gordon s Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 I've been asked a few times about the transition areas when building 00-SF pointwork and received a PM last night asking a similar question, so rather than reply by PM thought I would show how this is achieved for all to see. 00-SF uses a gauge of 16.2mm and it is a common misconception that this is a step backwards and making track even narrower from the normal 00 specification which is as we know around 2.3mm undersize from the real track gauge in 4mm scale. Of course that is true in part, but the 16.2mm gauge is limited to a very small area in a turnout, notably the vee, check rails and wing rails only and when done well is virtually undetectable by the human eye. A human hair is about 0.1mm in width and the narrowing is just 0.15 per rail, so unless you have excellent eyesight is very hard to spot. I'm certain if the viewer wasn't told beforehand that it was 00-SF they wouldn't see it at all as it would not be something they would be looking for. This scan shows a B7 turnout and the areas of 16.2mm and 16.5mm gauge. The transition areas are approximately 50mm and that enables the track to be widened by 0.15mm across each rail to allow normal 00 flexi track to be used with 00-SF pointwork. When building a crossover I would continue the 16.2mm right across the two vees and then adopt the transition areas as shown in this scan. I will use two sets of gauges when building pointwork, 16.2mm for the area shown in pink and 16.5mm for the area in green. Hopefully this will clarify how I achieve the transition from 16.2mm to 16.5mm... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Gordon, Am I right in thinking that you have run modern, high quality HO stock through a series of plain rail and OO-SF turnouts with absolutely no issues too? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 The alter ego of Eastwood Town for consenting adults only, consists of loco's from Fleischmann and Roco (European) and manufacturers such as Athearn Genesis, Atlas, MTH, Overland, Tower 55, Broadway, Kato, InterMountain and Walthers plus a few odd balls. Even though they are articulated, the Big Boy from Athearn Genesis and the Erie Triplex and a 4-12-2 UP 9000 from MTH all run through 00-SF without problem. I can't recall an issue with any H0 locos at all. I'm hoping to wire up a bit of ET in the next week or so, so will happily take a short video showing the running quality. This was from a long while back with part of an earlier ET on my dining room table. Not quite a close up, but running through 00-SF without a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 16, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 16, 2014 OT - but what an amazing loco. Who wants to eat in a dining room anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Not a "wobble or a squeak"............ Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dominion Posted March 16, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 16, 2014 Excellent, very helpful. Is it important to fit 2x16.5 gauges on the short end to ensure the rail completes the transition in a parallel way, or is the offset so small one is enough ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 To be honest the short end beyond the vee could be done by leaving the solder joints from rail to PCB strip and joining the two rails to a piece of flexi. Once they are aligned, go back to solder the rails to the sleepers. We're talking about such a small variation it's not that critical. Don't forget to remove the fishplate on the inner rails beyond the vee though, or you may have a short once you wire up the layout. I'd normally use a minimum of two gauges on the switch blade side. I actually use four, but that's my choice. Two would probably suffice. Welcome to the forum by the way…:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted March 16, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 16, 2014 That's interesting, Gordon - I actually haven't incorporated my trial turnout into plain track, but I chose to have the 16.2mm clearances through the point blades as well. I thought it would allow a narrower gap between the point blades and stock rails - there needs to be clearance for the wheels back-to-back setting either side of the point blades, but if the stock rails can be 'eased in' a little it allows a smaller gap between the blades & stock rails - which helps the realism in my mind. I would then transition the 16.2mm rails to the 16.5mm beyond the toe of the point blades, in the same way as the opposite end. I should say though that my trial version was set up by mk1 eyeball, overlaying a template but without use of actual gauges! So my clearances might be slightly off anyway.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Interesting topic, shouldn't it be HO-SF. I investigated why a Hornby big Prairie ran so badly running into platform 5 of a friends layout and discovered the ancient Graham Farish track flexi track was tight to gauge, even at 14.2 mm back to back the running was horrible. I would be interested to see how some of the derailment prone types like the Hornby T9 and 61XX PraiIre and especially the 14XX run through these turnouts in as new condition, my guess is they woudn't without a lot of fiddling to reset the back to back dimensions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 23, 2014 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 Interesting topic, shouldn't it be HO-SF. I investigated why a Hornby big Prairie ran so badly running into platform 5 of a friends layout and discovered the ancient Graham Farish track flexi track was tight to gauge, even at 14.2 mm back to back the running was horrible. I would be interested to see how some of the derailment prone types like the Hornby T9 and 61XX PraiIre and especially the 14XX run through these turnouts in as new condition, my guess is they woudn't without a lot of fiddling to reset the back to back dimensions. Why? It's 16.5mm gauge but using UK sleeper spacing and sleeper widths. We all accept 4mm scale and 16.5mm gauge is not correct, but that doesn't make it H0... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Judging by the video the pointwork was HO sleeper spacing and HO stock. The video was good but appears to show the train traversing a trailing turnout and most derailments occur on facing turnouts rather than ( correctly set) trailing turnouts. My limited experience is that HO wheel sets are much more consistent in their back to back spacing, they seem to have wider treads in relation to their flanges, my problem is a hundred or so Hornby Dublo wagons with delrin wheels which I doubt would be OO-SF compatible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 23, 2014 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 Sorry David, now I know where you are coming from. I'd forgotten I had posted that old video for Pete (Trisonic). The pointwork was built by me a few years back and is 00-SF with UK sleeper spacing. At that time I was still using Tillig flexi track, which is H0, so that all makes sense now. The first turnout is facing, the second trailing and I really only posted the video in response to Pete's question about H0 stock on 00-SF. All of my US stock runs perfectly through 00-SF. I've fairly sure I have videos of UK stock running through SMP flexi and 00-SF pointwork, if they are of interest. I can't help you with your question re Hornby Dublo wheels as I don't have any stock of that age to run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dominion Posted March 28, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 28, 2014 That's interesting, Gordon - I actually haven't incorporated my trial turnout into plain track, but I chose to have the 16.2mm clearances through the point blades as well. I thought it would allow a narrower gap between the point blades and stock rails - there needs to be clearance for the wheels back-to-back setting either side of the point blades, but if the stock rails can be 'eased in' a little it allows a smaller gap between the blades & stock rails - which helps the realism in my mind. I would then transition the 16.2mm rails to the 16.5mm beyond the toe of the point blades, in the same way as the opposite end. I should say though that my trial version was set up by mk1 eyeball, overlaying a template but without use of actual gauges! So my clearances might be slightly off anyway.... Thanks Rich, I was wondering if you had tried running this way yet, and Gordon, I wondered if you had tried this approach too at some time ? I am just building my first one now with the new gauges. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 My standard method of building is to allow three full sleepers beyond the tie bar. In some cases where you have two turnouts back to back or very close together, the number of sleepers in that area may even reduce further. I haven't build anything along the lines suggested by Rich, but my concern would be this would possibly be shorter transition length area and may then be more noticeable. In terms of point blade gaps, I use a 20p coin as my own gauge. This comes in 1.75mm, so wider than the 1mm shim that Rich may be suggesting. I have found instances that long wheelbase loco's with little or no sideplay can require more clearance and the 20p spacing has proven to work very well on all my stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted March 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2014 That's a valid point re: wheelbase on the curved stock rails, I've only tried diesel models so far! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.