Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[JohnR]

52 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

@John R

 

Hi John,

 

The only soldering on the Finetrax kits is to add the dropper wires, which is just the same as wiring flexible track. The rails are all prepared and slide into the base.

 

Martin (no connection).

 

 

And still, 95% of modellers in OO will have no wish to assemble them. I'm sure that if Wayne got even a fraction of that remaining 5% he's be a very happy man. 

[Ravenser]

50 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

@Ravenser

 

Which makes me wonder why you dragged me into it?

 

Martin.

 

 

With the greatest respect, you've show a considerable reluctance to remove yourself from it.

 

You and Hayfield are now the second and third heaviest posters in the thread...

 

It was Enterprisingwestern wot did it, halfway down P6 on 24/4:

 

Quote

Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly OO gauge?

 

Mike.

 

I commented that this was more about your hostilitIy to standards and desire for multiple gauges and track standards , and mentioned your name. Specifically I mentioned you'd recently invented two new standards for OO that no-one asked for, and probably nobody works to , and put them in Templot

 

It's unlikely  anyone can discuss what's in Templot without happening to mention your name. Especially when discussing two new standards you've recently invented.

 

I certainly didn't conjure up Hayfield..... He was busy attempting to puh the Johnster to rebuild his layout with hand-built track , when that clearly wasn't what he wanted. And the Johnster pointed that out himself...

 

 

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Ravenser

 

I didn't mention Marcway soldered pointwork.

 

I

 

No, I did . The main issue is occasional problems with closure on one or two points , caused by using Tortoise's far too flexible wire on one point motor, and ordering a single slip built to Peco footprint, where the blades are very short and therefore stiff.

 

The one error - the point leading into that back road - simply demonstrates that even a very experienced builder , far better than I will ever be , can and does make mistakes..

 

 

The wagon is for the Boxfile - it's posed for photographic purposes. A lockdown project, reconstructing a kit bought in my early teens and long dumped in a box

Edited May 2, 2022 by Ravenser

[martin_wynne]

It was Enterprisingwestern wot did it, halfway down P6 on 24/4:

"Whilst I agree with your comments, have you seen how many differing "standards" there are on Templot for what is allegedly 00 gauge?"

I commented that this was more about your hostility to standards and desire for multiple gauges and track standards, and mentioned your name. Specifically I mentioned you'd recently invented two new standards for 00 that no-one asked for, and probably nobody works to, and put them in Templot. It's unlikely  anyone can discuss what's in Templot without happening to mention your name. Especially when discussing two new standards you've recently invented.

@Ravenser

 

If this is not a topic about hand-built track, why mention Templot at all?

 

Have you ever used Templot? I suspect not. The gauge list in Templot is simply a list of convenient pre-sets, not track standards. I add as many as I think might be useful.

 

In Templot you can set any scale you like, any track gauge, any crossing flangeway, any timber size, any timber spacing, any timbering style, any rail width, flat-bottom or bullhead, any double-track spacing, and dozens of other options.

 

The gauge list simply provides a list of usable gauge/scale combinations as a convenience to users to save them needing to enter those details separately. It also gives each one a unique name so that it can be referred to in discussions without confusion. Whether anyone is actually using any of one of them at any given time is neither here nor there.

 

But just to repeat -- the Templot program is my hobby project. I can put anything I damn well like in it. Just as you can put anything you like on your hobby project layout.

 

Templot is available free for anyone else to use if they wish. Or not if they don't.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

55 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

 

@Ravenser

 

If this is not a topic about hand-built track, why mention Templot at all?

 

.....

 

The gauge list simply provides a list of usable gauge/scale combinations as a convenience to users to save them needing to enter those details separately. It also gives each one a unique name so that it can be referred to in discussions without confusion. Whether anyone is actually using any of one of them at any given time is neither here nor there.

 

But just to repeat -- the Templot program is my hobby project. I can put anything I damn well like in it. Just as you can put anything you like on your hobby project layout.

 

 

An EM modeller cited Templot as evidence that OO gauge was highly fragmented.  Your beef is with him.

 

I said that was a mistaken impression - you had simply "put anything I damn well like in it"

 

Another picture of newbryford's Deadman's Lane at Ally Pally, looking the other way

 

Lots of one off Network Rail technical vehicles, extensively converted from RTR

 

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Kevin

 

I seem to remember quite a few quotes stating this over the past few months or longer. And as for buying new RTR stock there are as many collectors as modellers out there if not more, then you have the toy train marked, all of a sudden the number of enthusiasts who want a better looking and performing track looks quite small

It matters not one jolt as to whether those that 'collect' want a 'better looking track'. At best they want a few lengths to display stuff on it - assuming that's what some do, have it on display for a few weeks, then swap for something else.

Not everyone who 'collects', just leaves the boxed contents on a dusty shelf for years on end.

 

The code 100 vs. other codes is a rhetorical question. Peco probably know the answer, but why would they release that information? It wouldn't improve overall sales at all. Whether anyone likes it not, apart from branded set track (Hornby/Bachmann), Peco's biggest competitor is Peco themselves!

 

I doubt whether Peco care about the difference if a sold code 75 point, is built into a layout and a code 100 one sits in a pack for a decade or more, or vice versa, as long as it is sold!

 

A competitor to BRM magazine, has a lot of 'how to' detailing scenic parts of layouts, often enhancing existing layouts, but they are almost always code 100 and this is from in house scenic modellers, who have similar articles on a 4 week basis - 13 issues a year, not 12!

Edited May 3, 2022 by kevinlms
More info

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 hours ago, Ravenser said:

An EM modeller cited Templot as evidence that OO gauge was highly fragmented.  Your beef is with him.

 

I don't think Martin has "a beef" with me, I wasn't inferring anything as to the efficacy or otherwise of Templot, my comment, (which you have managed to take completely out of context, you're not a Republican politician are you?), was simply referring to the thrust of the thread about differing "standards", and, as has been proved by the heated discussions about the subject, Templot is as good a place as any to find a set of dimensions which vary, within which people pick their preferred numbers.

 

Mike.

[hayfield]

17 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Hayfield - nobody knows the proportion of code 100 buyers

 

Peco aren't saying. Nor do we know if ther are more collectors than modellers out there.

 

There are certainly people who keep buying stock far beyond their realistic needs - which they intend to run oneday.

 

I really question whether the vtoy train market exists in a big way . Hornby themselves say that the bulk of their sales are to adults

 

Your argument has been overtaken by reality . There are now ready made track items with British 4mm sleepering on sale in most m,odel shops, or promised imminently.

 

I've been listening to the claim that there's no market for anything better than code 100 for 25 years. Its false.

 

Just like I used tyo listen to explanations why there was no market for high-spec steam and  diesel locomotives in Britain . Completely uneconomic. The market just wants Lima . The importer is right - shut up. 

 

And that was totally untrue, as well. we now have RTR of the LMS Twins and GT3. With a decent motor in the loco and all wheel pickups . The things we were told for years we couldn't have, cos there was no market. Shut up and accept your pancake motors...

 

 

Here we go again miss quoting me, please stop doing so

 

Nowhere have I said there is not a market for anything other than with code 100.

 

Unlike yourself like many others I have proved finescale 00 gauge works and can be built to a standard equal to EM gauge if not P4. Some modellers do want something better where not only do they want something with finer tolerances, but built to finescale designs with the correct chairs being used, however they still want to use RTR stock without modification. For many 00SF has been the solution and with British Finescale providing the 00 gauge modeller 2 products in very easy to assemble kits the future looks bright

 

Peco have made a try at the bullhead market, Personally the bent end timber is totally non prototypical, the check rail gap has been reduced at the expense of a larger wing rail gap, The geometry of the timbering is wrong for the majority of uses, interesting to see the EM gauge track they make for the EMGS differs in these areas.

[hayfield]

17 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Welcome to the world of EM/P4!

 

Mike.

 

Already there

[hayfield]

15 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

With the greatest respect, you've show a considerable reluctance to remove yourself from it.

 

You and Hayfield are now the second and third heaviest posters in the thread...

 

It was Enterprisingwestern wot did it, halfway down P6 on 24/4:

 

 

aphic purposes. A lockdown project, reconstructing a kit bought in my early teens and long dumped in a box

 

 

Perhaps if you stopped both misquoting people and twisting what they say  we would not be forced to reply, and simply just ignore you.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

Martin mentioned yesterday that the NMRA standards are now a mess and I've heard similar comments from American sources. Can anyone tell me though what actually has gone wrong with them? I used the then current NMRA standards in the 1970s-80s and even scratchbuilt a couple of turnouts that all my RP25* wheeled stock negotiated quite happily (a miracle for me) so I'm genuinely curious. This is a request for actual information and I'm not trying to make a point (and that really isn't a pun)

*I presume that was what is now RP25/110

Edited May 3, 2022 by Pacific231G

[fulton]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

 

 

Peco have made a try at the bullhead market, Personally the bent end timber is totally non prototypical, the check rail gap has been reduced at the expense of a larger wing rail gap, The geometry of the timbering is wrong for the majority of uses, interesting to see the EM gauge track they make for the EMGS differs in these areas.

My understanding is that it is an EMGS product, developed by them, with PECO and manufactured by PECO.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, fulton said:

My understanding is that it is an EMGS product, developed by them, with PECO and manufactured by PECO.

 

Fulton

 

Quite right a project funded by the EMGS but using Peco's knowledge and skills. My point being is that it proves it can be done in RTR, forget the gauge its a prototypical looking turnout which could be replicated in other gauges 

[martin_wynne]

17 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Martin mentioned yesterday that the NMRA standards are now a mess and I've heard similar comments from American sources. Can anyone tell me though what actually has gone wrong with them? I used the then current NMRA standards in the 1970s-80s and even scratchbuilt a couple of turnouts that all my RP25* wheeled stock negotiated quite happily (a miracle for me) so I'm genuinely curious. This is a request for actual information and I'm not trying to make a point (and that really isn't a pun)

*I presume that was what is now RP25/110

@Pacific231G

 

Hi,

 

You are being brave asking that on RMweb! You are likely to get a reply from Andy Reichert. 🙂  Who was involved in drafting the current NMRA standards.

 

The essential problem is that they have mixed up a standards specification with a manufacturing drawing for the gauges. They also used a common algorithm for generating the dimensions for all scales, which was asking for trouble if they were expecting it to include existing products which complied with the old NMRA standards. Hence some fudging in places. Also, as so often in USA, they seem to get in a muddle converting inches to mm. Even on here recently, Andy Reichert went wrong making the simple conversion from 0.088" (it's 2.235mm).

 

If you look at the dimensions for 00-SF:  https://85a.uk/00-sf/dimensions.php

 

you will see that for each measurement, in most cases there is just one dimension, a minimum or a maximum. Not both. That is because the dimensions are all inter-dependant.

 

If you look at the NMRA dimensions, you will see that every dimension has three values -- a minimum, a maximum, and a "target" dimension. How can you possibly test if something complies with a "target" dimension, if it measures somewhere between the minimum and the maximum? And because the dimensions are inter-dependant, you can find several places where a specified (and unnecessary) maximum for one dimension conflicts with a specified (and unnecessary) minimum for some other dimension. As a result it is all but impossible to test whether a given component does or does not comply with the NMRA standards spec.

 

Looking again at the 00-SF dimensions, consider the check gauge. It is given as a minimum only, because that reflects the function of the check rail -- to prevent the opposite wheel flange from striking the nose of the crossing vee. It doesn't need a maximum, because any dimension greater than the minimum will serve that purpose. However, moving the check rail further from the opposite rail will increase the check span and conflict with the maximum specified for that. That dimension doesn't need a minimum, because any dimension less than the maximum will fit between the wheels.

 

Between these two dimensions, the position of the check rail is fully determined. Only 2 dimensions are needed to create a standards spec for the check rail.

 

But the NMRA now has 6 dimensions for the same purpose. For each there is a target value, a minimum, and a maximum. That is utterly ridiculous and unnecessary for a standards specification, and it is all but inevitable that there will be conflicts in the dimensions quoted, or unrealistic clearances between them.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 4, 2022 by martin_wynne
typo

[hayfield]

Looking at the two tables, which seem concise and simple to read, this could be copied by any gauge/scale so that there are no ambiguities over standards

 

I am not saying use 00SF, just have a clear set of standards for chosen standard. Perhaps if the manufacturers stated what set of 00 gauge standards they used might move things forward

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Pacific231G

 

Hi,

 

You are being brave asking that on RMweb! You are likely to get a reply from Andy Reichert. 🙂  Who was involved in drafting the current NMRA standards.

 

The essential problem is that they have mixed up a standards specification with a manufacturing drawing for the gauges. They also used a common algorithm for generating the dimensions for all scales, which was asking for trouble if they were expecting it to include existing products which complied with the old NMRA standards. Hence some fudging in places. Also, as so often in USA, they seem to get in a muddle converting inches to mm. Even on here recently, Andy Reichert went wrong making the simple conversion from 0.088" (it's 2.235mm).

 

If you look at the dimensions for 00-SF:  https://85a.uk/00-sf/dimensions.php

 

you will see that for each measurement, in most cases there is just one dimension, a minimum or a maximum. Not both. That is because the dimensions are all inter-dependant.

 

If you look at the NMRA dimensions, you will see that every dimension has three values -- a minimum, a maximum, and a "target" dimension. How can you possibly test if something complies with a "target" dimension, if it measures somewhere between the minimum and the maximum? And because the dimensions are inter-dependant, you can find several places where a specified (and unnecessary) maximum for one dimension conflicts with a specified (and unnecessary) minimum for some other dimension. As a result it is all but impossible to test whether a given component does or does not comply with the NMRA standards spec.

 

Looking again at the 00-SF dimensions, consider the check gauge. It is given as a minimum only, because that reflects the function of the check rail -- to prevent the opposite wheel flange from striking the nose of the crossing vee. It doesn't need a maximum, because any dimension greater than the minimum will serve that purpose. However, moving the check rail further from the opposite rail will increase the check span and conflict with the maximum specified for that. That dimension doesn't need a minimum, because any dimension less than the maximum will fit between the wheels.

 

Between these two dimensions, the position of the check rail is fully determined. Only 2 dimensions are needed to create a standards spec for the check rail.

 

But the NMRA now has 6 dimensions for the same purpose. For each there is a target value, a minimum, and a maximum. That is utterly ridiculous and unnecessary for a standards specification, and it is all but inevitable that there will be conflicts in the dimensions quoted, or unrealistic clearances between them.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin that's very clear.

There are no stupid questions so Mr. Reichert has nothing to gripe about 😉

 

It's interesting that the oft criticised BRMSB standards- at least in the 1950 published version- seem to do more or less what you're suggesting with four dimensions for track. minimum gauge (16.5mm for both H0 and 00), maximum distance over check and wing rails (14.5 for H0 and 14 for 00) , minimum check rail clearance (1mm for H0 and 1.25 for 00) and minimum check gauge (15.5 for H0 and 15 for 00)  (I've not quoted the dimensions for EM and EMF because the gauge changed to 18.2mm and, with the standards taken over by the EMGS, the BRMSB version is probably irrelevant)

 

They clearly perceived H0 as a fine scale so, for wheels, the BtoB was 15mm for H0 and 14.5 for 00 and the tyre width 1.5mm for H0 and 2mm for 00. There's no other obvious reason for these being different as, in terms of the rail/wheel relationship the scale is surely irrelevant. The H0 dimensions are only relevant because they're also for 16.5mm gauge.

 

The 1950 published standards were far more developed than the original BRMSB 3.5 & 4mm scale dimensions quoted in the MRC in 1943 or 1944. This only gave gauge and check rail clearances for "scale H0" and "scale OO (i.e. EM)  didn't give any such dimension for "standard" 00 and no check gauge or check span for any of them.

I actually wonder if more than one modeller in a hundred has ever even known what a check gauge dimension is and why it matters (for most of my life I certainly didn't) though there is a clear explanation in the 1950 publication of BRMSB standard dimensions.

 

When I was using them in the early 1980s,  the published NMRA standards seemed to be based on the engineering manufacturing practice of quoting  dimensions for individual compoents with a plus and minus tolerance (which could be zero for one or the other)  rather than the relationship between those dimensons - though one assumed they had all been properly worked out.

Why they hould have had a problem converting inches to mm is curious. The one conversion factor I know by heart is 25.4 mm/inch and it's not an aproximation. They did though also get themselves into awkward maths by using one too many decimal places to convert the British 3.5mm/ft into a scale ratio and ending up with 1:87.1 rather than simply rounding it to 1:87 as MOROP did- at least it's not 1:87.086.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Pacific231G

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks Martin that's very clear.

There are no stupid questions so Mr. Reichert has nothing to gripe about 😉

 

It's interesting that the oft criticised BRMSB standards- at least in the 1950 published version- seem to do more or less what you're suggesting with four dimensions for track. minimum gauge (16.5mm for both H0 and 00), maximum distance over check and wing rails (14.5 for H0 and 14 for 00) , minimum check rail clearance (1mm for H0 and 1.25 for 00) and minimum check gauge (15.5 for H0 and 15 for 00)  (I've not quoted the dimensions for EM and EMF because the gauge changed to 18.2mm and, with the standards taken over by the EMGS, the BRMSB version is probably irrelevant)

 

They clearly perceived H0 as a fine scale so, for wheels, the BtoB was 15mm for H0 and 14.5 for 00 and the tyre width 1.5mm for H0 and 2mm for 00. There's no other obvious reason for these being different as, in terms of the rail/wheel relationship the scale is surely irrelevant. The H0 dimensions are only relevant because they're also for 16.5mm gauge.

 

The 1950 published standards were far more developed than the original BRMSB 3.5 & 4mm scale dimensions quoted in the MRC in 1943 or 1944. This only gave gauge and check rail clearances for "scale H0" and "scale OO (i.e. EM)  didn't give any such dimension for "standard" 00 and no check gauge or check span for any of them.

I actually wonder if more than one modeller in a hundred has ever even known what a check gauge dimension is and why it matters (for most of my life I certainly didn't) though there is a clear explanation in the 1950 publication of BRMSB standard dimensions.

 

When I was using them in the early 1980s,  the published NMRA standards seemed to be based on the engineering manufacturing practice of quoting  dimensions for individual compoents with a plus and minus tolerance (which could be zero for one or the other)  rather than the relationship between those dimensons - though one assumed they had all been properly worked out.

Why they hould have had a problem converting inches to mm is curious. The one conversion factor I know by heart is 25.4 mm/inch and it's not an aproximation. They did though also get themselves into awkward maths by using one too many decimal places to convert the British 3.5mm/ft into a scale ratio and ending up with 1:87.1 rather than simply rounding it to 1:87 as MOROP did- at least it's not 1:87.086.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pacific231G

 

Thanks for a very informative reply.  I don't think anyone was complaining about the BRMSB standards issued in 1950, they were of their time

 

Fast forward 70 years and look at the quality of ready to run models now available against those of 1950. Given modern wheelsets bear no comparison to those of 70 years ago I assume the question asked "Do we need a current day BRMSB" is one that simply states the obvious, do we need a set of standards which takes into consideration modern day design and manufacturing advancements in our hobby ?

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

The one conversion factor I know by heart is 25.4 mm/inch and it's not an approximation.

 

It was an approximation until the Weights and Measures Act 1961 rounded it to exactly 25.4mm.

 

Previously it was 25.3995mm. Possibly an NMRA inch still is?

 

(In the USA the inch became 25.4mm exactly on 1 July 1959.)

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

It's interesting that the oft criticised BRMSB standards- at least in the 1950 published version- seem to do more or less what you're suggesting with four dimensions for track. minimum gauge (16.5mm for both H0 and 00), maximum distance over check and wing rails (14.5 for H0 and 14 for 00) , minimum check rail clearance (1mm for H0 and 1.25 for 00) and minimum check gauge (15.5 for H0 and 15 for 00)  (I've not quoted the dimensions for EM and EMF because the gauge changed to 18.2mm and, with the standards taken over by the EMGS, the BRMSB version is probably irrelevant)

 

.........

 

When I was using them in the early 1980s,  the published NMRA standards seemed to be based on the engineering manufacturing practice of quoting  dimensions for individual compoents with a plus and minus tolerance (which could be zero for one or the other)  rather than the relationship between those dimensons - though one assumed they had all been properly worked out.

 

 

 

My delve back into the early issues of MORILL was a reminder of what was percieved to be wrong with BRMSB OO.

 

- There was way too much slop between BRMSB wheelsets and track (1.0mm under the published figures). This has reduced sharply with RP25/110 wheelsets, thanks to their thicker flanges  - slop between the outer faces of the flanges and the rail  is down to 0.6mm total.

 

- The figures were not toleranced at all. I remember this being cited as why they were archaic and unsatisfactory . Pacific231 is incorrect in saying the BRMSB OO standard was 1.25mm minimum fklangway  It was simply 1.25mm flangeway - with no comment about whether this was minimum or maximum, or "target". I suspect 1.25mm was intended as "target" and possibly maximum. A similar issue arises with the BRMSB B2B . Minimum? Target? Maximum??  The practical reality of a back to back gauge made it minimum, but where is the upper limit? Is the BRMSB HO wheelset, with a 15.0mm B2B compliant ?? (The NMRA maximum flangway is 1.27mm , so I suspect 1.25mm for BRMSB OO is a maximum)

 

- There were complaints about drop in on some pointwork . Somewhere Iain Rice referred to "that old chestnut in BRMSB OO, the large radius curved point" , where the crossing flangeway was particularly acute and therefore the gap unusually long, and vulnerable to drop-in .

 

- It's fairly obvious that the BRMSB's smallest measuring unit was 0.25mm. This is not precise enough when specifying 4mm scale items

 

There seems to have been an underlying issue that BRMSB OO wheels were a bit too fine for BRMSB track . The thicker flanges on RP25/110 wheels push the other faces of the wheels further out. Thus more of the tread is actually on the railhead with RP25/110 - and consequently drop in should be less of a risk. This is why Lima and others produced steam-roller wheels . Since Lima B2B was 14.5mm their wheels would run on BRMSB OO with fewer issues than the BRMSB's own wheel - assuming the horrible flanges didn't ground. They look awful - but they stay on the track

 

I can see why the NMRA have produced standards that relate to manufacturing drawings. After all they are drawing up standards for commercial track - the factories need to know at what point any manufacturing tolerances put the item outside the specification.  (So does someone building by hand)

 

On the other hand some NMRA standard drawings are indeed difficult to puzzle out. The initial DOGA OO Commercial standard (1999 I think) was a straight NMRA clone. The track standard was redrawn a few years later because some people pointed out that it was unclear what it was specifying for certain key dimensions, and since Peco were obdurate  it was now a question of  building your own points to the "Commercial" standard. It  seemed nobody could or would elucidate certain things  - for example is the NMRA check flangeway actually supposed to be narrower than the crossing flangeway??

 

The whole track sheet was redrawn to show nominal values, , with an explicit min/max tolerance. That is at least comprehensible (It was renamed OO Intermediate at that point)

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Ravenser

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

My delve back into the early issues of MORILL was a reminder of what was percieved to be wrong with BRMSB OO.

 

- There was way too much slop between BRMSB wheelsets and track (1.0mm under the published figures). This has reduced sharply with RP25/110 wheelsets, thanks to their thicker flanges  - slop between the outer faces of the flanges and the rail  is down to 0.6mm total.

 

- The figures were not toleranced at all. I remember this being cited as why they were archaic and unsatisfactory . Pacific231 is incorrect in saying the BRMSB OO standard was 1.25mm minimum fklangway  It was simply 1.25mm flangeway - with no comment about whether this was minimum or maximum, or "target". I suspect 1.25mm was intended as "target" and possibly maximum. A similar issue arises with the BRMSB B2B . Minimum? Target? Maximum??  The practical reality of a back to back gauge made it minimum, but where is the upper limit? Is the BRMSB HO wheelset, with a 15.0mm B2B compliant ?? (The NMRA maximum flangway is 1.27mm , so I suspect 1.25mm for BRMSB OO is a maximum)

 

 

 

 

Nope. though it is true that only the dimensions were quoted in the 1943 version in MRC .

I've got the 1950 publicaton in front of me  and it does include tolerances (or limits as it calls them) , On the track page, F (the flangeway) is a minimum dimension (for all gauges) For  H0, 00, EM and EMF the back to backs have a tolerance of  + 0.005 (elephants? as my mech. eng. lecturer would have said but I assume it's five thou. as only the dimensions in inches are to three decimal places)  so it is a minimum with a lattitude of +0.005inch. So, for 00 the back to back was 14.5mm with a tolerance of +0.127mm (i.e. 0.005 inches) so the H0 back to back of 15.00mm wouldn't have been compliant with a 2.5mm wide (tyre plus flange) wheel to BRMSB 00 standard. A 2.00mm wide wheel to BRMSB H0 standard with a BtoB of 15.00mm was intended for a wider minimum check gauge of 15.50mm rather than the 00 15.00mm.  

 

I strongly suspect that between 1943 and 1950 a lot more real expertise on wheels and track was applied than the original BRMSB committee collectively posessed.

 

I think that what impressed me about working with the then NMRA standards in the 1980s was the lack of slop. I was even more ignorant in those days than now but it did seem that track and wheelsets simply fitted one another.  When I turned to Euopean H0 in the late 1990s the slop was back with a lot of inconsistency in flange widths and therefore back to backs. 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Pacific231G
typo (missing decimal point) and clarity

[Ravenser]

A rather interesting thread I've just tripped over that both illuminates what's actually out there , and tacitly makes the point that compliance is a critical issue

 

Dapol - and others - non-compliant

 

Having a standard is good. 

 

With a standard you can identify who is non-compliant and therefore where pressure needs to be directed. Getting the players to deliver compliance is a key issue though. Applying pressure effectively is not so easy.

 

However I note that the hobby seems eventually to have shamed Bachmann into retooling the cam of the CCM on their Mk1 coaches in order to put the NEM pocket at trhe right height

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Nope. though it is true that only the dimensions were quoted in the 1943 version in MRC .

I've got the 1950 publicaton in front of me  and it does include tolerances (or limits as it calls them) , On the track page, F (the flangeway) is a minimum dimension (for all gauges) For  H0, 00, EM and EMF the back to backs have a tolerance of  + 0.005 (elephants? as my mech. eng. lecturer would have said but I assume it's five thou. as only the dimensions in inches are to three decimal places)  so it is a minimum with a lattitude of +1 1/4mm . For 00 the back to back was 14.5mm with a tolerance of +0.127mm (i.e. 0.005 inches) so the H0 back to back of 15.00 wouldn't have been compliant with a 2.5mm wide (tyre plus flange) wheel to BRMSB 00 standard. A 2.00mm wide wheel to BRMSB H0 standard with a BtoB of 15.00mm was intended for a wider minimum check gauge of 15.50mm rather than the 00 15.00mm.  

I strongly suspect that between 1943 and 1950 a lot more real expertise on wheels and track was applied than the original BRMSB committee collectively posessed.

 

I think that what impressed me about working with the then NMRA standards in the 1980s was the lack of slop. I was even more ignorant in those days than now but it did seem that track and wheelsets simply fitted one another.  When I turned to Euopean H0 in the late 1990s the slop was back with a lot of inconsistency in flange widths and therefore back to backs. 

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

I heard from at least 2 sources in the late 1990s that the BRMSB standards were unusable because they were untoleranced. One of those sources was a professional engineer.

 

It looks like the subtlties and  nuances of the 1950 version had been forgotten in the hobby  over the subsequent half century : "flangeway IS 1.25mm" "B2B IS 14.5mm"

 

This points up a critical weakness of the BRMSB - institutional continuity. The BRMSB did not in pracrice function after 1954. There was no-one to correct, clarify or explain how the standards worked

 

Scale societies have the strength that they keep going - there are people there to keep explaining how things work, and if there is a serious issue there's a forum within which an adjustment can be made. Whih is why society=maintained standards are more durable 

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Interesting.

 

I heard from at least 2 sources in the late 1990s that the BRMSB standards were unusable because they were untoleranced. One of those sources was a professional engineer.

 

It looks like the subtlties and  nuances of the 1950 version had been forgotten in the hobby  over the subsequent half century : "flangeway IS 1.25mm" "B2B IS 14.5mm"

 

This points up a critical weakness of the BRMSB - institutional continuity. The BRMSB did not in pracrice function after 1954. There was no-one to correct, clarify or explain how the standards worked

 

Scale societies have the strength that they keep going - there are people there to keep explaining how things work, and if there is a serious issue there's a forum within which an adjustment can be made. Whih is why society=maintained standards are more durable 

I've heard that too and, in their early articles (MRC Jan 1967), the MSRG  were totally dismissive of the BRMSB* but in reality people seem to have simply got as close as they could to the given dimensions and if they were close enough then things just worked.

Those who built their own track in 00 seem to have followed BRMSB standards (or at least thought they did) and  suppliers of non RTL track  (including Peco with Pecoway and Individualy) worked to them too.

 

I think that most people who model using a less common scale/gauge will generally join the relative scale society and adopt its standards simply because that's the main fount of knowledge. If I modelled in EM,  3mm scale or S scale or possibly in 0 scale I'd definitely join the relevant society but that's far less likely in a majority scale like 00 or (non British) H0. 

  

BTW I've found only one article on building points that even mentioned the check gauge (but not by name)  That was by E.G. White in the May 1954 MRN and he just says that the check rails should be "soldered in position so that the face of each check rail is exactly 15mm away from the point of the frog" but the steel track gauge he gives a dimensioned diagram for doesn't include this. Everyone else, including Peter Denny (Permanent Way on the Buckingham Branch MRC Oct 1950) seemed to just rely on the check rail clearance to get everything else into the right relative places. I have a couple of SMP copper clad point kits and one of  check rail gauges that came with them (essentially a shim) According to my digital calliper this sets the check rail 1.29mm from the stock rail. I also have a couple of their plastic based three foot radius point kits but these just rely on the moulded chairs to get everything into the correct relative positions. 

 

The BRMSB was an ad hoc committee rather than an actual organisation and seem to have followed Henry Greenly's example of determining standards "for once and for all" that didn't need to be re-examined.

 

* This was actually on very dubious premises. For example, they stated that the BRMSB failed to specify a wheel or rail profile, whereas in fact they did, and their grasp of model railway development was also very shaky. They stated that H0 had been developed in the States while 00 was being developed in the UK.when in fact it had been developed by members of the Wimbledon  MRC  from about 1925, years before small scale railway modelling was exported to N.America.   

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

13 hours ago, Ravenser said:

The initial DOGA OO Commercial standard (1999 I think) was a straight NMRA clone. The track standard was redrawn a few years later because some people pointed out that it was unclear what it was specifying for certain key dimensions, and since Peco were obdurate  it was now a question of  building your own points to the "Commercial" standard. It  seemed nobody could or would elucidate certain things  - for example is the NMRA check flangeway actually supposed to be narrower than the crossing flangeway??

 

The whole track sheet was redrawn to show nominal values, , with an explicit min/max tolerance. That is at least comprehensible (It was renamed OO Intermediate at that point)

@Ravenser

 

It would be interesting to know exactly WHO were these people calling themselves DOGA and setting themselves up to define the 00 dimensions for everyone else? By what authority?

 

And WHO are you anyway? You have never signed your name in all the years you have been disagreeing with my contributions to RMweb using my real name.

 

But Google is my friend: https://www.themodelrailwayclub.org/blacklade-an-oo-gauge-layout-by-stephen-siddle/

 

I put all sorts of dimensions in my Templot program, but I have never once suggested that any manufacturer should take the slightest notice of them -- or anyone else if they don't want to.

 

Martin Wynne.

•

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by martin_wynne
typo

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Ravenser

 

It would be interesting to know exactly WHO were these people calling themselves DOGA and setting themselves up to define the 00 dimensions for everyone else? By what authority?

 

And WHO are you anyway? You have never signed your name in all the years you have been disagreeing with my contributions to RMweb using my real name.

 

But Google is my friend: https://www.themodelrailwayclub.org/blacklade-an-oo-gauge-layout-by-stephen-siddle/

 

I put all sorts of dimensions in my Templot program, but I have never once suggested that any manufacturer should take the slightest notice of them -- or anyone else if they don't want to.

 

Martin Wynne.

•

 

 

 

Martin

 

https://doubleogauge.com/journal/

 

Seems one of their aims is to talk to the trade on behalf of 00 gauge modellers ?

[Pete the Elaner]

6 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Martin

 

https://doubleogauge.com/journal/

 

Seems one of their aims is to talk to the trade on behalf of 00 gauge modellers ?

 

AFAIK, it was started about 30 years ago because not all OO trains work on OO track. I am sure most OO modellers have had this problem. I certainly have. This is because they appeared to be built to different standards.

But they are all RTR OO so surely it is reasonable to expect them to work together?

 

So what options are there? Stick with 1 brand & run an "Anywhere City Central", make brands work together or modify everything?

My own choice would be to model P4 but if I have enough stock that if I went down that route, I would be bored out of the hobby before I did anything other than build track & modify stock with different wheels.

 

So a few people got together with the aim of helping OO models work together a little better. 1 method is to modify what is available & another is to persuade the trade to work to dimensions & tolerances which work together, but not just dump off their existing toolings.

A group of modellers with 1 voice would have more chance of making good trade relationships than a band of individuals.

DOGA also make some tools to help modify existing wheels & track to make them look & work better.