Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?

[47137]

My main objection to 00-SF is that the standard is badly written and so open to interpretation that it promotes apparently endless forum topics which add to the confusion or reduce to someone defending a particular corner. 

To my knowledge, 00-SF is useful for points and crossings, and all or almost all adopters are happy to use 16.5 mm gauge flexi track for their plain lines. So I suggest, the standard would be better expressed in terms of selective gauge narrowing like this:

 

00-SF is a variant of 00 gauge, which can give an improved appearance to points and crossings and better running for narrow wheels which will otherwise drop into crossing gaps. To do this, 00-SF uses a consistent crossing flangeway of 1.0 mm, a consistent check gauge of 15.2 mm, and selective gauge narrowing from the usual 16.5 mm down to a minimum of 16.2 mm. Maximum gauge narrowing is possible (and desirable) for crossings on straight track and curves with a radius greater than 30 inches (*). For crossings on tighter curves, the standard uses reduced gauge narrowing, and this gauge narrowing reduces to zero (16.5 mm gauge) for 18-inch curves.

 

The length of flare of gauge from 16.5 mm plain line down to the applicable 00-SF gauge is not specified, but it can be hidden in a distance of 30 or 40 mm (*) on most curved turnouts. It is usual practice to maintain the chosen 00-SF gauge through the length of the wing rails, and also between the crossings of a crossover.

 

On straight track and gentle curves (less than 30 inch * radius), the combination of 15.2 mm check gauge and 16.2 mm track gauge gives a check rail gap of 1.0 mm, and in essence the trackwork represents “EM gauge minus 2 mm”. For tighter curves, the check rail gap widens to a maximum of 1.3 mm, at 16.5 mm gauge.

 

In other words, describe 00-SF as a variation of 00 (16.5 mm) rather than as a self-contained gauge in its own right. I realise, the idea of variable gauge may be a tough pill, but the 16.5/16.2 gauge tapers we use represents an infinite number of gauges so it makes sense to make the changes of gauge a primary feature of the standard. As a secondary benefit, this approach clearly shows how 00-SF continues to work at smaller curve radii. I’ve included the figures (*) to give sense and I realise some people may disagree with them for some or all circumstances.

 

- Richard.

Edited September 24, 2015 by 47137

[martin_wynne]

all or almost all adopters are happy to use 16.5 mm gauge flexi track for their plain lines.

 

00-SF is a variant of 00 gauge

 

My strike-through.

 

Hi Richard,

 

I think you are adding to the confusion with talk of gauge-narrowing.

 

00-SF is a variant of EM, not 00. Its track gauge is 16.2mm. Entire layouts can be built to that gauge if desired, it is never narrowed. It can be widened on sharp curves if necessary, as with all other track gauges.

 

Use of pre-widened 16.5mm flexi-track for plain track is a temporary kludge until 16.2mm flexi-track is available, for those who don't want to build 16.2mm plain track. Many finescale modellers do like to build plain track, because then you can properly represent prototype jointed track panels, with correct chairs and full-length keys.

 

I strongly recommend that folks don't built variable-gauge pointwork. It is feasible for simple turnouts, but it is just asking for trouble in more complex formations such as slips and crossings, or even simple double-track crossovers. If at a later date you want to lift and re-use a variable-gauge turnout within a more complex formation such as a station throat, you will be in a mess.

 

It's much better to reduce the gauge of 16.5mm flexi-track where it joins 16.2mm. You can do that by connecting it to 16.2mm track, warming the rail ends with a soldering iron to soften the rail fixings, then holding it flat while it cools.

 

That way your pointwork will be all 16.2mm and can be used and re-used within 00-SF layouts at will.

 

00-SF is intended for modellers who might be considering EM, but want the improved appearance and running of kit wheels, without needing to modify 00 wheels. It is a track standard in its own right, it is misleading to describe it as a variant of 00. The details are at: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=00-SF_Dimensions

 

I'm seriously considering changing the name designation in Templot to something without the "00" part, because it is just causing too much hassle to keep explaining all this stuff.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[KeithHC]

Just a silly thought on the subject of joining 16.5 flexi track to 00-SF point work. From a length of flexi track remove the last few sleepers slide on replacement chairs and connect to point work. Then put sleepers back under the track and glue in position.

 

Keith HC 

[martin_wynne]

More than 15 years ago, when I included the "EM minus 2" gauge/scale setting in Templot, I gave it the shorter designation "00-SF".

 

At the time that seemed entirely reasonable, because it is intended that 00 models should run on it.

 

But with the benefit of hindsight it was clearly a big mistake. I believe the reference to 00 has been a primary cause of all the argument and contention over the years.

 

I don't think I can go on over and over again explaining 00-SF forever. The final straw has come today with a post muddying the water with suggestions of using 16.2mm crossings on a 16.5mm layout, and building variable-gauge pointwork. That strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long term.

 

00-SF is not 00. It is a variant of EM. It is a standard in its own right with a track gauge is 16.2mm. Everywhere -- except where gauge-widened on sharp curves in prototypical fashion. (Some users like to use 16.5mm flexi-track for that.)

 

As the inventor of the "00-SF" designation I can uninvent it. And I have now done so. I have changed the designation to "4-SF" in Templot:

 

 

This is a naming change only. If you have been using Templot for 00-SF there will be no change to your files or designs.

 

I'm hoping to have a Templot program update available in the next few days.

 

I have also registered the domain 4-sf.uk and I will be copying the content from 00-sf.org.uk shortly.

 

Martin.

 

[martin_wynne]

I'm seriously considering changing the name designation in Templot to something without the "00" part, because it is just causing too much hassle to keep explaining all this stuff.

 

Now done. 00-SF will now be called 4-SF in Templot. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103348-00-sf-is-now-called-4-sf-in-templot/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

Now done. 00-SF will now be called 4-SF in Templot. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/103348-00-sf-is-now-called-4-sf-in-templot/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Now we can say "May the 4sf be with you." 

[dasatcopthorne]

This is somewhat annoying, really.

 

I've only just come over from posting on Andy R's missive about an American Convention, asking if he had told them about the advances made in better running here in the UK and I find the name's changed in the meanwhile.

 

I'll have to go back now and notify him of the change.

[AndyID]

I should probably revise that to "May the 4sf be wif you."

[martin_wynne]

This is somewhat annoying, really.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Sorry. You can of course call your modelling whatever you like. This topic is only about what's in Templot.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[dasatcopthorne]

My main objection to 00-SF is that the standard is badly written and so open to interpretation that it promotes apparently endless forum topics which add to the confusion or reduce to someone defending a particular corner. 

To my knowledge, 00-SF is useful for points and crossings, and all or almost all adopters are happy to use 16.5 mm gauge flexi track for their plain lines. So I suggest, the standard would be better expressed in terms of selective gauge narrowing like this:

 

00-SF is a variant of 00 gauge, which can give an improved appearance to points and crossings and better running for narrow wheels which will otherwise drop into crossing gaps. To do this, 00-SF uses a consistent crossing flangeway of 1.0 mm, a consistent check gauge of 15.2 mm, and selective gauge narrowing from the usual 16.5 mm down to a minimum of 16.2 mm. Maximum gauge narrowing is possible (and desirable) for crossings on straight track and curves with a radius greater than 30 inches (*). For crossings on tighter curves, the standard uses reduced gauge narrowing, and this gauge narrowing reduces to zero (16.5 mm gauge) for 18-inch curves.

 

The length of flare of gauge from 16.5 mm plain line down to the applicable 00-SF gauge is not specified, but it can be hidden in a distance of 30 or 40 mm (*) on most curved turnouts. It is usual practice to maintain the chosen 00-SF gauge through the length of the wing rails, and also between the crossings of a crossover.

 

On straight track and gentle curves (less than 30 inch * radius), the combination of 15.2 mm check gauge and 16.2 mm track gauge gives a check rail gap of 1.0 mm, and in essence the trackwork represents “EM gauge minus 2 mm”. For tighter curves, the check rail gap widens to a maximum of 1.3 mm, at 16.5 mm gauge.

 

 

 

In other words, describe 00-SF as a variation of 00 (16.5 mm) rather than as a self-contained gauge in its own right. I realise, the idea of variable gauge may be a tough pill, but the 16.5/16.2 gauge tapers we use represents an infinite number of gauges so it makes sense to make the changes of gauge a primary feature of the standard. As a secondary benefit, this approach clearly shows how 00-SF continues to work at smaller curve radii. I’ve included the figures (*) to give sense and I realise some people may disagree with them for some or all circumstances.

 

- Richard.

Richard!

 

Now you've annoyed me

 

What do I tell everyone my scale/gauge is? All my track is 16.2mm. Am I gauge narrowed throughout.

 

That would make the description '0016.5' Gauge narrowed thought to 16.2mm. A bit long winded for an exhibition programme or the front of the layout 'title'.

[Grovenor]

 

 

The final straw has come today with a post muddying the water with suggestions of using 16.2mm crossings on a 16.5mm layout, and building variable-gauge pointwork. That strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long term.

But this variable gauge has not just come up today, its exactly what has been recommended in these discussions over and over for the last few years.

 

 

I don't think I can go on over and over again explaining 00-SF forever.

Well, now you will be going on and on explaining your change <g>. Perhaps if you just stop explaining it this whole discussion will die off before long.

Regards

[martin_wynne]

But this variable gauge has not just come up today, it's exactly what has been recommended in these discussions over and over for the last few years.

 

Hi Keith,

 

But not by me. I was asked recently to do variable-gauge templates in Templot, and my answer was a firm no. I was quite upset to be asked, because it meant that after so many dozens of posts on the subject, I had still failed to properly explain 00-SF.

 

Well, now you will be going on and on explaining your change <g>

 

I hope not. If someone asks about 4-SF I will do my best to help. Discussions about 00-SF I will now leave to others.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

['CHARD]

SMP OO so-called fine-scale track. I've bought over 100 metres for my next project.

 

I can't get hung up on gauges - just want to run modern RTR on track that isn't so offensive to my eyes as Peco. Am I now to understand that current Heljan, Bachmann, Hornby RR MkI coaches won't work on this?

[Ravenser]

SMP OO so-called fine-scale track. I've bought over 100 metres for my next project.

 

I can't get hung up on gauges - just want to run modern RTR on track that isn't so offensive to my eyes as Peco. Am I now to understand that current Heljan, Bachmann, Hornby RR MkI coaches won't work on this?

 

SMP track is not , thank heaven, in question.

 

I have Bachmann Mk1s running very happily on it . I don't own any Hornby RR Mk1s , but I have a Hornby Gresley non-corridor which must have the same wheels and that is entirely happy as well. I've used Hornby coach wheels under Ratio kits and there have been no problems whatsoever on SMP flexible track. I don't own any Heljan stock, but I have never heard of problems and can see no reason why there should be.

 

The problems - certainly, the arguments - start if you wish to build pointwork to a different gauge to the plain track

['CHARD]

When you require me to have your babies, just say the word.

 

PHEW!

[DavidH]

I don't think I can go on over and over again explaining 00-SF forever. The final straw has come today with a post muddying the water with suggestions of using 16.2mm crossings on a 16.5mm layout, and building variable-gauge pointwork. That strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long term.

 

How is it a new idea? Pretty much everyone (me included) who has used 00-SF when building pointwork has transitioned the 16.2mm to 16.5mm during or at the end of the pointwork. It's been widely discussed, and until now, you've never stated quite so forcibly that it's a disaster in waiting. That I can think of, anyway.

 

However ... doesn't it make it more confusing when every topic about this gauge, and the gauges sold by C&L ... are one name, and now Templot and the website use another? Isn't this more of a long-term potential disaster?

[Andy Reichert]

I'm very glad glad you decided to change your naming and remove so many other people's confusion..

 

I'm only sorry that you didn't go for "SM gauge" as per my long term suggestions. The website URL does sound a little open to mis-reading. . .

 

Please don't forget to remove HO-SF from your list as well for the same reason. Not only is it not HO gauge, it doesn't exist either.

 

Andy

Edited September 24, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[DavidH]

The problems - certainly, the arguments - start if you wish to build pointwork to a different gauge to the plain track

Definitely the arguments!

 

No one seems to have had any problems with it. I've got a layout upstairs where the trains run perfectly well through the 16.2mm pointwork onto the SMP 16.5mm track. I'm waiting for the ceiling to fall in, or a plague of (Peco?) frogs, but nothing yet.

[martin_wynne]

How is it a new idea? Pretty much everyone (me included) who has used 00-SF when building pointwork has transitioned the 16.2mm to 16.5mm during or at the end of the pointwork. It's been widely discussed, and until now, you've never stated quite so forcibly that it's a disaster in waiting. That I can think of, anyway.

 

Hi David,

 

There is no problem at all in using 16.5mm flexi-track with 16.2mm pointwork. It works fine. But I have several times suggested that the transition should be within the flexi-track, and not built into the pointwork. See my reply earlier today:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf/page-8&do=findComment&comment=2031029

 

Perhaps I should have made those points more forcibly earlier. It was only recently that it dawned on me that many users are regarding 16.2mm as applying to crossings only, and the rest of layout would be 16.5mm. There was even a request for Templot to print variable-gauge pointwork templates. Richard's post today on the above link alerted me to the prevalence of this idea.

 

Folks can of course build their track any way they wish, but I don't want my name to be associated with that practice if it becomes widespread in the hobby. Hence my decision to make a name change.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Grovenor]

 

Hi Keith,

But not by me.

Well now, indeed you have said many times that you are not promoting 00-SF <g>

By the way, how do you expect people to make the gauge transition within the flexi track?

It seems much easier to make the transition in the items you are actually building and can control the gauge.

Regards

[hayfield]

I'm very glad glad you decided to change your naming and remove so many other people's confusion..

 

I'm only sorry that you didn't go for "SM gauge" as per my long term suggestions. The website URL does sound a little open to mis-reading. . .

 

Please don't forget to remove HO-SF from your list as well for the same reason. Not only is it not HO gauge, it doesn't exist either.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy

 

Don't worry I will still be calling it 00sf to keep you happy, and no I don't and will not be using any 00/H0 gauge/scale track. Lets face it now bear bating is banned in the UK winding you up is the best substitute   Now is the smiley face Ho, H0, OO, 00 or  the devils gauge of 00sf ? EM-2 

[martin_wynne]

By the way, how do you expect people to make the gauge transition within the flexi track?

 

Hi Keith,

 

See my post at: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf/page-8&do=findComment&comment=2031029

 

From which:

I strongly recommend that folks don't built variable-gauge pointwork. It is feasible for simple turnouts, but it is just asking for trouble in more complex formations such as slips and crossings, or even simple double-track crossovers. If at a later date you want to lift and re-use a variable-gauge turnout within a more complex formation such as a station throat, you will be in a mess.

 

It's much better to reduce the gauge of 16.5mm flexi-track where it joins 16.2mm. You can do that by connecting it to 16.2mm track, warming the rail ends with a soldering iron to soften the rail fixings, then holding it flat while it cools.

 

See also this idea from Keith HC: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102666-why-would-i-choose-00-sf/page-8&do=findComment&comment=2031048

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[dasatcopthorne]

SMP OO so-called fine-scale track. I've bought over 100 metres for my next project.

I can't get hung up on gauges - just want to run modern RTR on track that isn't so offensive to my eyes as Peco. Am I now to understand that current Heljan, Bachmann, Hornby RR MkI coaches won't work on this?

What are you talking about?

 

Dave

[Semi Fast]

The King is Dead; Long Live the King!

 

I am so relieved that my 00-SF switches and crossings will no longer upset some folks; they can now call them 4-SF and not be afraid of them sneaking up on and eating their grandchildren.

[Dungrange]

What was wrong with EM-2?  I'm not sure that 4-SF is any more informative than 00-SF, but EM-2 seems to say what the standard is based on.  It doesn't really matter: all I need to do is remember that the recently purchased and still unused 00-SF gauges that I now own are for a 'new' standard.