Attention 00-SF track builders

[martin_wynne]

Hi Martin/all,

 

For those who may not have seen Tony Wright's latest post here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page-181

 

Post #4504

 

I think you may find some of the content interesting - sounds suspiciously like wheel drop to me.....

 

Hi Brian,

 

You addressed that to me, but I'm afraid I don't have any information or help to offer folks who use commercial pointwork. It's half a century since I last did that.

 

I did note this:

 

"Some of Norman Solomon's superlative pointwork initially was a trifle 'tight' on crossings, causing some vehicles to bounce slightly. A few strokes with the thinnest of files cured these. Either that, or check that a b-to-b set wasn't a twitch tight. This is not a criticism of Norman's track (I've had to ease another Norman's pointwork on another layout as well) but it's the sort of thing which has to be done from time to time. Any near-competent modeller should be able to do this."

 

As far as I know Normon Solomon builds to the DOGA-Fine standard and advises his customers to widen back-to-backs accordingly. So obviously unmodified RTR models are not going to run on it.

 

Tony Wright says he uses a 14.5mm back-to-back gauge and that he often finds RTR models tight on back-to-back. Well of course they will be, because they are made to the NMRA / DOGA Intermediate standard which specifies 14.4mm back-to-back.

 

My red. I despair when such stuff is posted, and feel sorry for beginners trying to make sense of it all.

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

Junctionmad, on 16 Apr 2015 - 15:45, said:

    Martin is correct. 00 is 4mm /ft running on a track gauge from 16.2-16.5. Since there is a common gauge at 16.5 with HO track, it follows that 00 can use HO track. But equally exactoscale 00 track for example is not H0 but it is 00.

    H0 specifications have no real place in the debate about 00 standards ( or lack or them )

"00"  is NOT defined as having a track gauge of 16.2 - 16.5  mm.

Andy


Depends on who is building it !!    

Edited by hayfield, Today, 09:16 .


Hornby, Bachmann, PECO, Exactoscale, Rapido, etc.


I presume there is a law in most countries against the beating of live horses, shame it doesn't prohibit the beating of dead ones too.

But "00" ISN'T dead. It's just having little bits being chopped off it, all being taken to different hoped for re-incarnation churches.

I don't know how many times I have said that 00-SF is intended for handbuilt track, and is not the preserve of the RTR manufacturers. But I will say it again anyway:

 

00-SF is intended for modellers who build their own track. It is not intended for commercial RTL 00 track, where the built-in gauge-widening to 16.5mm is needed for train-set curves.

 

This is a topic for model- makers. What "Hornby, Bachmann, PECO, Exactoscale, Rapido, etc." think about it is neither here nor there.

 

That's the reason your H0 interventions in 00-SF topics are so unhelpful -- you keep approaching it from the perspective of an international standard for model railway manufacturers. 00-SF isn't intended for that. It's for modellers to use in the privacy of their own workshop.

 

Martin.

 

-----------------------------------

 

I'm beginning to think I'm the only one here who didn't fail "O" Level English.  I didn't mention "HO, 00-SF or Hand built track.

 

Again what I responded to was that the overreaching statement that  "00" is not 16.5 thru-16.2 mm gauge.

 

"00" IS  defined by the manufacturers who make the stuff . Modellers may just use it (or not), but no manufacturer is going to listen. BTW, I don't. I use 16.5 mm gauge, but with narrower flangeways.

 

00 - SF track dimensions usability for RTR  depends totally on the RTR stuff sticking to the "00" Standard.

 

Andy

[Grovenor]

 

depends totally on the RTR stuff sticking to the "00" Standard.

 

Which '00' standard would that be? There is not and never has been any standards setting body with enough clout to persuade modellers and suppliers to follow any standard they might propose.

Keith

[martin_wynne]

Modellers may just use it (or not), but no manufacturer is going to listen.

 

But Andy, we are not expecting any manufacturer to listen. Or even talking to them.

 

I wish you could stop looking at 00-SF from a commercial perspective. It's not a consumer product.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Which '00' standard would that be? There is not and never has been any standards setting body with enough clout to persuade modellers and suppliers to follow any standard they might propose.

 

And hopefully never will be. We don't want anyone with "clout" telling folks what they must do on their own model railway.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

 

 

I'm beginning to think I'm the only one here who didn't fail "O" Level English.  I didn't mention "HO, 00-SF or Hand built track.

 

 

Andy

 

The thread is titled 

Attention 00-SF track builders

 

 

And in Handbuilt Track & Templot 

 

I never took O level English but to my unschooled eyes the thread is for 00sf track builders and in handbuilt track and Templot which is in the special interests catagory. 

 

Why not start a thread I hate 00sf, where you and other like minded modellers can debate why you do not like 00sf , everyone's happy then     :boredom:

[nswgr1855]

You need to complain to Google (search for Terry Flynn model railways) and Yahoo groups (search under conversations - Terry Flynn).

 

Andy

No I need to complain to you. There is nothing wrong with my spread sheet which has been used to calculate the AMRA H0 track standards otherwise you would have pointed it out. There is plenty of track complying to the AMRA H0 standard that works perfectly with a track gauge down to 16.2mm. Clearly you don't like the fact the spread sheet also shows that making track to Proto 87 standards is an exercise in precision engineering that requires tolerances tighter than the P4 standard. 

 

16.2mm track gauge is hear to stay, for 3.5mm / foot and 4mm /  foot scales, get used to it.

 

Terry Flynn.

[martin_wynne]

No I need to complain to you. There is nothing wrong with my spread sheet which has been used to calculate the AMRA H0 track standards

 

A war between Australia and the USA about H0 track standards seems a bit out of place in this topic about 00 modelling in the UK.

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

No I need to complain to you. There is nothing wrong with my spread sheet which has been used to calculate the AMRA H0 track standards otherwise you would have pointed it out. There is plenty of track complying to the AMRA H0 standard that works perfectly with a track gauge down to 16.2mm. Clearly you don't like the fact the spread sheet also shows that making track to Proto 87 standards is an exercise in precision engineering that requires tolerances tighter than the P4 standard. 

 

16.2mm track gauge is hear to stay, for 3.5mm / foot and 4mm /  foot scales, get used to it.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

I don't like the fact that your spread sheets includes your specially chosen constants added into in the functions that cannot be seen or input by the user, and which shift the output to your conclusions, regardless of the inputs given. Make those constants "open" and then try to explain and justify them.

 

Andy

[nswgr1855]

I don't like the fact that your spread sheets includes your specially chosen constants added into in the functions that cannot be seen or input by the user, and which shift the output to your conclusions, regardless of the inputs given. Make those constants "open" and then try to explain and justify them.

 

Andy

Andy,

 

The hidden cells were simply to make one the minimum radius page neat and tidy without allot of extra work. This page has no effect on the track and wheel calculations. A considerable time ago this was brought up in another group, possibly the OO-SF yahoo group, so I provided a copy for the person asking the question with the cells shown. I heard no response after that as to any problems with my assumptions. Of course formula cells are locked to avoid accidental mistakes being made. It's my spread sheet, so you get my opinion as to what is a practical easy to use tolerance. The outputs are correct. It has nothing to do with my opinion shifting answers to what I like. For example If you want to work to using an impractical 0mm tolerance, the spread sheet gives you the correct (impractical) answer. The spread sheet works for all scales and track gauges and confirms 00-SF works as claimed by many users.

 

Terry Flynn

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      

 

A war between Australia and the USA about H0 track standards seems a bit out of place in this topic about 00 modelling in the UK.

 

Maybe we should move on to which country produces the best wines. I know which I prefer.

trustytrev.

[RichardS]

Hello,

      

 

Maybe we should move on to which country produces the best wines. I know which I prefer.

trustytrev.

Obviously France! 

[Budgie]

Obviously France!

Really? So why do English wines keep beating French wines in competitions? See http://www.ridgeview.co.uk/

[hayfield]

Obviously France! 

 

Especially as some vineyards now employ Australian wine makers !! 

Really? So why do English wines keep beating French wines in competitions? See http://www.ridgeview.co.uk/

 

 

Because they employ Australians  

[RichardS]

Only 2? I must try harder in future. :-)

[trustytrev]

Hello,

         

 

I know which I prefer.

 

Some clues. Red, Shiraz, As far from the uk you can get

 

trustytrev.

[Budgie]

Why can't you get Hunter Valley wines in the UK these days?

[emac]

Can I ask what wine has to do with 00-SF track builders? Way off topic !!

[AndyID]

Can I ask what wine has to do with 00-SF track builders? Way off topic !!

I think it's a diversionary tactic to forstall hostilities.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

      

 

Can I ask what wine has to do with 00-SF track builders? Way off topic !!

 

 

A war between Australia and the USA about H0 track standards seems a bit out of place in this topic about 00 modelling in the UK.

 

Martin.

 

 I thought it was just as relevant as the thing Martin alluded to about HO track standards in relation to 00 modelling in the UK. Wine is a bit out of place in this topic about 00 modelling in the UK just like HO track standards.

trustytrev.

[Richard Lee]

One of the things that really impresses me is that there are people who apparently don't use 00-SF and definitely seem to have no intention of using 00-SF, who are gracious enough to contribute at length on 00-SF topics.

 

I am not 100% happy with the models that I used for station cats.  Perhaps if I started a thread entitled 'Domestic Feline Models Suitable for 00-SF Layouts' I might get more response?

[hayfield]

Richard

 

It depends on whether a person is adding to the thread or using the thread to spread their own hobby-horse and disregards everyone else's point of view or comments

 

As far as track building goes, scale or gauge the person works in has no relevance providing their contribution is constructive (no pun intended)

 

Aesthetics of a specific gauge is a bit more difficult, this is where someone should bite their lip if they feel it does not work for them. Trouble is with 00sf is that it still is a compromise in some ways, goes against what has gone on in developing the gauge in the past. But to those of us who use the gauge does provide us with a product we feel  is far better that the one we are replacing

 

00sf does work with most modern stock straight out of the box, given the advancement on wheel profiles of the products available now, the wheel drop problem of 00 gauge can be improved on and visually the narrower flangeways do look much better than those wider ones used with the existing 00 standards. Being a gauge for track builders the turnouts and crossings can be further improved by using 4 mm scale timbers at the correct spacings (this may add to the visual improvement in flangeways) and the ability to use components (rail and chairs) which match the prototype. Finally the ability to use designs more akin to the prototype 

[Ravenser]

Hi Brian,

 

You addressed that to me, but I'm afraid I don't have any information or help to offer folks who use commercial pointwork. It's half a century since I last did that.

 

I did note this:

 

"Some of Norman Solomon's superlative pointwork initially was a trifle 'tight' on crossings, causing some vehicles to bounce slightly. A few strokes with the thinnest of files cured these. Either that, or check that a b-to-b set wasn't a twitch tight. This is not a criticism of Norman's track (I've had to ease another Norman's pointwork on another layout as well) but it's the sort of thing which has to be done from time to time. Any near-competent modeller should be able to do this."

 

As far as I know Normon Solomon builds to the DOGA-Fine standard and advises his customers to widen back-to-backs accordingly. So obviously unmodified RTR models are not going to run on it.

 

Tony Wright says he uses a 14.5mm back-to-back gauge and that he often finds RTR models tight on back-to-back. Well of course they will be, because they are made to the NMRA / DOGA Intermediate standard which specifies 14.4mm back-to-back.

 

My red. I despair when such stuff is posted, and feel sorry for beginners trying to make sense of it all.

 

Martin.

 

This snippit seems to have been posted in a couple of places in thi9s sub-forum  and perhaps some comment is needed before it becomes a standard "factoid" in argument . (As this relates to genuine 16.5mm OO modelling, someone working in that gauge/standards is fully entitled to comment)

 

There is no way that Tony Wright is describing filing out crossings from 1.0mm to 1.25mm across the layout in that extract.  "A few strokes with the thinnest of files" will not remove 0.25mm thickness of nickel-siier . That would require some fairly serious heavy filing - and it is extremely likely that plastic chaired track would be damaged by the force involved in doing that

 

"Some of Norman Solomon's superlative pointwork initially was a trifle 'tight' on crossings, causing some vehicles to bounce slightly"  My emphasis added

 

Tony Wright - as he has always openly stated - uses Romfords and modern RTR wheels. None of his stock would have run through any point on the layout if the pointwork had been built using 1.0mm flangeways in OO. Everything would have jammed everywhere. That isn't what is being described -everything ran, but one or two vehicles showed a jolt in one or two places

 

Clearly Norman Solomon did not not use 1.0mm flangeways for this layout......  What is being described is slight fettling in a few spots to achieve perfect smoothness when extensively tested using a large fleet of proven stock (Having now read Tony's comments and surrounding postings in that thread , it's clear his standards in terms of reliable running are extremely high) 

 

I'm trying to imagine Norman Solomon not checking what standards Tony was working to when taking the commission, and Tony not bothering to tell him. I'm trying to imagine Norman Solomon telling Tony Wright to alter the back to backs across his entire large fleet after 25 years of exhibition running to a high standard. I'm trying to imagine Norman Solomon deliberately building track to one standard when he knew perfectly well the client worked to a different one (and nothing being said when stuff jammed in the first points delivered).

 

I'm not succeeding in imagining any of these things.

 

There's a serious issue to register - it's not going to be possible to solder or glue to very tight tolerances with complete reliability across a significant size project. Therefore a little spot fettling is always going to be needed to get everything spot on (whether it's wheels or track)

 

I've got Marcway pointwork on the layout - I would expect that the people who build it by hand are better than average at making track and considerably more experienced than most. Put them in the top 25% of track builders.  When I had the feeler gauges out the other day I did some spot checking of flangways to find it ranging from 1.245mm go to 1.295mm no go - but there were places where the thinner blades clearly felt slack and there were one or two spots (eg the last 5mm of a check rail in one or two cases) where the thinner blades wouldn't go. Whatever the limits of accuracy in measuring with 2 blades held together , when that happens down the length of a single check rail , then the flangeway is varying along it's length   

 

If that happens with track builders in the top 25% - it will certainly happen to nearly everyone who builds track . I've always been sceptical of the P4 people's claim to work to accuracies of 0.01mm , and of the cry "It's the gauges that ensure the accuracy!" . I definitely don't believe it now.

 

 I'm sure Normon Solomon is a lot better than the people who built my track, but absolute accuracy across the whole of a large project isn't going to be humanly possible, and a little "fitting" and adjustment is going to be needed to get it.

 

Therefore if Tony Wright is saying that  precise fitting, adjustment and fettling is necessary to get model railways to work with high reliability - that's good advice for a beginner. The beginner will assume that he just puts everything together first time and it should work immediately. When it doesn't - he may well give up in dispair, thinking he's failed , and not realising that a process of careful checking, slight adjustment and testing is a normal part of building anything.  

 

Three specific track examples:

 

- Some years ago , someone I knew in the club built a small OO layout, and the track was Marcway . This was shortly after Hornby started making high spec locos , and initially they went from 13.9mm B2B to 14.1mm B2B , before going up to 14.5mm.

 

It was a club open day - he had a new Hornby Merchant Navy which was running fine - and a Hornby Black 5 , which he said would need the B2Bs changing as it jammed and derailed on one point (just one point on the layout, note) .

 

One of the bystanders suggested he try doing something about the point. A small jeweller's flat screwdriver was produced, the flangeway was scraped out for a few seconds - "Now try it". And the loco went through fine , and spent the rest of the afternoon happily running round the layout without further problems 

 

How much metal may have been removed I don't know - I doubt it was very much and it may have just been a burr on the metal. I'm convinced now that a "marginal" loco had found the one spot on the layout where a flangeway was tight to standard

 

 

- I helped a friend operate a newish EM gauge layout , and he seemed to expect to have to clear out flangeways to remove stray bits of ballast as part of the shakedown process if anything derail . "The layout runs better every time it goes out" was his comment

 

- I was involved with a club project - the front of house trackwork was to OO Intermediate. I had a rake of 7 Hornby Mk3s and a wheel somewhere derailed on every circuit at one specific point . "Check the back to backs" said someone.  While they went to source a B2B gauge (off the DOGA stand) I did the obvious thing and ran the coaches through the point by hand. No obvious problem - they went through fine. On checking, all the B2Bs were significantly tight - a known potential problem with Hornby rolling stock. As soon as the wheelsets were adjusted with the gauge back they went on the track - and the whole thing ran round several times very happily (I sold the stock on later as I was no longer involved with the project)  

 

What seems to work fine because it doesn't actually jam may not be reliable enough when trains are actually running

 

 

Tony Wright's comments have been seriously misrepresented and misunderstood - and it's not realistic to suggest that model railways can be built without any process of fitting , fettling and adjustment. Not if you want them to work properly

[AndyID]

and it's not realistic to suggest that model railways can be built without any process of fitting , fettling and adjustment. 

 

Wait a minute! I thought the whole idea behind standards was to make that sort of thing unnecessary. If everything is made to the standard and it does not work properly, you have to question the standard.

[Andy Reichert]

Wait a minute! I thought the whole idea behind standards was to make that sort of thing unnecessary. If everything is made to the standard and it does not work properly, you have to question the standard.

 

First you have to make it ALL to the standard. Most Humans plus hand tools are not perfect at achieving that repeatedly over long periods. Which what I thought Ravenser actually posted.

 

Andy