Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[gordon s]

 

(As for ageism - it was Gordon S who raised that at post 48: criticising another group as "a bunch of old guys" is odd coming from a group of posters most of whom are no longer working and have time to post on this subject all day)

 

 

Good grief, I can understand now how you've kept posting against 00-SF since 2007….:-)

 

You wouldn't last five minutes with the banter on the golf course.

 

I made a joke.

 

You took offence.

 

I apologised.

 

End of.….

 

Can you be ageist at 67?….

Edited September 6, 2015 by gordon s

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't think that I suggested that his views were flawed. Just that the rest of us have other views that work perfectly well for us while respecting his choice to do it differently.

[hayfield]

Good grief I can understand now how you've kept posting against 00-SF since 2007….:-)

 

You wouldn't last five minutes with the banter on the golf course.

 

I made a joke.

 

You took offence.

 

I apologised.

 

End of.….

 

Can you be ageist at 67?….

 

He would not be let in our swindle let alone survive it (for the uninitiated a swindle is the name of a group of mad golfers who love taking money off each other, but hate paying out. Still we all have a beer with each other at the end of the round and have a laugh with each other with the winners buying the first round)

[Ravenser]

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.

 

Very simply, when a dimension in a specification has tolerances, any other dimension that depends on it has to assume the "worst case" value.

 

If there are tolerances on a flangeway dimension, then the wheel standard to match it has to be completely valid for any width of flangeway permitted by the track standard

 

That is a much more restrictive case than if you just work with a single nominal value. 

 

In this case , if you use a 1.15mm flangeway, then obviously the minimum B2B needs to be greater than if you use a 1.25mm flangeway. Therefore the Intermediate wheel standard shows the higher B2B value required by a 1.15mm flangeway - the worst case scenario for B2B. The wheel standard has to be fully valid for any value  permitted by the track standard.

 

The flip side of this is that the tread width in the wheel standard has to be wide enough to cope with a 1.25mm flangeway without any drop in. That being the worst case scenario for wheel tread. Romfords won't drop in  for many values of flangeway permitted by the Intermediate track standard. But there may be very slight drop in for some permitted values of the flangeway - so they don't meet the wheel standard, which has to be valid for all permitted values of flangeway.

 

You yourself described Romfords as marginally compatible. I don't disagree with that - but the potential drop in at the widest permissible flangeways is going to be insignificant until you go to a crossing shallower than 1:12 . So your 1:10 curved crossover is still ok. There should be no drop in, ever, with RP25/110 wheelsets

 

Going back to the question of "tight" wheelsets - what will actually happen if a Mainline/Dapol/Airfix wheelset with a 14.2mm B2B runs through BRMSB OO pointwork with a 1.25mm flangeway?

 

- The check rails will operate properly - check clearance is positive

- There will be no drop in

- It should pass through the point without jamming or derailing: there is 0.2mm of clearance available between B2B and check span.

 

It doesn't fully comply with the wheel standards - but it will run : the risk is that the clearances may get too tight to cope with any misalignment as the wheel approaches the check rail and you might get a derailment

 

This is the area I've called "marginality" - it doesn't quite meet the standard but it still runs, albeit with an increased risk of derailment. OO-SF seems to require you to operate in this grey area of marginal clearances a lot

 

You are very comfortable with very limited clearances across the check span as a matter of routine. I''m not.

 

I am pretty relaxed about slight wheel drop with occasional wheels slightly outside the specification (I carefully avoid EM profile wheels if at all possible). You are hyper-sensitive about drop in

 

Drop in is a much more trivial issue compared to B2B restrictions. A vehicle whose B2B is too tight for OO-SF won't run at all. A wheelset which encounters drop in will run with a slight bounce

[dasatcopthorne]

Very simply, when a dimension in a specification has tolerances, any other dimension that depends on it has to assume the "worst case" value.

 

If there are tolerances on a flangeway dimension, then the wheel standard to match it has to be completely valid for any width of flangeway permitted by the track standard

 

That is a much more restrictive case than if you just work with a single nominal value. 

 

In this case , if you use a 1.15mm flangeway, then obviously the minimum B2B needs to be greater than if you use a 1.25mm flangeway. Therefore the Intermediate wheel standard shows the higher B2B value required by a 1.15mm flangeway - the worst case scenario for B2B. The wheel standard has to be fully valid for any value  permitted by the track standard.

 

The flip side of this is that the tread width in the wheel standard has to be wide enough to cope with a 1.25mm flangeway without any drop in. That being the worst case scenario for wheel tread. Romfords won't drop in  for many values of flangeway permitted by the Intermediate track standard. But there may be very slight drop in for some permitted values of the flangeway - so they don't meet the wheel standard, which has to be valid for all permitted values of flangeway.

 

You yourself described Romfords as marginally compatible. I don't disagree with that - but the potential drop in at the widest permissible flangeways is going to be insignificant until you go to a crossing shallower than 1:12 . So your 1:10 curved crossover is still ok. There should be no drop in, ever, with RP25/110 wheelsets

 

Going back to the question of "tight" wheelsets - what will actually happen if a Mainline/Dapol/Airfix wheelset with a 14.2mm B2B runs through BRMSB OO pointwork with a 1.25mm flangeway?

 

- The check rails will operate properly - check clearance is positive

- There will be no drop in

- It should pass through the point without jamming or derailing: there is 0.2mm of clearance available between B2B and check span.

 

It doesn't fully comply with the wheel standards - but it will run : the risk is that the clearances may get too tight to cope with any misalignment as the wheel approaches the check rail and you might get a derailment

 

This is the area I've called "marginality" - it doesn't quite meet the standard but it still runs, albeit with an increased risk of derailment. OO-SF seems to require you to operate in this grey area of marginal clearances a lot

 

You are very comfortable with very limited clearances across the check span as a matter of routine. I''m not.

 

I am pretty relaxed about slight wheel drop with occasional wheels slightly outside the specification (I carefully avoid EM profile wheels if at all possible). You are hyper-sensitive about drop in

 

Drop in is a much more trivial issue compared to B2B restrictions. A vehicle whose B2B is too tight for OO-SF won't run at all. A wheelset which encounters drop in will run with a slight bounce

 

Ravenser.

 

How about answering the original question please.

 

At least have the courtesy. We're now on post #130 just to answer a simple question!!!!!!

 

By the way Ravenser, what's your name?

 

Dave

Edited September 6, 2015 by dasatcopthorne

[AndyID]

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

 

I'll take it that you are a retailer then.

Edited September 6, 2015 by AndyID

[AndyID]

 

In this case , if you use a 1.15mm flangeway, then obviously the minimum B2B needs to be greater than if you use a 1.25mm flangeway. Therefore the Intermediate wheel standard shows the higher B2B value required by a 1.15mm flangeway - the worst case scenario for B2B. The wheel standard has to be fully valid for any value  permitted by the track standard.

 

 

Excuse me? I don't think that's the reason for the tolerance. You're not seriously suggesting that people should deliberately try position the track elements at one or other extreme?

[AndyID]

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.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Yes, I'll probably do that. The Mainline wheels in question would have no difficulty passing a 14.2 check. The only vehicle I found that would have a problem would be the Airfix wagon. I don't know if its B2Bs are original or if they were previously altered, although I would guess they are original.

 

I thought of making a taper gauge but it's more complicated, and I prefer the go/no-go gauge. I'm more interested in something that will quickly reveal a potential problem than quantifying the actual B2B measurement, and the 14.3 gauge performs a test around the entire circumference which I think might be important.

 

Cheers!

Andy 

[AndyID]

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

 

 

Martin.

 

I never knew Andrew Lloyd Webber also ran a Bridgeport

[AndyID]

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

 

Based on the number of views on this thread it's not obvious who's being suckered

 

Actually, I don't really think anybody is. It's certainly exposing 00-SF to a diligent technical review and anyone who is reading the thread can draw their own conclusions about whether 00-SF is for them or not. I don't think 00-SF has "anything up its sleeves". The fact that some people seem to find 00-SF extremely irritating is very interesting. I'm still trying to understand why that is.

[AndyID]

Sorry for the barrage of posts. Last one for a while now - promise.

 

Martin has me seriously outclassed!

 

 

The worst thing about this thing is moving the head up the column. It must weight a few hundred pounds. You have to reach back and turn that black crank on the left. I'm seriously considering adding "power assist" - two pulleys, a rope and a bag of cement.

 

(Sorry for the derailment.)

[Guest bri.s]

Had a good read of this thread and thought

Can't we all just get along

 

Nice drill AndyID

 

Brian

[AndyID]

OK OK OK - Really the last one. No kidding!

 

Archaeological evidence.

 

 

This came out of the first electric trainset I had (or more correctly "we had" including big brothers). They were less interested, so I became the owner. Came in a Tri-ang set with the BR standard 2-6-2, grey "standard track", and a gigantic transformer that you did not wan't to drop on your foot. I still have the other coach somewhere. Everything else from the set is long gone.

 

It does need a bit of "touching up", but for sentimental reasons I will keep it. I'm not quite sure precisely when we got it. I think around 1957, and BTW, I am actually younger than Gordon (just)

 

[Ravenser]

Excuse me? I don't think that's the reason for the tolerance. You're not seriously suggesting that people should deliberately try position the track elements at one or other extreme?

 

I'm being practical.

 

In an ideal world, all wheelsets would confirm exactly to standard. And presumably everyone would have their own workshop with all necessary machine tools and the skills needed to machine whatever gauges they need, to any value.

 

Back in the real world - as Martin said earlier, OO track gauges for 1.25mm flangeway are  readily available in Britain , from several sources - and have been for decades. If someone has track gauges , the chances are , that's what they've got. There are hundreds , if not thousands of layouts built with handmade  OO track using 1,25mm flangeways

 

So if I'm helping on the DOGA stand at a show , and someone asks about getting better track than Peco, what do I say?

 

- Buy these readily available gauges, build your points either by soldering, or solvent /plastic assembly . The points will comply with our standard, and any wheelsets that meet our standard will be a perfect fit. Romfords and all modern RTR should be fine, and you'll probably be okay with older Airfix , Dapol, and Mainline stuff. Lima will run fine if the flanges aren't too deep - and the later Lima stuff was normally ok . Hornby pre 2000 is a o-no though, and Wrenn will probably not work . And here's a B2B gauge which will allow you to sort out any rogue wheelsets on your rolling stock

 

or:

 

- Now you have to machine yourself some gauges to these values on your lathe. Oh... you don't have a lathe......

[Semi Fast]

Disingenuous is the word which springs to mind. Despite being half cut in our caravan awning in the middle of a showground in Warwickshire (because our Welsh Springer just won third in Gundog group). More to life than model trains, etc.

[hayfield]

I'm being practical.

 

 

So if I'm helping on the DOGA stand at a show , and someone asks about getting better track than Peco, what do I say?

 

 

 

 

Build your own to 00-sf standards of course,especially as you post so much on the 00-sf threads 

 

~I must apologise, but it just had to be said

Edited September 6, 2015 by hayfield

[polybear]

Build your own to 00-sf standards of course,especially as you post so much on the 00-sf threads 

 

~I must apologise, but it just had to be said

Using the readily available Gauges....

[Jintyman]

The points will comply with our standard, and any wheelsets that meet our standard will be a perfect fit.

And there we have the reason for the negative barrage in OO-SF threads. It's a Track Standards issue where they are unable to accept alternative track standards, and feel unable to bring anything positive to the table, maybe it's because it's not a standard that they developed.

A question of 'Elitism' maybe

 

It's a good job that Martin isn't like that, otherwise the people who wish to build to DOGA standards wouldn't be able to use Templot!!!

 

Is it draughty under that bridge?

[Ravenser]

A little more algebra...are we all paying attention at the back...

If A = "Helping on the DOGA Stand", and:

B = "Our Standards", then:

C = ??

 

If there's not a blatant clue there....

Answers on a Postcard, please......

 

 

I'm a long-standing society member working to the standards. The society - like most societies - encourages  members to help man their stand at exhibitions, often for part of a day. No modelling society would restrict itself to just a couple of folk doing all exhibitions and demos....

 

I'm also supposed to be a retailer aren't I , and goodness knows what else you've read into my posts

[martin_wynne]

Let's keep this discussion about 00-SF, and not personal stuff.

 

Ravenser is not required to like 00-SF if he doesn't want to.

 

Martin.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       This topic is supposed to be "Why Would I Choose 00-SF"?

I really feel those that don't want to answer such a question on this should sod off.

trustytrev.

[hayfield]

I'm a long-standing society member working to the standards. The society - like most societies - encourages  members to help man their stand at exhibitions, often for part of a day. No modelling society would restrict itself to just a couple of folk doing all exhibitions and demos....

 

I'm also supposed to be a retailer aren't I , and goodness knows what else you've read into my posts

 

Now back to the title of the thread, please tell us why you would choose 00-sf

[AndyID]

 

Martin suggested I try a 14.2 mm check-span gauge. Here it is. The troublesome truck by Airfix fails on this gauge, although at some points around their periphery, the wheels actually pass. That's why I think it's not a bad idea to use a gauge that you can roll back and forth along the wheels.

 

On a light-weight vehicle like a wagon or a coach that has tight b2bs, the wheels do not wedge between the wing rail and the check rail. They climb up the check rails until the wheel flanges escape. What happens after that is anybody's guess

 

As expected, the Mainline hopper wagon passes on this gauge but I found one Mainline coach that would not. Its plastic axles are not straight and there is a fairly massive variation in b2b gauge during a revolution. No amount of tweaking is going to fix that and it would be a liability on any layout, regardless of the track standard. Another Mainline coach was ok.

 

I also have an Airfix coach with b2bs around or even below 14 mm. It has metal axles so it might be possible to adjust the b2b, but I couldn't make the wheels budge on the axles, and I suspect the bogies will interfere with the treads if I do. Might not be a simple fix.

 

One of the sets in the pic above is Peco and the other is Romford. If you measure the b2bs with a digital caliper you might be fooled into believing that the Peco wheels have a smaller b2b (14.4 mm) compared with the the Romford (14.5 mm), but the Peco is actually slightly wider than than the Romford by around 0.02 mm.

 

I had always thought Peco were a bit narrower, but when I compared the two wheel sets on this gauge, I noticed I could yaw the Peco to a larger angle than the Romford. When I measured the Peco at the correct depth I realized my error.

 

It's not all that much of course. I tried to capture it in the pic but it may not be very obvious.

 

BTW, while I made this in a milling machine, there is nothing to prevent anyone making something just as accurate with a file and a vise. You just need to file/sand a piece of thin (around 1 mm) material down to the desired width then mount it on another plate. That could be plywood or anything convenient as long as it is reasonably flat. Its dimensions are not important.

 

Happy measuring!

Edited September 7, 2015 by AndyID

[martin_wynne]

 

The above text is a linked image in case of topic-locking. If the above link doesn't work, or this topic is locked, go here: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=RMweb-1

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited September 7, 2015 by martin_wynne

[polybear]

 

(I'm posting this directly as I'm short of time today. I will convert it to a link later in case this topic gets locked and I need to amend it any time. In view of the personal comments earlier there is every risk that the RMweb mods will ride in and lock this topic.)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the post; in case you felt that a previous posting of mine was mis-placed I have removed said posting. 

I've decided (long overdue) that Master Dave's (dasatcopthorne) philosophy of not bothering spending time reading some posts is entirely correct.  Master Dave - I humbly implore you to consider accepting me as a humble disciple into your Temple of Enlightenment and reduced Blood Pressure; I can supply my own Sandals and Finger Bells:

 

Edited September 7, 2015 by polybear