16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[ThePurplePrimer]

This has been a fascinating thread for all sorts of reasons.

 

I am pretty surprised at the thinking the SF is a whole different beast actually.

 

I think it might not be considered at all strange that 16.5 mm OO track might have some gauge widening on very tight curves to allow RTR stock to run more smoothly through it.

 

Gordon S has adopted a very interesting ( to me ) approach where all his flexi track is of 16.5 mm gauge but reduced the gauge ( gauge narrowing ) through only the actual crossing by 0.3 mm - the actual entry and exit of his pointwork is 16.5 mm

 

My understanding is that most 00 stock runs through this setup with no modification or problems.

 

So why is gauge widening accepted as ok and gauge narrowing not ?

 

If Peco had created created a 'Fine' range that joined perfectly with all RTL OO track but narrowed to a narrower flangeway would the reactions to that product be the same ?

 

>>>>

 

The next post down from this corrects an incorrect assumption I made and is important and worth reading.

[gordon s]

Rob, my construction method is only suitable for simple turnouts and won't work with slips or more complex pointwork where 16.2mm would have to be continued through the crossing.  That would present difficulties joining to any other pieces of 16.5mm track.

 

Because any new range will require simple and complex formations, we all accept that 16.2mm gauge would not be suitable for 00 RTR pointwork.  

 

I think the consensus is that DOGA Intermediate would probably be the best solution for any new RTR product.

 

Happy to talk to you in your thread or elsewhere, but to respect Graeme's wish, this thread is only about RTR 16.5mm track.

[hayfield]

How many threads are there about building your own 00-SF where the same people keep posting? See how many 00-SF modellers have replied to my post.

 

See my reply to Martin's post where he twisted what I said.

 

 

Apart form Colin Craig's wonderful kits there is no modern image track available................Peco as we keep being told is H0.

 

 

Now out. You have won. Who cares if we have ready to use 00 track.

 

I am Clive, a 00 modeller. I know it is wrong but I can't help myself.

 

Clive

 

This thread is about 00 gauge classic steam era track, and the poster requested that comments were kept to bullhead track with chairs, still replying to your two posts which could qualify for the end of steam period there is a very good article on one of the Manchester clubs websites showing the verity of stiles of both sleepers and chairs/clips. C&L do provide one of these styles in ready to lay track, as for Colin's wonderful parts range the starter of this post stated comments restricted to ready to lay

 

I have this week been working of some 00 gauge turnouts built to DOGA standards, admittedly last night (at the club) I was overseeing some one building a turnout where the outer ends are being built to 16.5 gauge with the crossing to 16.2 (the club are more interested in both looks and performance). Which camp does this put me in ? I use ready to lay 00 gauge plain track and as Gordon replied if there was better looking plain track then we might use some

[PatB]

Of course, back in the good old days of  FB rail glued to fibre or card sleepers using Evo-Stik or, better yet, Seccotine, you could have the best of all possible worlds, with your gauge varying from a P4esque 18-and-a-bit mm in damp winter conditions, all the way down through EM and 00 to a tight 16-ish mm 00-SF when everything dried out in summer .

[hayfield]

Hi Quentin

 

Spacing of sleepers is wrong and the sleeper shape is incorrect.

 

Clive

 

I think you will find that they are correct for the type of sleeper and fixing being modelled as its the Costain and the engineer who built the moulds is highly thought of, the sleeper spacing is exactly the same as Exactoscale bullhead track which most seem to think looks good in this gauge

[hayfield]

And Clive Mortimore this evening

 

I've said several times in the past that I think that the question of OO track should be decided by modellers actually working in OO, not by those who don't. I'm afraid this thread has demonstrated clearly and at great length why that should be the case

 

Graeme's opening was clear to me - this thread is for discussing ready-made pointwork for OO as traditionally defined - i.e 4mm scale 16.5mm gauge

 

It is not for discussing gauges/standards other than 16.5mm , or hand-built trackwork

 

The thread has been dominated by a tight little knot of very heavy posters who do not work in 16.5mm gauge, but in a different standard of their own, which they have very aggressively promoted on here through many dedicated threads. They do not use ready made pointwork, and are very active in promoting the concept of handbuilding your pointwork . (And I can't help noticing that they don't seem to have built any completed layouts themselves. It seems that a grand total of 3 layouts in OO-SF have ever been completed and exhibited. I think Clive's built and exhibited more than that in the last 15 years)

 

By sheer co-ordinated weight of posting they've managed to drown out and marginalise  the voices of modellers actually working in OO, and have thrown up a great wall of artificial difficulties and irrelevant issues which actual OO modellers are not concerned with

 

Some of the folk posting heavily in this thread don't even model in 4mm scale, never mind to 16.5mm gauge

 

If the postings of those who don't themselves model in 4mm scale/16.5mm gauge were removed from the thread I suspect 75% of the thread would disappear and a reasonable  concensus would rapidly emerge

 

Reavenser

 

I see you have not lost the ability to take the subject of the post way off topic to satisfy your own ends which many cannot understand. 

 

You and others seem more interested is scoring points rather than sit down and try and find a consensus between like minded modellers for the betterment of all, lets face it the DOGA is designed for all like minded 00 gauge modellers and if the society in conjunction with other modellers got together to promote better looking track for 00 gauge from the trade, then all those who are contributing to this thread would be better off.

 

I sometimes think there are a small group of folk who seem to have problems with those who have differing views to theirs, that is not how open forums work or things improve. That's not the issue here, which is in case you have missed it is 00 gauge steam era pointwork, we all can learn from other modellers which ever scale they work in, let alone gauge

[hayfield]

Not at all.

It is plainly the case, as Ravenser says.

 

There are many types of "vested interest" at play here.

 

.

 

Ron Ron Ron

 

I for one would really like better looking 00 gauge 4 mm scale ready to lay becoming available, that's my vested interest along with being interested in trackwork. I like others have put forward my suggestions which I think would progress the argument for better quality items from the trade. I would like to know  what other vested interests I have that affect this thread ?

[hayfield]

^Many have proposed many differing sets of sleeper dimensions, pitch, geometries both REA and not, and almost all of this was constructive. Basically, what's been decided is to match SMP/C&L/Exactoscale for length and width of sleepers.

 

Some have proposed hideous A4 geometries, some have said B8 would be a good 'large' size, Martin has contributed two sizes of turnouts based on GWR loose-hinge geometry to get a larger-looking radius, et cetera ad nauseum.

 

There seems to still be heavy fighting over:

 

flat-bottom vs. bullhead

flexible blades vs. pressed and hinged ones

timber depth

Various non-issues, like the 00-SF "brigade"

 

The other issues stand unresolved, but aren't currently being fought over.

 

Quentin

 

 

Quentin

 

In between the squabbles there has been some good stuff, I thing in general code 75 bullhead with chairs to match steam era. I think though some seem to change their ideas back and forth compatible with SMP, C+L and Exactoscale ready made plain track

 

Where the problem arises is those who want direct replacement for Peco points and crossings footprints and those who would prefer a more radical design. To be quite honest the arguments for both are equally strong and for some enterprising person there is a business opportunity in catering for both camps. Then (going slightly off topic) those modelling the latter steam/diesel era would like better looking/to scale flatbottom track, though in the early years wooden timbers were used on turnouts and crossings, but it still is to the steam era

[t-b-g]

I just thought I would dip in again to see how you good folk are getting on and was astonished to find the same few posters still going round the same circles!

 

You are all very persistent, I will grant you that.

 

Narrowing the gauge on OO track still further has got to be one of the worst bodges going. You have a track gauge that is already too narrow by 2.33mm and what do you do to make it "look better"? You increase that error by a further 0.3mm. Then you don't narrow it all over the layout, so you build track that deliberately has rails that are not parallel. Good engineering or bodge? What do you do about sleepers? Do you make them even shorter, narrower or closer together to disguise the even more out of scale track?

 

I have had the great pleasure of working on an extensive OO gauge layout (one I didn't build the track on) which has been done in 16.5mm with a slightly smaller than normal check rail gap (which achieves the same objective of using 16.2mm gauge). I think it is a 1mm check rail gap but I haven't checked it (another ace pun there!). Modern RTR locos and stock generally have reasonable flange sizes compared to the bad old days (with one or two modern glitches!) and with a very minor tweaking of B 2 B dimensions, everything runs through and it looks great. Tweaking B 2 B takes a matter of a few seconds if you have a correct gauge and a wheel puller tool (like the GW Models one).

 

RTR B 2 B dimensions are a bit hit and miss anyway, as anybody who has taken the trouble to check them when they buy things will tell you. Getting them consistent is as big a factor as anything in getting better running and allowing better looking track with smaller check rail gaps.

 

I do note that nobody has yet shown us their wonderful home made OO track to illustrate what they are telling us all we should do. Or even responded to my suggestion of telling us where they saw the best OO track they have seen, so that we can look at it and decide if we like it.

 

After 48 pages of mostly questionable theory, isn't it time somebody actually showed us what they do instead of telling us what they think we should do? 

[jonny777]

I thought that someone might be interested in this blown up section from a slide I scanned yesterday.

 

It shows an fb turnout connecting with a bh siding somewhere on the network. Sadly the whole of the point does not feature in the shot as the approaching 158 unit was the subject for the photographer.

 

An interesting detail is what appears to be some kind of fishplate joining part of the wing rail? to the left hand curving turnout rail.

 

 

[gordon s]

And Clive Mortimore this evening

 

I've said several times in the past that I think that the question of OO track should be decided by modellers actually working in OO, not by those who don't. I'm afraid this thread has demonstrated clearly and at great length why that should be the case

 

Graeme's opening was clear to me - this thread is for discussing ready-made pointwork for OO as traditionally defined - i.e 4mm scale 16.5mm gauge

 

It is not for discussing gauges/standards other than 16.5mm , or hand-built trackwork

 

The thread has been dominated by a tight little knot of very heavy posters who do not work in 16.5mm gauge, but in a different standard of their own, which they have very aggressively promoted on here through many dedicated threads. They do not use ready made pointwork, and are very active in promoting the concept of handbuilding your pointwork . (And I can't help noticing that they don't seem to have built any completed layouts themselves. It seems that a grand total of 3 layouts in OO-SF have ever been completed and exhibited. I think Clive's built and exhibited more than that in the last 15 years)

 

By sheer co-ordinated weight of posting they've managed to drown out and marginalise  the voices of modellers actually working in OO, and have thrown up a great wall of artificial difficulties and irrelevant issues which actual OO modellers are not concerned with

 

Some of the folk posting heavily in this thread don't even model in 4mm scale, never mind to 16.5mm gauge

 

If the postings of those who don't themselves model in 4mm scale/16.5mm gauge were removed from the thread I suspect 75% of the thread would disappear and a reasonable  concensus would rapidly emerge

 

 

As far as I'm aware those of us modelling in 00 but building 00-SF pointwork have respected Graeme's wish from the outset and have not mentioned 00-SF as we know only too well, how quickly hackles rise amongst traditional 16.5mm gauge users.

 

Unfortunately the same respect has not been reciprocated, with numerous suggestions of hidden agendas or the 00-SF brigade as though we were an organised gang rather than a bunch of modellers who want to share the enjoyment of this hobby of ours.  In all the years I have been modelling, I have not met one other modeller who builds in 00-SF so I have no idea where this idea of a militant bunch comes from.

 

I can't speak for others, but one of the points in your post was right. 75% of my posts could have been avoided had I not chosen to respond to totally unsubstantiated remarks re hidden agendas, Martin's mates and the 00-SF brigade.  It's time consuming and does nothing to move this thread forward.  It might help if comments such as those were no longer used and all were made welcome in the thread.  Who knows, someone might just come up with a good proposal that many might find acceptable.

 

What still appears to be missing is recognition that even though some of us choose to build our own track, that does not mean RTR track is of no interest.  Building your own pointwork is time consuming and there is no reason why RTR pointwork cannot be used in storage/fiddle yards and as such we could also be customers for any new product.

 

In the interests of all, can we stop the negative comments and accept we all share the joy of modelling in 4mm.

[t-b-g]

I thought that someone might be interested in this blown up section from a slide I scanned yesterday.

 

It shows an fb turnout connecting with a bh siding somewhere on the network. Sadly the whole of the point does not feature in the shot as the approaching 158 unit was the subject for the photographer.

 

An interesting detail is what appears to be some kind of fishplate joining part of the wing rail? to the left hand curving turnout rail.

 

 

158816 1994.jpg

 

I am no expert on flat bottom track but I would suggest that rather than a fishplate it is the heads of bolts plus washers that go through the crossing nose to hold it all together.

[coachmann]

I fully concur with Ravenser, whose post came as a breath of fresh air this morning when I switched on RMweb. Someone said we all have our own viewpoint, so I chuckled when quite a number of posters following Ravenser's said they disliked his viewpoint!  

 

We know from history (at least as regards this forum) that many people dislike building things and so when this thread started they must have thought it was an opportunity to say that they would like the best possible point to match anything a professional would construct, but at ready-to-plonk prices. This is merely an extension of RTR locos, which these days allow everybody to own super-detailed models that were once the province of those wealthy enough ot employ professional builders and painters. When this thread started I took it to imply we were wanting something that is as convenient as a Peco point with chairs.

[Semi Fast]

So, let me get this right....

 

I buy rolling stock labelled as "00" and use it without modification - but I am not an 00 modeller.

I use 16.5mm plain track - but I am not an 00 modeller.

I also model in another gauge/scale combination - so I can't be an 00 modeller.

I would appreciate a range of RTL pointwork that matches the fidelity of the RTR stock I can buy and doesn't follow existing commercial geometry - so I can't be an 00 modeller.

i will be using 4-sf standards where I build my own pointwork (to run my unmodified 00 stock on) - so I can't be an 00 modeller.

I enjoy the debate typified by this thread - so I can't be an 00 modeller.

I have a sense of humour, believe in compromise and love to learn - so I can't be an 00 modeller.

I understand that the world changes and moves on - so I can't be an 00 modeller.

 

I have to confess, it's true.  I am the author of the Hidden Agenda.  I am the Generalissimo of the 4-SF Brigade.  Martin is my bestest friend.  My aim is to rule the 4mm world (excluding P4, S4, EM, 00-9).  Everybody will be forced to adopt 4-sf representing a 4ft and a tad prototype.  Rtl track will be banned!  Garibaldi biscuits will be outlawed!  Beer will be free!!  No, no.  Don't take me away, please!  I don't want to take my tablets.....

[Oakydoke]

.

What still appears to be missing is recognition that even though some of us choose to build our own track, that does not mean RTR track is of no interest.  Building your own pointwork is time consuming and there is no reason why RTR pointwork cannot be used in storage/fiddle yards and as such we could also be customers for any new product.

So are you are saying that you're in favour of better 00 track/turnouts, but it would only be good enough to hide away in storage/fiddle yards?

That comes across like a " some of my best friends are bl**k" type comment to me.

I hope you didn't mean it that way Gordon?

[coachmann]

So are you are saying that you're in favour of better 00 track/turnouts, but it would only be good enough to hide away in storage/fiddle yards?

That comes across like a " some of my best friends are bl**k" type comment to me.

I hope you didn't mean it that way Gordon?

 

    

[HeeleyBridge]

This thread makes me want to go and bang my head too. I think I'll go back to watching Thomas videos with my three year old grandson, he's better company.

[Oakydoke]

 

Hang on Coachman, I think you got the wrong end of the stick.

I just thought that sentence was at variance with what appeared to be the sentiment of the rest of that post.

[gordon s]

I just thought I would dip in again to see how you good folk are getting on and was astonished to find the same few posters still going round the same circles!

 

You are all very persistent, I will grant you that.

 

Narrowing the gauge on OO track still further has got to be one of the worst bodges going. You have a track gauge that is already too narrow by 2.33mm and what do you do to make it "look better"? You increase that error by a further 0.3mm. Then you don't narrow it all over the layout, so you build track that deliberately has rails that are not parallel. Good engineering or bodge? What do you do about sleepers? Do you make them even shorter, narrower or closer together to disguise the even more out of scale track?

 

I have had the great pleasure of working on an extensive OO gauge layout (one I didn't build the track on) which has been done in 16.5mm with a slightly smaller than normal check rail gap (which achieves the same objective of using 16.2mm gauge). I think it is a 1mm check rail gap but I haven't checked it (another ace pun there!). Modern RTR locos and stock generally have reasonable flange sizes compared to the bad old days (with one or two modern glitches!) and with a very minor tweaking of B 2 B dimensions, everything runs through and it looks great. Tweaking B 2 B takes a matter of a few seconds if you have a correct gauge and a wheel puller tool (like the GW Models one).

 

RTR B 2 B dimensions are a bit hit and miss anyway, as anybody who has taken the trouble to check them when they buy things will tell you. Getting them consistent is as big a factor as anything in getting better running and allowing better looking track with smaller check rail gaps.

 

I do note that nobody has yet shown us their wonderful home made OO track to illustrate what they are telling us all we should do. Or even responded to my suggestion of telling us where they saw the best OO track they have seen, so that we can look at it and decide if we like it.

 

After 48 pages of mostly questionable theory, isn't it time somebody actually showed us what they do instead of telling us what they think we should do? 

 

Best 00 track I have seen.  Tony Wright's Little Bytham or Gilbert's Peterborough North.

 

 

So are you are saying that you're in favour of better 00 track/turnouts, but it would only be good enough to hide away in storage/fiddle yards?

That comes across like a " some of my best friends are bl**k" type comment to me.

I hope you didn't mean it that way Gordon?

 

Please take a look at Gilbert's Peterborough North or Tony Wright's Little Bytham.

 

Gilbert, I know uses Peco in his storage yard and I can't confirm for certain, but I suspect Tony does the same.

 

Please see the pic in Post 738.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page-30

 

Perhaps you would you like to ask those two well respected modellers the same question?

 

 

Edit:  See this picture. Post 757.

 

I'm disappointed you had to ask me that question.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page-31

[Grovenor]

I am no expert on flat bottom track but I would suggest that rather than a fishplate it is the heads of bolts plus washers that go through the crossing nose to hold it all together.

The fishplate is a fishplate, it will most likely be an insulated one, otherwise the curved closure rail would short out the track circuit.

There are also through bolts holding the crossing together.

Regards

[LNER4479]

Please take a look at Gilbert's Peterborough North or Tony Wright's Little Bytham.

 

Gilbert, I know uses Peco in his storage yard and I can't confirm for certain, but I suspect Tony does the same.

 

He does indeed. Code 100 to boot.

[Oakydoke]

I'm disappointed you had to ask me that question.

 

I apologise if you took offence.

I simply thought there was a certain ambiguity in your post. On the one hand supporting the cause for better 00 track, but on the other hand appearing to suggest any such "better track" would still only be worthy of hidden area status, just like the Peco track in those photos you have linked to.

I'm sure most people would agree that carefully built track will always be visually superior, but the issue here is about the sort of RTL track that is used front of stage, not what's used off scene.

Have I misunderstood you?

[ThePurplePrimer]

I think I have learnt more from this thread than any other on here

 

The most interesting things I have learnt is about people though and not track

[gordon s]

I apologise if you took offence.

I simply thought there was a certain ambiguity in your post. On the one hand supporting the cause for better 00 track, but on the other hand appearing to suggest any such "better track" would still only be worthy of hidden area status, just like the Peco track in those photos you have linked to.

I'm sure most people would agree that carefully built track will always be visually superior, but the issue here is about the sort of RTL track that is used front of stage, not what's used off scene.

Have I misunderstood you?

 

 

Thank you for your apology.  Yes, I did take offence initially, but know how easy it is for posts to be misconstrued, so was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

The point I was making was that you only need to stroll around some of the larger exhibitions and time and time again you will see a stunning layout using hand built pointwork on the show side with Peco in the hidden areas. I have no problem with this at all as it save a considerable amount of time during the construction phase.  It may also be a case that exhibition layouts take a hammering over the years and it's far easier to drop in an off the shelf product than wait for your track guy to build a new one.

 

As such an improved product based around DOGA Intermediate would be a huge step forward for everyone concerned, not just modellers who use Peco throughout.

 

Sadly those of us who fall into the former situation appear to be unwelcome in this discussion and that is wrong.  Graeme made that point very clear in his opening post and as such I have respected his view, unless asked a specific question or responding to something that was stated without substance.

 

I would love to hear from world renowned 00 modellers using Peco in fiddle/storage yards to understand why they made that choice and how they believe the product could be improved.

[Mike Riley]

I have had the great pleasure of working on an extensive OO gauge layout (one I didn't build the track on) which has been done in 16.5mm with a slightly smaller than normal check rail gap (which achieves the same objective of using 16.2mm gauge). I think it is a 1mm check rail gap but I haven't checked it (another ace pun there!). Modern RTR locos and stock generally have reasonable flange sizes compared to the bad old days (with one or two modern glitches!) and with a very minor tweaking of B 2 B dimensions, everything runs through and it looks great. Tweaking B 2 B takes a matter of a few seconds if you have a correct gauge and a wheel puller tool (like the GW Models one).

 

 

This is true for push-fit wheels but many of us use Romford/Markits drivers where it is difficult or impossible to reset the b-t-b.  1mm flangeways require 14.8mm b-t-b.  It might be nice if Markits produced an axle for this standard as they do for EM.  If we stick to 14.5mm b-t-b then we need 1.25mm flangeways which I think is what Peco code 75 have.  Or 00-FS of course but I feel reluctant to narrow an already narrow gauge.

 

Mike