C&L Finescale

[Blandford1969]

Hi Duncan,

 

If you want to mix kit wheels and RTR wheels on the same track I strongly recommend that you go for 00-SF on 16.2mm rather than 16.5mm.

 

those who have actually tried 00-SF report excellent results. Many 00-SF users combine 16.2mm for the pointwork with 16.5mm flexi-track. Gauges for 00-SF are available from C&L, but you need to specifically order them and not their standard 00 gauges.

 

If you use the Markits gauges on 16.5mm, the RTR models will be fine. But those with kit wheels are likely to be bumpy running through the crossings (frogs).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martyn that explains it perfectly, I have read my way through some of the explanations, but that just helps me know where to go

 

Duncan

 

In reverse order, C&L are fine a simple order followed by a telephone call will set the ball in motion and your parts will normally follow in a few days. Do check items are in stock as this may hold up deliveries, I put an order into Alan Gibson a week ago, one item needs milling and I forgot to ask for in stock items to be sent and a second set of postage taken to cover the set of frames. Small traders cannot be expected to subsidise postage !!

 

As for the gauges you need ones where the head of the rail rotates in the slot, though gauge narrowing may not adversely affect running with 00 gauge

That's good to know, wonder why then prices are so high on Ebay, never mind

 

 

Just a quick observation from me, but as I'm prepared to build my own track then I'm also comfortable with the idea of regauging my stock to suit. If I really wanted to just run RTR as is, then I certainly wouldn't be thinking about building my own track but would just work with whatever Peco or other RTR track manufacturers produce.

The honest answer is while confident to build stock, track and buildings the thought of re gauging fills me with dread as to where to start, how to do it. Its not something I've seen written down. The other reason is wanting to do is to do this justice  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67469-west-moors-station/ and to scale, which ready to run track just will not do. It does not matter if it takes years to do 

 

Best wishes

Duncan

[davknigh]

Hi David,

 

The existing DOGA-Intermediate, 00-BF, and NMRA H0 standards are all essentially the same, and work fine with existing Bachmann and Hornby RTR models. There is no reason to change anything. You are simply adding to the confusion.

 

The problems arise because:

 

1. some 00 modellers like to use kit wheels in addition to RTR wheels. Kit wheels generally fall within or near to the RP25/88 standard, and are too narrow to work well on the above standards.

 

2. DOGA introduced a Fine 00 standard which required wheel back-to-backs to be modified, and worse than that C&L supplied gauges to this standard in their 00 track kits without telling users that they wouldn't work with RTR wheels as supplied.

 

None of these issues need affect anyone if they 1. stick to using RTR wheels, and 2. build track using the DOGA-Intermediate gauges (available from DOGA) or 00-BF gauges (available from Markits), and 3. don't go anywhere near DOGA-Fine.

 

That way they won't be frightened off from trying handbuilt 00 track, and it will work. The options available if wanting also to use kit wheels can be explored later.

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin,

 

Sorry if I confused matters, I’ll just stay with HO and P4 as suits my mood and avoid all the fuss :-)

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Ian J.]

...the thought of re gauging fills me with dread as to where to start, how to do it. Its not something I've seen written down...

 

Well, the main tool required for the job would be a wheel puller of some kind. I have a couple of Fohrmann ones, like on their main wheel tools page: https://www.fohrmann.com/en/mini-wheel-puller-h0.html and https://www.fohrmann.com/en/wheel-spacer.html. Of course, they are doing something that the the likes of Bachmann and Hornby didn't intend on their models, so 'your mileage may vary' as to the results, but I've found them good for the job in most cases.

[martin_wynne]

Just a quick observation from me, but as I'm prepared to build my own track then I'm also comfortable with the idea of regauging my stock to suit. If I really wanted to just run RTR as is, then I certainly wouldn't be thinking about building my own track but would just work with whatever Peco or other RTR track manufacturers produce.

 

That's fine if you are starting from scratch. But not everyone is in that happy position, or wanting to return to it. Also, starting from scratch with a full set of modelmaking skills is a rare occurrence.

 

Regauging stock is fairly straightforward if you are talking about a 4-wheel wagon (but not necessarily if you have 100 of them). Regauging a diesel locomotive is doable for most. Regauging a steam locomotive with outside valve gear very definitely requires considerably greater skill than building a few simple turnouts.

 

Also, if you regauge your stock it will no longer run on Peco track on your existing layout or friends' layouts. It is an all or nothing process. Whereas you can leave your stock unmodified and try building some pointwork, possibly to augment Peco track on the same layout. Any of DOGA-Intermediate, 00-BF, NMRA H0, 00-SF, let you you use your existing stock that way and can be built into a layout which also contains Peco track or any pointwork built to any other of them.

 

DOGA-Fine is the odd one out which is all or nothing and a one-way street. For no obvious benefit at all.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Well, the main tool required for the job would be a wheel puller of some kind. I have a couple of Fohrmann ones, like on their main wheel tools page: https://www.fohrmann.com/en/mini-wheel-puller-h0.html and https://www.fohrmann.com/en/wheel-spacer.html. Of course, they are doing something that the the likes of Bachmann and Hornby didn't intend on their models, so 'your mileage may vary' as to the results, but I've found them good for the job in most cases.

 

 

Ian

 

If you are going to all that trouble. in my opinion moving to EM gauge would be a far better bet

 

There are a group of modellers in 00 gauge who would like track looking just as good as the locos and stock they now buy, but for a variety of reasons wish to keep the gauge to 16.5 (or there about). In addition those who buy and build wagons and coaches from kits using better quality wheels that either come with the kits or on sale to use with them wanting to use them with said RTR stock

 

If you went out with the sole purpose of confusing people you would be hard pressed to think up a worse system

 

What was needed was an organisation to whom both modellers and trade turn to where workable standards were agreed and adhered to, The trouble now is the millions of items which are in circulation with what would be incompatible wheel standards. 

 

Sadly there is no correct one fits all answer and until track building becomes mainstream there will be a lukewarm response from the trade

[Junctionmad]

well there is a solution , 00-SF  , runs kit and RTR , wheels supported through the crossing , looks better then RTR track .... Ill take my coat now......

[hayfield]

Just had a chat with Phil and have a couple of bits of news from C&L

 

Code 82 flatbottom rail will be available in about 2 weeks time

 

Work on the website was to do with the email system, which hopefully will sort out the earlier issue with emails dissapearing

 

There is also one revised and one new product on the horizon which Phil hopes to launch at Warley

 

Also had a chat about the Exactoscale situation, whilst Phil is out of the link now and has no information about the details regarding distribution, but he was a surprised about the statement relating to the pricing structure. Still nothing to do with him now and certainly in the short term the limited distribution is a benefit to him.

 

Will be interesting to see how the C&L stand operates (hopefully more efficiently) without Exactoscale

[Buhar]

John (Hayfield) I've found your posts on this thread invariably helpful both in respect of forwarding information about C&L and track building generally. Thank you.

[hayfield]

John (Hayfield) I've found your posts on this thread invariably helpful both in respect of forwarding information about C&L and track building generally. Thank you.

 

 

Buhar

 

Thank you, as far as track building goes most of what I have learnt is either from RMweb members or Martin and Templot members, both groups thankfully think knowledge is there to be shared. Also I do spend time watching others at shows demonstrating track building and if the demonstrator is not busy I have a chat

 

As for C&L, I have been a direct customer for over 10 years and became friends with Peter LLewelyn when he bought the business from Brian, through Watford & District MRC met Len Newman (designer of both C&L and Exactoscale systems), sadly towards the latter part of his career. And met Phil when he took over Peters larger stand, I also help Phil out at shows close to home as doing a 2 day show on your own is very difficult and tiring, also it keeps my hand in with the customers. Also hopefully I can try and keep some balance to some of the posts also help out where possible, one man bands find it difficult to compete on service standards offered by larger concerns, and sometimes struggle when things get tough. 

[Ian J.]

Ian

 

If you are going to all that trouble. in my opinion moving to EM gauge would be a far better bet

 

There are a group of modellers in 00 gauge who would like track looking just as good as the locos and stock they now buy, but for a variety of reasons wish to keep the gauge to 16.5 (or there about). In addition those who buy and build wagons and coaches from kits using better quality wheels that either come with the kits or on sale to use with them wanting to use them with said RTR stock

 

If you went out with the sole purpose of confusing people you would be hard pressed to think up a worse system

 

What was needed was an organisation to whom both modellers and trade turn to where workable standards were agreed and adhered to, The trouble now is the millions of items which are in circulation with what would be incompatible wheel standards. 

 

Sadly there is no correct one fits all answer and until track building becomes mainstream there will be a lukewarm response from the trade

 

I have the understanding that the wheel thickness on RTR wheels is not suitable for gauging out to 18.2mm, so I would have to replace almost all wheels on my stock, something I am unprepared to do. As such DOGA-Fine is probably eminently suitable for me as I'm not interested in running my stock on other people's track (certainly not on standard RTR) and with the back-to-back eased out the running is definitely improved, though curves have of course to be no less than about three feet radius.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Ian J.

[martin_wynne]

I have the understanding that the wheel thickness on RTR wheels is not suitable for gauging out to 18.2mm, so I would have to replace almost all wheels on my stock, something I am unprepared to do. As such DOGA-Fine is probably eminently suitable for me as I'm not interested in running my stock on other people's track (certainly not on standard RTR) and with the back-to-back eased out the running is definitely improved, though curves have of course to be no less than about three feet radius.

 

Hi Ian,

 

Modern RTR wheels (RP25/110) work fine on EM, provided you set the back-to-back to 16.4mm, not the usual 16.5mm for EM.

 

Increasing the back-to-back by 0.3mm has exactly the same effect on running as reducing the track gauge by 0.3mm. For example using 16.2mm 00-SF instead of 16.5mm.

 

Generally it is always better to modify the track to fit the wheels, rather than the other way round. That way the wheels remain interchangeable on all layouts. With no risk of damage to RTR models, no voiding of guarantee, no effect on resale value.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ian J.]

Hi Ian,

 

Modern RTR wheels (RP25/110) work fine on EM, provided you set the back-to-back to 16.4mm, not the usual 16.5mm for EM.

 

Increasing the back-to-back by 0.3mm has exactly the same effect on running as reducing the track gauge by 0.3mm. For example using 16.2mm 00-SF instead of 16.5mm.

 

Generally it is always better to modify the track to fit the wheels, rather than the other way round. That way the wheels remain interchangeable on all layouts. With no risk of damage to RTR models, no voiding of guarantee, no effect on resale value.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I understand the arguments for leaving as is and going SF, but I'm happy with my choice, and I'm not as such bothered about voiding of guarantees or resale value, and any damage I do in the process of changing the gauge is something I'm prepared to accept.

 

Edit: also, a fair amount of my stock is pre-RP25/110 standard, so would require wheel replacement for EM.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Ian J.

[hayfield]

Ian

 

Each to their own and if you want to follow a certain route then no body has the right to challenge your decision. This is though a superb example of all that is wrong with 00 gauge standards

 

Certainly the quality of models has moved on apace, sadly we are left with a bit of a mish mash with track standards, which in truth we need as most keep earlier models with coarser standard wheels, compounded with modern manufacturers not agreeing on a universal finer standard. Further affected by the wheels produced for the kit builder.

 

Thoughts on gauge stirs up a lot of emotions, lets face it modern RTR products are usually of a quality of detail few can emulate. The one thing that lets down these models is that the gauge  used is too narrow and the wheels could be a bit finer. Then these models could truly be called scale models

 

If the modeller wants track to complement these models then it stands to reason that these companies should be producing scale track, would we as modellers accept now buying for instance a highly detailed A3, then plonk a rake of Hornby Dublo 2 rail tin plate coaches behind it. The answer is clearly no but we are happy to use track which has its design and standards firmly routed in that era.

 

There is a growing demand from modellers for better looking track and to be quite honest there should be a matrix where a modeller could follow which can guide them through the pro's and con's of each alternative. But in the end in most cases it will be easier to put up with things as they are. There will be others wanting to go that extra step as they know they will never be happy with the compromise.

[sharris]

The answer is clearly no but we are happy to use track which has its design and standards firmly routed in that era.

 

.

 

When I had my first railway in the 70s I had a mixture of Super 4 track from the 1960s and the more modern 1970s System 6. It is ironic that in the 1960s the sleeper spacing was approximately right, and then it got very wrong with the improved System 6 to match Peco track in the 70s. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by sharris

[hayfield]

When I had my first railway in the 70s I had a mixture of Super 4 track from the 1960s and the more modern 1970s System 6. It is ironic that in the 1960s the sleeper spacing was approximately right, and then it got very wrong with the improved System 6 to match Peco track in the 70s. 

 

 

There were also other track manufacturers like GEM and Formway and Peco's own initial track was to 4 mm scale, certainly 4 mm scale timbers though both being a generic design based on radii, code 100 track and coarse scale standards. I can understand Peco wanting a bit of the USA and Continental Markets using H0 track, but given the longevity of moulds and their life span and initial additional cost would soon be recouped. Still that's all history and C&L may come up with a surprise or two in the future

[Porcy Mane]

Still that's all history and C&L may come up with a surprise or two in the future

 

Sort of like a 00 track & turnout system to rival Peco Bullhead?  

[hayfield]

Phil made a statement when he took over C&L that he would like to be able to offer additional track building scales to the products on offer and to develop the range, both being dependant on working capital being available to fund stock acquisition and product development, From memory 2 mm scale parts are now available, and restocking of code 82 is awaiting delivery. There is also something in the pipeline which hopefully will be announced or even available for Warley, but details will follow when appropriate   

[Junctionmad]

I don’t get fussed about wheel and track standards , if you think OO is bad try O , and find the same mess , it’s simple really

 

In OO you have a couple of choices

 

DOGA intermediate , and accept wheel drop

DOGA fine , and change you wheels / and or B2B , arguably a worthless move because you might as well go EM

OO-SF which produces a very acceptable compromise if you wish to stay in the OO camp

 

In my view , speaking as someone who is a scalefour member , and has built P4 track , it’s quite a lot of work to convert to that track standard and in many cases the gains over EM are small and issues can be large

 

Bemoaning where RTR is re track and the continuation of using HO track is a useless activity , the reality is that something like SF pointwork and chaired bullhead plain track 00 rail, like the new PECO , can produce track that upon inspection ( and after careful ballastingband weathering etc) by the ordinary “ eye” , looks very good indeed

 

Dave

Edited September 7, 2018 by Junctionmad

[RichardS]

I do like the idea of a matrix of data which could be pinned to the start of all the threads discussing this subject. Then when anybody wishes to reinvent/rediscover/rekindle the debate for whatever reason - perhaps they've given up discussing improvements to the wheel - an automatic process automatically (!) opens a window with that matrix in it. This would also mean Martin, John and others could be released from the asylum they must feel they inhabit.

 

Dave (junctionmad) has it about right I feel although the fourth option of doing nothing and using any 16.5mm ready made track you like needs to be included.

 

And with that I shall go off and contunue my plans for 18.5mm gauge E4S (OO+2).

[martin_wynne]

And with that I shall go off and continue my plans for 18.5mm gauge E4S (OO+2).

 

Hi Richard,

 

Would you like me to add that to Templot? We already have EM-SF, EM-18, EM, and EM4.

 

I agree that the fuss about 00 standards is overdone. The matrix has only 2 entries:

__________________

 

1. Using ONLY RTR wheels straight out of the box?

 

   Use DOGA-Intermediate / 00-BF / NMRA-H0 which are all much the same thing and interchangeable.

 

   RTR means Ready-To-Run -- Hornby, Bachmann, etc.

__________________

 

2. Using kit wheels, or kit wheels and RTR wheels together, or prefer the improved appearance of narrower flangeway gaps?

 

    Use 00-SF.  RTR wheels may need checking back-to-backs for occasional rogue wheelsets. For RTR wheels the back-to-back should be 14.4mm.

 

    Kit wheels means Romford/Markits, Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, EMGS, etc.

__________________

 

3. All the other options are for established 00 modellers who know what they are doing and don't need a matrix.

 

Martin.

[Lecorbusier]

OO-SF which produces a very acceptable compromise if you wish to stay in the OO camp

 

.... the reality is that something like SF pointwork and chaired bullhead plain track 00 rail, like the new PECO , can produce track that upon inspection ( and after careful ballastingband weathering etc) by the ordinary “ eye” , looks very good indeed

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Tony Wright's Little Bytham (recently featured in the MR Journal) uses 00-SF. He certainly uses Romford wheels on his kit built stock and some Gibson wheels, and visitors certainly bring there RTR stock which would appear to run very well on the layout. If it is 00-SF and anyone is interested in how good this can look when well laid and ballasted (not to mention the quality of the scenic modelling), the trackwork regularly appears on his thread "Wright writes". Might be worth taking a look.

[polybear]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Tony Wright's Little Bytham (recently featured in the MR Journal) uses 00-SF. He certainly uses Romford wheels on his kit built stock and some Gibson wheels, and visitors certainly bring there RTR stock which would appear to run very well on the layout. If it is 00-SF and anyone is interested in how good this can look when well laid and ballasted (not to mention the quality of the scenic modelling), the trackwork regularly appears on his thread "Wright writes". Might be worth taking a look.

 

Not 00-sf; Tony has described it as "00 Fine" - though what standards are actually used I'm unsure.  HTH

[Lecorbusier]

Not 00-sf; Tony has described it as "00 Fine" - though what standards are actually used I'm unsure.  HTH

It would be interesting to know what '00 Fine' is.

 

I think it was a portion of the Little Bytham trackwork that we see Norman Solomon laying in his right track DVD on track building - come what may, the layout would appear to run both standard RTR and finescale kit wheels equally well. I will ask Tony for clarification.

[RichardS]

Hi Richard,

 

Would you like me to add that to Templot? We already have EM-SF, EM-18, EM, and EM4.

 

Martin.

 

 

Aww, thank you Martin, but I must admit I'm not quite ready to launch yet. You'll have noted that as yet I haven't specified which OO criteria I shall add the 2mm to. I thought I might canvass opinions on various forums before making the final decision...…………………..

[Lecorbusier]

I have had this clarification from Tony Wright ....

 

 

I'll do my best...................

 

Norman Solomon made and laid the scenic-side trackwork using C&L components for points/crossings and SMP plain trackwork. He used jigs and gauges and the crossings were made to (what I believe) the old BRMSB 'finescale' standards. That's with a b-t-b of 14.5mm.  

 

Standard and RP25 Romford/Markits/Jackson wheels run perfectly through this, though, to a lesser extent, Gibson rolling stock wheels. The Gibson wheels have a finer flange and narrower tread, though they can work. Where they 'fail' is not so much due to flange depth or wheel treads, but in going out of gauge, tyres coming off and their being eccentric. I'm told this isn't the case now, but my views are born of experience in the past. The Gibson wheels are far less happy running over the Peco track in the fiddle yard, anyway. As for friction-fit drivers of any kind - no thanks!

 

RTR? Since I change all carrying wheels and rolling stock wheels to Romford/Markits/Jackson, I cannot comment on how well (or badly) the RTR wheels run, except, once more, my prejudice against them is born of past experience. Very often, RTR loco driving wheels have had the b-t-bs increased, because they're too tight at source.