Experiment in EM-SF

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, nswgr1855 said:

When developing the AMRA fine tolerance standards I did consider flangeways finer than 1mm for H0 and EM. You can make 0.8mm flangeways and be within the limits of the AMRA standard on simple turnouts, however as agreed by all, it tightens building tolerances, and restricts wheels that are suitable. Also it should be noted standard DOGA 00 track uses 1.25mm flangeways as does NMRA MOROP and AMRA medium tolerance standards.

 

A number of EM modellers have used an unofficial version of the gauge for some time, with 0.8mm flangeways and 16.7mm back to backs. That looks the same as EM-SF. I have used it myself and it looks good and works well. You can't run visiting stock with a 16.5mm back to back on it.

 

The reason I am going down the EM-SF route rather than that is because I have so much stock, some of which was by the original Manchester gang. I would have to alter most of it and I prefer not to tinker with it.

 

In some ways it is not ideal that there are several different versions of EM that are not fully compatible. This is where P4 scores highly. In theory, any P4 loco should run on any P4 track. It doesn't bother me as I have specific stock that I wish to run on a layout and if other stock doesn't run well on the layout, that is not a problem, we just don't run it.

Edited October 14, 2022 by t-b-g
Correct typo

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, nswgr1855 said:

When developing the AMRA fine tolerance standards I did consider flangeways finer than 1mm for H0 and EM. You can make 0.8mm flangeways and be within the limits of the AMRA standard on simple turnouts, however as agreed by all, it tightens building tolerances, and restricts wheels that are suitable. Also it should be noted standard DOGA 00 track uses 1.25mm flangeways as does NMRA MOROP and AMRA medium tolerance standards.

 

You seem to ignore that the DOGA have a fine standard using 1mm flangeways and 16.5 track gauge, which requires widening the BTB of all wheels, now your argument stacks up when you have to alter the BTB of your wheels, also it stacks up for coarser RTR wheel sets in 00 gauge. BUT why you even mention NMRA, MOROP or AMRA is beyond me, they have nothing to do with mainstream UK railway modelling. By all means comment about USA standards to those who model the USA scene, but it has nothing to do with the UK scene 

 

Your argument falls down at the first hurdle, those who model in EM gauge will either use aftermarket wheels or re-gauge suitable RTR wheels, 00SF is designed for those of us who use after market wheels which are too fine for good running through 1.25mm flangeways. The issue in 00 gauge is the standards have not kept up with modern products, especially those made for kit builders. Slowly those who demand higher standards in 00 gauge now require better looking and working track.

 

There is no one body in the UK who sets the standards for manufacturers to use / or listen to, several set standards for their own gauge and within those groups there are to some degree two or more camps regarding standards used. 

[Bernard Lamb]

On 10/10/2022 at 09:37, nswgr1855 said:

Hello Martin,

 

I have built quite a few H0 scale Turnouts and crossings with 1mm flangeways using your excellent program Templot as a guide and track gauges made to the AMRA fine tolerance standard which is the Australian H0 equalevent. My experience of testing and caculations indicate if I use 0.8mm flanges, I need to set the back to back to an exact value, with no tolerance to maintain track clearances at track limits. Most track is not at the limits and peoples methods of measuring wheel flanges and track are not perfect. If the 0.8mm wheel flange profile is a good shape, then the flange shape will compensate for a frog interference error of up to about 0.1mm without any noticeable problem if the turnout radius is not to sharp. The same will go for 0.6mm flanges with 0.8mm flangeways. My point is 0.5mm wheel flanges are the widest flanges you should use for EM-SF 0.8mm track flangeways without going to extra tight tolerances in setting wheel Back to back dimensions . Otherwise you cannot  gaurantee smooth reliable derailment free trains. 

 

Just how do you do that?

Where I come from even the gauges used to measure things have to be made with a manufacturing tolerance.

Bernard

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Just how do you do that?

Where I come from even the gauges used to measure things have to be made with a manufacturing tolerance.

Bernard

 

I have a small plastic tub holding about a dozen different EM track gauges that I have picked up over the years. I am pretty sure that no two are identical!

 

I am lucky to have a friend with a good machine workshop, who made me some exactly 18mm wide for the EM-SF track and I use those, along with strips of 0.8mm brass to set the checkrails.

 

The P4 folk don't seem to have any concerns over working to two decimal points of a millimetre at 18.83mm.

 

My personal view is that if anything under 0.1mm is making a difference, then we are into miniature engineering rather than modelling. It is possible but the extra care and work needed to get things perfect can mean everything just takes too long. I do find it fairly easy to set a consistent back to back dimension by always using the same gauge, which has been measured and checked for accuracy. 

 

As an aside, the track on Buckingham varies by as much as 2mm in gauge, from 17.5mm to 19.5mm, yet it works.

Edited October 14, 2022 by t-b-g
typo

[jim.snowdon]

On 10/10/2022 at 09:37, nswgr1855 said:

My point is 0.5mm wheel flanges are the widest flanges you should use for EM-SF 0.8mm track flangeways without going to extra tight tolerances in setting wheel Back to back dimensions . Otherwise you cannot  gaurantee smooth reliable derailment free trains. 

What matters is not the back to back, but the check gauge, ie back to back plus flange thickness. The only actual requirement for the back to back dimension is that is cannot be less than the distance across the working faces of the wing and check rails, for obvious reasons.

 

[martin_wynne]

23 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

The only actual requirement for the back to back dimension is that is cannot be less than the distance across the working faces of the wing and check rails, for obvious reasons.

 

In the real world it needs a running clearance. For 4mm/ft scale that is usually taken to be 0.1mm (4 thou) min.

 

So in this EM-SF topic, with a check span of 16.4mm max, the minimum realistic back-to-back is 16.5mm.

 

With a check gauge of 17.2mm min, back-to-flange 17.2mm max, that means the maximum flange thickness is 0.7mm.

 

Which means Romford/Markits wheels, with 0.7mm flanges, are marginal for EM-SF because they must be spot-on 16.5mm back-to-back. The only possible tolerance is to go fractionally under that, which eats into the running clearance over the check span.

 

Finer wheels such as Alan Gibson / Ultrascale with 0.6mm flanges have a bit more leeway with back-to-back in the range 16.5mm min - 16.6mm max. But in practical modelling terms that's a tight tolerance to maintain, so anyone adopting EM-SF has got to be prepared to check back-to-backs carefully.

 

Martin.

[Izzy]

On 14/10/2022 at 13:27, t-b-g said:

 

The P4 folk don't seem to have any concerns over working to two decimal points of a millimetre at 18.83mm.

Having done P4 for over 40 years if I can hold things to the first decimal place, taking into account things like temperature changes, I feel I’ve done well. Let’s face it 0.025mm is just a thou. But I have only ever used the one set of gauges, btb, roller, flat rectangle, bought I think from the EMGS. Perhaps that helps. I think quoting 18.83mm as a figure was mostly about publicity, a differential to 18.2mm whereas 18.8mm wouldn’t seem different enough. Well, that’s how I’ve always viewed it anyway.

 

Bob 

[t-b-g]

41 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Having done P4 for over 40 years if I can hold things to the first decimal place, taking into account things like temperature changes, I feel I’ve done well. Let’s face it 0.025mm is just a thou. But I have only ever used the one set of gauges, btb, roller, flat rectangle, bought I think from the EMGS. Perhaps that helps. I think quoting 18.83mm as a figure was mostly about publicity, a differential to 18.2mm whereas 18.8mm wouldn’t seem different enough. Well, that’s how I’ve always viewed it anyway.

 

Bob 

 

Using just one set of gauges consistently is, in my view, a very sensible idea especially for P4 where you really don't want very much variation in track and wheels.

 

I would guess that there are very few P4 modellers who actually try to build layouts by measuring all their track or wheels to within 0.01mm accuracy.

 

You have a set of track and B2B gauges that work and you use them, rather than trying to measure everything.

 

 

[nswgr1855]

On 14/10/2022 at 19:02, hayfield said:

 

You seem to ignore that the DOGA have a fine standard using 1mm flangeways and 16.5 track gauge, which requires widening the BTB of all wheels, now your argument stacks up when you have to alter the BTB of your wheels, also it stacks up for coarser RTR wheel sets in 00 gauge. BUT why you even mention NMRA, MOROP or AMRA is beyond me, they have nothing to do with mainstream UK railway modelling. By all means comment about USA standards to those who model the USA scene, but it has nothing to do with the UK scene 

 

Your argument falls down at the first hurdle, those who model in EM gauge will either use aftermarket wheels or re-gauge suitable RTR wheels, 00SF is designed for those of us who use after market wheels which are too fine for good running through 1.25mm flangeways. The issue in 00 gauge is the standards have not kept up with modern products, especially those made for kit builders. Slowly those who demand higher standards in 00 gauge now require better looking and working track.

 

There is no one body in the UK who sets the standards for manufacturers to use / or listen to, several set standards for their own gauge and within those groups there are to some degree two or more camps regarding standards used. 

Ther is a good reason whi I dismiss the DOOGA finescale standard, that it it is not used by many, if any one. It's a copy of the NMRA finescale standard, it's support is only on paper. OO-SF is designed so most RTR models run without modification. Peco code 75 usually complies to NEM standards and AMRA standards, that why I mention relevent standards. It's manufactures that set RTR track standards, RTR wheel dimensions follow the RTR track. Clubs can at best provide a set of standards so the goal posts don't move in the wrong direction.

[nswgr1855]

On 21/10/2022 at 09:16, martin_wynne said:

 

In the real world it needs a running clearance. For 4mm/ft scale that is usually taken to be 0.1mm (4 thou) min.

 

So in this EM-SF topic, with a check span of 16.4mm max, the minimum realistic back-to-back is 16.5mm.

 

With a check gauge of 17.2mm min, back-to-flange 17.2mm max, that means the maximum flange thickness is 0.7mm.

 

Which means Romford/Markits wheels, with 0.7mm flanges, are marginal for EM-SF because they must be spot-on 16.5mm back-to-back. The only possible tolerance is to go fractionally under that, which eats into the running clearance over the check span.

 

Finer wheels such as Alan Gibson / Ultrascale with 0.6mm flanges have a bit more leeway with back-to-back in the range 16.5mm min - 16.6mm max. But in practical modelling terms that's a tight tolerance to maintain, so anyone adopting EM-SF has got to be prepared to check back-to-backs carefully.

 

Martin.

Martin,

Have you  picked up a problem in the EM standard, that is the maximum span of 16.4mm? If you use a maximum track span of 16.3mm it all adds up nicely for 0.7mm wide wheel flanges. 

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

Martin,

Have you  picked up a problem in the EM standard, that is the maximum span of 16.4mm? If you use a maximum track span of 16.3mm it all adds up nicely for 0.7mm wide wheel flanges. 

 

Hi Terry,

 

???

 

Which standard are you talking about? We know what we are doing here in the UK at 4mm/ft scale. Why is someone from the other side of the planet working at 3.5mm/ft always trying to muddy the UK waters?

 

For Standard EM the maximum check span is 16.25mm. Romford/Markits wheels (0.7mm flanges) run fine. For Standard EM add 2.0mm to all relevant dims at: https://85a.uk/00-sf/dimensions.php

 

For EM-SF the maximum check span is 16.4mm. Romford/Markits wheels are marginal on EM-SF and need back-to-back set as close as possible to 16.5mm max. EM-SF is mainly intended for Gibson/Ultrascale/EMGS kit wheels  (0.6mm flanges) with back-to-back in the range 16.5mm - 16.6mm. Only a handful of modellers are using EM-SF and they might yet choose to vary the dimensions a fraction. The object of the exercise is to get good running with unmodified EM kit wheels using the 0.8mm check rail chairs available from Exactoscale/C&L. If the actual flangeway achieved from these chairs differs from 0.8mm it might be necessary to change other dimensions a little. For example the track gauge might need to vary from 18.0mm to ensure the check gauge is maintained at 17.2mm.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

Ther is a good reason whi I dismiss the DOOGA finescale standard, that it it is not used by many, if any one. It's a copy of the NMRA finescale standard, it's support is only on paper. OO-SF is designed so most RTR models run without modification. Peco code 75 usually complies to NEM standards and AMRA standards, that why I mention relevent standards. It's manufactures that set RTR track standards, RTR wheel dimensions follow the RTR track. Clubs can at best provide a set of standards so the goal posts don't move in the wrong direction.

 

If the standard was left to the manufacturers then the hobby would be in a right pickle. the main issue is that in the UK there is not one body which maintains and controls the standards for 00 gauge. I think in the past the standards were policed by a trade body (META ?) However it seems manufacturers seem to set their own standards which in some cases evolve over time within their range

 

As for you ignoring/dismiss the DOGA fine standard does not stop if being a gauge in its own right and used by some. 

 

I am a great supporter of 00SF, but I still accept others are free to use whichever standard suits them

[Ravenser]

On 06/11/2022 at 12:41, nswgr1855 said:

Ther is a good reason whi I dismiss the DOOGA finescale standard, that it it is not used by many, if any one. It's a copy of the NMRA finescale standard, it's support is only on paper. OO-SF is designed so most RTR models run without modification. Peco code 75 usually complies to NEM standards and AMRA standards, that why I mention relevent standards. It's manufactures that set RTR track standards, RTR wheel dimensions follow the RTR track. Clubs can at best provide a set of standards so the goal posts don't move in the wrong direction.

 

Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate

 

The DOGA OO Finescale standard has nothing to do with the NMRA. It is simply EM minus 1.7mm , using the finer OO wheels sold by Gibson /Ultrascale and derived from their EM gauge wheels . The flangeway is 1.0mm , same as EM

 

The OO Fine track standard was effectively invented and promoted by C+L at the end of the 1980s , although they never actually explained /documented what they were supplying. The basis of the thing I believe was that C+L sell built up common crossings , with a 1.0mm flangeway. By promoting this as "modern OO finescale" they could sell the same stock of built up crossing units to both EM and OO modellers . Since there are many more OO modellers than EM modellers, this meant the potential market was greatly increased. Similar considerations applied to Gibson promoting his wheels as equally suitable for EM and finescale OO. You just had to reduce the B2B by the relevant amount

 

The resulting package was championed and promoted by the late Iain Rice during the 1990s . Remember at that stage it was taken for granted that all OO stock would always have to be rewheeled as a matter of course . the only question seemed to be - do you rewheel with Romfords or Gibsons?

 

There was much talk in the 1990s about how the old BRMSB standard was obsolete and flawed.. In fact , it rapidly became clear after 2000 that between 2/3rds and 3/4rs of "OO finecale" layouts were built to it. The "obsolete Luddites" were the vast majority of OO finescale.

 

So trade support for DOGA OO Fine is readily available, and has been for 35 years. People do work to it, though it's been a minority interest in handbuilt OO. 

 

But the world has moved on. From 1993 DOGA was lobbying and campaigning for the RTR manufacturers to adopt a proper wheel standard - which a consensus of the membership said should be RP25/110 . From about 2000, the OO RTR makers basically fell in line with that. It then became apparent that "BRMSB OO" track built to 1.25mm flangeway is a more or less perfect fit for RP25/110 wheels. That "package" became DOGA OO Intermediate .

 

(And no, Peco Code 75 does not comply with NEM standards (and I doubt with AMRA either) . It normally uses the same 1990s coarse flangeways as Code 100. Only the rail height differs. Except that apparently Peco have decided to tighten up the flangeways again as tooling wears out. Starting with some Code 100 items. So Code 75 may be coarser than code 100...

 

Being Peco, they haven't told anyone what new values they are using, or whether they are using a variety of reduced values , or what items of pointwork  have tighter flangeways ......)

 

Therefore the OO Fine standard is a great deal less relevant than it seemed in the 1990s. These days the argument would be that the track should fit modern RTR wheels properly without rewheeling. But rhe standard exists, people work to it, it has nothing to do with the NMRA , trade support is readily available and it is entirely coherent

 

I remain bemused by the determined proliferation  of more and different wheel /track standards in every known gauge  (EM-P4, anyone?) , the resolution to strip out working clearances wherever possible and thereby force up the minimum workable radius at a time when housing space has never been more restricted, and the bizarre practice of taking an underscale gauge and trying to persuade everyone to narrow it further 

 

But as this is, strictly speaking, an EM thread and as I don't really work in EM [I built a few wagon kits for a friend who does work in EM a few years ago]  standards in EM are not really my concern, and I wouldn't comment further on what ought to happen in EM....

[hayfield]

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate

 

 

 

The OO Fine track standard was effectively invented and promoted by C+L at the end of the 1980s , although they never actually explained /documented what they were supplying. The basis of the thing I believe was that C+L sell built up common crossings , with a 1.0mm flangeway. By promoting this as "modern OO finescale" they could sell the same stock of built up crossing units to both EM and OO modellers . Since there are many more OO modellers than EM modellers, this meant the potential market was greatly increased. Similar considerations applied to Gibson promoting his wheels as equally suitable for EM and finescale OO. You just had to reduce the B2B by the relevant amount

 

Over the years I became very friendly with the last two owners of C&L and have helped them out for at least the past 10 years. Certainly the last two owners believed they were selling 00 gauge roller gauges, I doubt if either of them have ever hears of DOGA track standards, and the sale of common crossings with a 1mm wing rail gap for 00 gauge was a commercial decision

 

Phil decided to bite the bullet and ordered new 00 gauge roller gauges both with 1.25mm check and wing rail  gaps (and allowed rotation of the rail head) and ordered common crossings to match with 1.25 wing rail gaps

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

So trade support for DOGA OO Fine is readily available, and has been for 35 years. People do work to it, though it's been a minority interest in handbuilt OO. 

 

 

 

Yes from the DOGA, but who else publicly advertises their physical support of this gauge ?, C&L may have done under Brian but that must have been 15 to 20 years ago ? 

 

PS not a dig at GOGA just interested in track building supplies

[Ravenser]

13 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Tthe sale of common crossings with a 1mm wing rail gap for 00 gauge was a commercial decision

 

Phil decided to bite the bullet and ordered new 00 gauge roller gauges both with 1.25mm check and wing rail  gaps (and allowed rotation of the rail head) and ordered common crossings to match with 1.25 wing rail gaps

 

 

 

 

 

I've no doubt that the sale of the common crossing to OO modellers was a commercial decision. But in the 1990s it was being sold as "buy our brill crossings and gauges and get modern OO finescale track!"

 

C+L have made a very sensible decision to start offering products to match the most commonly used standard for handbuilt OO track. It might help people understand what they were getting if they branded them as Intermediate and the older 1.0mm gauges as Finescale

 

Quote

Yes from the DOGA, but who else publicly advertises their physical support of this gauge ?, C&L may have done under Brian but that must have been 15 to 20 years ago ? 

 

PS not a dig at GOGA just interested in track building supplies

 

One of the issues in OO has been that nobody was actually describing what they were selling. Except for a few very vague l;abels used in quite different ways by different traders.

 

So - Branchlines used to advertise their loco chassis/completion packs in two specs "Universal" and "Finescale" 

 

Many people are under the delusion that Peco Code 75 is much finer than Code 100. It isn't : the flangeways are exactly the same (except that if certain Code 100 items have been recently retooled, they may be finer than Code 75 equivalents). Peco liked to brand Code 100 Streamline as "Universal"

 

The unwary might think that the "Universal" spec from Branchlines was for Peco Code 100 and the Finescale for Peco Code 75..

 

In fact at Branchlines "Universal" meant that Romford wheels were in the pack, while "Finescale" meant Gibson wheels were included.

 

I think we can both agree that Peco Code 100 is a bit too coarse to suit Romford wheels, and that there is no such thing as a universal wheel that fits all track whether coarse or fine....And since Code75 Streamline is no finer in terms of flangeways than Code 100 Streamline, I think we can agree that it really doesn't suit Gibson wheels....

 

We had 30 odd years when "OO finescale" simply meant handbuilt 16.5mm track - to an unspecified standard, and OO finescale products were generally marketed as "buy our OO wheels /track because they are better!" "Better" generally implied "finer" - but finer than what??? Actual numbers and specs were rarely supplied. "Buy our B2B gauge because it is the right one for OO" was common enough - but they didn't actually say what value B2B it gave....

 

This style of marketing seems to linger at DCC Concepts

 

A set of datasheets setting out "Standard X " and "Standard Y" , allowing everyone to see which products conformed to which standard , and provided clear labels to use for each , was badly needed

 

'(Markits have spent several decades claiming Romford wheels are "RP25" . But they are certainly not RP25/110 or RP25/88 - in OO terms, Intermediate , and equivalent to Finescale . They don't seem to match anything on the current NMRA  datasheets for RP25)

 

I was reacting against NSWGR1855's claim that nobody actually works to the DOGA OO Finescale standard and there is no (trade) support for it. Gibson and Ultrascale wheels, plus C+L's historic OO track gauges and common crossing amount to very substantial product support for it. But he wouldn't actually be aware of things like Alan Gibson's stand or C+L's stand at shows. He is a very long way from Railex....

Edited June 1, 2023 by Ravenser

[hayfield]

9 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

 

One of the issues in OO has been that nobody was actually describing what they were selling. Except for a few very vague l;abels used in quite different ways by different traders.

 

So - Branchlines used to advertise their loco chassis/completion packs in two specs "Universal" and "Finescale" 

 

Many people are under the delusion that Peco Code 75 is much finer than Code 100. It isn't : the flangeways are exactly the same (except that if certain Code 100 items have been recently retooled, they may be finer than Code 75 equivalents). Peco liked to brand Code 100 Streamline as "Universal"

 

The unwary might think that the "Universal" spec from Branchlines was for Peco Code 100 and the Finescale for Peco Code 75..

 

In fact at Branchlines "Universal" meant that Romford wheels were in the pack, while "Finescale" meant Gibson wheels were included.

 

I think we can both agree that Peco Code 100 is a bit too coarse to suit Romford wheels, and that there is no such thing as a universal wheel that fits all track whether coarse or fine....And since Code75 Streamline is no finer in terms of flangeways than Code 100 Streamline, I think we can agree that it really doesn't suit Gibson wheels....

 

We had 30 odd years when "OO finescale" simply meant handbuilt 16.5mm track - to an unspecified standard, and OO finescale products were generally marketed as "buy our OO wheels /track because they are better!" "Better" generally implied "finer" - but finer than what??? Actual numbers and specs were rarely supplied. "Buy our B2B gauge because it is the right one for OO" was common enough - but they didn't actually say what value B2B it gave....

 

This style of marketing seems to linger at DCC Concepts

 

A set of datasheets setting out "Standard X " and "Standard Y" , allowing everyone to see which products conformed to which standard , and provided clear labels to use for each , was badly needed

 

'(Markits have spent several decades claiming Romford wheels are "RP25" . But they are certainly not RP25/110 or RP25/88 - in OO terms, Intermediate , and equivalent to Finescale . They don't seem to match anything on the current NMRA  datasheets for RP25)

 

I was reacting against NSWGR1855's claim that nobody actually works to the DOGA OO Finescale standard and there is no (trade) support for it. Gibson and Ultrascale wheels, plus C+L's historic OO track gauges and common crossing amount to very substantial product support for it. But he wouldn't actually be aware of things like Alan Gibson's stand or C+L's stand at shows. He is a very long way from Railex....

 

 

I asked a simple question as other than the DOGA which traders supported DOGA fine standards other than C&L who under the latest 2 owners who had been miss describing them as 00 gauge, The 1 mm flangeway C&L common crossings were designed for EM gauge, agreed they can be used for DOGA fine standards as they can be for 00SF.

 

In all the years I have helped out I have never seen C&L describe the 1mm flangeway crossings being used for DOGA fine, but have seen kits wrongly described as 00 gauge and I constantly reminded the past and present owners of this fact, to his credit Phil rectified this anomaly a couple of years ago.

 

The 1 mm flangeway crossings are marketed by C&L as EM gauge, I must admit I keep telling him they should also be marketed for 00SF as he sells the 00SF gauges and likewise will also compatible with DOGA fine standards (I think some old DOGA gauges still lurk in the gauges box). But in all the years assisting on the stand DOGA standards has never come up, perhaps Phil is missing a trick !!  The trouble is trying not to confuse the average modeller who just wants to run their models

I totally forgot Templot supports both GOGA intermediate and DOGA fine, good to see Peco actually offering 4mm scale track again !!!

[Ravenser]

11 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I asked a simple question as other than the DOGA which traders supported DOGA fine standards other than C&L who under the latest 2 owners who had been miss describing them as 00 gauge, The 1 mm flangeway C&L common crossings were designed for EM gauge, agreed they can be used for DOGA fine standards as they can be for 00SF.

 

In all the years I have helped out I have never seen C&L describe the 1mm flangeway crossings being used for DOGA fine, but have seen kits wrongly described as 00 gauge and I constantly reminded the past and present owners of this fact, to his credit Phil rectified this anomaly a couple of years ago.

 

The 1 mm flangeway crossings are marketed by C&L as EM gauge, I must admit I keep telling him they should also be marketed for 00SF as he sells the 00SF gauges and likewise will also compatible with DOGA fine standards (I think some old DOGA gauges still lurk in the gauges box). But in all the years assisting on the stand DOGA standards has never come up, perhaps Phil is missing a trick !!  The trouble is trying not to confuse the average modeller who just wants to run their models

I totally forgot Templot supports both GOGA intermediate and DOGA fine, good to see Peco actually offering 4mm scale track again !!!

 

I believe Accurascale have stated their wheelsets are to DOGA standards (I presume that means Intermediate - RP25/110)

 

Since Gibson wheels are to the EM profile , they are compliant with the OO Finescale wheel standard.

 

I am more interested in whether the product meets the spec on the relevant datasheet, rather than exactly how it is labelled on the box . "A  rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

 

But there is and has been a real  issue with vague, misleading, inconsistant  and unspecified labelling of OO products over the years.

 

I don't think C+L haven't bought gauges from DOGA , though I'm not directly involved with that. (They may have bought a few packs when one owner was a DOGA member).  But certainly C+L were selling "OO gauges" for track and back to backs from the early 1990s which resulted in a 1.0mm flangeway and a 14.8mm or 14.7mm B2B . They did not mention the specs - or declare openly that their B2B gauges were different from say SMP gauges (which were 14.5mm, although I'm not sure that was explicitly stated) 

 

At some point C+L or whoever  supplied their gauges, decided to change their B2B from 14.8mm to 14.7mm . I bought one in the mid 90s and lo and behold when I measured it , the thing was 14.7mm . Since  - like Peco - they had never stated the spec, they were free to change it without telling anyone whenever they felt like so - again, just like Peco. (I have a feeling C+L were selling Gibson B2B gauges. L-shaped things)

 

There was no question of these gauges and products being branded as DOGA anything, because the DOGA standards weren't published until 2000-1. But DOGA OO Finescale was simply a codification of the C+L/Gibson gauges/wheels/flangeways package that was being advocated by many in the 1990s as the way forward for "finescale OO"

 

(Here's a little poser for you . What is the correct B2B for N gauge? Is it the same as for OO9? What is the actual measurement of any "N gauge" B2B gauge on sale? Does this comply with any known standard - and is this value actually used by any manufacturers? 

 

You will rapidly find that N gauge is a landscape shrouded in even thicker fogs than 1990s OO....)

 

Apologies as we seem to be straying away from EM

 

But because the EMGS has always published  standards and by and large people stick to them and brand the products as such, folk know where they are in EM

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Since Gibson wheels are to the EM profile , they are compliant with the OO Finescale wheel standard.

 

 

Clearly not supporting either GODA fine or 00SF, in fact 00SF was bourn out of the introduction of finer wheels which became available from the likes of Gibson and Maygib

 

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

But there is and has been a real  issue with vague, misleading, inconsistant  and unspecified labelling of OO products over the years.

 

You are so correct in that 00 gauge  has been affected by many manufacturers deciding to do their own thing including one or more passing off 3.5mm scale items as 4mm for years

 

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

I don't think C+L haven't bought gauges from DOGA , though I'm not directly involved with that. (They may have bought a few packs when one owner was a DOGA member).  But certainly C+L were selling "OO gauges" for track and back to backs from the early 1990s which resulted in a 1.0mm flangeway and a 14.8mm or 14.7mm B2B . They did not mention the specs - or declare openly that their B2B gauges were different from say SMP gauges (which were 14.5mm, although I'm not sure that was explicitly stated) 

 

At some point C+L or whoever  supplied their gauges, decided to change their B2B from 14.8mm to 14.7mm . I bought one in the mid 90s and lo and behold when I measured it , the thing was 14.7mm . Since  - like Peco - they had never stated the spec, they were free to change it without telling anyone whenever they felt like so - again, just like Peco. (I have a feeling C+L were selling Gibson B2B gauges. L-shaped things)

 

There was no question of these gauges and products being branded as DOGA anything, because the DOGA standards weren't published until 2000-1. But DOGA OO Finescale was simply a codification of the C+L/Gibson gauges/wheels/flangeways package that was being advocated by many in the 1990s as the way forward for "finescale OO"

 

I doubt if C&L (certainly not the latest two owners buying items from the DOGA and if the DOGA standards were not published till 2000-1, I doubt that your claim about Mr Lewis was promoting this standard, I expect it was easier to have 00 roller gauges made with 1mm flangeways to use the existing EM gauge common crossings than go to the expense of making and stocking a third range of common crossings

 

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Apologies as we seem to be straying away from EM

 

But because the EMGS has always published  standards and by and large people stick to them and brand the products as such, folk know where they are in EM

 

 

Don't forget EM track gauge originally was 18mm, it was later altered to 18.2 when better quality wheels were available. In fact there was a fine version of EM 18mm and now even an extra fine version of EM gauge at 18.8mm. In my opinion its healthy  that modellers do push the boundaries, they have with rolling stock to the extent that now only the most talented modellers can produce models to the standards available in the ready to run range. The same is happening with track, after many years with true 00 gauge track only available from a minority of small suppliers its back in the mainstream

 

Likewise thanks to some forward looking board members of the EMGS ready made turnouts and flexi track is now available, plus companies like British Finescale and C&L introducing new products for the EM gauge modeller

 

With the 00 gauge market becoming saturated with companies supplying stock, who will be the first company to offer a loco to EM gauge ? With modellers willing to pay for exclusive editions how long will it be that one exclusive offer will be an EM gauge chassis fitting one of their popular bodies. Have Hornby missed the point by trying to open up the TT market with their TT120 offering, when for far less outlay they could have re-chassis one of their newer models and fit some new wheels to some existing rolling stock ?

  

[jim.snowdon]

10 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Clearly not supporting either GODA fine or 00SF, in fact 00SF was bourn out of the introduction of finer wheels which became available from the likes of Gibson and Maygib

 

 

You are so correct in that 00 gauge  has been affected by many manufacturers deciding to do their own thing including one or more passing off 3.5mm scale items as 4mm for years

 

 

I doubt if C&L (certainly not the latest two owners buying items from the DOGA and if the DOGA standards were not published till 2000-1, I doubt that your claim about Mr Lewis was promoting this standard, I expect it was easier to have 00 roller gauges made with 1mm flangeways to use the existing EM gauge common crossings than go to the expense of making and stocking a third range of common crossings

 

 

 

Don't forget EM track gauge originally was 18mm, it was later altered to 18.2 when better quality wheels were available. In fact there was a fine version of EM 18mm and now even an extra fine version of EM gauge at 18.8mm. In my opinion its healthy  that modellers do push the boundaries, they have with rolling stock to the extent that now only the most talented modellers can produce models to the standards available in the ready to run range. The same is happening with track, after many years with true 00 gauge track only available from a minority of small suppliers its back in the mainstream

 

Likewise thanks to some forward looking board members of the EMGS ready made turnouts and flexi track is now available, plus companies like British Finescale and C&L introducing new products for the EM gauge modeller

 

With the 00 gauge market becoming saturated with companies supplying stock, who will be the first company to offer a loco to EM gauge ? With modellers willing to pay for exclusive editions how long will it be that one exclusive offer will be an EM gauge chassis fitting one of their popular bodies. Have Hornby missed the point by trying to open up the TT market with their TT120 offering, when for far less outlay they could have re-chassis one of their newer models and fit some new wheels to some existing rolling stock ?

  

Having been involved in the EMGS at the time, the move to 18.2mm was a consequence of poorer wheel profiles. At the time, the primary source of rolling stock wheels was Jackson, who at the time had been producing both 00 and EM wheels. The latter had a slightly finer flange profile, and ran fine on 18.0mm track. What happened next is that Jackson stopped making the EM wheels, Their 00 wheels, regauged to standard EM back to back, were an uncomfortably tight fit on 18.0mm track, hence the move to 18.2mm gauge. What happened next is that Ultrascale started making wheels for EM, but to the original thinner flange standard, effectively negating the need for 18.2mm. Except, EM, having adopted the 18.2mm standard, stayed with it, with wheels that were now a bit slacker in the gauge than necessary. With all EM point work being hand built of necessity, it left builders some latitude to build track with finer flangeways. I can remember building track with 1mm flangeways then and being complemented every so often on my P4 track (it wasn’t, but you wouldn’t notice). An underlying problem was a failure to appreciate the importance of check gauge, and not back to back.

 The situation in 0 gauge isn’t much better, in fact possibly worse, through a long standing decision to adopt a gauge for Fine Standard that was wider than the BRMSB’s recommendation, coupled with a woolly wheel standard that allowed for flanges to be anywhere between 0.75 and 1.00mm without adjusting the back to backs. At least Slaters, when they adopted their fine flange profiles increased the back to back to compensate. It also created the opportunity, 20-odd years ago, for the development of the 0-MF and 0-SF track standards. Since then, 0-MF, with its 31.5mm gauge, has become quite common amongst modellers looking for better appearance and running qualities.

 

[hayfield]

Jim

 

Thanks for clearing up this matter, the thing is that by pushing the standards is how the hobby moves on. However this is for the most talented modellers who understand the issues involved. The rest of us will have to stand back and admire and use the proven standards that both work and are supported by the trade.