A beginner's 00-SF, and the ends of wing and check rails

[hayfield]

Martin

 

Thanks, I just thought a B7 may be slightly larger than many would want, having said that normally most like that size

[martin_wynne]

Thanks, I just thought a B7 may be slightly larger than many would want

 

Hi John,

 

Despite countless column inches on RMweb, I do wonder if we have properly explained 4-SF (00-SF). If someone finds a B-7 too large for general layout use, I would suggest that maybe 4-SF wouldn't be their best choice of standard.

 

Here is a B-7 in 4-SF alongside a Peco Large Radius turnout. It is still comfortably inside 300mm / 12" long, which is the traditional size to allow for a straight turnout in 4mm layout planning.

 

 

We could perhaps say B-6 instead. But if only RTR models are being run, 00-BF works equally well as 4-SF and does allow for shorter sharp-radius turnouts.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

I would suggest that 4-SF (00-SF) isn't really suitable for such short turnouts, except in small goods yards where main-line locomotives don't go.

 

If you need to use such short turnouts on your layout, it would be better to stick to 00-BF.

 

Supplying an ultra-short turnout for folks to try wouldn't be providing a fair test of 4-SF and is bound to lead to reports of this or that model not running over it.

 

John, I would suggest a B-7 as a reasonable size to properly demonstrate the advantages of 4-SF.

 

The funny thing is, the main line of my layout is Peco (close to 00-BF), and the yard is 00-SF. Decided when I started the build. The Peco medium radius turnout I suggest is actually larger than four out of my five 00-SF turnouts. Copying a Peco point lets people stick with AnyRail for layout planning too.

 

If you are telling me 00-SF is unsuitable for my layout, I'd really like to see some evidence why this should be so. Some photos of your own 00-SF turnouts would be a good start, in place of the endless rhetoric. Because, I know, my layout works. In the turnouts, any locomotive which will go round the curve will go through the crossing too. And very neatly, too.

 

I am getting a bit fed up with being told that what I have done is "unsuitable for 00-SF" when all I have done is to raise the bar a bit by pushing out the limit for curve radii.

 

Edit: let me add: - if the intended response is my turnouts work only because you think I haven't built them properly, haven't used the gauges properly, have used the wrong size rail, haven't met the standard, have wing rails one sleeper too long or indeed because the phase of the moon was lucky for me - it would be best to try something constructive instead. Like showing your own 00-SF trackwork.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Richard,

 

Apologies if I have offended you.

 

But if you have successfully built 4-SF turnouts I'm puzzled why you would want a sample turnout from John to try?

 

It's great that you have "pushed the limits" as you say to get short 4-SF turnouts working. But I think pushing the limits is not what most users would be looking to do, at least not for a first trial. Some folks will have large main-line locomotives, and expecting them to run over sharp 4-SF turnouts of around 1:4.5 angle, even with full gauge-widening, is not in my view reasonable or likely to provide faultless running with all models in all circumstances. A sample turnout needs to be one typical of the size being used by the majority of EM and 4-SF modellers.

 

I'm sorry I don't have any 4-SF turnouts to show you. 40 years ago I was manufacturing them to order and made many dozens of them. Nowadays my modelling, such as it is, is in 7mm scale.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Richard

 

Martin I believe was saying that to see the real benefit of an 00sf (4sf) turnout, a B7 turnout would be more appropriate, not that there is no real benefit in making it smaller.

 

I could be wrong (I normally am) but I seem to remember that in EM gauge 36" radius is seen as the minimum, with 00sf being a derivative of EM I guess the same reason stands. That is not to say you cannot build EM turnouts to a smaller radius, I am for a layout that uses very small locos. given the larger size of turnout 00bf may suffer wheel drop owing to the much larger gap between the knuckle and tip of the Vee

 

The Idea is to show the benefits of 00sf, so all suggestions are very welcome

[The Stationmaster]

Hi John,

 

Despite countless column inches on RMweb, I do wonder if we have properly explained 4-SF (00-SF). If someone finds a B-7 too large for general layout use, I would suggest that maybe 4-SF wouldn't be their best choice of standard.

 

Here is a B-7 in 4-SF alongside a Peco Large Radius turnout. It is still comfortably inside 300mm / 12" long, which is the traditional size to allow for a straight turnout in 4mm layout planning.

 

b7_v_peco_large.png

 

We could perhaps say B-6 instead. But if only RTR models are being run, 00-BF works equally well as 4-SF and does allow for shorter sharp-radius turnouts.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Sorry to butt in Martin but surely the critical element is not just the length of the turnout itself?  In terms of layout planning the place at which the fouling point occurs is as important (and sometimes as critical) because it will have as much influence on siding length as the [radius of the point and] crossing angle.   In your comparative illustration in Post 104 not only is the crossing further away from the switch toes but the crossing angle is less pronounced - thus the fouling point will be further from the switch toes given similar curvature or whatever of the two tracks beyond the crossing.

 

This isn't a criticism, it isn't necessarily a problem, but it is what will happen and it's another part of the effect of moving away from r-t-l pointwork geometry which some might wish to think about and which they certainly need to understand.  As result it might not suit some folk, especially when laying out sidings (where its impact is likely to be greatest in loss of standage room).  But of course it is not unique to 4-SF as any standard using similar crossing angles will have exactly the same effect.

[47137]

Martin - I was a bit upset but thanks for the apology, most likely I read what you said the wrong way.

 

- - 

I only used the word "I" to make the suggestion seem more personal and immediate, and to endorse John's idea. Mind you I might still like one to compare with my own efforts!

 

The reasons for me suggesting the Peco medium radius are

- 36 inch radius likely to support all RTR locos and stock, even with extra fitted underframe detail

- drop-in replacement for existing layouts

- shows that 00-SF can be fitted into compact layouts

- matches the geometry (crossing angle) of the Peco small radius turnout too

 

There are bound to be a few locos which won't negotiate this - perhaps an 8-coupled kit-built design with too little sideplay on the wheels - but this sort of model will be very much in the minority and the modeller who has one will already know of its limitations.

 

A lot depends on whether we are aiming for the EM gauge modeller returning to 00 gauge, or an existing 00 gauge modeller wanting to try something better. Also, whether we are aiming at the private individual with a roundy-roundy in an 8 x 6 shed or a club building something rather larger. My own experience of 00 gauge is that I'd love 30 inch curves but usually end up with 24 inch ones. If the chosen example turnout is too large, it may put off people who will think "I haven't got the space for this" when in fact they have. Mike's point about the location of the fouling point is true here too.

 

I know the geometry of Peco points does not match up with real track, but it would let a newcomer take one step at a time.

 

- Richard.

[47137]

Martin I believe was saying that to see the real benefit of an 00sf (4sf) turnout, a B7 turnout would be more appropriate, not that there is no real benefit in making it smaller.

 

I could be wrong (I normally am) but I seem to remember that in EM gauge 36" radius is seen as the minimum, with 00sf being a derivative of EM I guess the same reason stands. That is not to say you cannot build EM turnouts to a smaller radius, I am for a layout that uses very small locos. given the larger size of turnout 00bf may suffer wheel drop owing to the much larger gap between the knuckle and tip of the Vee

If you build a flat crossing near a right angle, there will always be a little wheel drop - in any standard. I guess there is a critical crossing angle, at which no standard can support a wheel through the crossing. I have no idea where this is, I imagine it is only found in diamond crossings not turnouts.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

I know the geometry of Peco points does not match up with real track, but it would let a newcomer take one step at a time.

 

Hi Richard,

 

Perhaps the first step from Peco is the change to handbuilt track?

 

Remember that 00-BF and 4-SF turnouts can be mixed on the same layout (because the wheels are exactly the same for both).

 

So where conditions are more challenging, such as in very short turnouts in a yard, a beginner might do better to build those to 00-BF, or else know that if built to 4-SF they will need to be restricted to short-wheelbase shunting locomotives.

 

Mike's point about fouling points is valid, but unavoidable if you want to follow prototype track practice. The same restriction applies in any standard -- EM, P4, etc., and a great many successful layouts have been built in those standards, so clearly fouling points are not a major issue. If we regard 4-SF as EM by other means, then clearly anything which can be done in EM can be done in 4-SF.

 

Also if you watch stock running over Peco crossovers, there is massive unprototypical end-throw at the centres, requiring centre couplers and dummy buffers etc. If you use proper buffers and screw couplings you are likely to suffer buffer-locking. So in moving to finer scale, things do tend to go hand in hand.

 

The great advantage of handbuilt track is that you can tweak angles and lengths, use long curved turnouts, tandems and complex formations, etc., to make the best use of a cramped space. Just creating a drop-in replacement for RTL turnouts doesn't do that, and wouldn't properly represent the advantages of handbuilding to a newcomer.

 

I feel the main thing is to get folks handbuilding track first. 00-BF works fine for that and runs RTR models perfectly down to train-set radii. 4-SF can come later, one turnout at a time if desired. Unlike DOGA Fine it is not an all-or-nothing choice.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

I suspect the first step from Peco turnouts is modified Peco turnouts. There seems to be a sort of rite of passage here - the modeller feels they can "make it better" and has a go at it. With a bit of luck they will make the points end look better, destroy the other end and give up. I've got as far as replacing intermediate timbering, but it really is very difficult to make a useful improvement around the crossing area and it is a lot easier to start from scratch. Unfortunately, this is not terribly obvious if you have never tried.

 

So hand-built track is probably the second step, but I accept Martin's point. To anyone reading this who has never tried hand-built track at all,you could try making a level crossing or some other inset track. If you have one of the much-derided four-slot gauges, use the inner slots to lay the inner rails first. Then put the gauge to one side, and use a 1 mm shim to set up the two running rails. You can actually do this with some FB rail on a piece of foam board, with superglue to hold the rails - so no outlay on anything special. This was my first attempt. Use straight rails, and a steel rule to set them straight - you might as well make things easy for yourself. Trundle a wagon or loco along and watch what happens, see how the wheels sit on the rail.

 

I went on to make a second test - we might call this step 2a. This was a length of Streamline with some of the sleepers pulled off, and re-gauged onto some strips of copperclad. This worked too. This approach will show whether 00-SF is for you, and hopefully the improved appearance alone will say "yes".

 

This is my test piece. The numbers were my imperial interpretation of what is going on, for when I put my micrometer across the assembly at the end.

 

Regarding flowing track formations, yes I think everyone would agree these can look good and save some space. But as an introductory piece (step 3 if you do the level crossing), a copy of a Peco medium radius turnout is a fair sampler. If you care to destroy an existing one, you can pull the metal parts out of the crossing and reuse them, and you can get a template from Peco. Try it out, see if you like it and want it. Step 4 can be to make some more the same, or to get some better templates. Do it in stages.

 

At the end of the day, it is important to keep the merits of 00-SF away from other "features" of railway modelling like scale couplings. Personally I hate the things (too much of a fiddle), and I would hate to see 00-SF promulgated as a part of a doctrine needing sprung buffers, screw couplings and wide wide curves. The hobby is too broad for this.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

I would hate to see 00-SF promulgated as a part of a doctrine...

 

Hi Richard,

 

The ideal situation is that 4-SF (00-SF) isn't promulgated at all. It should just be "there" in the list of standards for those who want it, or to be ignored by those who don't.

 

There isn't a crusade to spread 4-SF across the planet. For 5 years it was listed in Templot without anyone even noticing. The only reason it crops up on RMweb so much is that a) folks keep asking about it, and b) a few modellers object to it on religious grounds.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[47137]

There isn't a crusade to spread 4-SF across the planet. For 5 years it was listed in Templot without anyone even noticing. The only reason it crops up on RMweb so much is that a) folks keep asking about it, and b) a few modellers object to it on religious grounds.

Like, "a god" (anag.) I suppose.

 

- Richard. 

[Junctionmad]

I suspect the first step from Peco turnouts is modified Peco turnouts. There seems to be a sort of rite of passage here - the modeller feels they can "make it better" and has a go at it. With a bit of luck they will make the points end look better, destroy the other end and give up. I've got as far as replacing intermediate timbering, but it really is very difficult to make a useful improvement around the crossing area and it is a lot easier to start from scratch. Unfortunately, this is not terribly obvious if you have never tried.

........

 

 

I don't subscribe to the view that there is or should be some " easi-step" approach moving from peco to hand built. For newcomers, the net and various books abound with information on how to build turnouts. I certainly don't think pulling peco turnouts apart is a good way to learn to hand build turnouts. Like most things , the best way is to read ,ask questions and just " have a go " .

 

And yes 00-SF is about a " finer scale approach to 00 track " ( yes I understand it's an oxymoron ) , and directly relates to finer couplings , better radius track. Buffer locking etc. Arguably all hand built track is done to " improve " the result over peco. It's certainly not done to save money or time !

 

For a beginner looking to move beyond peco , there is no excuse for not getting enough information after that it's just " do it " time

[hayfield]

Junctionmad

 

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your post, but whilst I agree the part about rebuilding Peco turnouts I do feel there should be an easy step into hand built turnouts, if there were an easy to build and reliable kit available then many more modellers would take the step into building their own turnouts

 

I certainly agree  with you on read,ask questions and have a go. Would also add join a club/group/circle of like minded modellers

 

Somehow the message about an easy way to describe the differing standards within 00 gauge so that a modeller buys the correct gauges first time to be able to build a turnout or crossing to suite their own stock and requirements.

 

Building your own turnouts (copperclad) still can save you money over RTR products, and building all the component parts yourself is a massive saving over the kits with pre-made parts within them (the cost of a pr-emade common crossing will fund a minimum of the parts required for 2 turnouts)

 

Any hand made turnout which ever standards/gauge/scale should look much better if decent plans are used as you can design the trackwork to flow smoothly to fit the position on the layout.

 

I think for some the universal/intermediate standards are perfectly acceptable, even the use of code 100 rail to enable the use of older stock. many layouts would benefit from this. For others a step into finer standards is a better option rather than go the whole hog and used either EM or P4 standards, but then again this step may be the best option.

 

What the shakers and movers of the hobby should be doing is to encourage modellers to move into hand building their own track, for better working and of looking trackwork

 

Lets make it easy to take the plunge

[47137]

Lets make it easy to take the plunge

There is another route: buy one of the Tillig H0 point kits. Photocopy the plastic base, and use this as the template. Then build up the metal parts supplied onto copperclad strips.

 

You have to rub down the Tillig rail because it is chemically weathered and you need bare metal to solder onto. But you get a set of ready-cut and machined parts and a tiebar too - effectively all you have to do is cut the timbers to length and from then on it is like building a kit.

 

You will have to blend the Tillig code 83 rail into the layout, but this is not onerous and not too obvious after painting and ballasting.

 

- Richard.

[hayfield]

Sorry Richard but as we have discounted doing this with Peco track which basically H0 why then use Tilling which is H0, this is an 00 gauge thread and the sleeper spacing and size on both are way out. 

 

I accept the point of view of being able to buy pre-made and or assembled parts at a reasonable cost, but with 00sf we are looking at finescale 4 mm track using 00 gauge all be it slightly modified

[47137]

I suggest the Tillig kits because they have all the rail parts you need (except check rails), the point blades are one piece without hinges, and the crossing parts are pre-formed. So the prospective builder does not have to prepare any parts except two check rails. The location of timbers is cosmetic and easy to adjust during construction, just start at the crossing vee and work outwards.

 

I started this thread with the designation 00-SF because I felt I was writing about the geometry described by the standard and this designation would reach and help more people. I happened to build with H0 timber sizes and spacings, but no-one has complained before. For the record, I have two turnouts from Peco, one from Templot set to 00-SF (as it was, now 4-SF in Templot) and two from Templot set to H0-SF. They all meet the standard set out for 00-SF as it has been put out numerous times.

 

Earlier today I posted two photos on my layout topic, which give the gist of where I am heading. My blog is clearly headed "00/H0" too; for this layout at least I'm not prepared to be bound by concepts like "scale" let alone "finescale".

 

- Richard.

 

Edit: underlined

[mightbe]

I think adapting the Tillig kits--especially cleaning off the weathering/blackening is far more hassle than it's worth. And still it won't be bullhead. 

 

What needs to be done is an 00 version of the easy-build Exactoscale kits, like the ones they do for P4, only with 1.0 mm flangeways. Or buy a C&L version of the same. You won't have the plethora of chairs and you'll have to cut a few pieces of rail (IIRC), but everything else is done and it's a hell of a lot better than any RTR and far more acceptable than a modified HO turnout. 

 

Or, alternatively, a copperclad version of the same. Strips of copperclad, some plain rail, common crossing pre-assembled and blades filed. 

 

Quentin

[hayfield]

If you are going to make a few common crossings buying a Scalefour Vee filing jig (think the EMGS is much the same) is very easy to use and produces 1-5, 6, 7 & 8 angles which are very easy to solder up, fitting the wing rails is a little harder but not impossible

 

Making simple filed switch blades is also quite easy, ones with a foot on a bit harder and Scalefour switch rail filing jig again makes life easier though not as simple or as good as the Vee jig

 

C&L have stated that they are looking into the possibility of making the Exactoscale kits (which are so easy to make) in 00 (and I guess EM) but there is a cost involved and Peter has to weigh up if he can recoup the cost of tooling. The currant C&L (Full kits) are in 00 gauge foe GOAG fine or 00sf

 

Common crossings are far easier to build using copperclad strip, the problem being the availability of wing rail gauges, which do aid building these. These are simplicity themselves, my 00sf ones measure 48 mm x 10 mm x 1 mm. I have an 00bf from Scaleway  50 mm x 16.5 mm x 1,25 mm. Why these gauges are not readily available is a mystery to me.

[AndyID]

the problem being the availability of wing rail gauges, which do aid building these. These are simplicity themselves, my 00sf ones measure 48 mm x 10 mm x 1 mm.

 

Hi John,

 

I've noticed a lot of craft and utility knife blades happen to be made from 0.5 mm stock. A dab of cyanoacrylate might do the trick!

 

Andy

[47137]

Or, alternatively, a copperclad version of the same. Strips of copperclad, some plain rail, common crossing pre-assembled and blades filed. 

 

The way I see it, the typical P4 and EM customer makes and adapts models and gets them to work; the typical 00 customer buys models and puts them on the track.

 

And, a commercially viable copperclad turnout kit will have to be a fairly adaptable thing, able to be made up into a variety of crossing angles and blade lengths. So the buyer will be choosing between different vee rails supplied in the box, bending wing rails, cutting point blades, and setting out the parts onto the timbers. The retailer who sells the kits will be inundated with complaints that the turnout does not work properly, the kit is too difficult, the trains derail, it doesn't line up with Peco. The manufacturer of the kits will be swamped with returns and stop making them.

 

So this is why I suggest making the best out of commercially available parts - this reduces the number of mistakes to be made in shaping the rails, but still forces people to make their own mistakes, and learn how to put them right themselves.

 

Then again, I rather like the idea of the Exactoscale bases proposed by John (previous post above).

 

- Richard.

[Grovenor]

Hi John,

 

I've noticed a lot of craft and utility knife blades happen to be made from 0.5 mm stock. A dab of cyanoacrylate might do the trick!

 

Andy

Feeler gauges are readily available.

eg http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-0-02-To-1mm-17-Blade-Thickness-Gap-Metric-Filler-Feeler-Gauge-Measure-Tool-/330954042678?hash=item4d0e65ed36:g:9qkAAOxyMZ5RncoB

Not exactly going to break the bank.

Regards

[AndyID]

Not exactly going to break the bank.

 For someone with pockets as deep as yours.

[mightbe]

And, a commercially viable copperclad turnout kit will have to be a fairly adaptable thing, able to be made up into a variety of crossing angles and blade lengths. So the buyer will be choosing between different vee rails supplied in the box, bending wing rails, cutting point blades, and setting out the parts onto the timbers. The retailer who sells the kits will be inundated with complaints that the turnout does not work properly, the kit is too difficult, the trains derail, it doesn't line up with Peco. The manufacturer of the kits will be swamped with returns and stop making them.

 

Depends. C&L already make 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 common crossings whole--at 1.0 mm flangeways, mind you, but 1.3 wouldn't be hard with a jig.

 

The vee is easily one of the simplest parts of the turnout to make, so providing it finished separately is silly. Getting the wing rails lined up etc. is the truly hard part. So I say just include it whole. Reduces the number of mistakes exponentially.

 

And a supplier of these kits would only realistically need to sell angles 5-8 to make it worthwhile, because beginners won't be building C-10s and D-12s etc. If you look at the Exactoscale range, they only sell a small range of sizes and none of them are adaptable (well, I've heard you can curve them a bit between the blade units and the common crossing unit but that's it and you'd need a three-point gauge to make it work).

 

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the amatuer will be so helpless--if they're interested, chances are they've done a bit of research already. In either case, detailed instructions and clear diagrams plus a template would make a world of difference. 

 

Also I wouldn't paint 00 modellers with such a broad brush--there are many fine 00 modellers who don't fit your description. Some of us went straight from Bachmann EZ-track on the floor to a copperclad 00-SF turnout in one step, with no desire to simply buy 'n plonk.

 

Quentin

[hayfield]

Feeler gauges are readily available.

eg http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-0-02-To-1mm-17-Blade-Thickness-Gap-Metric-Filler-Feeler-Gauge-Measure-Tool-/330954042678?hash=item4d0e65ed36:g:9qkAAOxyMZ5RncoB

Not exactly going to break the bank.

Regards

 

Keith 

 

I am afraid that's not the point, a small flat bar is far easier to use for those of us who have 2 hands, as well as being much easier to store in my gauge box. Also being rigid I can mark out the knuckle bend more accuratly