Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[Junctionmad]

Hi,

 

Proto87 wheels are unsuitable for any track other than Proto87, and maybe P4. On any 00/EM track they will drop into the crossings with a bump (they are too narrow).

 

Proto-87 wheel standards here: http://www.proto87.org/d/?q=node/4

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin

[JohnT]

Hi

 

I apologise if this question is in the wrong place or has been asked before but all my searches have so far drawn a blank.

 

I am using Templot2 version 2.13.a to design the track for my new yard layout and have used the 00-BF track gauge setting and the design is finished. I now think that 00-SF may be a better option.

 

My Question is this. Is it possible to convert the design from 00-BF to 00-SF automatically? When I simply change the gauge setting nothing much happens except the control template changes and this sometimes swaps ends and changes its geometry.

 

Will I need to re-adjust the whole design to accomplish the change?

 

Am I asking the impossible or simply missing the obvious?

 

John

[martin_wynne]

My Question is this. Is it possible to convert the design from 00-BF to 00-SF automatically?

 

Hi John,

 

In Templot go to gauge > other gauges... menu item.

 

Select 4-SF in the list.

 

Click the convert group button above the list. If you haven't previously selected a group of background templates, Templot will ask you if you want to group all of them, to which the answer is yes.

 

There is no undo option on this, so be sure to save a backup .box file of your 00-BF track plan first.

 

Because you are changing the scale:gauge ratio slightly, after conversion you will likely find some slight gaps or overlaps between the templates. But probably not by much, and they should be straightforward to tidy up -- much faster than redrawing everything from scratch.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[JohnT]

Thanks Martin,

 

That is exactly what I needed and very little cleaning up to do.

 

The more I use Templot2 the more amazed I am at the versatility of the package, it appears to do everything. There are just so many options that I confuse myself sometimes.

 

I am now off to find some 4-SF gauges!

 

Regards

 

John

[martin_wynne]

I am now off to find some 4-SF gauges!

 

Hi John,

 

See "00-SF" gauges: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376

 

The critical ones are the 15.2mm check rail gauges.

 

You don't need the expensive 3-point track gauges unless you are building curves sharper than about 750mm - 30" radius.

 

A less expensive option for the 1.0mm crossing flangeway gauge is a set of spark-plug feeler gauges from any car shop or ebay.

 

More info: http://4-sf.uk

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited December 27, 2015 by martin_wynne
link added

[Grovenor]

This is a serious question not a flame, can anyone comment on the suitability of 00-Sf to accept proto 87 USA HO wheels. Will I get wheel drop. ? . I building some 4mm bogies for Irish GM diesel models and since they used 40 inch wheels, these are difficult to get this side of the pond. But 45" Proto 87 HO wheels scale very close in 00.

 

Thanks

If you want to use H0 45" wheels on 00-SF why not get the code 88 version rather than P87?

Who does the 45" wheel anyway? NWSL only list 45" wheels in code 110, not in either code 88 or P87.

 

00-SF is awfully narrow for Irish gauge.

Regards

[JohnT]

Hi John,

 

See "00-SF" gauges: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376

 

The critical ones are the 15.2mm check rail gauges.

 

You don't need the expensive 3-point track gauges unless you are building curves sharper than about 750mm - 30" radius.

 

A less expensive option for the 1.0mm crossing flangeway gauge is a set of spark-plug feeler gauges from any car shop or ebay.

 

More info: http://4-sf.uk

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks Martin, for that extra piece of advice on gauges.

 

Regards

 

John

[Junctionmad]

If you want to use H0 45" wheels on 00-SF why not get the code 88 version rather than P87?

Who does the 45" wheel anyway? NWSL only list 45" wheels in code 110, not in either code 88 or P87.

 

00-SF is awfully narrow for Irish gauge.

Regards

Thanks , yes I just realised that the wheels are only in 110. So yes my question became moot.

 

00 is narrow for 5,3" , but I've too much plain track to build lots of 21mm

Edited December 30, 2015 by Junctionmad

[JohnT]

Hi John,

 

See "00-SF" gauges: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376

 

The critical ones are the 15.2mm check rail gauges.

 

You don't need the expensive 3-point track gauges unless you are building curves sharper than about 750mm - 30" radius.

 

A less expensive option for the 1.0mm crossing flangeway gauge is a set of spark-plug feeler gauges from any car shop or ebay.

 

More info: http://4-sf.uk

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi again

 

Tried to order some 00-SF gauges from C&L only to find that they have no stock at all. I spoke to Peter this morning and he is not expecting any for about 6 weeks.

 

I am ready to start building track now  so is there anyone out there with some spare gauges that they are willing to sell to me? As a minimum I think I need a couple of track gauges and a check gauge.

 

I say 'sell' rather than lend/hire as I have quite a bit to build and I am not the fastest modeller in town!

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

As you were! Just had a call from Peter at C&L and he has found some 00-SF gauges and they are now on their way to me.

 

Regards

John

Edited December 30, 2015 by JohnT

[roythebus]

I've just had a set of gauges sent through. What I intend to do is convert my points to 00-sf on the check rails for the existing stuff as the already have 1mm crossing gaps, keep plain track to 16.5 SMP/Scaleway or whatever. New points will be to 00sf 16.2 gauge.

 

No doubt everyone will say it won't work, but I know it will.

[hayfield]

Why Would I Choose 00-SF (4-SF in Templot)?

 

Well after reading the last 4 months of Railway Modeller's editions over new year looking at the trackwork on featured layouts, the RTR turnouts look like what they are in reality just above the level of toys in 00 gauge. In 0 gauge you have the choice of bullhead or flatbottom rail both with chairs !!. The hand built track whether 00, EM or P4 all enhanced the scene they were in

[AndyID]

I've just had a set of gauges sent through. What I intend to do is convert my points to 00-sf on the check rails for the existing stuff as the already have 1mm crossing gaps, keep plain track to 16.5 SMP/Scaleway or whatever. New points will be to 00sf 16.2 gauge.

 

No doubt everyone will say it won't work, but I know it will.

 

Gordon S uses a similar method, and it seems to work just fine.

[mightbe]

No doubt everyone will say it won't work, but I know it will.

 

No problems here. Just remember to use 16.2 mm throughout slips/diamonds et cetera ad nauseum.. Martin recommends only flaring to 16.5 at the extremities of turnout/pointwork/interesting complexes.

 

Quentin

[hayfield]

I've just had a set of gauges sent through. What I intend to do is convert my points to 00-sf on the check rails for the existing stuff as the already have 1mm crossing gaps, keep plain track to 16.5 SMP/Scaleway or whatever. New points will be to 00sf 16.2 gauge.

 

No doubt everyone will say it won't work, but I know it will.

 

 

Unless you are hand building the plain track in which case you would build all to 16.2 mm gauge, then any route which connects with RTR track (in my opinion) should be feathered back out to 16.5 mm. However if connecting to another turnout or crossing keep the gauge to 16.2 mm

[MikeH_83]

Why Would I Choose 00-SF (4-SF in Templot)?

 

Well after reading the last 4 months of Railway Modeller's editions over new year looking at the trackwork on featured layouts, the RTR turnouts look like what they are in reality just above the level of toys in 00 gauge. In 0 gauge you have the choice of bullhead or flatbottom rail both with chairs !!. The hand built track whether 00, EM or P4 all enhanced the scene they were in

 

 

This is why I am going down the 4-sf route (copperclad for fiddle yard and functional chairs for scenics) I will build the points in the same way as Gordon S has done, just for the common crossing part and the rest at oo gauge (which should allow for some tighter hidden curves) Just got to wait for C&L to get some more gauges in stock now

[gordon s]

Gordon S uses a similar method, and it seems to work just fine.

If I understand correctly, you are going to move the outer check rail inboard using the 00-SF check rail gauge. Not a problem, but you will have a 1mm gap between the vee and the wing rail and 1.3mm between the outer check rail and outer rail unless that is moved inboard also. Visually you may see the difference if you look closely, but the position of the outer rail re the outer check rail is really not that critical and as such you can leave it where it is if you are happy with asymmetric check rail gaps.

[martin_wynne]

An interesting reply from Richard Johnson about the new DCC Concepts bullhead track, in which he has declined to confirm that it will be 16.5mm gauge, or rule out the possibility of 16.2mm gauge, or something in between:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266&view=findpost&p=461737

 

Bear in mind that DCC Concepts already supply 00-SF (16.2mm) gauges for their Legacy track kits.

 

16.2mm flexi-track would be a huge leap forward, and eliminate the sometimes bad-tempered discussions we have had on RMweb about where and how 00-SF (4-SF) pointwork should be transitioned to 16.5mm flexi-track.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

 

 

Bear in mind that DCC Concepts already supply 00-SF (16.2mm) gauges for their Legacy track kits.

 

16.2mm flexi-track would be a huge leap forward, and eliminate the sometimes bad-tempered discussions we have had on RMweb about where and how 00-SF (4-SF) pointwork should be transitioned to 16.5mm flexi-track.

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

If 16.2 is chosen for flexi track, what about gauge widening on curves?

[martin_wynne]

If 16.2 is chosen for flexi track, what about gauge widening on curves?

 

Hi John,

 

Use the new Peco bullhead or C&L or SMP Scaleway flexi for sharp curves?

 

With three 16.5mm flexi-tracks available, it would be daft for DCC Concepts to invest in yet another. But by making it 16.2mm they would have a unique product for the finescale 00 market.

 

For 4-SF (00-SF) gauge-widening is needed only below about 30" radius. I don't believe this is the market segment DCC are aiming for. Otherwise they wouldn't be starting with a B-7 sized turnout (radius about 60" in 4-SF with generic V-crossing).

 

Just my thoughts -- I have no actual information about the new DCC tracks. Richard Johnson has today reported good progress with the tooling: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110254-dcc-concepts-oo-gauge-bullhead-turnouts/page-4&do=findComment&comment=2308191

 

p.s. with inclined rails in soft plastic chairs, sharply curving flexi-track can in theory automatically create gauge-widening as the rail reverts to vertical. C&L used to claim this for their flex-track, I don't know if they still do. In practice the results are variable, to say the least.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited May 17, 2016 by martin_wynne
p.s. added

[checkrail]

Not looked at the handbuilt track or 00-SF threads on RMweb much since I completed my own trackwork some time ago, but just noted this thread as I was setting out some of my own thoughts on the matter on my layout thread Stoke Courtenay.  So here, 10 months later, is one man’s answer to the OP’s straightforward question.  (If it sounds familiar to anyone I contributed some similar thoughts to the 00-SF Yahoo group a year or so ago.)

 

Returning to model railways in 2011/12 after many years I was amazed and delighted by new developments, especially the range and high level of detail of recent RTR models.  But I was also 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.  Railway modeling is a broad church, and we all have our own priorities, emphases, ‘must-haves’ and ‘no-nos’, But for me the appearance of the track was at least as important as the appearance of the trains, so this issue was a red line. I am happy - for now at least - to live with all sorts of rolling stock inaccuracies, but I absolutely had to have fully chaired bullhead pointwork.

 

I have to admit that if, say, Peco had produced track and points to their current standards, range and geometry, but with chaired bullhead rail and roughly British sleeper dimensions & spacing I would probably 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.) Then I came across C & L, and the revelation that plastic chairs could be successfully welded to ply sleepers was a eureka moment for me. And the availability (at a price) of pre-fabricated crossing assemblies and point blades would save loads of work and time.

 

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.  And I guess even wagons aren’t always straightforward, especially good ones with the brake shoes in line with the wheel treads.  

 

Then a setback when I realised that the pre-fabricated C & L crossings were for use with EM, or fine scale 00 standards with 14.8mm b-to-b  -  so same problem as above. 

 

The whole matter was resolved by coming across all the discussions about 00-SF (which up to then I’d never heard of) on the handbuilt track section of RMweb.  In places the discussions I followed were tortured and heated, and made the theological controversies of 5^th century Constantinople look tame.  But I ploughed on and the penny soon dropped, that not only did these standards look good, and carry all current RTR and aftermarket wheelsets smoothly through crossings with full support, but  - with 00-SF being in effect ‘EM minus 2’ - the aforesaid C & L components would lend themselves admirably to this approach.  A second eureka moment! 

 

Here are the results. Not perfect by any means, but I’m pleased by both its appearance and performance. Thanks to all the pioneers of 00-SF/4-SF for their inspiration.

 

 

 

 

John C.

:​(My layout: STOKE COURTENAY, 4mm scale 1930s GWR junction station.  See layout topic.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dhjgreen]

That looks fabulous. If I had known about 4SF when I started, I might not be a member of EMGS now (heresy). Although the EMGS standard does offer a "one specification" solution, I might not have chosen 4SF because of the variety of 00 standards, "you chose well".

[garethashenden]

That trackwork looks very good. OO-SF does seem to be a very good solution to the problem of someone wanting a finer appearance while keeping RTR stock.

[AndyID]

That trackwork looks very good. OO-SF does seem to be a very good solution to the problem of someone wanting a finer appearance while keeping RTR stock.

 

It doesn't only improve the appearance. Like EM, It works better too.

[mightbe]

That looks excellent! No doubt the insufferable militant adversaries are secretly pooh-poohing this very fine display of craftsmanship. Can't please 'em all. 

[checkrail]

In places the discussions I followed were tortured and heated,

 

John C.

:​(My layout: STOKE COURTENAY, 4mm scale 1930s GWR junction station.  See layout topic.)

 

.

I meant 'tortuous' of course (but it felt like 'tortured' sometimes)