Minimum radius for industrial sidings in 00-SF

[mightbe]

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTCuvy1lsA

 

and please excuse my late night typos.

 

Andy

 

Well you replace all the wheels with P4 ones to run on Proto87 track, so what concern is it of yours what RTR manufacturers use with 4mm British outline?

 

--I correct myself. I saw a companion video and the locomotive definitely did not have P4 wheels

[sp1]

I believe Tony Wright had his track built to DOGA-fine without his knowing the difference and he has to adjust the b2b's. (I could be mistaken)

From what I have read recently it's worse than that: I might be mistaken, but he has said the he uses a 14.5mm back to back gauge AND files the check rails to make things work??

[martin_wynne]

I believe Tony Wright had his track built to DOGA-fine without his knowing the difference and he has to adjust the b2b's. (I could be mistaken)

 

I suspect he is not alone. And C&L still have 190 DOGA-Fine roller gauge sets in stock, still don't explain that they are for DOGA-Fine only, and still include them in turnout kits. Brian Lewis started this nonsense at C&L, which would have been fine if it had ever been properly explained to unsuspecting buyers.

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

Well you replace all the wheels with P4 ones to run on Proto87 track, so what concern is it of yours what RTR manufacturers use with 4mm British outline?

 

--I correct myself. I saw a companion video and the locomotive definitely did not have P4 wheels

 

But I'm NOT concerned with what wheels RTR manufacturers normally supply on their models !!!    Here or elsewhere. Despite the claims from Terry, mainstream RTR all works just fine. As millions of users already noticed, by their absence of problems..

 

Right now my colleagues and I are running various tests and demos using (often unintentionally) mixed wheels of all types. Code 110, Code 88, Code 72, P4, P:87.

 

As the layout expands, I intend to have both US and UK scenically separated sections which will be able use (abuse?) other sections as temporary hidden sidings for the duration of a particular national operating session..

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

I suspect he is not alone. And C&L still have 190 DOGA-Fine roller gauge sets in stock, still don't explain that they are for DOGA-Fine only, and still include them in turnout kits. Brian Lewis started this nonsense at C&L, which would have been fine if it had ever been properly explained to unsuspecting buyers.

 

Martin.

 

That's basically the issue I'm been warning about, but instead being so heavily pushed back on, through these lists. There never has been a hobby wide explanation of the difficulties you can run into when some part of a widely used standard gets changed, and the name doesn't (or not all of the name). And soooooo many people don't want to hear that what they just sold (or bought) is not as it should be.

 

It's just as bad here in the US due to the unsolicited (and probably just mistaken) introduction of code 88 wheels, and the huge marketing support then given as though they were an improvement for (US) 16.5 mm gauge with 0.050" flangeways.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

That's basically the issue I'm been warning about, but instead being so heavily pushed back on, through these lists. There never has been a hobby wide explanation of the difficulties you can run into when some part of a widely used standard gets changed, and the name doesn't (or not all of the name).

 

Hi Andy,

 

But DOGA-Fine hasn't been changed. It's still "EM minus 1.7" and it still works just fine for those who want it. It has the same radius restrictions as EM and 00-SF.

 

But the DOGA-Fine check span is 14.5mm, so RTR wheels must be widened to 14.6mm minimum back-to-back, 14.7mm max. Which is no problem if that's what folks want to do -- but they need to be told that is what's required and that other options are available.

 

And it doesn't have 00 in the name.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

That's basically the issue I'm been warning about, but instead being so heavily pushed back on, through these lists. There never has been a hobby wide explanation of the difficulties you can run into when some part of a widely used standard gets changed, and the name doesn't (or not all of the name). And soooooo many people don't want to hear that what they just sold (or bought) is not as it should be.

 

It's just as bad here in the US due to the unsolicited (and probably just mistaken) introduction of code 88 wheels, and the huge marketing support then given as though they were an improvement for (US) 16.5 mm gauge with 0.050" flangeways.

 

Andy

This is not the issue, OO is , was and will be a mess of " standards" or lack of them. The issue is not that there is a move away from a "standard" in 00 there wasn't one to begin with.  Hence we have several attempts to define " solutions" , which by the way , are more in the realm of "modifications", since there is really no 00 standards body.

 

I do admit that DOGA-fine is a very strange default choice for C&L, given it has little following as I can see and must confuse the hell out of newbies when they built a point in it and then have wheel trouble 

 

Has Brian Lewis ever advanced a reason for this ?

[martin_wynne]

I do admit that DOGA-fine is a very strange default choice for C&L, given it has little following as I can see and must confuse the hell out of newbies when they built a point in it and then have wheel trouble 

 

Has Brian Lewis ever advanced a reason for this ?

 

One fairly obvious reason must be economic -- DOGA-Fine kits use the same 1.0mm assembled crossings as for EM kits.

 

The same would apply to 00-SF of course, but that doesn't exist according to DOGA, which was presumably the C&L source of info.

 

Martin.

[Arthur]

 

Andy, thanks for your reply. As for the claims, I'll give you a pass on Terry's postings, I don't know if you are right or wrong but few, if any, UK modellers are going to be considering Australian modelling standards for their track work, why on earth would they? So let's keep this to UK outline, 00 modellers.

 

So, if I boil the rest of it down.

 

Relatively inexperienced modellers do not build their own track, and when people do make that move, as I said, credit them with some common sense that they will research it first. These are the types of modellers who are looking at EM, possibly P4, but are attracted to the idea of using their existing stock, unmodified. No one is encouraging them into 00-SF, the information is there should they find it of interest.

 

All your concerns are theoretical or wildly speculative, none of it is from actual experience of running 00-SF.

 

The Wright Lines link is irrelevant, it's not 00-SF, and his comments on poor running at exhibitions relate to ALL scales and gauges.

 

As to your four points, to be honest, I find them bizarre,

 

 

1). Greater minimum radius? Well of course, with 00-SF we're talking of modellers looking to get away from toy track and toy radii. Nobody is going to adopt 00-SF and run on set track radius curves. With this caveat, like the author of this thread, when I build my industrial track, I'll play around to see what I can get away with.

 

2) You have to handlay your turnouts? Are you being serious?, of course you do, this is all about hand built turnouts. Your stock will still run through RTR turnouts though, the wheelsets are straight out of the box.....

 

3) Tell me who in the UK runs British Outline 00 models on code 88 wheels? Who is proposing or even suggesting it? It is not going to happen, this is a misleading non issue. Your concern for future proofing and fears for 'people ripping up track'. It's so ludicrously unlikely as to be laughable. Furthermore, if the RTR guys did improve their wheel standards, and presumably their track, most of us would be delighted.....

 

4) Yeah, US prototype modelling is irrelevant in this context.

 

You want to run 00 and H0, from the box, on your own track? Great, get on with it. Let those of us who only run British outline 00 look for a better solution to suit our needs free from spurious fears and concerns.

.

[Ravenser]

Andy, thanks for your reply. As for the claims, I'll give you a pass on Terry's postings, I don't know if you are right or wrong but few, if any, UK modellers are going to be considering Australian modelling standards for their track work, why on earth would they? So let's keep this to UK outline, 00 modellers.

 

So, if I boil the rest of it down.

 

Relatively inexperienced modellers do not build their own track, and when people do make that move, as I said, credit them with some common sense that they will research it first. These are the types of modellers who are looking at EM, possibly P4, but are attracted to the idea of using their existing stock, unmodified. No one is encouraging them into 00-SF, the information is there should they find it of interest.

 

All your concerns are theoretical or wildly speculative, none of it is from actual experience of running 00-SF.

 

The Wright Lines link is irrelevant, it's not 00-SF, and his comments on poor running at exhibitions relate to ALL scales and gauges.

 

As to your four points, to be honest, I find them bizarre,

 

 

1). Greater minimum radius? Well of course, with 00-SF we're talking of modellers looking to get away from toy track and toy radii. Nobody is going to adopt 00-SF and run on set track radius curves. With this caveat, like the author of this thread, when I build my industrial track, I'll play around to see what I can get away with.

 

2) You have to handlay your turnouts? Are you being serious?, of course you do, this is all about hand built turnouts. Your stock will still run through RTR turnouts though, the wheelsets are straight out of the box.....

 

3) Tell me who in the UK runs British Outline 00 models on code 88 wheels? Who is proposing or even suggesting it? It is not going to happen, this is a misleading non issue. Your concern for future proofing and fears for 'people ripping up track'. It's so ludicrously unlikely as to be laughable. Furthermore, if the RTR guys did improve their wheel standards, and presumably their track, most of us would be delighted.....

 

4) Yeah, US prototype modelling is irrelevant in this context.

 

You want to run 00 and H0, from the box, on your own track? Great, get on with it. Let those of us who only run British outline 00 look for a better solution to suit our needs free from spurious fears and concerns.

.

 

 

1) This is the biggie, and there's some very marked, and increasingly unpleasant polarisation going on.  It's being implied that unless you are using very generous minimum radii , you're not a modeller. Just how generous a minimum is unclear - Martin Wynne has quoted 2'6" as an absolute minimum . Terry Flynn at post 51 is claiming an 880mm (=2'10.5") minimum radius for an A4 . I calculated his tables gave 960mm minimum for an L1 tank on a crossover - possibly I used the incorrect table, but Terry's reaction was to claim that it was a considerably distorted coarse model (as opposed to that paragon of finescale virtue a Bachmann Pannier) .

 

I would have thought that the wheelbase would perhaps be more critical than the body length - the general wisdom is that eight-coupled locos are more trouble than six-coupled , and I would have expected an O2 or ROD/O4 to be more demanding than an A4 in terms of radii (Terry's formula would make the ROD go round a tighter curve than the A4). But we do seem to be talking about absolute minimum radii as high as 3' for these "narrow-fine" tracks

 

The key issue here is that a minimum radius is an absolute limit , which can never be breached. Of course generous curves look better - but just one curve anywhere on the layout below the absolute minimum of (say) 3'  and you're stuffed - the layout won't work properly. And that curve could very well be in the fiddle yard throat where frankly appearance doesn't matter but it matters a great deal whether things stay on the track  (I was once involved with an exhibition layout where  the track "front of house" was handbuilt and main curves were about 5' radius - but there were a couple of Peco slips and one or two small radius points  in the fiddle yard)

 

An absolute minimum radius of  3' is prohibitive for the vast majority of British modellers . Most people struggle to get to an absolute minimum radius of 2' (though they may well have most of their curves and pointwork above this figure)

 

There is a very big gulf between an absolute lower limit of 3' radius , and the widespread use of second radius Setrack . But we are seeing a polaraisation here, with people saying "if you can't commit to an absolute minimum radius everywhere on the layout of 3' , - youre not a modeller, your just playing with toy trains on a toy trainset  and get back to your Setrack and stay there".

 

I think a large part of the hobby falls into that gap ...

 

As a committed OO modeller I also strongly object to the casual assumption that anyone who may be contemplating  track better than Peco must therefore be looking at moving to EM or P4 

 

3) Anyone who's bought a Black Beetle motor bogie without checking carefully what profile they were buying, for starters. In the early days you had to ask and check carefully to endure you were'nt being sold RP25/88

[Ravenser]

This is not the issue, OO is , was and will be a mess of " standards" or lack of them. The issue is not that there is a move away from a "standard" in 00 there wasn't one to begin with.  Hence we have several attempts to define " solutions" , which by the way , are more in the realm of "modifications", since there is really no 00 standards body.

 

I do admit that DOGA-fine is a very strange default choice for C&L, given it has little following as I can see and must confuse the hell out of newbies when they built a point in it and then have wheel trouble 

 

Has Brian Lewis ever advanced a reason for this ?

 

Someone who clearly does not want to see any standards for OO , because that would give the poor OO modeller a helping hand...

 

There is a OO standards body , in DOGA , who do after all represent a significant number of modellers working in OO - more than can be said for most promulgators of 4mm standards (The pitch has regularly been queered by small cabals drawing up their own pet idea and trying to impose it on the world at large - the BRMSB and the Model Railway Study Group being salient examples).  

 

The history is that C+L have been selling track products for OO based  on "EM-1.7mm" since at least the early 1990s - certainly back to the days when John Pottinger was running C+L and probably back to when Len Newman was involved. At the time that approach was being strongly advocated by Iain Rice among others - the assumption seems to have been that as all RTR  then and for ever would have to be rewheeled you might as well use EM wheels rather than Romfords    

 

The DOGA Fine standard was a formal codification and description of the wheel and track standards for this "C+L/Gibson/Ultrascale" approach , so that everyone knew what it was, and could check what products were for that standard and what were for the traditional BRMSB OO - which in those days was presented as an obsolete standard just used by dinosaurs , but has turned out to be what a very large majority of those using handbuilt track in OO actually work to. 

 

[slight edit to correct typo - do not make long technical posts late at night...]

.0

[mightbe]

Well, the majority of people who consider OO-SF or EM or DOGA-Fine or P4 are only interested in curves larger than 3 feet, which in my eyes is still ridiculously tight for mainline steam, but is conscionable in fiddle yards etc. You also forget that OO-SF uses gauge widening necessarily below about 40" IIRC, which gives you down to 28" radii. But nobody builds to that--just use good ol' 16.5 mm flex. Voilà, the same tight radii in back with good looking turnouts in the visible area, without having to modify and b2b's.

 

Just make certain there aren't any turnouts in that area that would be adversely affected. Good planning can cure all layout ills. 

[mightbe]

Modeller in my book=anyone who seeks to improve on the commercial offerings in whatever way they can.

[martin_wynne]

There is a OO standards body , in DOGA , who do after all represent a significant number of modellers working in OO - more than can be said for most promulgators of 4mm standards (The pitch has regularly been queered by small cabals drawing up their own pet idea and trying to impose it on the world at large - the BRMSB and the Model Railway Study Group being salient examples).

 

How did DOGA acquire the right to set standards for 00? And the sole right to "draw up their own pet idea and try to impose it on the world at large"?

 

You and your DOGA  would have far more authority grounded in the history of the hobby if you at least correctly called it 00 instead of OO.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

An absolute minimum radius of  3' is prohibitive for the vast majority of British modellers.

 

Only if they want to build a roundy-roundy layout. Many hundreds of modellers, maybe thousands, have decided that they would rather have an end-to-end layout than try to run scale models round train-set curves. The terminus to fiddle yard layout has been a staple design of the UK hobby for years.

 

Martin.

[mightbe]

It's entirely doable even in a modest space--a small Inglenook currently under construction, not past baseboards yet though. 

 

 

Granted I'm not too interested in operations--I'm merely trying to achieve a degree of verisimilitude. To me that means I need to use at least B8s. It also means giving extra length and room in the sidings. The prototype is chock-full of space. 

 

Minimum radius of six scale chains, and only 60" by 18". 

 

While this is an example in the extreme (small area with ultra-generous curves), it shows that you don't need a big space to run things in a big way.  

 

*Notes

--the grey box on the track is the size of the largest loco I plan to use on the layout, inc. buffers--my Std 4 tank

--I created the layout in Templot and then carefully 'traced' it with Peco flex in Anyrail to play with scenic design

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Andy,

 

But DOGA-Fine hasn't been changed. It's still "EM minus 1.7" and it still works just fine for those who want it. It has the same radius restrictions as EM and 00-SF.

 

SNIP

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

The minimum radius is set for a 3 or more fixed axle locomotive on open track by its wheelbase and the maximum offset of the centre wheels, ends vs centre(s). You just saw the CAD diagram

 

It follows for the same locomotive, as you narrow the gauge, the minimum radius increases (geometrically I think) until it becomes infinity when the smallest possible gauge jams the wheels in a straight line.

 

So No. The same wheel offset loco will have the smallest min radius in 18.83 mm gauge,  then larger in 18.2 mm gauge, then larger still in 16.2 mm. So no 16.2 does not have the same radius restrictions as EM. They are worse.

 

Andy

[mightbe]

Well under the logical minimum yes, but I believe when Martin refers to restrictions he does not mean absolute restriction, but the rough radius at which it makes no sense to lay track that tightly anyway. In that sense, the three are for all intents and purposes, the same. That rough point is around 30" radius. Below that it really doesn't matter one way or the other--it's all theoretical.

 

Only industrial contexts would require radii that tight, and EXTREME examples would be no less than 18", and that would NEVER be for 3-axle Austerities and the like. The choice of locomotives would be restricted to very short-wheelbase locos. So it really makes no sense to apply this to an L1 (as someone did). It would have to be compact 0-4-0Ts if we're talking finescale standards at an 18" radius. The theoretic limit is still irrelevant, because the theoretical limit would never be used on the prototype anyway.

[nswgr1855]

The minimum radius is set for a 3 or more fixed axle locomotive on open track by its wheelbase and the maximum offset of the centre wheels, ends vs centre(s). You just saw the CAD diagram

 

It follows for the same locomotive, as you narrow the gauge, the minimum radius increases (geometrically I think) until it becomes infinity when the smallest possible gauge jams the wheels in a straight line.

 

So No. The same wheel offset loco will have the smallest min radius in 18.83 mm gauge,  then larger in 18.2 mm gauge, then larger still in 16.2 mm. So no 16.2 does not have the same radius restrictions as EM. They are worse.

 

Andy

Yes, we saw your post  with a cad drawing with incorrect assumptions. Real world experience showed your answer was wrong. The minimum clearance between the wheel flange and track gauge needs to be considered before making such a fanciful claim.  EM and 00-SF have the same wheel track clearances, thus the minimum radius ends up the same. 

 

Terry Flynn.

[nswgr1855]

In the real world, the recommended minimum radius curve a 16 ton mineral wagon would/should negotiate was 1 chain (i.e. 22 yards or 66 feet) equal to 268mm (about 10.5") in 4mm scale .

.

Brian R

Excellent prototype information. I assume this 1 chain curve was suitable for 0-4-0 locomotives only, like a PUG. Looking at the theory there is no reason why you can't build 00-SF track with a track gauge of 16.2mm for this prototype example.

 

Terry Flynn.

[nswgr1855]

Andy, thanks for your reply. As for the claims, I'll give you a pass on Terry's postings, I don't know if you are right or wrong but few, if any, UK modellers are going to be considering Australian modelling standards for their track work, why on earth would they? So let's keep this to UK outline, 00 modellers.

 

 

The only reason you would adopt Australian standards is if they produce a better solution to your situation or solve an issue where there is no alternative UK standard. Do not dismiss them out of hand. The AMRA minimum radius standard http://www.amra.asn.au/standards.htm in my view is an excellent standard that is relevant to 00-SF UK models. The standard is not prototype, gauge or scale dependent. It gives a sensible solution if you use body mounted couplings without the need for gauge widening. The AMRA H0 fine tolerance track gauge standard is effectively the 00-SF standard, and AMRA has an EM gauge fine tolerance standard as well, again effectively the same as the EM gauge society's standard.

 

Terry Flynn.

[PatB]

Excellent prototype information. I assume this 1 chain curve was suitable for 0-4-0 locomotives only, like a PUG. Looking at the theory there is no reason why you can't build 00-SF track with a track gauge of 16.2mm for this prototype example.

 

Terry Flynn.

 

Presumably if a 9'(?) wheelbase wagon would go round, so would a 4 wheeled locomotive of equal or lesser wheelbase and wheel diameter. The differing driving forces and suspension systems involved may make a difference but, given that most 4 wheeled shunters would have a wheelbase of maybe half that of the wagon, or not much more, I would think this would more than compensate.

[hayfield]

Relatively inexperienced modellers do not build their own track, and when people do make that move, as I said, credit them with some common sense that they will research it first. These are the types of modellers who are looking at EM, possibly P4, but are attracted to the idea of using their existing stock, unmodified. No one is encouraging them into 00-SF, the information is there should they find it of interest.

 

All your concerns are theoretical or wildly speculative, none of it is from actual experience of running 00-SF.

 

 

Arthur

 

From my experience doing track building demos at shows, whilst there are some very gallanted and competent track builders out there, they are vastly out numbered by those who just buy a kit on a whim or as they would like something better than what is on offer by the RTR trade. They have no idea about the finer points about all the 00 gauge standards. In fact assume they are all the same. Unlike the old days when you could buy these at model shops and have the assistant advise on what's best and supply advice, items are now either bought via mail order or at shows where traders can be very busy

 

Very few research what they require and buy whats there (no idea about turnout sizes when described by letters and numbers). With C&L still including roller gauges with check rails that RTR stock may find difficult to get through, its no wonder that many fail at the first hurdle. Given that now you are not buying a £2 copperclad kit buy a £50 plastic kit which is more akin to a scratch builders aid than a simple Airfix kit.

 

I would have argued against this, but there are some who will never be able to build one of these. On the other hand many who can put a loco kit together and would be more than competent to build a turnout, kit think its beyond them.

 

Given what was a simple question at the start of this thread has turned out to be a battle of theories, and why a gauge war has been started by one person is beyond me !! The way this thread has developed must be putting off so many who were considering building some turnouts, when it should be doing the opposite

 

In the same way that those who model in either P4 or EM gauge are (rightly) allowed to promote their gauge, why is there a few who argue against it. More importantly why has H0 American practice entered the discussion when the OP models in 4 mm scale and NOT 3.5 mm. Its about a UK prototype not American.

 

Lets get back to modelling, its much more fun 

 

Just had the pleasure of reading the latest Hobbiton-end update  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/35993-hobbiton-end/ Chill out and have a good read

[Junctionmad]

Someone who clearly does not want to see any standards for OO , because that would give the poor OO modeller a helping hand...

 

There is a OO standards body , in DOGA , who do after all represent a significant number of modellers working in OO - more than can be said for most promulgators of 4mm standards (The pitch has regularly been queered by small cabals drawing up their own pet idea and trying to impose it on the world at large - the BRMSB and the Model Railway Study Group being salient examples).  

 

The history is that C+L have been selling track products for OO based  on "EM-2.0mm" since at least the early 1990s - certainly back to the days when John Pottinger was running C+L and probably back to when Len Newman was involved. At the time that approach was being strongly advocated by Iain Rice among others - the assumption seems to have been that as all RTR  then and for ever would have to be rewheeled you might as well use EM wheels rather than Romfords    

 

The DOGA Fine standard was a formal codification and description of the wheel and track standards for this "C+L/Gibson/Ultrascale" approach , so that everyone knew what it was, and could check what products were for that standard and what were for the traditional BRMSB OO - which in those days was presented as an obsolete standard just used by dinosaurs , but has turned out to be what a very large majority of those using handbuilt track in OO actually work to. 

.0

well I would contend that DOGA is not really a standards body, it has no authority and in effect a standards body would have defined track and wheel standards AND have a mainstream following.

 

my comment about 00 and standards is that in effect we have none, certainly nothing of the scale of US NMRA standards. ( for good or bad)

 

so whats exists today in 4mm 00 is a set of modifications , which to some extent refer back to PECO as the original "standard".  Ie we mod away from PECO in an attempt to fix the shortcomings of the track issue in 00.

 

I would dispute this 

 

 

but has turned out to be what a very large majority of those using handbuilt track in OO actually work to. 

 

Firstly I would contend that many 00 layouts are not using hand built track.  where they are, I suspect we are seeing all sorts of combinations of so-called standards. Again I suspect its quite a small handful of relatively experienced modellers that are hand building turnouts in 00 and I suspect no-one is hand building straight track, all are using some form of flexi. This is merely based on my own view of layouts in 00

 

in this regard 00-SF, is a useful " modification " to the standard 00 16.5mm track installation, its not a 16.2 gauge in reality is a modification of the flange way dimensions in turnouts. I fail to see what criticism can be attributed to that 

[Junctionmad]

 

The limitations I agree with are:

1 You have to accept the greater min radius (needing to be tested per each locomotive makers type ) if you don't want the possibility of flange climbing. The min radius always applies at the crossing of a 16.2 mm gauge turnout for most vehicles.

 

2 You will have to hand lay or seriously modify ALL your turnouts if you rely on 16.2 mm gauge to allow mixing in wheels of less that code 110 width with RTR.

 

3 You can't dependably run wheels any "finer" than code 88 now or if they become more popular than code 88 in the future.

 

4. There is an issue with certain US prototype crossing types not working at all, but I think the question meant me to leave that out

huh

 

1.  That applies to almost any track system, especially dependant on what models are running where, also for example you will have to test double track spacing , platform edge clearance etc. This was always the case 

 

2.  Doh, we are talking about non commercial track work

 

3.  Sheesh, for a start more US H0 standards at work, irrelevant .  running p4 wheel profiles ( 2mm thread  down to 1.83 min) is still going to find issues with 00-SF flange ways in certain instances , but one would presume a tweaking of the B2B would help , but SO-what.  anyone going for p4 wheel sets  running on 00 has lost the plot in reality . Again I believe you are mixing H0 and 00.

 

4.  again H0 , not germane to this discussion and only completely confuses the issues