Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[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.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks for that Martin and I've no doubt that you are right, and if so, it's a perfectly valid stance for Andy to hold.

 

BUT! For goodness sake, how many time does he need to be told that those conditions do not hold over here, that there are different issues facing 4mm modellers, that improved appearance is also important to those choosing 00-SF/4-SF, that it wil only ever interest a small minority, that none of us could care less about the U.S. market (in this context). How many OP's on the topic have asked him to stop posting on their threads because his posts are unhelpful.

 

Does he really have to poison every single 00-SF thread to prove some totally irrelevant point that leaves everybody else bewildered?

 

He has made his points ad nauseum, we know, we disagree, it's not going to change our minds, move on, please.

[dasatcopthorne]

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.

.

 

Clive, Clive, Clive. Oh Clive.

 

Wrong layout mate! Harton Gill is built to the new gauge(not yet in Tamplot) 00vw (00 very wide) It's 16.5+2.33.

 

Falcon Road TMD & Oil Drum Lane is 16.2mm.

 

I still love you though.  :sarcastichand: :mosking:

 

Dave

Edited September 27, 2015 by dasatcopthorne

['CHARD]

This thread has helped me enormously to fine-tune my prototype.  I'm rolling the clock forward and shall now be modelling a scale half mile section of the Waverley Route in plain line as it appeared in Summer 1970.

[dasatcopthorne]

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.

Clive.

 

Me again!

 

I've looked closely at you picture of the track and think it's a great bit of work.

 

However, looking even more closely it is clearly .3mm too narrow.

 

Come on. Own up. You've gone and tried 00sf. :)

 

Dave

Edited September 27, 2015 by dasatcopthorne

[Arthur]

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.

Gordon's Eastwood Town?, or do you mean layouts built entirely, plain track as well, to 16.2mm?

 

Anyway;

 

No one is trying to convince you Clive. No one has any agenda here. If you are interested, start small, build a couple of test pieces. That's what everybody else who has adopted it has done. There is no organisation here guaranteeing you success.

 

You'll have to prove it, or not, to yourself.

 

I've only got test pieces, they work, I'll be trying it on a larger scale when I start track building on my layout in the coming year.

[47137]

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?

Ok - 24 hours on, no takers, the implication is probably (going back to a previous post of mine) I'm not very good at team work either.

 

The standard is best to state its objectives, including those for interoperability, compatibility, and having prototypical elements:

 

1) 00-SF is particularly good for interoperability because trains which run on it will run on other standards like 00-BF too.

 

2) If a single turnout or the ends of a chunk of complex trackwork are allowed to incorporate gauge flare, they become compatible with ready-made 16.5 mm gauge track. If gauge flare is forbidden, then an individual turnout can be re-used as part of a larger chunk.

 

3) The standard can choose to try to be more prototypical by forbidding gauge flare, but bearing in mind that the various dimensions are already optimised for models, there is probably little benefit in taking this as an argument.

 

In the meantime, it's easy to choose 00-SF on a personal level, but difficult to recommend it (to let someone else choose it) on the basis of the standard, because the standard omits these things.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

Carry on bickering.

 

There isn't any bickering. We are having a friendly discussion between people who simply have different points of view. That is the usual purpose of a forum.

 

I've noticed this tendency to object to anything remotely contentious on RMweb before. Unless everyone says "me too, yes, that's absolutely wonderful" there are those who find it uncomfortable -- some even actually ask for topics to be locked! The solution is really very simple -- if you don't like what you are reading, don't read it.

 

Martin.

[47137]

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).

It might be simpler to drop the "H00-" part and call double N "DN".

But probably not NN :-)

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

If gauge flare is forbidden

 

Richard, we are discussing model railways.

 

Nothing is forbidden (and nothing is compulsory). It is a discussion about choice.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

I can't see any help, guidance and inspiration in threads like this

 

Hi Pete,

 

What help do you need, and where is your posted question asking for it? I will do my best to answer it, as I'm sure will others.

 

Over the years dozens of topics have been posted on RMweb about handbuilt track, full of helpful advice. See for example 17 pages of Hayfield's workbench topic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/57911-hayfields-turnout-workbench/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

Richard, we are discussing model railways.

 

Nothing is forbidden (and nothing is compulsory). It is a discussion about choice.

 

I agree entirely that this topic is a discussion about choice, but the root of the subject is surely the standard? To my mind, standards have objectives, set rules and provide guidance; and the 00-SF standard would be clearer and less contentious if it did more of these. Then again, I may be suggesting something which is over the top for a model railway application.

 

- Richard.

[polybear]

2) If a single turnout or the ends of a chunk of complex trackwork are allowed to incorporate gauge flare, they become compatible with ready-made 16.5 mm gauge track. If gauge flare is forbidden, then an individual turnout can be re-used as part of a larger chunk.

 

3) The standard can choose to try to be more prototypical by forbidding gauge flare, but bearing in mind that the various dimensions are already optimised for models, there is probably little benefit in taking this as an argument.

 

- Richard.

Hi Richard,

For me at least, the term "Gauge Flare" isn't helpful/may mislead.  00-SF has a track gauge of 16.2mm, which may subsequently incorporate gauge widening on curves as required (using well-proven tools such as 3-point track gauges) , depending on factors such as minimum radius and locos/stock used.  Ultimately this gauge widening could result in a track gauge dimension of 16.5mm, for example.  To me it's 00-SF (or 4-SF in Templot).

However, some (e.g. Gordon's excellent Eastwood Town layout) may choose to incorporate Gauge widening where not actually required, such as on plain trackwork of little or gentle radius. This may be due to several factors, such as a big layout is being constructed by one or two modellers and therefore the practicalities of building lots of trackwork isn't viable/isn't favoured.  Therefore (as on Eastwood Town) the modeller favours the use of 16.5mm RTR trackwork where suitable.

For me at least it could be argued (pointlessly IMHO) that the layout isn't a "true" 00-SF layout.  So what?  It works for them and they're happy with it.  For me I intend on my next layout to use 16.2mm 00-SF throught, using handbuilt trackwork only; it doesn't make it any better or worse, just more suitable/practical for my own personal circumstances and desires.

 

Brian

[Pacific231G]

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

I'm sorry Dave but if you look at the history of the small scales you'll discover that this isn't quite true and 00 quite definitely started as a gauge (originally defined as 5/8 inch then 16mm and eventually 16.5mm) Early MRNs always refer to  2 gauge,.1 gauge, 0 gauge and 00 gauge.

 

An article in the very first edition of MRN in January 1925  "The Possibilities of 00 Gauge" includes a pretty good model by A. Stewart-Reidpath of a Southern Railway diner with drawings for 3.5mm/ft scale. This was followed by rebuttals from Henry Greenly who accused Reidpath of building an underscale model (it wasn't) but anyway argued that "the scale is not determined by the gauge" and had already adopted a scale of 4mm/ft for 00 gauge. The reasons for this are pretty clear from the tyre width in this Greenly drawing  for a "no. 00 gauge" motor bogie from the April  1925 MRN

 

 

Without going into the whole saga there was a fairly heated debate between those who wanted to use the correct scale of 3.5mm/ft for the gauge and others who favoured a larger scale of 4mm/ft. Eventually the latter dominated in Britain and those working to 3.5mm/ft started referring to what they were doing as half-0 or H0. Before then though description of "00 gauge" layouts could refer to 3.5mm/ft ,4mm/ft or even 1/8 inch to the foot.

 

00 then gradually came to be seen as the scale of 4mm/ft and there was a further debate about whether to stick with 16.5mm gauge or go to 18mm gauge or the most accurate (to the nearest half mill) gauge of 19mm but there was still no real agreement on standards. The number of modellers involved was still very small and 0 gauge was far more popular. 

 

In the 1940s the BRMSB (a self-appointed standards committee set up by the editors of MRC and MRN who saw the wartime pause in manufacturing as a good opportunity to agree some standards)  came up with standards for 0 , 00, and H0. 00 was 4mm/ft  with "standard 00" using 16.5mm gauge and "00 fine-scale" using 18mm gauge. They seem to have expected most "serious" modellers to adopt the 18mm gauge but that never happened. To avoid confusion, 00 fine-scale was renamed EM a few years later and the modellers using it widened the gauge to 18.2mm . From then on 00 (in Britain but not in the US or France) only meant 4mm/ft using 16.5mm gauge track.

 

If you look at the EM Gauge Society website you'll find this definition. "We are a UK based international society created to promote and cater for railway modellers working to a scale of 4mm/ft with a track gauge of 18.2mm. We also cater for modellers working to the more demanding Protofour (P4) standards with a track gauge of 18.83mm."

so, though they all use the same scale, EM and P4 are different from 00 and from each other.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

and the 00-SF standard would be clearer and less contentious if it did more of these.

 

Hi Richard,

 

As far as I can see, the information set out at:

 

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

 

is all that anyone needs. It seems clear and sufficient, even including some advice for 00-BF. Adding anything further would surely muddy the water?

 

There is some further advice on setting wheels at:

 

  http://00-sf.org.uk

 

  http://4-sf.uk

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

I'm sorry Dave but if you look at the history of the small scales you'll discover that this isn't quite true and 00 quite definitely started as a gauge (originally defined as 5/8 inch then 16mm and eventually 16.5mm) Early MRNs always refer to  2 gauge,.1 gauge, 0 gauge and 00 gauge.

 

An article in the very first edition of MRN in January 1925  "The Possibilities of 00 Gauge" includes a pretty good model by A. Stewart-Reidpath of a Southern Railway diner with drawings for 3.5mm/ft scale. This was followed by rebuttals from Henry Greenly who accused Reidpath of building an underscale model (it wasn't) but anyway argued that "the scale is not determined by the gauge" and had already adopted a scale of 4mm/ft for 00 gauge. The reasons for this are pretty clear from the tyre width in this Greenly drawing  for a "no. 00 gauge" motor bogie from the April  1925 MRN

H Greenly 00 motor bogie.jpg

 

 

Without going into the whole saga there was a fairly heated debate between those who wanted to use the correct scale of 3.5mm/ft for the gauge and others who favoured a larger scale of 4mm/ft. Eventually the latter dominated in Britain and those working to 3.5mm/ft started referring to what they were doing as half-0 or H0. Before then though description of "00 gauge" layouts could refer to 3.5mm/ft ,4mm/ft or even 1/8 inch to the foot.

 

00 then gradually came to be seen as the scale of 4mm/ft and there was a further debate about whether to stick with 16.5mm gauge or go to 18mm gauge or the most accurate (to the nearest half mill) gauge of 19mm but there was still no real agreement on standards. The number of modellers involved was still very small and 0 gauge was far more popular. 

 

In the 1940s the BRMSB (a self-appointed standards committee set up by the editors of MRC and MRN who saw the wartime pause in manufacturing as a good opportunity to agree some standards)  came up with standards for 0 , 00, and H0. 00 was 4mm/ft  with "standard 00" using 16.5mm gauge and "00 fine-scale" using 18mm gauge. They seem to have expected most "serious" modellers to adopt the 18mm gauge but that never happened. To avoid confusion, 00 fine-scale was renamed EM a few years later and the modellers using it widened the gauge to 18.2mm . From then on 00 (in Britain but not in the US or France) only meant 4mm/ft using 16.5mm gauge track.

 

If you look at the EM Gauge Society website you'll find this definition. "We are a UK based international society created to promote and cater for railway modellers working to a scale of 4mm/ft with a track gauge of 18.2mm. We also cater for modellers working to the more demanding Protofour (P4) standards with a track gauge of 18.83mm."

so, though they all use the same scale, EM and P4 are different from 00 and from each other.

Could it be all Henry Greenly's fault, he did have a habbit of over scale locos on narrower track.   The RHDR springs to mind. But when modelling it you can use 00 locos running on 00 track and pass them off as 1/24 th scale. Ok the gauge is a tad wide but I am not going to start my own 15mm gauge standard.

[dasatcopthorne]

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.

 

Clive and everyone.

 

I suppose it takes a while for something 'new' like this to 'come on line' so to speak.

 

Falcon Road is not the first out on the Exhibition Circuit but is a very early one as it was started soon after the gauge 'came to light' for me. 

 

The thing is, if others are out there at shows, do the owners announce it or just keep quiet for fear of terrible retribution from dissenters. Throwing eggs and fruit, no doubt.

 

Once again for everyone on here.

 

I use it everywhere and not just pointwork, because I wanted trackwork that looked better than anything available for 00 up til now. That means wood sleepers, proper chairs (facing the correct way round), track panels and fishplates. Up until then I had used copper clad. It just so happens that 16.2mm works very well for the stock we have and the flangeways look better. So say some of our viewers.

 

Dave

 

Ps. Clive. The builders of Harton Gill (00vw) are on the lookout for you. You have been warned!

Edited September 27, 2015 by dasatcopthorne

[Ravenser]

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.

 

This is misstated and misleading

 

Peco Streamline is not handbuilt track. I know of nobody building handbuilt pointwork to Peco's flangeways - not least because they don't openly admit what they are, and no gauges for 1.39mm flangeways are available.

 

The great majority of British layouts using handbuilt OO pointwork are  built to the traditional 1.25mm flangeway of BRMSB OO, such gauges having been readily available for decades. These are also (just) within the tolerances of the OO Intermediate DOGA standard, and therefore compliant with it.

 

All modern RTR will run properly on such track , with check rails properly effective and no drop in. The repeated suggestion that modern RTR will only run reliably if the gauge is reduced to 16.2mm is wrong. OO-SF is not , repeat not, "the only way to get reliable running of modern RTR". Several hundred layouts built to a different track standard already have that, and can demonstrate it at shows across the land every weekend

 

(And that is if we can still speak of OO-SF as a track standard after the postings of the last week)

 

The confusion induced in favour of OO-SF has now reached the stage that experienced members on here are asking directly if it is being said that modern RTR won't run on SMP (because the track gauge is presumably wrong)

[Clive Mortimore]

.

 

Clive, Clive, Clive. Oh Clive.

 

Wrong layout mate! Harton Gill is built to the new gauge(not yet in Tamplot) 00vw (00 very wide) It's 16.5+2.33.

 

Falcon Road TMD & Oil Drum Lane is 16.2mm.

 

I still love you though.  :sarcastichand: :mosking:

 

Dave

Hi Dave

 

I don't care what the space between the tracks are but it is still a nice train set. :imsohappy:

[Dungrange]

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?

 

I think the answer is 'no'.  00-SF (or 4-SF) is a 16.2 mm track gauge intended to remove some of the 'slop' inherent in 'standard 00' and this is particularly important in the context of point work.  The gauge can be widened where curves are tight, as per the prototype, to 16.5 mm.  I don't see any reason for non-prototypical 'flaring' being specified within the 00-SF standard as a layout can be built to 16.2 mm gauge throughout (ie EM-2).

 

However, there is nothing to stop builders using 4-SF (00-SF) for the point and crossing work and standard 00 (ie 16.5 mm gauge) elsewhere (and I understand many do - probably far more than the number who use 4-SF (00-SF) throughout).  Where the builder chooses to transition from one standard to the other is up to the builder, but I think what you are seeking is a standard for the transition between standards.  I can't speak from experience, as I have yet to build a 4-SF turnout, but I intend to build my turnouts to 4-SF standard throughout and then transition the gauge over a short section of hand-built track to 16.5 mm gauge.  That is I will use the Exactoscale Fastrack sections for plain track (16.5 mm gauge), but will stop these a few inches short of the point-work shown on a template and use separate sleepers and chairs for this transition section.  This is my planned approach simply because I anticipate fewer issues if the transition is at least a full wagon length away from the wing rails.  Time will tell whether this gives me the look and running qualities that I hope for, but it's my opinion for now.  The absence of a 'standard' between standards is potentially a reflection of the relatively small number of users of 00-SF and also it will to some extent depend on the type of stock that you wish to operate. I would imagine that shorter wheelbase traditional stock will be able to cope with a gauge transition within the point work more readily than longer more modern air braked stock.

[hayfield]

Yes there is. It's constant...

 

You're right, I probably shouldn't read it. I began with Streamline, moved onto Tillig for the pointwork, then Exactoscale sleeper bases for the plain line. The next obvious step for me was to attempt to handbuild pointwork. That next step won't happen now and I shall effectively have taken one step forwards and two steps back. I view threads like this for help, guidance and inspiration with regard to moving forwards and hopefully improve the running and appearance of my trackwork, maybe starting with a simple test piece. I can't see any help, guidance and inspiration in threads like this at all as they all seem to dissolve into argument. I will now, on your own recommendation, ignore this topic and all similar ones. Very helpful. Not. Carry on.

 

 

Pete

 

What a shame, I guess from your reply you are a 4 mm modeller using 00 gauge. You have clearly seen the benefit of visually changing your track from H0 gauge and standards to 00 gauge. The benefit of building your own track (turnouts and crossings) is not only a visual thing, but also one where you can design the trackwork to fit your situation, rather than being forced into a design based on the geometry of what the manufacturer offers.

 

You are correct there is a bit of bickering from two or three members on the forum who have an interest is spoiling a thread based on a gauge which is gaining momentum and perhaps adversely affecting their chosen sacred gauge. Nothing to do at all with the ability of this gauge to offer superior looks and running quality without have to alter/change the wheel sets from most RTR manufacturers and wheel suppliers in 00 gauge. That is not to say you do not have to use on the odd occasion a wheel back to back gauge, where wheels are either supplied or worked out of gauge.

 

By making the decision sadly you alone are the looser as you are denying yourself the opportunity of having better looking and working track, which ever gauge you choose. I can accept you are fed up with this thread, sadly we seem to attract a few model railway trolls who seem to enjoy spoiling things for others. However there are plenty of other threads on track building where harmony exists and fellow modellers freely exchange ideas without being bothered by the odd zealot.

 

I assume that you are fully committed to 00 gauge, which variant you choose to adopt is totally up to you. To me it seems a shame as you have accepted there is a better option available by using Exactoscale fastrack bases which is also my preferred  choice not to at least explore taking the next step. Still its your train set and if you want to use 4 mm scale models on 3.5 mm scale track who am I to tell you what you can and cannot do. I just feel sorry you are not going to have a try at least in what some of us find a very interesting and rewarding part of the hobby.

 

Thanks for joining in the thread

[Dungrange]

Could it be all Henry Greenly's fault, he did have a habbit of over scale locos on narrower track.   The RHDR springs to mind. But when modelling it you can use 00 locos running on 00 track and pass them off as 1/24 th scale. Ok the gauge is a tad wide but I am not going to start my own 15mm gauge standard.

rdhr1.jpg

 

Are the sleepers not too close together for 1/24th scale!!!! :-)

[dasatcopthorne]

Hi Dave

 

I don't care what the space between the tracks are but it is still a nice train set. :imsohappy:

 

I still love you!

[hayfield]

This is misstated and misleading

 

Peco Streamline is not handbuilt track. I know of nobody building handbuilt pointwork to Peco's flangeways - not least because they don't openly admit what they are, and no gauges for 1.39mm flangeways are available.

 

 

That's strange as I have some parts made by a company called Peco which are a kit and have cast common crossings and in flatbottom code 100 raid. Are you now telling me that someone has been counterfeiting Peco's products

 

Yes I will be building these to Pecos 00 universal scale so my old collectable locos can run on it, steam roller wheels and all, as for gauges just use car feeler gauges to the same size as recommended many times on track building threads (of various gauges)

[Grovenor]

John,

Could you edit your post so that your comments are not included within the quote, thanks.

Keith

[Ravenser]

1950s Peco Individulay is not modern Peco Streamline

 

Which flangeway will you be using - 1.55mm as used by Peco in the 1960s (and on Setrack in the 1980s) or the 1.39mm used on 21st century Peco Streamline?