Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[Grovenor]

RTR MODELS WITH BACK-TO-BACK LESS THAN 14.3mm WILL NOT RUN ON 00-SF. BUT THEY WILL RUN ON DOGA INTERMEDIATE.

RTR MODELS WITH BACK-TO-BACK LESS THAN 14.3mm WILL NOT RUN ON 00-SF. BUT THEY MIGHT  WILL RUN ON DOGA INTERMEDIATE (Depending on how much less than 14.3mm).

Better

Regards

[dasatcopthorne]

RTR MODELS WITH BACK-TO-BACK LESS THAN 14.3mm WILL NOT RUN ON 00-SF. BUT THEY MIGHT  WILL RUN ON DOGA INTERMEDIATE (Depending on how much less than 14.3mm).

Better

Regards

Even Keith Norgrove, P4 modeller, is interested in 00sf now!!

 

Dave

[AndyID]

I've never had the slightest difficult selling on stock because of back to back adjustment

 

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

Should we infer from this that you are a retailer of such stock or work in a retail establishment, or are you referring to personal equipment that you have sold to other enthusiasts?

 

Regards,

 

Andy

[AndyID]

I did a bit of checking through some recent acquisitions from a certain online auction site. It's a random sample of 13 wagons from various manufacturers over quite a long manufacturing interval. Represented were Hornby, Mainline, Dapol, Airfix, Bachmann and Replica.

 

Three of them had B2Bs less than 14.3 mm: 

 

Old Airfix 13t 5 plank  14.12 mm

Mainline hopper   14.25 mm

Dapol hopper (ex-Mainline?) 14.27 mm

 

All of these have steel axles with plastic wheels that allow gauge adjustment.

 

It's not all that easy to get an accurate back to back measurement. Some wheels (Hornby for example) are beveled on the back, so it's important not to insert the calipers beyond the flange depth. It's also not hard to measure an oversize B2B by applying too much pressure on the caliper and bending a plastic axle slightly. A better method would be to use a series of go/no-go gauges that could not be inserted beyond rail height, or use a piece of test track with max/min check-rail spacing.

 

I was actually quite surprised that the Mainline wagons with molded wheels were at least 14.33. I seem to remember that they were a bit tight on turnouts I made a while back, but I think they required a larger B2B.

 

Not exactly a comprehensive survey, but it seems to indicate the more recent equipment does exceed 14.3. No doubt there will be exceptions.

Edited September 6, 2015 by AndyID

[AndyID]

I thought it might be just as well to make some sort of tool to let me quickly check the B2Bs on my rolling stock (some of it goes back 60 years you know . This is a really basic gauge milled from of a piece of aluminium angle.

 

That Mainline hopper, which I had previously "passed", is actually a borderline fail using the gauge. It turns out the B2Bs are not consistent around the circumference of the wheels - probably because there is a certain amount of wheel "wobble". I can detect that by rolling the hopper along the gauge. (I realize now I should have made the gauge a bit longer.)

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by AndyID

[polybear]

Even Keith Norgrove, P4 modeller, is interested in 00sf now!!

 

Dave

At ExpoEM perhaps a couple of years ago (or thereabouts) a certain ex.Chairman of the EMGS admitted to me that, if he were to start again, he'd probably adopt 00.  Now if you were to mix EM & 00 perhaps you'd get.....EM-2....... = 00-sf.

Now I'm starting to understand the point of all those boring Algebra lessons at school ....

[polybear]

Remember last years 00-SF convention chaps?

 

The committee meetings, what fun

 

image.jpg

 

The happy few patiently waiting to enter the convention hall.

 

image.jpg

 

My goodness, the hullabaloo when that chap with the DOGA lapel pin was spotted.

 

image.jpg

 

And the farewell march, Martins image everywhere,

 

image.jpg

 

Roll on next years.

Now we all know what Martin looks like...the black coat is very fetching..... :jester:

(Only kidding of course Martin - I do know what you look like - I'm sure I've got a copy of a certain Mr. Wynne standing next to a Bridgeport somewhere.....)

[polybear]

You're quite right in your assessment of my own position. I'm 67, retired and working hard to stay alive. I was a member of the North Middlesex MRC back in the 60's and was pleased to have been part of the same club as Ray Hammond and Frank Dyer. Of course in those days as a teenager I was brought up to be 'seen and not heard' but was able to pick up a ton of info from watching my elders. I operated at Central Hall many times and worked on Saturdays at the Southgate Hobby Shop with a certain Colonel Beattie, so I guess you could say model railways are in my blood.

 

 

Hi Gordon,

Small world....Ray Hammond lives (literally) just down the hill from me; I have'nt seen him for a while (I only know him to say hello to, no more unfortunately).  A friend at work used to help exhibit "Buntingham" on the exhibition circuit, built by Ray to S4 (not P4) track standards, just to prove to non-believers that it could be done.  Complete with working point rodding and interlocking....

[polybear]

Three Posts in a row.  I really am getting sad...

Bvgger. That's now four Posts

[MikeH_83]

I have always been careful to refer to "most", "modern", RTR models in talking about 00-SF. My understanding was that most such RTR models do now have wheels wider than 14.3mm back-to-back. If you are now saying that is not the case I'm happy to accept that -- I can't possibly measure the entire UK RTR wheel production. Perhaps we need a survey on the subject, but preferably related to production volume. Saying that a particular model has a narrower back-to-back is hardly significant if the total production run was 100 units 10 years ago.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Maybe something for the 00-sf wiki, a place where people can list what model was used and whether or not b2b needed to be adjusted?

[martin_wynne]

That Mainline hopper, which I had previously "passed", is actually a borderline fail using the gauge. It turns out the B2Bs are not consistent around the circumference of the wheels - probably because there is a certain amount of wheel "wobble".

 

Hi Andy,

 

Bear in mind that there is 0.1mm clearance on the 00-SF maximum check span of 14.2mm. If a wheel fails the back-to-back test only because of wobble, there is a good chance that it will run without problems, unless there are some sharp curves through pointwork. I realise that is not a very engineeringish thing to say, but even the prototype sometimes banned some vehicles from using a particular siding or curve.

 

Perhaps it would be worth making another checking tool at 14.2mm to represent the actual track?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[unravelled]

If I was going to build  pointwork for my mainly rtr layout, 00-SF would be my choice. To me it's a no brainer, but I am over 65 and have an engineering background. My main reason for building track would be for bullhead rail and better sleeper spacing, not running or crossing appearance, but it would be silly not to take the opportunity to take the small extra step to 00-SF. As to whether I will get round to building my own track that's another matter.
 

As I'd use it 00-SF would be a tweak to pointwork construction, rather than a standard adopted layout wide. To me it almost seems too simple to be a standard.
 

Regarding gauges for back to back. How about a tapered plate between the rails, just roll stock down until it wedges. Add graduations for quick readout. I don't have the tools to make a very accurate one, but may try lasercutting something, to see whether 00-SF is appropriate for my stock.
 

Thanks
 

Dave

[martin_wynne]

Now we all know what Martin looks like...the black coat is very fetching..... :jester:

(Only kidding of course Martin - I do know what you look like - I'm sure I've got a copy of a certain Mr. Wynne standing next to a Bridgeport somewhere.....)

 

Hmm. 30 years ago now. It seems I had hair then.

 

 

Martin.

[davefrk]

Martin, that coat is far too clean for an engineer or maybe it's because I was in the 'black squad' on dirty stuff at steelworks etc.

 

All the best, nice to see you're back.

 

Dave Franks

p.s. I had hair once too.

[alastairq]

 

 

Regarding gauges for back to back. How about a tapered plate between the rails, just roll stock down until it wedges. Add graduations for quick readout. I don't have the tools to make a very accurate one, but may try lasercutting something, to see whether 00-SF is appropriate for my stock.

 

 

I seem to recall what you describe, being sold many years ago...not sure whether it was the UK or USA,however......but I did read about it recently, in a very old magazine of US extract.  

[martin_wynne]

Regarding gauges for back to back. How about a tapered plate between the rails, just roll stock down until it wedges. Add graduations for quick readout. I don't have the tools to make a very accurate one, but may try lasercutting something, to see whether 00-SF is appropriate for my stock.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Such a gauge is available commercially for P4. Something C&L might like to consider for 00. Having marks for DOGA-Fine, DOGA-Intermediate, 00-SF.

 

There is an interesting anomaly -- this page: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

gives the minimum back-to-back for DOGA Intermediate as 14.35mm, i.e. actually wider than the 14.3mm for 00-SF, despite all the protest about the latter.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

I can hardly believe that 8 years later I am still posting dimensions about 00-SF.

In international and normalised standards (IEC, EN, BS, ISO and so on), it is usual for the whole publication to begin with the mandatory requirements ("the standard"), which it follows with a series of informational annexes. The annexes do not add new requirements, but rather they help users to apply the standard. The new 00-SF wiki seems an ideal place to add informational articles - for example understanding the standard, how to measure BEF, known compatibility of RTR products, tooling up, moving from Peco and so on.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

Martin, that coat is far too clean for an engineer or maybe it's because I was in the 'black squad' on dirty stuff at steelworks etc.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Picture obviously taken on a Monday. It didn't look like that by Friday.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Ha ha.

 

You all fall for it when Ravenser posts!

 

I don't need to read his posts any more because I can tell by others reactionsto them.

 

Why bother. We know 00sf so why continue to argue our case.

 

He, Ravenser, thrives on it all.

 

No disrespect but sorry guys, you've been suckered.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

I don't think that I have been "suckered". My other hobby is politics so I am well used to not being easily offended or provoked.

 

On the contrary, I thought that my post tried to steer a balance between the extreme views either way. Ultimately, none of us should care what other people do in this sphere. We can warn them if we think that they are getting it wrong but if they choose to ignore the advice, so be it. It is a hobby not a job. We make our own choices and stand by them with nobody to answer to.

 

It's more than 40 years now since I tried and failed with building my own pointwork. But I still have it in mind to have a go. Indeed, without anywhere at the moment to build a permanent layout in 4mm, building pointwork could be a useful exercise as it can be done on the kitchen table and does not take up much storage space. Just need to master Templot.

 

I am also quite interested by a recent post in which someone took all the metal bits from a Peco turnout and remounted them on some copperclad OO sleepers. I might have a shot at that but with a Code 83 Shinohara double crossover.

 

Meantime, over the years, I have acquired various bits of handbuilt pointwork and they do inform my view of this debate. In particular, I have a long curved turnout 36"/48". That is built to BMRSB (or OO-BF) and I would not consider laying it on a layout. The gap at the crossing is huge and wheels would disappear down it like a pothole on a Dorset road. OO-SF seems to offer a valid way around that problem for someone like me who is not going to regauge a lot of steam locomotives to EM. Like Arthur, if I was modelling diesels, EM or even S4 would be my choice.

 

Really all that this thread - and other similar - have proved is what all of us have known for many years.. It does not matter a jot what standard one chooses so long as the track dimensions and wheel/axle dimensions are compatible with each other. Hornby O Tinplate runs very well indeed. OO-SF runs well and looks good albeit not as good as EM or S4.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[Ravenser]

Hi Dave,

 

Such a gauge is available commercially for P4. Something C&L might like to consider for 00. Having marks for DOGA-Fine, DOGA-Intermediate, 00-SF.

 

There is an interesting anomaly -- this page: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

gives the minimum back-to-back for DOGA Intermediate as 14.35mm, i.e. actually wider than the 14.3mm for 00-SF, despite all the protest about the latter.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Remember that the OO Intermediate track standard permits flangeways down to 1.15mm  (1.20 +/-0.05mm)

 

We've all been talking about a flangeway of 1.25mm - the gauges for that are readily available and there are obvious practical reasons for using a value at the top end of the permitted range as this gives maximum flexibility for dealing with "tight" wheelsets  - which are the main form of discrepancy on British RTR

 

However the OO Intermediate wheel standard has to allow for adequate clearance if someone wants to use a flangeway value at the bottom of the permitted range for the Intermediate track standard.

 

Under those conditions 16.5mm - (2 x 1.15mm) = 14.2mm , so a B2B of 14.35mm gives a clearance of 0.15mm over the check span, or 0.075mm each side.

 

The tighter the clearance at the check span , the more perfectly aligned the wheelset has to be as it approaches the checkrails. Otherwise it will hit them. Personally I worry about working with very tight clearances here - the chances of something going wrong in practice and provoking a derailment are much higher.

 

If you used a flangeway of 1.15mm (the minimum permitted value for OO Intermediate) that should remove any concern about "drop-in" with Romfords, though personally I think the concern about drop-in is grossly overstated - Andy Reichart's calculations show it a minimal effect up to a 1:12 crossing - and frankly most people working in OO have space constraints that make 1:12 crossings an unattainable luxury. 

 

The price of absolute certainty for Romfords would be a much tighter control of the minimum back to back. You'd also have to source your own gauges - which I suspect means machining them yourself.

 

(There's also the consideration of manufacturing tolerances in handbuilt pointwork)

 

Given the ready availability of suitable gauges, and the "tight" wheelsets out there, I personally would recommend working to a flangeway value at the top end of the permitted range  for OO Intermediate- ie 1.25mm.  That then gives you significant extra flexibility on permissible B2B when faced with "tight"" wheelsets

[martin_wynne]

I have a long curved turnout 36"/48". That is built to BMRSB (or OO-BF) and I would not consider laying it on a layout. The gap at the crossing is huge and wheels would disappear down it like a pothole on a Dorset road.

 

I think the concern about drop-in is grossly overstated - Andy Reichart's calculations show it a minimal effect up to a 1:12 crossing - and frankly most people working in OO have space constraints that make 1:12 crossings an unattainable luxury.

 

Not much to add to those two quotes.

 

For me, any drop-in is unacceptable, when I know it can be avoided.

 

For modellers working in a small space, often long curved crossovers at each end are the only way to fit in a continuous-run layout. Then a crossing angle of at least 1:10 is a necessity, not a luxury.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

If you used a flangeway of 1.15mm (the minimum permitted value for OO Intermediate) that should remove any concern about "drop-in" with Romfords...

 

I personally would recommend working to a flangeway value at the top end of the permitted range  for OO Intermediate- ie 1.25mm. That then gives you significant extra flexibility on permissible B2B...

 

So after insisting that a proper set of standards should be codified and tabulated, and that you should always use track and wheels conforming to the same standard, things in practice are a bit different?

 

You can choose which of the dimensions to adopt, and if you do so you can then ignore other dimensions? Such as the stated minimum back-to-back or the stated minimum wheel width?

 

You nagged me to re-publish the 00-SF dimensions and I have done so: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=00-SF_Dimensions

 

All of those dimensions apply. None of them have any wiggle room to be ignored if you don't like them.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not being any sort of an engineer (or mathematician for that matter), I can not fully interpret Andy Reichert's data. But, in any case....

 

It is probably true that in some circumstances, wheels will not drop into a crossing gap even if the gap is large enough for that to happen. Few of us who model in 4mm put suspension systems on our wagons. That, combined with "stiff" coupling systems and faster-than-scale running speeds may mean that a wagon or bogie "flies" across the gap supported by three of the four wheels.

 

But if one wants to operate at scale speeds and with three-link couplings, the wheel drop, particularly on short-wheelbase goods vehicles, is very jarring on the eye.

[hayfield]

Dave,

 

I don't think that I have been "suckered". My other hobby is politics so I am well used to not being easily offended or provoked.

 

On the contrary, I thought that my post tried to steer a balance between the extreme views either way. Ultimately, none of us should care what other people do in this sphere. We can warn them if we think that they are getting it wrong but if they choose to ignore the advice, so be it. It is a hobby not a job. We make our own choices and stand by them with nobody to answer to.

 

It's more than 40 years now since I tried and failed with building my own pointwork. But I still have it in mind to have a go. Indeed, without anywhere at the moment to build a permanent layout in 4mm, building pointwork could be a useful exercise as it can be done on the kitchen table and does not take up much storage space. Just need to master Templot.

 

I am also quite interested by a recent post in which someone took all the metal bits from a Peco turnout and remounted them on some copperclad OO sleepers. I might have a shot at that but with a Code 83 Shinohara double crossover.

 

Meantime, over the years, I have acquired various bits of handbuilt pointwork and they do inform my view of this debate. In particular, I have a long curved turnout 36"/48". That is built to BMRSB (or OO-BF) and I would not consider laying it on a layout. The gap at the crossing is huge and wheels would disappear down it like a pothole on a Dorset road. OO-SF seems to offer a valid way around that problem for someone like me who is not going to regauge a lot of steam locomotives to EM. Like Arthur, if I was modelling diesels, EM or even S4 would be my choice.

 

Really all that this thread - and other similar - have proved is what all of us have known for many years.. It does not matter a jot what standard one chooses so long as the track dimensions and wheel/axle dimensions are compatible with each other. Hornby O Tinplate runs very well indeed. OO-SF runs well and looks good albeit not as good as EM or S4.

 

 

Joseph

 

Sounds like its the SMP curved turnout, and yes they do have a big gap in what some call the frog. What you could do to improve things is to remove the wing/closure rails. It would be quite easy to fabricate a new pair, but with a 1 mm flangeway. Opps you are nearly building a turnout and having a bit of fun at the same time

 

Well if that works why not remove the check rails, now un solder the solder joints between the sleepers and one stock rail of about 15 joints the one which the tip of the vee is on and 7 each side of it, now resolder the centre 7 joints to a gauge of 16.2 mm then resolder the rest. Refit the check rail.Do the same on the other side and you have an 00-sf turnout. 

 

Seriously the transition between 16.5 and 16.2 should be a tad longer, but altering the wing/closure rails is not too difficult but use a new piece of rail and bend and cut to fit. Might be an interesting exercise  

[dasatcopthorne]

Dave,

 

I don't think that I have been "suckered". My other hobby is politics so I am well used to not being easily offended or provoked.

 

On the contrary, I thought that my post tried to steer a balance between the extreme views either way. Ultimately, none of us should care what other people do in this sphere. We can warn them if we think that they are getting it wrong but if they choose to ignore the advice, so be it. It is a hobby not a job. We make our own choices and stand by them with nobody to answer to.

 

It's more than 40 ayears now since I tried and failed with building my own pointwork. But I still have it in mind to have a go. Indeed, without anywhere at the moment to build a permanent layout in 4mm, building pointwork could be a useful exercise as it can be done on the kitchen table and does not take up much storage space. Just need to master Templot.

 

I am also quite interested by a recent post in which someone took all the metal bits from a Peco turnout and remounted them on some copperclad OO sleepers. I might have a shot at that but with a Code 83 Shinohara double crossover.

 

Meantime, over the years, I have acquired various bits of handbuilt pointwork and they do inform my view of this debate. In particular, I have a long curved turnout 36"/48". That is built to BMRSB (or OO-BF) and I would not consider laying it on a layout. The gap at the crossing is huge and wheels would disappear down it like a pothole on a Dorset road. OO-SF seems to offer a valid way around that problem for someone like me who is not going to regauge a lot of steam locomotives to EM. Like Arthur, if I was modelling diesels, EM or even S4 would be my choice.

 

Really all that this thread - and other similar - have proved is what all of us have known for many years.. It does not matter a jot what standard one chooses so long as the track dimensions and wheel/axle dimensions are compatible with each other. Hornby O Tinplate runs very well indeed. OO-SF runs well and looks good albeit not as good as EM or S4.

Joseph.

 

What I meant was that as soon as Ravenser posts, there is a bunch on replies usually trying to explain/show why his views are flawed.

 

All this just prolongs the thread. It's about why to use 00sf and not why not to use 00sf.

 

I can just see Ravenser and others who agree with him, sitting there wringing their hands together in joy at disturbing any thread about this gauge.

 

Dave

Edited September 6, 2015 by dasatcopthorne