The above will be in the next Templot update, which I am hoping to have ready in the next few days.

 

I see AndyID has replied while I have been making the screenshot.

 

regards,

 

Martin.