Minimum radius for industrial sidings in 00-SF

[hayfield]

In 4 mm scale the common standards in 00 universal (for want of a better description) is now out of date for modern stock. The only thing I can agree with Andy Reichert is that it was designed over 50 years ago. That was a time when Triang locos had steam roller wheels and a bit later on Lime made the Pizza cutter wheels, 00 gauge standards were designed for these greatly over scale wheels

 

Now with the modern stock having much finer wheels, they work much better through crossings which use finer tolerances. 00sf is one of the solutions used to solve this problem. The world has moved on (and its round) as I said this is one of the solutions to enhancing both looks and performance. If you don't like it then use something else, its a free world

[Arthur]

 

But to answer your question thoughtfully, UK modellers are most likely to be interested in their widely UK used "00" mm gauge which happens to be the same interoperable 16.5 mm gauge used so much both at home and world-wide.

 Andy

Most may be, but some are not, who are you to impose your standards on others? Can you just let those of us interested in trying something different get on with it without this constant barrage of nonsense. Nobody cares what standards you adopt, why do you care what we do?

 

So in order to raise interest, you go around promoting SM on every hand laying topic, and as just an "00" version instead, and cause all this confusion about gauges, back to backs and flange way clearances.

 

I'm beginning to see the resemblance to the AMRA.

Andy

What complete and utter nonsense. Nobody, least of all Martin, promotes 00-SF. There's no "raising of interest", it couldn't possibly be any more low key. Advice is freely offered if requested.

 

I'm beginning to see the resemblance to a troll.

[Andy Reichert]

Most may be, but some are not, who are you to impose your standards on others? Can you just let those of us interested in trying something different get on with it without this constant barrage of nonsense. Nobody cares what standards you adopt, why do you care what we do?

 

 

What complete and utter nonsense. Nobody, least of all Martin, promotes 00-SF. There's no "raising of interest", it couldn't possibly be any more low key. Advice is freely offered if requested.

 

I'm beginning to see the resemblance to a troll.

 

Your consistent reverting to name calling when you have no answer to helpful correct technical info you don't like, harms your credibility, not mine.

 

If the process of exposing the constantly repeated same old BS for what it is, has a name, then I'm happy to be part of that.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

In 4 mm scale the common standards in 00 universal (for want of a better description) is now out of date for modern stock. The only thing I can agree with Andy Reichert is that it was designed over 50 years ago. That was a time when Triang locos had steam roller wheels and a bit later on Lime made the Pizza cutter wheels, 00 gauge standards were designed for these greatly over scale wheels

 

Now with the modern stock having much finer wheels, they work much better through crossings which use finer tolerances. 00sf is one of the solutions used to solve this problem. The world has moved on (and its round) as I said this is one of the solutions to enhancing both looks and performance. If you don't like it then use something else, its a free world

 

The "modern" wheels on my recent Bachmann and Hornby purchases are all still the same 0.110" steamroller wide.  That kinda makes your post completely flawed, as it is all based on the your first assumption not being wrong.

 

There are no "modern" wheels on RTR stock. That's a complete fantasy, but it's perpetuated constantly here and elsewhere. Which is why I post against it.

 

If you want to put non- 00 standard wheels on your stock, then you need a matching non- 00 standard for your track. . That's been the case for the last fifty years also. Ask any EM or P4 of HOFine modeller.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

There are no "modern" wheels on RTR stock. That's a complete fantasy

 

Hi Andy,

 

That may be true on your side of the pond, but it is not true in the UK. Try measuring the wheel width and back-to-backs on old Triang models.

 

It was only when UK manufacturing transferred to the far east that UK RTR models started being fitted with wheels complying with the NMRA H0 standard (RP25/110 at 14.4mm).

 

By the way, this is completely irrelevant to a topic about industrial sidings in 00-SF.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Mod3]

Back to the topic please and some members are straying close to the wind.

[hayfield]

The "modern" wheels on my recent Bachmann and Hornby purchases are all still the same 0.110" steamroller wide.  That kinda makes your post completely flawed, as it is all based on the your first assumption not being wrong.

 

There are no "modern" wheels on RTR stock. That's a complete fantasy, but it's perpetuated constantly here and elsewhere. Which is why I post against it.

 

If you want to put non- 00 standard wheels on your stock, then you need a matching non- 00 standard for your track. . That's been the case for the last fifty years also. Ask any EM or P4 of HOFine modeller.

 

Andy

Andy

 

 

On the left is an old Triang chassis with a Bachmann beside it.Clearly the wheel profile (as well as the back to back measurement) of the Triang wheels differ greatly from the Bachmann. Now the Peco points will accommodate the Triang wheels even though they are very course. In contrast the Bachmann wheels are much finer, will not work on P4 gauge but may work on EM gauge with the wheels pulled out.

 

You can also see that these wheels are standard stock (to use your description) and not any form of re-wheeled finescale wheels. I also have a very old Mainline J72 loco, whilst the back to back measurement differs again they are still much finer that the 1960's Triang wheels. Most of the Margate made Hornby products also had very coarse wheels. The Triang wheels are 0.157" wide on the model in the photo.

 

The only fantasy is the opinion you have about the modern wheels working as well on a Peco 00/H0 turnout as they do on an 00sf turnout, this thread is about answering a question on the operation of an 00sf turnout once it goes below a certain radius

 

 

As you can see there is a difference between the Peco turnout on the right and the turnout on the left where the crossing is built to 00sf. Now if you prefer the Peco product then please carry on using them. For those of us who wish to have something which we believe is a bit better please allow us to continue to enjoy their use

[Arthur]

Your consistent reverting to name calling when you have no answer to helpful correct technical info you don't like, harms your credibility, not mine.

 

If the process of exposing the constantly repeated same old BS for what it is, has a name, then I'm happy to be part of that.

 

Andy

Who appointed you to police 00-SF threads?

 

I'm not, and never have, name called you. I merely point out that your ceaseless carping on any thread mentioning 00-SF is tiresome in the least. I'm happy to be part of that.

[Andy Reichert]

Andy

 

aa10.jpeg

 

On the left is an old Triang chassis with a Bachmann beside it.Clearly the wheel profile (as well as the back to back measurement) of the Triang wheels differ greatly from the Bachmann. Now the Peco points will accommodate the Triang wheels even though they are very course. In contrast the Bachmann wheels are much finer, will not work on P4 gauge but may work on EM gauge with the wheels pulled out.

 

You can also see that these wheels are standard stock (to use your description) and not any form of re-wheeled finescale wheels. I also have a very old Mainline J72 loco, whilst the back to back measurement differs again they are still much finer that the 1960's Triang wheels. Most of the Margate made Hornby products also had very coarse wheels. The Triang wheels are 0.157" wide on the model in the photo.

 

The only fantasy is the opinion you have about the modern wheels working as well on a Peco 00/H0 turnout as they do on an 00sf turnout, this thread is about answering a question on the operation of an 00sf turnout once it goes below a certain radius

 

aa11.jpeg

 

As you can see there is a difference between the Peco turnout on the right and the turnout on the left where the crossing is built to 00sf. Now if you prefer the Peco product then please carry on using them. For those of us who wish to have something which we believe is a bit better please allow us to continue to enjoy their use

 

The Bachmann  almost certainly has 0.110" width wheels with a vertical effective flange profile contained in a box approx 0.76mm square. And has a back to back tolerance variation in the range 14.6 to 14.37 mm

 

That's the same as my exactly 50 year old this year RTR model tramcars.

 

And you need to check with Martin, because the wheel check gauge setting of those RTR dimensions is potentially 0.16 mm past the (colliding) position of the frog vee point in SM.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

Let's bear in mind that Andy produces some excellent components for trackbuilders -- see: http://proto87.com

 

We can tolerate an occasional bee in a bonnet.

 

Andy, what do you know about the way double-slips are controlled and interlocked on USA railroads? I have steered Randy Pfeiffer your way.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

That's the same as my exactly 50 year old this year RTR model tramcars.

 

And you need to check with Martin, because the wheel check gauge setting of those RTR dimensions is potentially 0.16 mm past the (colliding) position of the frog vee point in SM.

 

But not the same as 50-year-old UK RTR models. This is John's point, and the meaning of his reference to "modern" wheels.

 

The maximum back-to-back for RTR wheels on 00-SF is 14.4mm. In practice they are nearly always tight to this rather than over. The minimum for 00-SF is 14.3mm.

 

See also: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

Martin.

[Arthur]

Let's bear in mind that Andy produces some excellent components for trackbuilders -- see: http://proto87.com

 

We can tolerate an occasional bee in a bonnet.

 

Martin.

Indeed Martin, I've visited Andy's site previously and he clearly produces some innovative and well designed components, no argument there. It's partly why I find his attitude to 00-SF so bizarre, the better you are at something usually makes you more tolerant of the activities of others.

[Ravenser]

I have serious reservations about OO-SF , based on the evident lack of knowledge of exactly what is out there in terms of OO RTR (Martin should buy a new Hornby wagon and check the B2B . He may get a nasty shock. Then he can convert it to EM for his own layout), and the careful misstatements used to obscure key facts and issues.

 

For example - "kit wheels"  for OO are not necessarily to EM profile as Martin suggests. Gibson and Ultrascale are - but Markits/Romfords use a significantly coarser profile approximating to the old BRMSB OO wheel. These will not drop in if the flangeway increases beyond 1.0mm - you should  be ok up to about 1.15mm. And Bachmann and Hornby wagon and coach wheels are widely available , 60% of the cost of Romfords and to their factories' understanding of RP25/110. They are what I use when faced with a kit without wheels (eg Cambrian) or where I find plastic wheels .I'm not the only one

 

The old BRMSB OO standard is 1.25mm flangeways, the current DOGA Commercial/Intermediate standard is 1.20mm +/-0.05mm - not 1.3mm , which is a "convenient restatement" to make them seem coarser.

 

As for the statement (sorry Quote and copy/paste won't work on dratted Windows8.1) 

 

" The common standards in OO Universal is now out of date for modern stock . The only thing I can agree with Andy Reichart is that it was designed over 50 years old. That was a time when Triang locos had steam roller wheels and a bit later on Lima had the pizza cutter wheels, OO standards were designed for these greatly over scale wheels"

 

I'm afraid I've rarely seen so much dangerously misleading misstatement packed into 2 lines.

 

What does Hayfield mean by "the common standards in OO universal"?

 

- The BRMSB standard is 70 years old . But it was most emphatically not designed for Triang and at 1.25mm flangeway it wouldn't take anything Margate made before 2000

- The DOGA Commercial/Intermediate standard was originally issued in 2000 and the data sheet restated in a new format in 2004. It's designed for the RP25/110 wheel

 

- If he means "what Peco do" , well that's not a standard , because there's no published data sheet, Peco have changed it at least once, and probably two or three times and it varies from product to product.

 

As a matter of record - before anyone gets the idea you can run 1960s Triang through current Peco streamline , you can't . I remember seeing an early 70s Transcontinental diesel jamming in Peco streamline points  years ago.

 

I'm not sure when Margate moved from the old Triang wheel standard to the later 13.9mm B2B of the 1980s and 1990s  . I suspect around 1972-4. Anything made after that will run through current Peco Streamline  (I'm not sure about the new concrete sleeper code75 points , and there was a suggestion a couple of years back they might move to 1.25mm flangeways as tooling wore out. )  The Peco Streamline flangeway has been 1.39mm in recent years. However in the 1990s , the Setrack flangeway was 1.55mm , and it may still be. I strongly suspect 1.55mm was the "old" Peco Streamline flangeway from the 1960s designed for Triang wheels. I don't know when they changed because Peco like to hide these things under a veil of silence.

 

No published standard was ever designed for these 20th century wheels.

 

However modern RP25/110 wheels will run very happily on BRMSB OO track because they won't drop in unless the flangeway at the frog is greater than 1.27mm - and the BRMSB standard was 1.25mm It also overlaps - just - with the current DOGA Intermediate standard (1.15mm-1.25mm) 

 

Nobody ever designed a OO track standard for Lima wheels.

 

However they were the MOROP HO standard wheel of the 1970s , complete with the MOROP standard axle length over pinpoints of 24.5mm, which is a dratted nuiscence in 4mm where everyone else uses 26mm, and just like Andy's tram track , they were actually intended to ground and run on their flanges through point work. From some point in the 80s the flanges were reduced so they would run on code 75.

 

And because Lima wheels were MOROP standard HO wheels their B2B was always 14.5mm , so not only will they run on BRMSB OO and DOGA OO intermediate they will also run fine on Martins pet patent OO-SF. They'll look just as horrible as they ever did, and you may need to use code 100 rail , but they'll run

 

(There's an important practical caveat in the OP's particular circumstances , but I'll come to that in the practical posting) 

[martin_wynne]

I have serious reservations about 00-SF

 

Hi (no signature),

 

Don't use it then. Simple.

 

Your history lesson about ancient RTR standards is completely irrelevant to this topic, because anyone still using such models is not going to be building 00-SF track. Or at least, not if they have any sense, and have read about 00-SF.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

As it happens I have a good deal of relevant practical experience in DavidBirds potential situation, though probably rather coarser scale than he's comfortable with.

 

Firstly I'd treat any optimistic comments about what radius you can get a loco round if you torture a piece of flexible track as misleading and a potential snare.

 

Ravenser Mk1 (Mk2 never happened) was a small shunting layout based on a plan in the June 1988 RM. The authors of the plan had put a horseshoe curve on a 2' board and assured us that they'd  tested a Bachmann 03 and it would go round something silly like 7-8" without any trouble.

 

I widened the board to 2'3 , added a Setrack point to a fiddle yard ,thought I'd be fine and had endless trouble. Neither a Lima class 20 nor a Hornby 29 would go round that curve (Not irrelevant to the OP's situation. 20s are used as industrial shunters at Scunthorpe, Flixborough, Hope Cement works and in other places. And the first batch went to Bow Road LMR in 1957. A Bachmann 20 or a Heljan 15 might well be suitable motive power - but he may need to ease out the B2B on a Heljan loco if he uses OO-SF)

 

More seriously I had real problems with a Parkside SPV Plate and a Parkside SOV Pipe wasn't very happy either. Even with tension locks , wagons were being forced off by the angle of the coupling hooks. I had to use a runner on the Plate  - a Triang Single bolster rebuilt with Parkside 10' chassis (Scrubbed up nicely)

 

Friction round the curve was high.

 

In fairness to the layout designers, I believe they actually built their design themselves and later admitted in print that the curve had caused problems and they might have been better using a sectorplate between the two halves of the layout.

 

I would very strongly recommend you don't use anything less than 15" radius in OO under any circumstances. And I would strongly recommend avoiding reverse curves/crossovers tighter than Peco Streamline small radius.

 

Yes I've got a BEC 4 wheel tramcar round a 7" radius loop without problem - but that's completely irrelevant to shunting and propelling wagon. 

 

The next case of fingers burnt was my little Croydon Tramlink layout. Everyone knows light rail uses tight curves , so I thought I could get away with a Setrack point into the cripple siding. Very wrong. A Bachmann 08 was fine. A lightweight articulated light rail unit made from a cardboard kit with a Tenshodo at one end came off every time it propelled through that point - though its fine when the powered end is leading. The project stalled

 

I'm thinking of resurrecting Tramlink and I have a Streamline electrofrog small radius in stock to replace the wretched point. (When I find my feeler gauges I'll check the actual flangeway measurements)

 

Now for check rails and inlaid track.

 

The current layout has Marcway points . The tightest radius is 2'6" at a bespoke crossover - this is not a reverse curve but straight , as it is at the end of the platform, and the point continues at a 30 degree angle - the other road curves into the crossover.

 

Anyway the key issue is that there is a continuous checkrail through this crossover. And my 2 Hornby Pacers will not go through. They bind. It doesn't matter what B2B I set them at. They have the old coarse wheels. Careful observation shows that it's the deep flanges that  are binding. The wheel is presented to the flangeway at a angle, and because it is slightly diagonal across the flangeway, the deep flanges are catching the sides of a 1,25mm flangeway. Result - 2 Pacers that have never run, one of which is in bits while I try to have another go at a Branchlines chassis - with Romfords  - after I couldn't work out how to get Ultrascale wheels in.

 

(This is my caveat when I said Lima wheels will run on OO-SF. I strongly suspect they would jam across the flangeways on any curve with checkrails because of the deep flanges)

 

I'm afraid I've never tried laying checkrails for inset track. On my first teenage tramway , I tried textured plastic on plasticard strips made using a paper template rubbed over the track. Trimming it back so the Mehano tram didn't catch anywhere was a slow laborious process , and the result was not great, even to a 15 year old. The second teenage tramway, and the quayside track at Ravenser used a cheat I saw suggested in a magazine. Take a sheet of paper and make a rubbing over the track. Cut out the bit between the rails with scissors . Paint a suitable colour for the roadway (tarmac on the tramway, concrete on the quayside) . Slip between the rails. The road surface on either side is built up level with the rails in the normal way, but on code 100 track there is plenty of depth for the wheels to run above the paper inside the track. I've not actually tried it on code 75

 

This is a coarse scale cheat

 

On Tramlink and the boxfile it was back to building up on card and trimming back with a scalpel to give flange clearance. Fortunately there was only a bit of inset track , and on the boxfile I managed to avoid having more than about 3" of track with cobbles between the rails (Metcalfe self adhesive cobbles used) I've no illusions that the resulting flangeways are anything other than coarse.

 

If you actually lay a check rail on both sides, there is going to be the issue that it emphasises the narrower than scale issue of OO

[47137]

The maximum back-to-back for RTR wheels on 00-SF is 14.4mm. In practice they are nearly always tight to this rather than over. The minimum for 00-SF is 14.3mm.

 

See also: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

I have my doubts about the figure of 14.4 mm maximum for RTR wheels. I am using a 14.5 mm gauge (sourced from Markits) and my RTR locos set up with this run fine through my own trackwork. I have invested in a set of metric feeler gauges, and I am confident to say my crossing flangeways are greater than 0.95 mm and less than 1.05 mm.

 

I suggest, a back to back dimension for RTR wheels on 00-SF of 14.4 +/- 0.05 mm will be satisfactory for pointwork which meets the 00-SF standard. This will tally with the DOGA intermediate wheel standard too, and this would promote interoperability.

 

- Richard.

[Ravenser]

Martin - If my comments are irrelevant to this topic , so are Hayfield's original  comments, which I'm afraid are muddled and wrong. And since the latter could seriously mislead other people as to what will or won't work , that could cause harm to someone

[martin_wynne]

I have my doubts about the figure of 14.4 mm maximum for RTR wheels. I am using a 14.5 mm gauge (sourced from Markits) and my RTR locos set up with this run fine through my own trackwork. I have invested in a set of metric feeler gauges, and I am confident to say my crossing flangeways are greater than 0.95 mm and less than 1.05 mm.

 

I suggest, a back to back dimension for RTR wheels on 00-SF of 14.4 +/- 0.05 mm will be satisfactory for pointwork which meets the 00-SF standard.

 

Hi Richard,

 

You are probably right in most cases, but we have to allow for some manufacturing tolerance on the flange thickness. It also depends how well the vee nose has been fettled to replicate the corner radius on the rail.

 

In practice, the best way to set wheels is not to use a back-to-back gauge. Build yourself a simple wheel setting fixture using the 00-SF check gauge tool. See here for more details:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/95451-first-point-%E2%80%93-take-two-%E2%80%93-now-in-00-sf/&do=findComment&comment=1763983

 

It would be helpful if 00-SF users who have built such a fixture could report the actual back-to-backs achieved with different types of wheel.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

         I thought I would just put a cat among the pigeons for completeness. Do any of you remember that great idea Triang had for back to backs on rolling stock.   Variable No I am not loosing my marbles. Two separate half axles with rims floating on a separate spindle/axle.I don't know the minimum distance but the maximum relied totally on the back to back of the axle boxes of vehicles to which they were fitted. Does anyone have a picture available for doubters out there?

trustytrev.

[hayfield]

 

 

The old BRMSB OO standard is 1.25mm flangeways, the current DOGA Commercial/Intermediate standard is 1.20mm +/-0.05mm - not 1.3mm , which is a "convenient restatement" to make them seem coarser.

 

As for the statement (sorry Quote and copy/paste won't work on dratted Windows8.1) 

 

" The common standards in OO Universal is now out of date for modern stock . The only thing I can agree with Andy Reichart is that it was designed over 50 years old. That was a time when Triang locos had steam roller wheels and a bit later on Lima had the pizza cutter wheels, OO standards were designed for these greatly over scale wheels"

 

I'm afraid I've rarely seen so much dangerously misleading misstatement packed into 2 lines.

 

What does Hayfield mean by "the common standards in OO universal"?

 

As a matter of record - before anyone gets the idea you can run 1960s Triang through current Peco streamline , you can't . I remember seeing an early 70s Transcontinental diesel jamming in Peco streamline points  years ago.

 

I'm not sure when Margate moved from the old Triang wheel standard to the later 13.9mm B2B of the 1980s and 1990s  . I suspect around 1972-4. Anything made after that will run through current Peco Streamline  (I'm not sure about the new concrete sleeper code75 points , and there was a suggestion a couple of years back they might move to 1.25mm flangeways as tooling wore out. )  The Peco Streamline flangeway has been 1.39mm in recent years. However in the 1990s , the Setrack flangeway was 1.55mm , and it may still be. I strongly suspect 1.55mm was the "old" Peco Streamline flangeway from the 1960s designed for Triang wheels. I don't know when they changed because Peco like to hide these things under a veil of silence.

 

Nobody ever designed a OO track standard for Lima wheels.

 

 

 

What we are talking about is what is available to the man in the street in the UK. The average punter knows only one track system which is PECO.Its all well and good talking about the DOGA or the BRMSB standards, but if the main supplier does not adhere to them then what is the point in quoting them. Peco code 100 track system will allow both Triang and Hornby coarse scale, along with Hornby Dublo and Lima locos and rolling stock to work quite happily. Yes there is finer rail profile (code 75) track available from Peco, but it does not stop the more modern stock from moving side to side within the gauge and wheel drop in the crossing.

 

As for the finescale wheels not being compatible between both 00 & EM gauges, One company supplies both 00 & EM gauge axles with their wheels another gives the option to buy either 00 or EM gauge axles.

 

I accept no one ever designed track for Lima wheels, but Lima designed their wheels to work on 00 gauge track, which it does unless you use finer scale rail and or standards.

 

The biggest problem in the UK is that the quality of RTR loco's and rolling stock has moved on greatly over the years, trouble the standards used by the main supplier of UK track has remained the same. Like it or not 00sf has given 00 gauge modellers the option of better running qualities without having to alter the wheel back to back measurements. As you are so interested in these matters why not give it a try ?

[highpeak]

This is the variable geometry wheel set, here at its wide setting. You can just see the gap between the two halves of the wheel set. There is nothing to constrain it to either wide or narrow setting. The model it the crane that Triang made, not a wholly bad piece of plastic but mounted on a rather clumsy cast metal lump with the vari-wheels.

 

[sp1]

Interesting that someone mentioned Hornby using a 13.9mm back to back years ago - I have an ancient Hornby Pannier (moulded handrails and X04 motor in the cab: after adjustment it runs through 00-SF turnouts!! I use it for testing (and I'm sure it has it's original wheels) - I also use a variety of wagons for testing, including an old Mainline one : surprisingly this also runs on 00-SF with no problems (still has it's plastic wheels), so it's not only 'modern' wheels which will run through 00-SF turnouts .... I was surprised!

[martin_wynne]

What we are talking about is what is available to the man in the street in the UK. The average punter knows only one track system which is PECO.Its all well and good talking about the DOGA or the BRMSB standards, but if the main supplier does not adhere to them then what is the point in quoting them.

 

Hi John,

 

There are vast swathes of RMweb devoted to 00 modelling using Peco track and train-set curves.

 

I don't think all this talk of old RTR wheels is very relevant or helpful to discussion about finescale handbuilt track. I know it may not be very PC to say so, but there really are two ends to this hobby. And not much overlap between them.

 

It's important to keep in mind that 00-SF is a derivative of EM, and is only likely to be of interest to modellers who might otherwise consider using EM.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Martin

 

Thanks for that and I do know that the vast masses are quite happy with what the trade offers. I do bow to your knowledge on the subject and those who have made the switch. I would add though that there is an increasing group of modellers  who wish to stay with 00 gauge but prefer both the looks and for them the potential of better running 00sf offers. I can see no issues with those who are quite happy continuing to use Peco track and sharp radius curves and I certainly hope I have not given any idea that I look down upon them.

 

00sf does though give those who want something a bit better but still run their 00 gauge stock straight from the box, what is wrong though is those who try telling us 00sf is wrong and will not work. The OP wants to use 00sf and is seeking advice about its use and I guess this is where we should be putting all our efforts in assisting. I for one would like to see them prove/disprove the specific advice that has been given, that's how the hobby moves on

[martin_wynne]

there is an increasing group of modellers  who wish to stay with 00 gauge but prefer both the looks and for them the potential of better running 00sf offers.

 

Hi John,

 

It's important to make clear though that if modellers want to use only RTR models, it is not necessary to go to 00-SF to get good running. 00-BF / DOGA Intermediate works just as well for RTR models. Doesn't look so good with the wider flangeways, but runs equally well. There seems to be a perception spreading that 00-SF is the only option available, and this is not the case.

 

00-SF was originally devised to provide proper track for kit wheels in 00 (which in most cases are actually EM wheels) without widening the back-to-back. It's just a bonus that it has turned out that modern RTR wheels will also run on it, allowing both types of wheel to be mixed on the same layout with good running from both.

 

If C&L could be persuaded to supply a proper set of gauges for 00-BF (they already do the 15.2mm check gauge, so it shouldn't be too difficult) and include them in their kits, I think quite a few modellers would adopt 00-BF and be happy to run their RTR models on it.

 

Unfortunately I don't think that's too likely at least until C&L's current stock of DOGA-Fine gauges (currently showing 190 sets in stock) have all been sold -- mostly I imagine to unsuspecting modellers who don't understand what they are getting.

 

With the majority using 00-BF, that would leave those who really do want to use 00-SF, and understand its purpose, free to do so without the constant carping and criticism from those who clearly don't understand it.

 

regards,

 

Martin.