Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[hayfield]

Firstly its great to have Martin back and in full flow, most who use 00-sf do report better running from a variety of 00 RTR locos and stock without any modification to the wheels.

 

Some time ago I was given advice from a long term EM gauge modeller, which was to buy a decent back to back gauge to check that all wheels comply to said standards. In another thread a supporter of 00 intermediate gauge clearly stated that he had to use a back to back gauge to as some RTR stock came badly gauged. So a back to back gauge t is a wise investment.

 

The added bonus with 00-sf is it looks so much better to many than 00 intermediate gauge. As the gauge narrowing is unnoticeable to most but the finer flange way gaps are very noticeable. Still for those who still prefer to use 00 universal, please continue after all its your miniature railway and beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

As for why not EM or P4, I do have a few models in both gauges, I do prefer the wider gauges but would opt for EM gauge for cost of conversion (many of my rolling stock would just need the wheels resetting and locos needing new axles) secondly ease of building to a less exacting standards. 

[47137]

The vast majority of 00 modellers use commercial track, namely Peco Streamline 00/H0 track. For which the check gauge is 15.0mm i.e. even further outside the NMRA spec than 00-SF.

 

. . . and . . . 

 

Peco's 15.0mm check gauge originates from the much coarser wheels used on UK RTR models 20+ years ago when they were made in the UK (now all made in the Far East). Presumably Peco continue with it for compatibility with those older models, and because of the high cost of re-tooling.

I have three Peco Streamline points on my layout. I bought these in February this year:

Code 75 small radius right supplied in clear plastic wallet

Code 75 medium radius right supplied in clear plastic wallet

Code 75 small radius wye supplied in cardboard box

 

I have measured them carefully. The crossing flangeway is around 1.4 mm on five out of six flangeways, and nearer 1.3mm on the sixth flangeway (being the curve on the small right). The track gauge is consistently around 16.6 mm on four of the six related gauges locations, but I cannot get the vernier square on the fifth and sixth (being the wye) due to obstructions nearby. Perhaps someone could measure some more, including some code 100 ones?

 

If we can get a bigger sample, we might be able to add Streamline (at least, current code 75 Streamline) to the list of pointwork with a 15.2 mm check gauge. The measurements I have taken probably help to explain why I am so happy with my running at the moment too.

 

- Richard.

Edited September 3, 2015 by 47137

[martin_wynne]

I have three Peco Streamline points ... The crossing flangeway is around 1.4 mm

 

Thanks for that Richard.

 

Is that the crossing flangeway or the check rail gap? In order to know the check gauge we need the check rail gap and the track gauge.

 

Does the packaging/instructions on the Code 75 product say anything about the track standards?

 

Hopefully someone can provide similar info for the current Code 100 production.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

Thanks for that Richard.

 

Is that the crossing flangeway or the check rail gap? In order to know the check gauge we need the check rail gap and the track gauge.

 

Does the packaging/instructions on the Code 75 product say anything about the track standards?

 

Hopefully someone can provide similar info for the current Code 100 production.

My figures above are for the crossing flangeways.

 

The check rails are moulded and are harder to measure with confidence because slight pressure from a feeler gauge will push them away. My measurements for the check rails:

between 1.30 and 1.35 mm - the curved route on the medium radius right point

between 1.35 and 1.40 mm (feels close to 1.40 mm) on the other five locations.

 

Some of these check rails - one especially (the straight on the small radius right) are decidedly non-parallel with their adjacent stock rail. I'm giving the smallest dimension here.

 

I'm using metric feeler gauges. I never thought they would be so useful - I only bought them for a 1 mm shim! I could really go to town with some paper or kitchen foil and a micrometer if this is useful. Next week I can measure some newly-bought code 100 insulfrog ones - and report back if other club members don't send for men in white coats.

 

Packaging long gone I'm afraid.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

Thanks Richard.

 

That puts the check gauge somewhere between 15.3mm (16.6 gauge - 1.3) and 15.1mm (16.5 gauge - 1.4).

 

So maybe the design intent for the code 75 is indeed now 15.2mm check gauge.

 

It will be interesting to know the figures for the code 100.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[84f]

 

I would be interested to hear other people’s views on 00-SF – in particular, why they think I should or shouldn’t adopt it.

 

Andrew

 

Hello Andrew  - thanks for opening this post - it is interesting and focused - I can give my experience and the reasons that I have decided in recent weeks to move from EM to 00-SF.  iLike many others I have recently returned to the hobby and I naturally picked up with EM where I had left off 35 or so years ago.  I have spent the last 12 months or so getting up to speed with developments in the hobby and building a bit of track work on a test plank and getting a few locos converted or half converted to EM as only one is complete .   I  have now decided to move over to OO-SF  - here is my rationale 

1, My competence with chassis building  / conversion is at best average -  my efforts have had had limited success and very time consuming.  

2, the cost of RTR loco conversion - wheels, chassis kit, motor can easily top £100 

3, I want to focus my efforts on other things than chassis and loco building -   I would like to get far enough advanced  in a reasonable time to have an operating layout with a decent amount of stock to play trains with, so I can focus on the scenic and buildings. 

4, My long term project is a BR WR based layout based in the Black Country around 1950 - I am filling around  two thirds of a double garage and will need around 15 locos to provide a realistic cross section for the trafic I anticipate -  most of the locos I want to run are available as pretty decent RTR and many as superb models that I could never hope to emulate.

5, On the visual front, I would never be happy with any of the RTR trackwork that I have seen such as Peco  - it really jars on my eyes. I have so far built two 00-SF turnouts and they look very acceptable placed next to my EM efforts.  

 

I enjoy trackbuilding so 00-Sf seems the obvious choice for my needs allowing for the RTR wheels of modern models plus the finer guage wheels on my kit built wagons, etc.

 

A couple of other points  - minimum radius is constrained for me by buffer locking consideration  -  an eight coupled locos (Hornby 28xx) goes around my 34 inch min radius at 16.2 mm guage with no problems

The popular view is to use C&L or SMP RTR at 16.5mm reducing the guage to 16.2 for the handbulit turn outs.  As i am planning to handbuild all my trackwork I can see no reason to vary from 16.2mm (it may even give improved running on open trackwork - I don't know about that though)

 

I hope this helps

 

Robin

[47137]

That puts the check gauge somewhere between 15.3mm (16.6 gauge - 1.3) and 15.1mm (16.5 gauge - 1.4).

 

So maybe the design intent for the code 75 is indeed now 15.2mm check gauge.

 

It will be interesting to know the figures for the code 100.

I'm not entirely happy with using my figures above (posts 29 and 27) because there is always an error on a measurement and taking two measurements and adding them together makes things worse.

 

So - I've been into Chelmsford market and bought a pair of internal calipers. Moore and Wright no less. And cleaned up the faces on my metric micrometer (also M&W) and checked the zero. My metalwork teacher should be smiling.

 

Holding a rigid feeler gauge against the side of the moulded check rail and as parallel to the stock rail as I possibly can, here are my measurements for check gauge a few millimetres beyond the open ends of the wing rails:

 

Peco Code 75 Streamline

small radius right - straight 15.18 mm

small radius right - curve  15.28 mm

 

medium radius right - straight 15.26 mm

medium radius right - curve 15.35 mm (difficult to see - at the back of the layout but tried three times similar results)

 

small radius wye - one side 15.22 mm

small radius right - other side 15.23 mm

 

All figures +/- 0.02 mm because I struggle to feel the difference.

 

If I round each sample measurement to the nearest 0.05 mm and calculate the average, I get 15.25 mm. This is obviously not 15.2 (pity!), but it does look to be larger than 15.0. We want a bigger sample!

 

If anyone wishes to PM me their own measurements, I could wait a few days and collate them and post them all together.

 

- Richard.

[Ravenser]

My figures above are for the crossing flangeways.

 

The check rails are moulded and are harder to measure with confidence because slight pressure from a feeler gauge will push them away. My measurements for the check rails:

between 1.30 and 1.35 mm - the curved route on the medium radius right point

between 1.35 and 1.40 mm (feels close to 1.40 mm) on the other five locations.

 

Some of these check rails - one especially (the straight on the small radius right) are decidedly non-parallel with their adjacent stock rail. I'm giving the smallest dimension here.

 

I'm using metric feeler gauges. I never thought they would be so useful - I only bought them for a 1 mm shim! I could really go to town with some paper or kitchen foil and a micrometer if this is useful. Next week I can measure some newly-bought code 100 insulfrog ones - and report back if other club members don't send for men in white coats.

 

Packaging long gone I'm afraid.

 

- Richard.

 

As far as I'm able to tell with the feeler gauges I have, the Streamline points I've measured have had flangeways with similar values.

 

About 15 years ago someone who had had extended contact with Peco to press for improved pointwork and OO sleepering reported to DOGA members that Peco had privately acknowledged that their "standard" was a 1.39mm flangeway.

 

Such evidence as I have seen and such measurements as I've been able to make suggest that this is true and has remained the case. As far as I can make out, there is no difference between the flangeways of code 100 Streamline and code75 Streamline, though the flangeways on Peco Setrack certainly used to be coarser still. (Contrary to popular belief code 75 is not "finer" than code 100 , in the normal sense of the word when discussing track standards)

 

It is well worth checking recent production however , as a few years ago there was some suggestion that Peco might reduce their flangeways to the NMRA maximum value (1.27mm) or slightly less , as tooling fell due for renewal. Whether they have  actually done anything I don't know - since it would presumably have been a question of doing it tool by tool, it is very difficult to know exactly where to look for the evidence

 

The packaging for Streamline says absolutely nothing about the track standards to which it is made. This is characteristic of Peco.......

 

The two big gains available in terms of better OO track are - 1) approximate 4mm scale sleepering and 2) check rails that function properly. The two issues are not necessarily connected, although if you handbuild points to achieve 2) you will of course take appropriate steps to achieve 1) 

 

I am not convinced that there is any significant issue with drop in  on handbuilt OO pointwork to established standards . If the flangeway is reduced to with the NMRA standard figure (1.27mm)  there will be no drop in with RP25/110 wheels and drop-in with EM profile wheels will be very minimal. I do not see drop-in as the real issue : for me the key is ensuring that the check rails operate - ie positive check clearance. Get that , and you have 98% of the potential benefit. And there are a number of ways of skinning that particular cat 

[Semi Fast]

Thank-you EVERYBODY for the interesting and constructive posts - even the off topic ones! (Good humoured dig, please note

[AndyID]

Here's a rather ancient small radius Peco Code 100.  I was surprised to see that the turnout side flangeway is only 1.17. The other side is 1.51

 

EDIT: BTW, Peco moulded nylon wheels of similar vintage have a B2B of 14.4 mm. It's difficult to be very precise, but I would say the "no wiggle room" gauge for those wheels is 16.0 mm. The wheels are 2.8 mm wide and 20.0 mm outside edge to outside edge across the axle.

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by AndyID

[martin_wynne]

Hi Andrew, Andy,

 

The Peco analysis is in some way relevant in answering the question "is 00-SF better?" if you then say "than what?". Usually the comparison is assumed to be with 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate handbuilt track. But at least some new 00-SF users will be coming straight from Peco+RTR. Which could explain David's puzzlement that so many report excellent results, when on the face of it the RTR wheel dimensions don't quite add up.

 

Andy's dimensions give a check gauge of of 15.13mm and 14.9mm, tending to confirm the notion that Peco's check gauge is, or was, significantly below 15.2mm. Andy, can you double-check that by measuring the check rail gaps?

 

It would be interesting to see the manufacturing drawing, because I very much doubt the difference in crossing flangeways was intended. Which means a much larger production sample is needed.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

Hi Martin,

 

Measured check rail gaps are 1.45 on the turnout side and 1.50 on the straight measured opposite the vee nose (values plus or minus some measurement tolerance of course).

 

I think you are right about the difference in the flangeways. I would suspect the wing rails were not formed properly, or the jig to hold them during injection was a bit suspect.

 

I just took another look at it and it is defective. Note the plastic flash around the chairs on that side. The other side is clean.

 

I'm sending it back to Devon for a full refund

 

 

Cheers!

 

Andy

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Thanks Andy. One detail that pic shows well is that the rail section used in Peco turnouts does not have any web. Otherwise of course it would not be usable for insert moulding. Or at least, not without a vastly more complex mould tool.

 

Your figures give a check gauge on the main side of 15.01mm and on the turnout side of 14.91mm, in keeping with my previous suggestion that the Peco check gauge is or was 15.0mm. So it seems from Richard's figures that there is indeed a difference in this regard between their code 75 and code 100 products.

 

Given how silly some of the other details are (e.g. the far too short check rails, the bent timber on the exit), the rail fixings are quite reasonable representations of FB baseplates and clips. More evidence that Peco do actually know about track, as seen for example in their bullhead turnouts for 0 gauge.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

EDIT: BTW, Peco moulded nylon wheels of similar vintage have a B2B of 14.4 mm. It's difficult to be very precise, but I would say the "no wiggle room" gauge for those wheels is 16.0 mm. The wheels are 2.8 mm wide and 20.0 mm outside edge to outside edge across the axle.

 

Which is spot-on for the "Assumed RTR Wheel" (or what 0 gauge modellers call an "industry-standard wheel") implied when suggesting that RTR wheels run on 00-SF unmodified.

 

Martin.

[checkrail]

"Why would I choose 00-SF?".  Going back to this original question, from a strictly non-technical stance, my own reasons were as follows (as set out recently via the 00-SF Yahoo user group):

 

Returning to model railways in 2011/12 after many years I was amazed and delighted by the range and detail of RTR models, but baffled by the total lack of corresponding development in ready-to-lay track to run them on.  Steam era trains in particular cried out to have fully chaired bullhead rail under their wheels.  I have to admit that if - say - Peco had produced track to their current standards, range and geometry, but with chaired bullhead rail and roughly British sleeper dimensions & spacing I would have just gone out and bought a load.  But they didn't, so I gritted my teeth in preparation for lots of tricky (and ham-fisted) soldering and looked at the track components market.  (I was determined to have fully chaired pointwork, so didn't want to go down the copper-clad route.)  Once again I was amazed - this time at the revelation that plastic chairs could be successfully welded to ply sleepers!  A eureka moment for me.

 

EM then crossed my mind, only to be dismissed at the thought of re-wheeling all RTR stock. Once I start fiddling with a loco chassis disaster usually ensues. So 00 gauge it was to be.  Then a setback when I realised that the pre-fabricated C & L crossings that had caught my eye were for use with EM or fine scale 00 standards with 14.8mm b-to-b.  So same re-wheeling problem. 

 

The whole matter was resolved by coming across all the exchanges on the mini-controversy surrounding 00-SF (which up to then I'd never heard of) on RMWeb.  The penny dropped, that not only did these standards look good, but with 00-SF being in effect 'EM minus 2' the aforementioned C & L components would lend themselves admirably to this approach.  A second eureka moment!  So my thanks to all who pioneered the way.  Great now to see suppliers such as C & L and DCC Concepts embracing and catering for the standard - but one sees surprisingly little mention of it in the model railway print media.

 

Oh, and if Peco did now bring out some bullhead track I wouldn't be interested - building pointwork was fun, and very satisfying, however much my efforts fell short of the ideal!

 

John C. 

[Arthur]

Hi Andrew, Andy,

 

The Peco analysis is in some way relevant in answering the question "is 00-SF better?" if you then say "than what?". Usually the comparison is assumed to be with 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate handbuilt track. But at least some new 00-SF users will be coming straight from Peco+RTR.

 

Martin.

That's an interesting comment Martin and one I had not previously considered, the thought that modellers came to 00-SF via 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate. My presumption was that many, like myself, were happy (enough) with 00 but not with the available turnouts and were considering hand building to basic 00 standards. Seeing Gordon's Eastwood Town was a bit of a revelation in that there was something even better. Had I come across 00-BF or DOGA intermediate first, I might well have gone down those routes.

 

So for me it was simply that 00-SF was the first and, at the time, the only 'improved 00' track standard I was aware of and which looked so much better than 'standard' 00.

[47137]

If you do a Google search for "DOGA fine layout" you get nothing, and refining the search to "DOGA fine layout rmweb" gets just one ("Bitton") plus of course loads of explanations and comparisons with 00-SF. And, the DOGA intermediate standard doesn't seem to share much common ground with commercial track like Peco.

 

It seems to me, 00-SF is a natural progression from 00-BF and from EM, but not from either of the DOGA standards. Perhaps this is another reason to choose 00-SF.

 

(I want to write to the DOGA, but their web site gives no address)

 

- Richard.

[gordon s]

This may help, Richard...

 

Not sure how current it is.

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/dogaposter.pdf

[martin_wynne]

Had I come across 00-BF or DOGA intermediate first, I might well have gone down those routes. So for me it was simply that 00-SF was the first and, at the time, the only 'improved 00' track standard I was aware of and which looked so much better than 'standard' 00.

 

Hi Arthur,

 

Those comments have really taken me aback.

 

In discussing 00-SF it has never occurred to me that anyone would be unaware of other 00 modelling using handbuilt track. That may explain some of the heat in the argument, which has always baffled me.

 

There must have been many hundreds of such layouts appearing in magazines and at exhibitions over the last 60 years or so. They are nearly all built to the BRMSB 00 track standard (now called 00-BF in Templot and DOGA-Intermediate). Roller track gauges to this standard have been available from Romford/Markits for all that time, and kits and components from suppliers such as SMP/Marcway and in more recent years C&L.

 

Here's one such well-known layout which comes to mind:

 

http://mmrs.co.uk/layouts/dewsbury-midland/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

I have now added my notes about the history of 00-SF to the 00-SF Wiki, see: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_00-SF

 

If anyone has more information or memories please edit or add to that page accordingly.

 

The 00-SF Wiki is here: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/

 

Details of how to contribute to it are 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.

[Arthur]

Hi Martin,

 

Again, interesting observations. I was certainly aware of hand built 00 track over many years but had always presumed it to be built to, essentially, the same tolerances as, say, PECO and that it has been built to achieve improved sleeper spacing and flowing formations. That was my 'mental' starting point in considering building turnouts. In fact, I built some many years ago using whatever gauges I bought at the time and my recollection is that the crossing itself looked not much better than PECO in terms flangeways, though the turnout looked better in all other respects. Maybe it was to BRMSB?

 

With layouts featuring hand built 00 in the press, perhaps I just hadn't paid enough attention to notice or realise that the gauge and/or clearances had been tweaked and improved.

 

00-SF just happened to be the one which made me realise that you could essentially 'squeeze up' the flangeways with drastically improved appearance. At that point I wasn't even considering any improved running. It just looked so much better.

[47137]

This may help, Richard...

 

Not sure how current it is.

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/dogaposter.pdf

The file properties show it was created on 1st April 2007 . . . hmmm.

 

- Richard.

[gordon s]

Why is it I'm reminded of a comedy sketch which depicted a load of old guys sitting around a board room table covered in dust and cobwebs….:-)

 

May have been Kenny Everett?…….

 

How about the membership secretary?

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/join/index.html

Edited September 4, 2015 by gordon s

[Siberian Snooper]

That's an interesting comment Martin and one I had not previously considered, the thought that modellers came to 00-SF via 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate. My presumption was that many, like myself, were happy (enough) with 00 but not with the available turnouts and were considering hand building to basic 00 standards. Seeing Gordon's Eastwood Town was a bit of a revelation in that there was something even better. Had I come across 00-BF or DOGA intermediate first, I might well have gone down those routes.

So for me it was simply that 00-SF was the first and, at the time, the only 'improved 00' track standard I was aware of and which looked so much better than 'standard' 00.

That's an interesting comment Martin and one I had not previously considered, the thought that modellers came to 00-SF via 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate. My presumption was that many, like myself, were happy (enough) with 00 but not with the available turnouts and were considering hand building to basic 00 standards. Seeing Gordon's Eastwood Town was a bit of a revelation in that there was something even better. Had I come across 00-BF or DOGA intermediate first, I might well have gone down those routes.

So for me it was simply that 00-SF was the first and, at the time, the only 'improved 00' track standard I was aware of and which looked so much better than 'standard' 00.

I suspect that a lot of us building turnouts in the '70's were equally oblivious to what standards we were using, we just bought a couple of sets of roller gauges and got on with it. The only "club" with a set of standards was the EMGS followed by the Proto4 and S4 wars, the rest of us just muddled along as we always had, then the new kids on the block came along, D0GA, with a couple of standards. The enlightenment came along with Templot and 00-sf. Thanks Martin for showing us the light.

[AndyID]

Out here in the far flung corners of The Empire, I was oblivious to 00-SF until I tried to use Templot. I always liked the look of "finescale" 00 points but I knew I was never going to re-wheel everything.

 

I messed around building my own points for a long time and I think I can find some that have 1 mm flangeways, but I never liked their appearance because the check rail gap looked far too wide. It never occurred to me that I could solve that by reducing the gauge. Doh!

Edited September 4, 2015 by AndyID