AndyID Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 RMweb email notifications are not working again today. So they probably haven't seen the posts. see: http://www.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=109.104.118.213 Martin. "Every cloud has a ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Sorry for a little o/t, but what happened to New Annington? Bunged in a cupboard for archaeologists to find or broken up? I know it would be a bit long in the tooth now, but was always a good crowd puller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Whilst searching for more info on New Annington, I came across this page. One assumes they knew it was 00-SF in 16.2mm gauge.... http://www.doubleogauge.com/whyoo.htm I've just read the DOGA blurb on '00' and I'm afraid to say that on all the occasions I saw New Annington, its running was very poor. Whether because of the trackwork or the operators I couldn't tell. But it certainly never was 'outstanding'. Perhaps the writer was part of the crew. The other layout?. Yes they were/are. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 AFAIK New Annington was dismantled. I ceased being in charge in about 1989,. Sorry, can't turn off this scoring out bit.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 And to repeat what I said in the Dorchester thread in Modelling Musings etc., Frank Dyer built the track for the Dyers End branch to 16.2mm gauge. It worked perfectly with proprietary stock of the day except Lima cheese cutter wheels which ran along the sleepers. the rest of New Annington was built to BRMSB 16.5mm gauge. That was circa 1980. BTW, I've posted a couple of Frank's other track plans on the other thread too, more to follow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Thanks Roy Sorry if I missed a previous post to that affect. It's a shame when such good layouts have to be broken up- not all can survive, but New Annington was definately iconic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I am just surprised that out two friends have been so silent, perhaps they are doing some modelling. Could one or both be building a **sf turnout ? Actually I took the layout to its first show this weekend, which involved leaving work on Friday lunch time and staying over . Consequently I was busy loading it at the time this was posted, and incommunicado till yesterday, when I was knackered I don't do email notifications of postings - I've got far too much genuine correspondence in my email inbox to tolerate that kind of spam. Other people, clearly, hover over certain threads with baited breath Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Most people don't 'do' nouns. I don't do email notifications of postings - I've got far too much genuine correspondence in my email inbox to tolerate that kind of spam. Other people, clearly, hover over certain threads with baited breath Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2015 Actually I took the layout to its first show this weekend Hi Ravenser, How did it go? I hope you had a good weekend -- any pics? Templot has now been updated, so users are now seeing "EM minus 2" designated as 4-SF with no reference to 00. I'm hoping this change has addressed DOGA's concerns about 00-SF, and that 4-SF users can now discuss their standards preference with the same freedom from carping criticism as users of any other standard. I have also included a new pre-set for DOGA Intermediate 00-DOGAI with 1.2mm flangeways, in contradistinction from 00-BF with 1.3mm flangeways. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Just one thought which you (Martin) can have no control over, is that 00sf gauges are on sale with C&L and knowing Peter very well if someone tries telling him how he should run his business, that person would have a very sore ear after the conversation. Now if you are trying not to confuse modellers (armchair or actual) making a name change of a standard which has been recognised for many years, especially as a manufacturer is supplying tools to this gauge is just adding to the confusion, I do accept that you are trying to be fair to all, but is it not adding to the confusion Lets be honest the DOGA does not have a copywrite on the letters 00, as others have said 009 have been using the 00 part for years without anyone confusing a 9 mm track gauge with a 16.5 gauge, would the 009 boys put up with the rhetoric from a few zealots ?, I doubt it very much, change their name to 4-9mm, I doubt they would even bother replying. Where as 00 gauge stock can run through 00-sf turnouts/track. To be quite honest those of us who have decided to use this gauge should have just ignored those who object to the gauge As Wolfey Smith once said "power to the (00sf) people" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hi John, Thanks for your thoughts. I do recognise that in the short term there may now be even more confusion. When in 1998 I originally created the short Templot name 00-SF for "EM minus 2" I gave it about 5 seconds thought. Had I known how much argument and discord it would create 10 years later and in the years since, I would have given the matter much more thought. And I doubt I would have used that name. In fact I'm sure I wouldn't. It was a big mistake. Because I can see the force of the argument that for standard-gauge track "00" means 16.5mm gauge. It says so on RTR boxes, on Peco packaging, and on lots of other parts and components available from the trade, including C&L. I am concerned only with what happens in Templot -- I have no control over the rest of the hobby, obviously. But in Templot the "EM minus 2" setting is now designated 4-SF, and the 2 important points about 4-SF are: 1. It is scaled at 4mm/ft from the prototype. Rail widths, switch lengths, check rail lengths, timbering sizes and spacing, and most other dimensions. The only departure from UK standard gauge track is that it is based on prototype 4ft-0.6in gauge track having 3in flangeways. That makes it possible for models intended for 00 gauge to run on it. There are other options for 00 gauge models which do not use 4mm/ft scale for the track, so I think a reference to 4mm/ft in the designation is important. 2. 4-SF was derived originally from EM gauge practice and not 00 gauge, so it is misleading to include "00" in its designation. This origin affects matters such as minimum radius, gauge-widening on curves, and the optimum wheel profile. For most 00 gauge options the optimum wheel profile is the NMRA/110 profile used nowadays on the better class of RTR models. For EM and 4-SF tracks the optimum wheel profile is the BRMSB 2.5mm wide wheel typified by Romford/Markits products. Other wheels run just fine on both gauges of course, but if you wanted the best match of wheel profile to track dimensions, that would be the wheel to use. Set at 16.5mm back-to-back for EM and 14.5mm back-to-back for 4-SF. -------------------- I wouldn't dream of telling any trader how to run his business. But in Templot the name is now 4-SF, and I'm happy with that. I have also created a 4-SF web site for those wanting more information, see: http://4-sf.uk regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) It's also worth noting that DCC Concepts have 00-sf Gauges on sale too. As for "....copyright on the letters OO...." (John's post #585 above, though John has used 00), well, if DOGA stands for "Double O Gauge Association" (they do use the letter O on their website - I've just checked) then using 00-sf (that's Naught Naught - sf) should'nt upset anyone of normal reasoning, surely? Brian p.s. I understand that "Naught Naught" is historically correct too p.s.2 I'm more that happy to use the term 4-sf within Templot though, but I do reserve the right to change the name by deed poll once real hardware starts appearing Edited October 14, 2015 by polybear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 As for "....copyright on the letters OO...." (John's post #585 above, though John has used 00) Hi Brian, In the UK at least, you can't claim copyright on names, abbreviations, postal addresses, telephone numbers, etc. You may be confusing it with a registered trade mark. Which has to be paid for. That's why some traders (including me at the time, and Alan Gibson still) used the designation S4. The names "P4" and "Protofour" were trade marked by Studiolith Ltd. No-one would now be able to trade mark "00" or "OO" because of the prior use by the entire hobby. New trade mark applications are posted in the London Gazette and anyone can make an objection to them. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hi Martin, I'm intrigued, who were the names behind the infamous Studiolith - are any still around/in the trade still? Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 I'm intrigued, who were the names behind the infamous Studiolith - are any still around/in the trade still? Hi Brian, See August 1967 and 1982 at: http://www.clag.org.uk/protofour-chronology.html It's not worth stirring all that up again. All gone now. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) For information, P4 is now a registered trademark of Pirelli tyres; but that has no relevance as it is trade marked for a totally different class. Protofour does not exist int he D&P records, which means that it was never actually registered (and if Martin says it was then it's good enough for me) or it was sufficiently long ago to no longer be recorded (ie registered and expired before the gov moved everything to the internet). EDIT: I have read the history link. Yes, trade marks well and truly expired then. EDIT2: To change ambigious sentence through unacceptable poor use of grammar. I am getting lax in my old age. Edited October 14, 2015 by Derekstuart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 EDIT: Read the history link. Yes, trade marks well and truly expired then. Joe says trade mark registered March 1970. I began trading in 1974. Studiolith Ltd wound up December 1985. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Let me re-phrase that "I have just read..." as I think it reads that I am telling others to read... Not that this appears to have happened this time, but CAN an entity pass a trade mark onto another entity? Joe says trade mark registered March 1970. I began trading in 1974. Studiolith Ltd wound up December 1985. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) There were so many splits and break-ups at the time that the exact ownership of the Protofour name was never entirely clear. It is all gone now though. Most of us traders chose to give Studiolith Ltd a wide berth. One apocryphal story was that they would ignore mail orders if the stamp wasn't stuck on straight. Martin. Edited October 14, 2015 by martin_wynne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2015 Most of us traders chose to give Studiolith Ltd a wide berth. One apocryphal story was that they would ignore mail orders if the stamp wasn't stuck on straight. Martin. No wonder they went out of business.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hi Ravenser, How did it go? I hope you had a good weekend -- any pics? It might just be this layout: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/343/entry-16399-multiple-as-in-diesel-multiple-unit/ HTH Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Hi Brian, See August 1967 and 1982 at: http://www.clag.org.uk/protofour-chronology.html It's not worth stirring all that up again. All gone now. Martin. I notice the name of a former colleague and present RMwebber, having briefly taken on manufacture some decades back. Informative. Edited October 14, 2015 by Oldddudders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 For most 00 gauge options the optimum wheel profile is the NMRA/110 profile used nowadays on the better class of RTR models. For EM and 4-SF tracks the optimum wheel profile is the BRMSB 2.5mm wide wheel typified by Romford/Markits products. Other wheels run just fine on both gauges of course, but if you wanted the best match of wheel profile to track dimensions, that would be the wheel to use. Set at 16.5mm back-to-back for EM and 14.5mm back-to-back for 4-SF. - Hi Martin How well will the NMRA/110 profile work with 4-SF track? If the profile is being used for an increasing number of RTR models then will the benefit of the 4-SF standard, to allow off the shelf RTR models with reasonable wheel profiles to operate more smoothly on better looking pointwork, apply in full? BTW. Probably irrelevant and water long under the bridge now but I did notice that the original 1944 BRMSB standards for Scale HO were, apart from the gauge and back to back, the same as for EM (originally called Scale "OO") with a 2.0mm max wheel thickness and an 0.5 max flange width. EM was then 18mm rather than 18.2 mm gauge but with a 16.5mm back to back. Apart from the maximum flange depth of 0.75mm for HO, EM and 00 the BRMSB had nothing to say about wheel profiles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 14, 2015 How well will the NMRA/110 profile work with 4-SF track? If the profile is being used for an increasing number of RTR models then will the benefit of the 4-SF standard, to allow off the shelf RTR models with reasonable wheel profiles to operate more smoothly on better looking pointwork, apply in full? Hi David, NMRA RP25/110 wheels, i.e. RTR wheels, work just fine on 4-SF track provided the back-to-back setting is within limits. Which for such wheels is 14.4mm MAX, and the same minimum as all wheels, 14.3mm MIN. The great majority of RTR wheels do fall within those limits as supplied, but occasionally some wheels may need adjustment. The true maximum is the 15.2mm MAX back-to-flange dimension, so where flanges are thinner than 0.8mm the back-to-back can increase a little beyond 14.4mm accordingly. All this has been posted many, many times on RMweb, and is fully detailed at: http://4-sf.uk Scroll down to "Setting wheels for 4-SF". regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Actually I took the layout to its first show this weekend, which involved leaving work on Friday lunch time and staying over . Consequently I was busy loading it at the time this was posted, and incommunicado till yesterday, when I was knackered I don't do email notifications of postings - I've got far too much genuine correspondence in my email inbox to tolerate that kind of spam. Other people, clearly, hover over certain threads with baited breath Stephen. Looked at the pics available on-line and would like to ask what sleeper spacing you use and what sleeper length as well. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now