gordon s Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Fresh from the pleasure of actually having something running on ET, I've been playing around with various items of stock on my 00-SF pointwork. I've no axe to grind either way and everyone makes their own choice of track, but thought these maybe interesting....or not. Apologies if they are a little dark, but light was fading. I had some fun running things whatever.... OK, first up an old Bachmann WD. One of my diesels. A repainted and modded Bachmann Class 37/9 Back to steam. A kit built K1 fitted with Markits 00 scale wheels. ..and finally a tough one. This is a Fiatrains 10000. The original wheels on these models were fraught with problems, so this one has been fitted with a set of Ultrascales. Of course, none of this is conclusive, but I hope it goes some way to show that 00-SF will accommodate a wide range of differing wheel standards. I hope you found it of interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Ultrascales are EM profile wheels whether set to 14.8mm for OO or 16.5mm for EM so should not give any issues on track using the same flangeway as EM gauge Bachmann use RP25/110 wheels and always have done, though manufacturing tolerances in the factory mean that B2B on occasional axles is 14.3mm or less. The "fatter" flange (fatter than EM profile) will mean there's not a lot of clearance in the flangeway, but at slow speed that should not be a problem and a given loco may not have any "tight" axles Markits/Romfords have flanges a little finer than RP25/110 and if the wheels are set at the traditional value of 14.5mm are likely to be a better fit than RP25/110 (This being the combination 00-SF seems to have been invented to suit 30 years ago) The questions come with Heljan , who seem to be using a B2B of 14.2mm with RP25/110 wheels , and Hornby rolling stock (not locos) where B2B as tight as 14.1mm seem to be common. A Heljan railbus or a set of Hornby coaches or Pendolino taking that point at speed might produce a rather different result (Long wheelbase 4 wheelers, sharpish curves and long check rails seem to be a problematic combination - so a BR CCT might be an appropriate test vehicle as well) Contemporary Dapol should be ok (a hasty check of an FEA twinset shows a B2B consistantly just over 14.4mm - 8 axles should be a decent sample). Older Dapol may be another matter . The wheels supplied in their kits used to be a bit chunkier (including in the flanges) and to a B2B around 14.1mm-14.2mm, and I think similar wheels were found under RTR made in the "Dave Boyle era" Unadjusted Airfix and Mainline won't run either (14.1mm- 14.2mm - I think these were the wheels that went through to Dapol in the 1990s) though it will run happily enough on BRMSB or OO Intermediate . Given the pedigree of the Mk2 aircons and the view in certain quarters that the Airfix 31 bodyshell is better than Hornby's this is not irrelevant, and other threads suggest there are a fair few original Airfix 4Fs out there I have no wheel data on Vi-Trains cos I don't own any, but I know they will run perfectly happily on BRMSB / OO Intermediate. I don't see any obvious reason why they shouldn't fit 00-SF , given Vi-Trains emergance out of the Lima ashes, but I have no hard data Lima always used a 14.5mm B2B , so if the pizza cutter flanges don't get you, they should run Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Do me a favour, Gordon. Can you try your big Canadian AC on it? I'm still looking to try OO-SF standards for HO. Ta, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 No worries Pete. I'll run some US stuff tomorrow or Monday if I get collared for other domestic duties..... I have some Kato, Athearn, Tower 55 and one Overland. The AC's are Kato. Apologies Ravenser. Thanks for that information. Based on that most should be OK. I've just run a Heljan Baby Deltic straight from the box and that was also fine. I'll play around with a few others and see what happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debs. Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I`m envious, Gordon.....they run-through very well indeed, and I really like the curviform turnouts: well done that man! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Thanks, mate! Will the mighty Triplex make an appearance? Maybe it will scare all the natives..... Thanks, again, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2012 Markits/Romfords have flanges a little finer than RP25/110 and if the wheels are set at the traditional value of 14.5mm ... (This being the combination 00-SF seems to have been invented to suit 30 years ago) Yes, but Markits wheels are RP25/100 not RP25/110, and it's 40 years now since I discovered "EM minus 2" (1972 -- and 15 years since I designated it as "00-SF" for Templot). Frank Dyer's Borchester was even earlier and also believed to have used Romford wheels on 16.2mm track gauge. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yes, but Markits wheels are RP25/100 not RP25/110, and it's 40 years now since I discovered "EM minus 2" (1972 -- and 15 years since I designated it as "00-SF" for Templot). Frank Dyer's Borchester was even earlier and also believed to have used Romford wheels on 16.2mm track gauge. regards, Martin. Martin: I have some doubts about Markits claimed "RP25/100" . These start from the fact that there aint no such wheel profile on datasheet RP25: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp25.html RP25/110 - yes. RP25/88 (which is approximately equivalent to the EM profile of Ultrascales and Gibsons) - yes But RP25/100 - no. The story I heard was that Markits claimed they'd found "RP25/100" in a table in a copy of Model Railroader from the early 1960s. This is rather difficult for most of us to verify - it's half a century ago. To be honest as a provenance this does not fill me with confidence , and while "RP25/100" may or may not have been a wheel profile recognised by the NMRA when JFK was President and they were building Evening Star, it certainly doesn't seem to be a wheel profile the NMRA recognise or define now , (or have at any time in the 21st century) Maybe one of our US members can confirm whether the NMRA ever defined or recommended such a profile back in the distant past . I'm not even sure how far back datasheet RP25 goes or whether it was in existance during the Kennedy administration.... Possibly Trisonic or someone else may have access to a run of US model railroad magazines and can confirm whether this table appeared and whether it contained this fabled wheel The fact Romford/Markits wheels are finer than RP25/110 is not in doubt . Whether they can genuinely claim to be an "RP25 wheel" is, in my mind. I have sometimes suspected that someone had a large stock of blanks for making wheels to BRMSB profile and went hunting for something that they could machine onto said blanks and marketed as "RP25" It's very difficult to verify the claim on this side of the pond. However as we have a number of US-based members who probably are in a position to find the info , it seems worth asking here. Can anyone confirm that there used to be an NMRA wheel profile "RP25/100" (not /110) - when was this on NMRA datasheets, and when did they stop recognising it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2012 But RP25/100 - no. The RP25 spec is a vector design -- you can generate a profile for any chosen wheel width. Rather like different sizes of a computer font. I've got the spreadsheet file somewhere, I will look it out. So yes, you can have RP25/100, even though it's not a published size. But the significant point in this discussion is that the Markits .100" wheel width is marginal on DOGA Intermediate / 00-BF and requires unsightly sharp-nose vees even then. Whereas they are fully supported on 00-SF with 1.0mm flangeways and proper blunt-nose vees, with much improved running as a result. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 Here you go, Pete. No problem at all. As you would expect, it was the same with Athearn Genesis and Tower 55 and other US stock. You have no excuse now to get that layout built... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
60526 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yes, but Markits wheels are RP25/100 not RP25/110, and it's 40 years now since I discovered "EM minus 2" (1972 -- and 15 years since I designated it as "00-SF" for Templot). Frank Dyer's Borchester was even earlier and also believed to have used Romford wheels on 16.2mm track gauge. regards, Martin. I'm intrigued, where have you got this information that Frank Dyer's Borchester used a 16.2mm track gauge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 1, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm intrigued, where have you got this information that Frank Dyer's Borchester used a 16.2mm track gauge. Hi, It's been mentioned a few times. Most recently here: http://www.rmweb.co....post__p__651572 regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 You have no excuse now to get that layout built... Damn..... Best, Pete. PS I spend a lot of time marvelling at my (small) collection of recent US locos - particularly their exquisite 3d "truck" (bogie) detail. They're streets ahead (I always compare the "brake actuaters" which are the same units, in design, as seen on UK Diesels). I'm talking mass-production here, not "Brass". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trustytrev Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Hello Gordon, Do things run as well through the inner tracks which have tighter radii?Is there a lowest limit found yet? trustytrev. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 I haven't done tests at the lower limits as my minimum radius is 36" and that's only if I'm really pushed. Touch wood, nothing on ET is less than 36", but I still feel comfortable that radii smaller than 36" wouldn't be an issue, unless you really go down the spectrum. Even then it will be nothing related to the 00-SF spec, but more to do with wheelbase length, which I suspect would be a problem with standard 00 anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 daft question time, is there a reason that OO-SF gauge narrows to 16.2mm instead of maintaining 16.5 throughout point/switchs etc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 There is a very good reason and it should all be explained on the 00-SF site. The basic reason is to allow various wheel standards to run without problem. It would take a while to explain the technical basis behind that statement, so can I suggest you look at the 00-SF site and the 00-SF Group. http://00-sf.org.uk/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 3, 2012 daft question time, is there a reason that 00-SF gauge narrows to 16.2mm instead of maintaining 16.5 throughout point/switchs etc? Hi, The standard 16.5mm 00 track gauge dimension includes sufficient slop (gauge-widening) for use on train-set curves down to around 15" radius. When used on the easier curves of a scale model railway, say 36" radius or more, that extra slop isn't needed. You can get steadier, smoother running by removing it, reducing the track gauge to a dimension which is a better fit to the wheels. The specific 00-SF 16.2mm dimension is arrived at by starting with the standard EM dimensions. Normal "scale" 00 gauge wheels are 2mm closer together on the axle than EM wheels, so it is logical to have the rails 2mm closer together than EM too. That produces the 00-SF track gauge of 16.2mm. Ideally a 00-SF layout would be built entirely at 16.2mm, but of course that would mean hand-building all the plain track. A major task for a large layout. Most 00-SF modellers use 16.5mm flexi-track as a compromise, since they are then no worse off than if they were building any other 00 gauge layout, but still have the advantage of 00-SF for the pointwork. Now for plain turnouts you could if you wish build them at 16.5mm gauge throughout, using the 00-SF check gauge tool and crossing flangeway gauge shim, but an ordinary 16.5mm roller gauge for the other rails. You would still have the advantage of improved support and running of the 1.0mm wing rail gap. But that would be for single plain turnouts only, because the check rail gap would be wider (1.3mm) than the wing rail gap (1.0mm). In more complex formations such as a tandem turnout or sometimes in an ordinary crossover, a wing rail on one crossing merges with the check rail on another crossing, and clearly that is impossible if the gaps are not the same. So it's good practice to keep the gaps symmetrical, which means making the track gauge 16.2mm if the check gauge is 15.2mm (to match the wheels) and the wing rail gap is 1.0mm (to support them properly). regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 So the actual track gauge is 16.2mnm, the 16.5 only being required for certain location and combinations of loco/curver where gauge widening would be required. It`s just a short cut to use the 16.5 read to use track on the other parts of the layout where it doesn`t make any difference in the running, and saves having to gauge widen where it would be required. The difference from building in the same specs in 16.5mm in the crossings is not requiing the b2b of the roling stock to be altered. Is this correct? (the bit that threw me at first was where in some threads it said the gauge narrowed to 16.2mm, I couldn`t understand why you would want it to narrow). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 4, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 4, 2012 So the actual track gauge is 16.2mnm, the 16.5 only being required for certain location and combinations of loco/curves where gauge widening would be required. It's just a short cut to use the 16.5 ready-to-use track on the other parts of the layout where it doesn't make any difference in the running, and saves having to gauge widen where it would be required. Is this correct? Yes. The difference from building in the same specs in 16.5mm in the crossings is not requiring the b2b of the rolling stock to be altered. Yes. Using 1.0mm flangeways with 16.5mm gauge requires the b2b to be increased to 14.8mm. This is the DOGA-Fine standard. It may also require some gauge-widening to perhaps 16.8mm on sharp curves below about 30", and there is no flexi-track available for that. If you want the improved running and appearance of 1.0mm flangeways, it makes much more sense to build the track to 16.2mm gauge than to widen all the wheels to 14.8mm. Your track stays at home, but you may want to take your rolling stock to run on other layouts, or to sell it. And others may want to bring their unmodified rolling stock to run on your layout. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Does anyone have any experience with how well European Continental stock (Roco, Fleishmann et al) work on 00-SF track? Thanks J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dominion Posted March 8, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8, 2014 Here you go, Pete. No problem at all. As you would expect, it was the same with Athearn Genesis and Tower 55 and other US stock. You have no excuse now to get that layout built... Thanks Gordon, I am loving seeing your 00-SF track work. When you merge your turnouts to flex track it looks like you are leaving a couple of inches of felx track sleepers off, is that correct ? Do you just back fill with soldered copperclad done in situ ? Also if you like Canadian locos, I am running some Rapido FP9A's and Bs on my LNER layout. They are really excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.