gordon s Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Ravenser, I'm sure you are a very knowledgable guy with years of experience, but this ongoing argument with Martin is very tiresome. Just what is your agenda on this subject? You're never going to use 00-SF and I respect that view, so please extend the same courtesy to those of us who choose to build to 00-SF standards. We're happy with 00-SF. Please just accept that and move on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 24, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 24, 2014 With the greatest respect, the fact that you were completely unaware that for the last 25 years Gibson and the old Keen-Maygib wheels have been supplied with a 14.7mm or 14.8mm B2B is exactly what I meant by being ignorant of the conditions on the ground , because you don't work in OO. Because your own interests lie in other scales and other standards there's no reason for you ever to work with any of these products or have direct experience of these practicalities You seem to know more about my modelling interests than I do. I was well aware that 00/EM kit wheels were available for DOGA Fine or "Iain Rice" standards, but I did assume that they were so labelled, so that buyers know what they are getting. We need to know the flange thickness for these wheels. If it is 0.5mm or less, the critical 15.2mm max back-to-flange dimension will not be exceeded for 14.7mm back-to-back, and they will run as supplied on 00-SF. Reports from users suggest that this may be the case. If it is not, the back-to-back of these wheels will need to be reduced to 14.5mm for 00-SF -- and for 00-BF / DOGA Intermediate. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Sure, but why is he posting about them in this topic It's a rare topic that does not wander off course after a couple of pages, sometimes much quicker Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock67B Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Chaps, this is all reminiscent of the hyperbole with occasional splashes of vitriol that accompanied the birth of P4. Surely what pleases the individual modeller is the most important feature of the hobby. As mentioned several times, no one is forcing you to change and I would hope that those with the skills to produce such fantastic miniature engineering as we have seen above, still leave room for us more amateur types to produce the best that our limitations allow. I for one shall stick to 00, albeit code 75, and do my best to produce something that works and pleases me. I hope that those of greater skill would not feel duty bound to criticise the more basic approach which is often limited by financial constraints as much as ability. There - that feels better! Kind regards and 'happy' modelling to all, Jock67B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 25, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 25, 2014 It's a rare topic that does not wander off course after a couple of pages, sometimes much quicker That's true enough Keith. As the OP on this topic I have changed the topic title to reflect the actual content. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted March 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 25, 2014 Hi All, I've been watching this thread with interest and, dare I say it - at times some amusement . As some of you are aware I was the guilty party responsible (after an awful lot of design help from Martin W.) for the supply of 00-sf Track Gauges (sent out in plain brown envelopes); that task has now been handed over to C&L Finescale to ensure their continued availability. What I can say is that, from my records, I've sold Gauges to just under 130 modellers and not had one instance of "these standards don't work"; in fairness I'm sure that a number of those Gauges have yet to be used in anger. It does seem that the discussion of 00-sf standards on RMWeb cause far less raised tempers than they did a few years back though - I'm convinced it's all down to the "Eastwood Town" effect Ravenser said: "This was quite strongly promoted by Iain Rice in 1993-5 when he was involved with MORILL - documentation can be found (eg) in MORILL 1/1 in the Exam section of his Depot feature and in MORILL Handbook No.1 Detailing and Improving RTR Wagons ch 1 p4-5, and more substantially in ch 2 p11-12 , with some reference in No.2 Plastic Wagon Kits (As an aside that first MORILL Handbook was one of the most inspirational modelling books I've ever bought - at least for me at that stage of my interest) " Hi Ravenser - whilst you appear not to be a great fan of 00-sf (fair enough - each to their own) I must admit to agreeing with you regarding MORILL. The magazine itself was a work of art (along the lines of a "working man's MRJ without the rivet counting") and sadly nothing seems to have come close since. A sad day indeed when it became no more polybear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted March 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 25, 2014 It does seem that the discussion of 00-sf standards on RMWeb cause far less raised tempers than they did a few years back though - I'm convinced it's all down to the "Eastwood Town" effect Ah-ah! Now we know, it's ALL Gordon's fault! BTW how is ET Gordon? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I had to read that a couple of times, Brian as the first time I read it, I thought that ET was responsible for causing more, not less arguments than before..:-) You'll be pleased to know work is continuing, albeit slowly as I seem to be playing golf three or four times a week right now. I am hoping to have a section wired up shortly and will then be able to run various loco's and trains at a variety of speeds to show that it can be done with few if any B2B adjustments. I say shortly, but at the current rate of progress that could be six months as the warmer weather is just around the corner and the fresh air and exercise that I get from golfing is an irresistible force at times. I'm really glad (but surprised) that the number of arguments/detractors are fewer now than before. If current spats are anything to go by, it must have been pretty torrid a few years back... Edit: Some coincidence, Jonathan! Our posts must have crossed. There will be another update in a day or two. I'm working on ET right now and just waiting for some glue to dry on some new track sections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 That's true enough Keith. As the OP on this topic I have changed the topic title to reflect the actual content. Martin. I take it that's a confession? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Hi Ian, Terry Flynn has produced the standards for H0-SF, which are essentially the same as 00-SF: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdfcongratulations on correctly writing H0 instead of HO. I thought that was a battle well and truly lost. No Martin, they're completely different scales. The NMRA defines HO as a scale of 1:87.1 while MOROP defines H0 as 1:87 It's vitally important not to mix them up because if you built a 40ft boxcar in H0 instead of HO by mistake it would be over a tenth of a millimeter too long and everyone would turn away from it in horror. I now try to always use the appropriate term to differentiate between N. American and European models. More seriously, could I safely use 00-SF drawings etc for H0-SF? I have a variety of mostly proprietary H0 stock and if I ever do build some of my own pointwork I've got some SMP PCB kits that could I think be just as easily built to those specs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 It's vitally important not to mix them up because if you built a 40ft boxcar in H0 instead of HO by mistake it would be over a tenth of a millimeter too long and everyone would turn away from it in horror. You are three days to late! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 No Martin, they're completely different scales. The NMRA defines HO as a scale of 1:87.1 while MOROP defines H0 as 1:87 It's vitally important not to mix them up because if you built a 40ft boxcar in H0 instead of HO by mistake it would be over a tenth of a millimeter too long and everyone would turn away from it in horror. I now try to always use the appropriate term to differentiate between N. American and European models. More seriously, could I safely use 00-SF drawings etc for H0-SF? I have a variety of mostly proprietary H0 stock and if I ever do build some of my own pointwork I've got some SMP PCB kits that could I think be just as easily built to those specs. If you are OK with the proviso that Martin posted, that 00-SF has a "fine scale" recommended 36" minmum radius, which would therefore apply equally to US HO, then go for it. As an edited in afterthought, I should add that the common US turnout geometry is different from the common UK geometry. So, if you have any concerns about appearance, you need to use hinged, straight points and make the length of the frog somewat shorter. If the 16.2 mm gauge drawinmgs are for BH rail, then you will find things easier with versions for FB rail instead, so you can still see the template lines with the rail over them. Also be prepared to file off the edges of any overlapping FB rail around places like the guard (check) rails, etc. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.