00-SF and 00-BF? Can you mix?

[AndyID]

My experience is very similar to Alastair's. Like many modelers, I have an eclectic collection of 00 equipment acquired over the last sixty years.

 

I think Ravenser rather gave the game away when he said this:

 

Quite deliberately the society is a broad church aiming to cater for all OO modellers,

 

Presumably he has put a lot of effort into promoting the DOGA standards, for which I heartily commend him. Unfortunately, he is selling those standards "past the close" and alienating a significant subset of 00 modelers for whom the DOGA standards do not work.

 

The DOGA standards may be a broad church, but it is not universal. 00-SF on the other hand is no sort of religion at all. It's merely a pragmatic solution to an old problem that many of us have wrestled with for a long time.

 

I can only assume that Ravenser's indignation regarding 00-SF is based on the assumption that it is some sort of threat to the DOGA "church". It isn't.

[Ravenser]

But Ravenser, 00 Intermediate / BRMSB 00 does not work for kit wheels such as Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, EMGS, NMRA Code 88, and others. You keep asserting that it is an existing solution for everything, but it isn't. Even for Romford/Markits wheels it is only a borderline solution.

 

No-one has ever claimed that 00-SF is the only solution to all this. DOGA-Fine also runs these wheels. The advantage of 00-SF is that it retains the BRMSB 14.5mm back-to-back and RTR 14.4mm back-to-back. Other solutions require the back-to-back to be modified.

 

Ravenser, I do think you should state your suggested solution which is preferable to 00-SF for those who want to use kit wheels.

 

No-one is arguing with your assertion that 00-BF (DOGA-Intermediate) is fine for RTR wheels, although you seem to be suggesting someone is denying that.

 

Martin.

 

 

Firstly, I'm not advocating using wheels to a wide variety of profiles on the same layout. Wheel and track standards are two sides of the same coin. It's about time we exorcised the chimera of "OO Universal",  the magic "one size fits all". To each track standard, a corresponding wheel standard. To each  wheel standard a corresponding track standard

 

Secondly, in two decades of building OO rolling stock kits I've come across Gibson wheels in the packet once, possibly twice. What you find is Romfords, or nothing at all, or some nasty bit of moulded plastic that goes straight in the bin (the latter is generally old stock). In both the latter cases , using a packet of Hornby or Bachmann wheels is a readily available and economical solution. The alternative is buying Romfords

 

Loco kits don't include the wheels, so you go out and buy what suits your layout. I would not recommend re-wheeling modern RTR with Ultrascales - it's an expensive exercise with a 4-6 month wait, and there's no need for it any more. Leave your place in the Ultrascale  queue to an EM modeller....

 

If you're buying Black Beetles for a multiple unit, make sure you buy the ones with RP25/110 wheels

 

Basically you'll only have those finer profile wheels on your stock if you go out of your way and spend time and money making a rod for your own back. So - don't.

 

I see no reason to make a sacred totem out of the historic BRMSB back to back value of 14.5mm. And the world will not end if you put a wheelset for a wagon over a back to back gauge

[martin_wynne]

Firstly, I'm not advocating using wheels to a wide variety of profiles on the same layout.

 

Thanks for the reply. So now we know where we stand. Everyone who wants to do that, or is doing it for historical reasons, can safely disregard everything you say.

 

First you rubbish modellers who like to build their own track. Now you dismiss modellers who want to improve the look of their models with finer wheels.

 

For some this hobby is primarily about making models. Others see things differently. Each to his own, as always -- you may want to bear that in mind. 

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

My experience is very similar to Alastair's. Like many modelers, I have an eclectic collection of 00 equipment acquired over the last sixty years.

 

I think Ravenser rather gave the game away when he said this:

 

 

Presumably he has put a lot of effort into promoting the DOGA standards, for which I heartily commend him. Unfortunately, he is selling those standards "past the close" and alienating a significant subset of 00 modelers for whom the DOGA standards do not work.

 

The DOGA standards may be a broad church, but it is not universal. 00-SF on the other hand is no sort of religion at all. It's merely a pragmatic solution to an old problem that many of us have wrestled with for a long time.

 

I can only assume that Ravenser's indignation regarding 00-SF is based on the assumption that it is some sort of threat to the DOGA "church". It isn't.

 

 

I think you are freely confusing two different things - a society catering for all modellers working in a gauge, who come from a variety of different positions and backgrounds, and a particular set of standards (one of several) defined by that society for the benefit of modellers working to it.

 

On this side of the Atlantic the phrase "a broad church" is commonly used to describe an organisation willing to accept members with a variety of viewpoints , as opposed to one that requires adherence to a single tightly defined doctrine. Scale societies are not normally considered as religions , though possibly there was a whiff of that about the original Protofour Society, which did expel members for deviation from the true faith (and which perished as a result)

[alastairq]

 

 

It's the misrepresentation that OO-SF is the only solution

 

 

I don't think I've ever seen such a 'misrepresentation'...?

 

The other systems tick some of the boxes....but not quite ticking all the boxes....something that OO-SF does....for me.  This is the whole point.   Much will depend on what a modeller already has..in terms of stock. Much will depend on what that modeller's visiting chums have. OO-SF precludes none [that are cheaply & readily available] in terms of wheels.....the others all have some sort of proviso or other.

 

Now, the latter was the status quo for many years.........we had a choice, of choosing the track & wheel standard we wanted, or could afford......or enduring a compromise. [hence the term for some proprietary tack...universal?}

 

18mm gauge EM didn't run [much] on 18.2 mm gauge.  As an example. The same with the various other 4 mm standards.

 

One of the main reasons why I drifted to  US outline, decades ago, was what I saw as a sensible commonality amongst makers of stock..and to a degree...track. A commonality that certainly wasn't present amongst UK proprietary manufacturers of the age. [we are so lucky nowadays]

 

I guess I'd like may cake, and be eating it too......

 

Edit..in the time it took me to read teh relevant posts, and type my response,others have blatted in from the wings.....

 

But, Raverser says it all, with the statement concerning having wheels and track standards to match...[or, words to that effect]

 

 

 

Firstly, I'm not advocating using wheels to a wide variety of profiles on the same layout. Wheel and track standards are two sides of the same coin. It's about time we exorcised the chimera of "OO Universal",  the magic "one size fits all". To each track standard, a corresponding wheel standard. To each  wheel standard a corresponding track standard

 

 

And this is my point...I cannot afford [in terms of time and finance] to re-wheel every item of stock I own, to suit one particular set of track standards.  I don't actually want to, either.

 

But, it would be nice if I could reduce the levels of compromise I have, in terms of how all the varied wheelsets ride through my crossings.

 

With little or no fettling of said wheelsets by myself.

 

00-SF standards give me that.....all for the sake of 0.3 of a millimetre.

 

And, as I mentioned before, if I am in a hurry, plain track can be simply that...bought-in [or scrounged] 16.5 mm gauge stuff, from any source.

 

For the issues that have bothered me concern turnouts themselves, and the ride through them. So the turnouts can be to 00-SF standards...a mix 'n match scenario I'm probably happy with for now....if needs be.

 

Heresy perhaps, in this hallowed company.....but I'm OK with being thought a hairy tick.  

[AndyID]

 willing to accept members with a variety of viewpoints 

 

Except, apparently, those of us who have no desire to re-wheel our existing equipment.

 

I'm sorry Ravenser, but everything you are saying suggests (to me anyway) that you are a zealot for DOGA standards who will not contemplate any deviation from those standards. Why can't you simply accept that 00-SF best meets the needs of some modelers?

[AndyID]

Of course, a simple solution would be for DOGA to codify 00-SF as a standard. Other than the fact that it was "not invented here", what would be the downside? It's not as if DOGA has restricted itself to a single standard.

 

As we used to say in the communications industry, 

 

"The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."  

[hayfield]

I think you are freely confusing two different things - a society catering for all modellers working in a gauge, who come from a variety of different positions and backgrounds, and a particular set of standards (one of several) defined by that society for the benefit of modellers working to it.

 

On this side of the Atlantic the phrase "a broad church" is commonly used to describe an organisation willing to accept members with a variety of viewpoints , as opposed to one that requires adherence to a single tightly defined doctrine. Scale societies are not normally considered as religions , though possibly there was a whiff of that about the original Protofour Society, which did expel members for deviation from the true faith (and which perished as a result)

 

 

I am afraid after reading your posts DOGA is certainly not for me, it seems to be far from being a broad church, a society that is stuck in the past and is not open to suggestions. Anyway I think I would be more welcome by the P4 group and I don't model in that gauge

[Ravenser]

Except, apparently, those of us who have no desire to re-wheel our existing equipment.

 

I'm sorry Ravenser, but everything you are saying suggests (to me anyway) that you are a zealot for DOGA standards who will not contemplate any deviation from those standards. Why can't you simply accept that 00-SF best meets the needs of some modelers?

 

You don't need to rewheel your existing RTR equipment to work to OO Intermediate. Sorry, but you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I was pointing out that you would have to go to some trouble to get "fine" wheels on any kit built stock , and suggesting that people simply avoid that trouble when kit building.

 

I remember once trying to source Gibson wheels at a largish show in Eastern England (I was building a few wagons for a friend who works in EM - if push came to shove I was happy to pull out the wheels on a Gibson OO wheelset to do it). I went round every trader - "Gibsons? , don't have any. No - I can do you Romfords though". Why is such a huge issue being made about specialist wheelsets that actually very few people use, in the context of handbuilt track to suit modern RTR

 

As a long term member of a scale society , I'm simply challenging the misrepresentation that you cannot work to the society's published track standards without rewheeling your stock . It might be the case with OO -Fine : its definitely not the case with OO Intermediate.

[Ravenser]

I don't think I've ever seen such a 'misrepresentation'...?

 

The other systems tick some of the boxes....but not quite ticking all the boxes....something that OO-SF does....for me.  This is the whole point.   Much will depend on what a modeller already has..in terms of stock. Much will depend on what that modeller's visiting chums have. OO-SF precludes none [that are cheaply & readily available] in terms of wheels.....the others all have some sort of proviso or other.

 

Now, the latter was the status quo for many years.........we had a choice, of choosing the track & wheel standard we wanted, or could afford......or enduring a compromise. [hence the term for some proprietary tack...universal?}

 

18mm gauge EM didn't run [much] on 18.2 mm gauge.  As an example. The same with the various other 4 mm standards.

 

One of the main reasons why I drifted to  US outline, decades ago, was what I saw as a sensible commonality amongst makers of stock..and to a degree...track. A commonality that certainly wasn't present amongst UK proprietary manufacturers of the age. [we are so lucky nowadays]

 

I guess I'd like may cake, and be eating it too......

 

Edit..in the time it took me to read teh relevant posts, and type my response,others have blatted in from the wings.....

 

But, Raverser says it all, with the statement concerning having wheels and track standards to match...[or, words to that effect]

 

 

 

And this is my point...I cannot afford [in terms of time and finance] to re-wheel every item of stock I own, to suit one particular set of track standards.  I don't actually want to, either.

 

But, it would be nice if I could reduce the levels of compromise I have, in terms of how all the varied wheelsets ride through my crossings.

 

With little or no fettling of said wheelsets by myself.

 

00-SF standards give me that.....all for the sake of 0.3 of a millimetre.

 

And, as I mentioned before, if I am in a hurry, plain track can be simply that...bought-in [or scrounged] 16.5 mm gauge stuff, from any source.

 

For the issues that have bothered me concern turnouts themselves, and the ride through them. So the turnouts can be to 00-SF standards...a mix 'n match scenario I'm probably happy with for now....if needs be.

 

Heresy perhaps, in this hallowed company.....but I'm OK with being thought a hairy tick.  

 

Where did I suggest you had to rewheel anything???  In a number of respects OO Intermediate/ BRMSB OO track is more forgiving than OO-SF and will accept more wheels

 

This sort of question can only be meaningfully tackled with specifics. What have you got that's not fitted with either RP25/110 or Romfords?. Anything coarser than that won't run on OO-SF anyway 

[Ravenser]

Thanks for the reply. So now we know where we stand. Everyone who wants to do that, or is doing it for historical reasons, can safely disregard everything you say.

 

First you rubbish modellers who like to build their own track. Now you dismiss modellers who want to improve the look of their models with finer wheels.

 

For some this hobby is primarily about making models. Others see things differently. Each to his own, as always -- you may want to bear that in mind. 

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin. Nowhere have I rubbished modellers for making their own track. However track is only one element of a layout - it's perfectly possible to make models and not build your own pointwork . It's also the case that for a lot of people building trackwork is simply a means to resolve a particular problem - the inadequacy of Streamline, or the need for something on which to run their trains in the case of a gauge without commercial pointwork

 

Would you argue that anyone working in 3mm ceased to be a modeller if they used Peco 12mm gauge track? (As some do - there was a nice layout based on Portsmouth at Railex this year which did exactly that)

[AndyID]

Ravenser, when did I say my all my equipment was RTR? It's not.

 

If it was all modern RTR equipment I would not need 00-SF. This has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

[Semi Fast]

Once again, a thread which references 00-SF has become a battleground of opinion between those who would like to banish it to Room 101 and those who would just like to discuss it's practicalities.

Please, would those who would prefer other people not to use 00-SF start their own thread on its faults and drawbacks rather than complicating one which is concerned with a specific question on its implementation.

[martin_wynne]

It's also the case that for a lot of people building trackwork is simply a means to resolve a particular problem - the inadequacy of Streamline

 

Ravenser I think this is where you going wrong. I would suggest that very few modellers are handbuilding track for that reason.

 

To hell with Streamline, good bad or indifferent -- what they want is to build layouts like this (sorry to post Russell's pic yet again):

 

 

(From this topic: http://www.rmweb.co....on-in-em-gauge/ )

 

For which no commercial ready-made track will ever be suitable, no matter how much improved.

 

If the inadequacy of Peco Streamline is the problem, there are plenty of other commercial options without handbuilding, such as Marcway, or Norman Saunders: http://www.just-tracks.co.uk/

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Ravenser, when did I say my all my equipment was RTR? It's not.

 

If it was all modern RTR equipment I would not need 00-SF. This has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

 

I didn't suggest it was all RTR. But if your equipment is fitted with Romfords (or Hamblings or whatever) then you don't need OO-SF . Check rails are fully operative on BRMSB OO for that.

[alastairq]

Where did I suggest you had to rewheel anything???  In a number of respects OO Intermediate/ BRMSB OO track is more forgiving than OO-SF and will accept more wheels

 

This sort of question can only be meaningfully tackled with specifics. What have you got that's not fitted with either RP25/110 or Romfords?. Anything coarser than that won't run on OO-SF anyway 

 

 

.............erm...pretty much, that is what your quote amounts to?

 

 

 

Firstly, I'm not advocating using wheels to a wide variety of profiles on the same layout. Wheel and track standards are two sides of the same coin. It's about time we exorcised the chimera of "OO Universal",  the magic "one size fits all". To each track standard, a corresponding wheel standard. To each  wheel standard a corresponding track standard

[Ravenser]

Ravenser I think this is where you going wrong. I would suggest that very few modellers are handbuilding track for that reason.

 

To hell with Streamline, good bad or indifferent -- what they want is to build layouts like this (sorry to post Russell's pic yet again):

 

 

(From this topic: http://www.rmweb.co....on-in-em-gauge/ )

 

For which no commercial ready-made track will ever be suitable, no matter how much improved.

 

If the inadequacy of Peco Streamline is the problem, there are plenty of other commercial options without handbuilding, such as Marcway, or Norman Saunders: http://www.just-tracks.co.uk/

 

Martin.

 

 

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this one. From where I sit, the main reason why OO modellers build pointwork is because they can't accept Peco. The sleepers are totally  wrong, the flangeways are too coarse for modern RTR.

 

The biggest letdown on the average OO layout is the Peco track . If you can't abide Peco , your only current option is handbuilt track (Whether you build it yourself or buy it from Marcway)

 

Norman Saunders isn't cheap.

[alastairq]

I didn't suggest it was all RTR. But if your equipment is fitted with Romfords (or Hamblings or whatever) then you don't need OO-SF . Check rails are fully operative on BRMSB OO for that.

 But...what if, I don't happen to like BRMSB, or other systems?

 

What if I don't like their shortcomings....? [And they will have some]

 

The point is....00-SF is as equally valid a set of standards as any other.

 

ANd for me, does what I need, which others don't properly do.

 

I like the idea, I like their versatility...I don't like the more rigid constrictures presented by other standards.

 

I don't see how setting 00-SF aside for another set of standards, simply because they are there, is relevant.

[martin_wynne]

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this one. From where I sit, the main reason why OO modellers build pointwork is because they can't accept Peco. The sleepers are totally  wrong, the flangeways are too coarse for modern RTR.

 

Well I seem to be sitting in a different place. But if that is the reason they are handbuilding, then clearly such modellers don't need 00-SF. And no-one has ever suggested that they do.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

.............erm...pretty much, that is what your quote amounts to?

 

I was suggesting that people should be careful what they choose to fit at the building stage. And since you actually have to make quite an effort to source Gibsons or Ultrascales, I suggest you save yourself that trouble - and fit what's readily available when building.

 

Every Parkside kit I've ever bought has Romford wheels in the packet . Cambrian supply nothing. Kirk supply(ed) nothing . Dapol gave thick plastic wheels that went in the bin. Ratio - generally nasty injection moulded plastic.

 

Most folk have always fitted Romfords on kit-built locos.

 

Unless you go out of your way at building stage to create a problem with the wheels - there isn't one

[martin_wynne]

Once again, a thread which references 00-SF has become a battleground of opinion between those who would like to banish it to Room 101 and those who would just like to discuss it's practicalities. Please, would those who would prefer other people not to use 00-SF start their own thread on its faults and drawbacks rather than complicating one which is concerned with a specific question on its implementation.

 

It's noticeable that David Honner hasn't returned to the fray -- and who can blame him.

 

We are missing Andy Reichert's measured contributions though.

 

Martin.

[Semi Fast]

Surely the overpowering reasons to hand build turnouts is to be able to create:

i. prototypical form (i.e. to suit the location in terms of angle, curvature and length)

ii. provide a little 'give and take' in fitting required formations into the available modelling space.

 

After these comes the opportunity to improve the illusion with the 'look' of the trackwork through tighter flangeways, flexible switch rails, etc. and the icing on the cake is the chance to improve running quality across the range of commonly-available wheelsets.

 

If all we wanted was running quality to a known standard, we'd all be using commercial rtr trackwork.  Building one's own turnouts and using C&L flexitrack ticks all the boxes listed above for me - including the 'icing' as I have wagons with "finer" wheels which I want to run with my rtr - but on trackwork which looks realistic in form.  Even on the modern railway there are more than 3 radii of left and right hand points and two of Y points.

[polybear]

I was suggesting that people should be careful what they choose to fit at the building stage. And since you actually have to make quite an effort to source Gibsons or Ultrascales, I suggest you save yourself that trouble - and fit what's readily available when building.

 

Quite an effort to source Gibsons?  Not so sure about that....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101876-alan-gibson-wheels/

[Ravenser]

In OO , the  main reason for building track is to get away from Peco. I used to be involved with a club project . A plan was drawn up using Peco Streamline 75 - because no-one in the group had ever built points. The committee said "No you have to use handbuilt track on the visible bits. Can't have Streamline on an exhibition layout."

 

Someone had to be found to build the pointwork (and he didn't want the rest of the group involved in making them).

 

I suspect that's not untypical

[martin_wynne]

Building one's own turnouts and using C&L flexitrack ticks all the boxes listed above for me - including the 'icing' as I have wagons with "finer" wheels which I want to run with my rtr - but on trackwork which looks realistic in form. Even on the modern railway there are more than 3 radii of left and right hand points and two of Y points.

 

Thanks for that post Andrew. That's just the sort of modelling for which 00-SF is intended.

 

I hope Ravenser can see you from where he is sitting.

 

Martin.