0, 0-FS or S7?

[Adrian]

It's true that the visuals are important to me. P4 is a venture that I am very pleased with, it's slower going than 00 for obvious reasons but much more satisfying once you have achieved something. I also find the brainwashing effect to be good, what I mean is, you know you can't simply buy a rtr engine and plonk it on your track so it almost eliminates impulse buying and forces you to think wiser, than it turn makes you take more care and you put more in to each creation and appreciate them more. So in some ways it can be cheaper as you end up with a few gems as apposed to a bucket of common rocks. I guess this thinking will translate in S7 fine.

 

 

Maybe I'll go S7 thoug I don't know.

 

 

I would suggest that to some extent it depends on the era you are modelling. The finescale standards can produce nice looking track virtually indistinguishable from Scale7 and with rolling stock and 'modern image' stock you can easily hide the narrower gauge wheels. Where it causes problems for me is building steam loco's, I'm not say that you can't build some very fine steam loco's to fine scale standards and several contributors to this thread have done just that. However they have had to perform various slights of hand to hide the narrow frames, dummy frames above the footplate are in different positions to those below the footplate, splashers are wider than they should be, fireboxes sit on top of footplates rather than tucking in between the frames. On a loco like an Ivatt 2-6-0 it means that the footplate ends up being 16% wider than it should be, http://www.cherryclan.com/why-scale7/, which to my view upsets the whole proportion of the loco. If you are starting with very little and want to build loco's why not make life easier for yourself and start with the frames in the right place.

[MarcD]

With out wanting to blow my own trumpet we at Furness Wagon now have over 100 kits that can be built in either S7 or 7FS with very little change between the 2 standards in-fact some of our wagons kits are designed for S7 and are marketed as 7FS to increase potential sales.

 

Marc

[Simond]

Referring to Adrian's post above, and the article to which it refers, it is true that compromises need to be made to accommodate non-scale wheels on locos. It affects splashers and footplates particularly, and despite the generous clearance between wheel & rail, it is sometimes necessary to thin or narrow frames and limit bogie movement.

 

One area I would tend to take issue with however us the frame width - in nearly every loco kit I've built, I've ended up making new spacers because the so-called FS ones were too narrow. I don't have drawings or measurements to hand, but I'd normally look to get around 0.25 - 0.5 mm clearance between wheels and frames. This can be a pain with pick-ups, and in the odd case of a wobbly wheel, but getting the frames as wide as possible does minimise the issues to which Adrian refers. And yes, he's right, if I built it to S7, I wouldn't have all that thinking to do!

 

Of course there are some locos where more brutal compromise is necessary, driven by the desire to be able to use others' layouts - I use a pair of Peco crossovers as my "acceptance test" for loco clearances, and achieving this required a rather large step in the frames of my 52xx to allow side play on the rear axle. It's well hidden, but it shows from some angles.

 

And I guess thus is always going to be the key to the debate - if you are able to provide the space, or are happy with a limited layout, S7 is feasible, and I guess we'd all say that it looks better. If you want a circuit, you're going to find that you need a lot of space in 7mm, and even more in S7. Logically, you're scaling the radius of curved track work exactly too, various numbers for minimum radius depending on whether you're considering main, branch, or dockside, but let's say 7 chains which might just be acceptable for a BLT.

 

7 x 66 (feet) x 7mm = 3.2m.

 

This is a lot bigger that the accepted FS "6 foot curves" (about 1.8m, and you can get much tighter if you limit your stock), and I think that is the key reason why FS remains the more popular - coupled of course with the fact that it is more popular, and therefore more opportunity to run your stock on your mates' layout & vice versa. (Of course, if all your mates model in S7, the latter might not apply!)

 

HTH

Simon

[Adrian]

And I guess thus is always going to be the key to the debate - if you are able to provide the space, or are happy with a limited layout, S7 is feasible, and I guess we'd all say that it looks better. If you want a circuit, you're going to find that you need a lot of space in 7mm, and even more in S7. Logically, you're scaling the radius of curved track work exactly too, various numbers for minimum radius depending on whether you're considering main, branch, or dockside, but let's say 7 chains which might just be acceptable for a BLT.

 

7 x 66 (feet) x 7mm = 3.2m.

 

This is a lot bigger that the accepted FS "6 foot curves" (about 1.8m, and you can get much tighter if you limit your stock), and I think that is the key reason why FS remains the more popular - coupled of course with the fact that it is more popular, and therefore more opportunity to run your stock on your mates' layout & vice versa. (Of course, if all your mates model in S7, the latter might not apply!)

 

 

Simon, thanks for the considered response. Also given that the original poster is coming from a P4 background I suspect he has already been through this trade-off before.

[Knuckles]

Again many thanks for the responces.

 

For the S7 idea curves won't be an issue as it would only be a (roughly) 15' end to end layout above a 17.5' P4 one. (Less length due to roof shape the higher you go)

 

I got 11' width but plan to use that for the P4 roundy roundy.

 

If I ever have the luxury to move in to a bigger location then S7 or 0FS might make more sence but seeing as I only really have the space I just described I don't see how I'd be able to have a 7mm layout as a roundy roundy, even if on the lower longer level.

 

Maybe 0 gauge would allow it I don't know, but I like pacifics. Pre grouping railways I find most interesting.

 

I'm drawn to the size of 7mm as everything looks more realistic, personal and heavy. It feels more convincing and I guess it is less fidelly.

[hartleymartin]

15'0" is not a lot of room to play with when planning a standard gauge layout in O scale, even less so for S7 because you will need to use points with longer leads for them to work. A typical bogie coach is about 18" long, and even small small tank engines can about 8-9" long. A train of 5 or 6 four-wheelers plus a tank engine is already about 3'6" long!

[Knuckles]

Aye I know, this is why I'm talking a small layout. I have no other choice.

 

Mini pre grouping branch terminus with a couple of 4 wheel coaches at the most. Maybe a small inglenook for shunting or something.

 

I would go big but as usual it's the space. Doesn't stop one having some 7mm fun tho.

[MarcD]

My new 7FS layout is only 14ft long by 17inch including the fiddle yards. one point and a double slip gives me a exchange sidings, a though line and a feeder line to an off seen industry.  I'm running Col Stephens light railway type trains which were only a few small coaches and a tank. keeps the sizes down.

 

Marc 

[81A Oldoak]

My Cwm Bach layout measures 15' x 2'. It is a South Wales Valleys branch with a colliery branch fed from a kick-back exchange siding. The track plan uses 5 plain points and a 3-Way. The track and rolling stock are 7mm Finescale, but the buildings - all scratchbuilt -  signals and scenery are S7.  You can read the story here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80426-cwm-bach-a-south-wales-branch-line/page-45&do=findComment&comment=2063795

[Tove]

When i get round to posting my little venture,it`ll measure about 9'-8",including a three road traverser,run round, and a couple of sidings in 7fs.

you could say it`s a big diorama or a small layout,either way you`d only expect small loco`s to be run on it?but.....the only loco i`ll be using for the moment is a Heljan class 40, all 19 inches of it......!!

 

Brian.

[BG John]

You could solve a lot of the space and standards problem by building something small and pointless like this, that I was playing with today at the exhibition in Carmarthen. It's 4ft x 1ft including the fiddle yard. A bit of fiddling with the gauge, and it might even accommodate all three standards!!!

 

[Knuckles]

Sweet, 15' x 2 or 3' is what I can do so I'll have a look at Cwm Bach definitely.

 

Just looked at the latest 8 pages or so.  Some really good modelling there.  The corrugated scratch built shed is great, complete with missing rivet effect!   Very cool.

 

I have another question.

 

If I go to a MR show and buy a wagon and the wheels are 0, as I understand it some companies will swap them for 0FS.  So if I go S7 it's all extra purchases I'm guessing?    Not a biggy just want to be sure.

 

If you buy anything RTR in 7mm then it's most definitely going to be 0 gauge right?   I'm doubting there will be 0FS RTR products out there, or is there?

 

How easy are engines to convert from the different standards?   I read above that S7 can in some cases be easier as there is less faffing due to the flanges and frames being correct from the off - that sounds good.

 

What about turnouts?   I'm happy building my own if I go S7 as I enjoy it in P4 but is there any 0FS Ready to Plonk turnouts?  Just trying to get a good knowledge so I can make the best choice when it comes to it.  The more ingredients I can swirl in the pot the better.

[hartleymartin]

Ready to plonk O gauge points are Peco. Code 124 bullhead, though not a true bullhead rail, and code 143 flatbottom.

[Knuckles]

Is there any RTP 0FS though?

 

By reading some comments it seems S7 might in some ways be easier though, strangly.

[Simond]

Any 7mm kits you buy in the UK will either be "wheels extra" or will include wheels that will run on 32 and 31.5 mm track.

 

I understand that some (most?) manufacturers will swap them.

 

Edit - Just for avoidance of doubt, G0G-Fine standard. There is a table in the G0G standards which are available to non- members at www.gauge0guild.com/manual/01_1_Standards.pdf. There are various discussions about 31.5 gauge for pointwork, which avoids the dreaded wheel drop, on the Templot and other forums. I'll post a link.

 

 

Best

Simon

[Adrian]

Is there any RTP 0FS though?

 

 

Not that I'm aware of - the closest to RTP would be to use one of the many small suppliers to commission build the pointwork for you - but then they'll be able to build it to Scale7 just as easily as 0-FS!

[Simond]

Link as promised

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/57565-31-mm-312mm-or-315mm-that-is-the-question/

 

Best

Simon

[Kev_Lewis]

I have another question.

 

If I go to a MR show and buy a wagon and the wheels are 0, as I understand it some companies will swap them for 0FS.  So if I go S7 it's all extra purchases I'm guessing?    Not a biggy just want to be sure.

 

If you buy anything RTR in 7mm then it's most definitely going to be 0 gauge right?   I'm doubting there will be 0FS RTR products out there, or is there?

 

 

This is getting a little confusing now, so I will offer my two pennies worth.

 

The three 7mm wheel standards are O coarse scale, O fine scale, and Scale 7. Quite a few people who build their own track do so to the O modified fine (O-MF) standard, but they are still running stock with finescale wheels. It's only the track they're changing.

 

Coarse scale general means older tinplate and more modern Bassett Lowke.

 

If you go to a show and buy a RTR loco or wagon, be it from the likes of Lionheart, Dapol, or Heljan, it will have O finescale wheels. And as far as I'm aware most kit manufacturers that do include wheels supply finescale wheels as standard, but will swap them for the other standards. The majority of kit manufacturers leave you to purchase your own wheels, so these will always be an extra cost. 

 

Hope this helps.

[Simond]

Kev

 

Good point (sorry...) about RTR - I was only thinking about kits.

 

Best

Simon

[MarcD]

To add to the pot on the supply of wheels with kits most manufacturers don't supply wheels with their kits (myself included) because of 2 factors.

 

Firstly, the issue of wheel standards most kits can be built with either of the 3 standards and there is a fair amount of hassle swapping parts out of one kit in to another. There is no great difference in the price I can buy a set of wheels as a business to that which I can get them as a member of the general public. In fact if you live out side of the EU you can actually get them cheaper. Add in to the cost of holding a stock of wheels of 3 different standards would force most manufacturers to increase their prices to cover their increased costs. Meaning the customer would have to pay for the increased cost of having the wheels added to the kit, a surcharge for swapping the wheels out and a charge to cover the cost of holding the extra stock required to allow the swapping. Therefore the cost of a £45 open wagon kit would be effectively increased to about £60 but if no wheels are supplied and the customer gets them the cost would be £45+£9=£54. We came to the conclusion that adding wheels was not cost affective for either the customer or ourselves as a business.  Ironically its the fitting of coarse scale wheels that is the real problem area for clearances but that's a different story. 

 

Secondly, there is the question of the preference of the modeller. There are only a limited number of people who make wheels in any standard. Some people like Slater's, others PECO others Haywood and others Peartree. while the wheels are mechanically the same there appearances are different. Again its just not financially a good idea to hold stocks of all types just in case some one wants to change.

 

I hope this doesn't sound to much like a rant. Most kit manufactures are small businesses, based in the UK, who are run by modellers who are fully aware of the issues faced by the modellers. We do try to keep the costs down as much as possible, but we still need to make some profit from doing it. Not only to feed our families but also, and probably more important for the modelling public, to allow use to bring the next products out. We are unable to compete with mass produced RTR items from China on cost but we can compete with diversity allowing the builder to have to correct wagon, coach or loco not just one that has been painted to look like.

 

Marc