Not quite 00 or H0

[garethashenden]

I've posted this photo a couple of times. From top to bottom, Peco code 75, C&L P4, SMP OO. It all depends on your commitment (and maybe investment) to OO but rather than spending a lot of effort trying to improve OO track why not buy the dimensionally correct 4mm track and put the effort into re-wheeling! Tip, P4 is easier and better looking than EM.....

 

To divert the subject, why do you say P4 is easier than EM? Surely the need to compensate/spring everything negates the advantage of more space between the frames?

[Jeff Smith]

To divert the subject, why do you say P4 is easier than EM? Surely the need to compensate/spring everything negates the advantage of more space between the frames?

Ok to qualify that statement - easier in terms of fitting P4 wheels into OO bodies. P4 wheel-sets although broader in gauge are not much wider than the OO wheels being replaced because they are considerably thinner. In other words they usually fit comfortably into OO bodies. Whereas EM wheel-sets are wider because they are generally just OO wheels re-gauged. I converted a Bachmann Pannier with drop-in P4 wheels from Ultrascale that came ready quartered with replacement gear already installed - all I had to do was replace the thick brake rods and bend out the pick-ups. And it works fine with no compensation other than the sprung centre axle as per the original. I also replaced the connecting rods and crank pins but that was for appearance sake as the wheels are designed to use the original Bachmann connecting rods.

 

Compensation for coaches and wagons is possibly another story but replacement compensated bogies are easy enough to make and fit, likewise rocking axles for 4 wheel vehicles. Etched kits for all these are available. What you probably won't be able to do with P4 is have curves much under 48" for long wheelbase steam locos but bogie locos will probably negotiate tighter radii. Radii restrictions will apply equally if not more so to EM because of the wider wheels and need for clearance.

 

In summary, if you decide to make the break from OO it is better to move straight to P4, and the track in terms of point and check rail gaps looks so much better than just a wider OO look.

[martin_wynne]

Ok to qualify that statement - easier in terms of fitting P4 wheels into OO bodies. P4 wheel-sets although broader in gauge are not much wider than the OO wheels being replaced because they are considerably thinner. In other words they usually fit comfortably into OO bodies. Whereas EM wheel-sets are wider because they are generally just OO wheels re-gauged.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

If you are replacing wheels for P4 it is only fair to make a similar comparison for EM.

 

Most EM modellers would replace RTR wheels with kit wheels such as Alan Gibson or Markits/Romford. In which case they will be narrower than P4:

 

P4 wheels back-to-back = 17.7mm. Wheels scale 6" wide = 2.0mm. So overall width over wheels  =  17.7 + 2.0 + 2.0 = 21.7mm.

 

Alan Gibson / EMGS  wheels for EM:  back-to-back = 16.6mm. Wheels 2.3mm wide. So overall width over wheels =  16.6 + 2.3 + 2.3 = 21.2mm  (less than P4 by 0.5mm).

 

Markits/Romford wheels for EM:  back-to-back = 16.5mm. Wheels 2.5mm wide. So overall width over wheels =  16.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 = 21.5mm  (less than P4 by 0.2mm).

 

 

Admittedly re-gauged RTR wheels are wider than P4, but against that you don't have the expense of buying new wheels:

 

RTR wheels re-gauged for EM:  back-to-back = 16.4mm. Wheels 2.8mm wide. So overall width over wheels =  16.4 + 2.8 + 2.8 = 22.0mm  (more than P4 by 0.3mm).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

Martin - OK, point taken, I'm obviously not an EM modeller...apologies. I still wouldn't want to live with those big flanges and gaps though for the same amount of effort in conversion and point building.....

[garethashenden]

Martin - OK, point taken, I'm obviously not an EM modeller...apologies. I still wouldn't want to live with those big flanges and gaps though for the same amount of effort in conversion and point building.....

I suppose if you're just converting RTR models then your approach makes sense. Personally, everything I want needs to be kit built and I rather like the kinder tolerances.

[Jeff Smith]

I suppose if you're just converting RTR models then your approach makes sense. Personally, everything I want needs to be kit built and I rather like the kinder tolerances.

Gareth - surely that argument is back to front - kit built allows you to adopt and adjust to the finer tolerances that adapting from RTR does not always allow. My conversion was a simple 0-6-0 but anything more complex may require a new chassis even if using a RTR body. However I agree that compensation is less necessary for EM rolling stock but would certainly improve electrical pick-up in locos.

[AndyID]

Not the best paint job I've ever seen (!) but at least it should let you see enough to decide whether you like it or hate it.

 

BTW, the OO-SF equivalent clearances work great. I tried a stack of different wheels including some from 50 year old K's kits and some steam-roller treads from Hornby, and they are all fully compatible.

 

In case anyone is wondering, the thing on the tiebar is the frog polarity switch.

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

[AndyID]

In summary, if you decide to make the break from OO it is better to move straight to P4, and the track in terms of point and check rail gaps looks so much better than just a wider OO look.

 

I think P4 looks great, but the layout I'm working on is rather ambitious (probably too ambitious!) and not suited to P4. It has three levels. The mid-level is a U shaped double track "mainline" with a through station. At both ends of the U there are off-stage five track storage/reversing loops. They are large, but the radii are still too tight for P4, and probably for EM too.

 

There are branches off the main line to high and low level terminus stations. The idea is to keep the mid-level active through automation and operate the terminus stations manually.

 

If I ever build a smallish end-to-end layout, I will seriously consider P4, although I would also consider 7 mm if I had the space and, of course, the cash.

[gordon s]

I've been following this thread with interest and it's great to see someone developing anything that might improve the appearance of 00 track.  Andy, your pic came at an opportune time as I had just finished a crossover of a similar size and wanted to compare the two.  My gut reaction was that it made no difference as we were looking at pretty small differences, but having now taken the pics I can see there is a marginal difference, particularly in the perception of 'narrow gauge' track. Maybe I wanted to see a difference or it's 'the Kings New Clothes' syndrome, so I'd like to hear what others have to say.

 

Of course this is just a quick snap and cameras are notorious at introducing perspective distortion, but the slightly shorter sleeper overhang does appear to enhance the gauge between the rails.  It now makes sense what Peco were doing were their sleeper spacing and length, in trying to make track that wasn't to scale, but apart from the sleeper spacing, gave a reasonable appearance.

 

Mine is a C10 turnout in 00-SF in Code 75 bullhead rail and 1.06mm x 4mm PCB strip.

 

Thanks for taking the time to produce a turnout to your own spec, Andy.  It was an interesting exercise.

 

[mightbe]

Andy, I'm quite intrigued. The marginal changes seem to have made a pretty big impact! The gauge doesn't look as narrow.

 

Can you please tell me how you created that timbering in templot? As in, what values, etc.

 

Thanks

[AndyID]

Hi Gordon and MB,

 

Thanks for looking.

 

The turnout is a slightly curved C8.25 (min radius 1151 mm - 45.3"). The rail is Code 70 FB, although it actually measures 71 to 72. The timbers which are nominally 3.75 mm wide are made from 1.5 mm FR-4 glass/epoxy double sided.

 

The check rails and wings are machined rather than bent which is appropriate for FB rail. I think it also tends to de-emphasize the gauge disparity a bit.

 

To create the template in Templot go to:

 

Gauge "other" and Set Custom Gauge a

Select scale ratio = 1:82

Gauge = 16.2 (for OO-SF clearances)

Flangeway gap = 1 mm

 

I set the flangeway end gap at 1.70 mm, which seems about right, but as I "eyeball" the sanding operation, in my case, it does not matter too much.

 

It's very difficult for me to be really objective about this. I think it really does look a lot less "narrow gauge", but maybe I'm kidding myself!

 

If it does look better, I think there could be a good reason for it - it's because of the aspect ratio of the rectangle formed by the edges of a timber bounded by the insides of the rails.

 

Our brains may not be all that good at determining absolute distances, but they are incredibly good at determining relative distances and proportions, even when viewed from different angles. That's how we recognize the subtle differences between human faces. We are programmed to do it, and we do it all the time without even realizing it, so when we see model track and compare it in our minds-eye with our recollection of real track, it gives some of us an uneasy feeling that it's not quite right. At least, that's my explanation

 

I can see the effect quite clearly in Gordon's photo above. To me, the aspect ratio of the timber rectangle is not quite right. The timbers seem to be "fatter" than they should be.

 

This would not work with anyone who has been following this thread, but it could be interesting to show the 82 scale sample to someone and ask them what they thought they were looking at. They might possibly think it was HO, or maybe they would think it was EM?

[hayfield]

In summary, if you decide to make the break from OO it is better to move straight to P4, and the track in terms of point and check rail gaps looks so much better than just a wider OO look.

 

In your case and some others you are correct, but for others there are many reasons to go for EM gauge. One being the conversion to EM gauge from 00 can be a lot cheaper as many wheel-sets can just be pulled out. Secondly the deeper wheel flanges on EM aids for better running for some less able modellers, lets face it Pendon runs EM gauge on the viaduct scene. Plus and minuses on both sides of the arguement

[martin_wynne]

Apologies for that file I posted earlier -- it was set for 8ft-6in sleepers instead of 8ft-0in for 00.

Here is a Templot .box file. If you downloaded the previous one, you probably want to delete it and use this one instead.

 

Just use these templates as a starting point:

16p2mm_3p75mm_per_ft_8ft_timber.box      

This is 3.75mm/ft scale, 16.2mm track gauge, 1.0mm flangeway. (as 00-SF). 8ft-0in sleepers (30mm in this scale instead of 32mm at 4mm/ft).



I will add this option to the preset list in the next Templot program update.

regards,

Martin.

[AndyID]

BTW, the choice of "82" is somewhat arbitrary. I was looking for something approximately half-way between OO and HO. 82 seemed appropriate because it's the year we moved from the UK to the US! (exactly on out 10th wedding anniversary no less)

[AndyID]

Apologies for that file I posted earlier -- it was set for 8ft-6in sleepers instead of 8ft-0in for 00.

 

Here is a Templot .box file. If you downloaded the previous one, you probably want to delete it and use this one instead.

 

Just use these templates as a starting point:

 

16p2mm_3p75mm_per_ft_8ft_timber.box      

 

This is 3.75mm/ft scale, 16.2mm track gauge, 1.0mm flangeway. (as 00-SF). 8ft-0in sleepers (30mm in this scale instead of 32mm at 4mm/ft).

 

pad_b8_00_3p75.png

 

I will add this option to the preset list in the next Templot program update.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Thank you! I didn't see the earlier file.

 

Small detail, but I would prefer 1:82 which is slightly different from 3.75mm/ft (but not much!)

 

It's a personal thing, but I always feel that a scale that combines units from two entirely different measuring systems is a bit confusing.

 

Best regards,

Andy

[Jeff Smith]

Martin - off topic a wee bit but I believe early British sleepers were a bit longer giving rise (in correct gauge) to a slightly narrow gauge look. I think when I made some P4 track I used the shorter Brook-Smith sleepers to emphasise the gauge.

[mightbe]

Can somebody confirm the length of C&L 00 sleepers? 32 or 30 mm? 

 

I'm away from home for a few weeks and now my mind is in a tailspin. Haha

[gordon s]

I'm assuming you mean 00 plastic ones? 32mm.

 

http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_347_359_648

 

http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&keyword=flexi&product_id=3540

[AndyID]

I wish C&L would fix this. Maybe I'll send them a note.

 

"Please Note - C&L OO sleepers are unique as they take into account the fact that OO track is in effect 'under gauge' when compared with the prototype. It would look silly to have rails that are in effect 4' 3" in gauge, which..........."

 

Er, it's four foot, one and a half inches

 

 

 

Edit: Typo &

[hayfield]

Given that in 4 mm scale 8' 6" sleepers are 34 mm in length and that 00 track is as near as dam it 2 mm narrower 32" is correct, against Peco at 30 mm which is correct for H0 scale at 3.5 mm to the foot. As previously mentioned C&L shorten the sleeper spacing slightly for visual effect

[RichardS]

Gosh, this is a confusing subject.

 

In 1996 I completed an exhibition layout using what was then the relatively new Peco Code 75 HO/OO track. Probably because most people were, at that time, unfamiliar with C75 I was asked on many occasions what track I had used. Some viewers even thinking the layout was 'wide gauge.' I had ballasted and painted the track very carefully, each sleeper, each chair, and the points were also fully ballasted.

 

Railway modelling is mostly an illusion and a series of compromises. Even fine-scale track is a compromise - a representation not a replication. No real track is soldered to copper pins or set in plastic chairs stuck to plywood. What we seek is the most realistic representation we can obtain using realistic materials and methods of construction.

 

Models built to a scale of 4mm to the foot and running on any track with a gauge less than 18.33 mm is not a correct combination. (In fact 18.33 I slightly too narrow as the .33 is recurring. But that would be pedantic.)

 

Therefore the vast majority of people are not running layouts which are strictly correct. But they are generally happy. The OP's new design is just as wrong as all the other ones (no offence intended of course) and he is happy.

 

Not everybody is inclined to make their own track and they accept the compromises of standard HO/OO track or the modified versions from SMP and C&L. The main area missing is off the shelf modified point work for OO.

 

So many people are enmeshed in standard OO that it's here to stay. That is clear. There is no apparent reason why PECO do not produce plastic bases for their track and points which would represent OO track in 16.5mm track. With modern CAD design processes it could probably be knocked up in an afternoon. If C&L and SMP can do it so could PECO.

 

There are too many OO standards. There only needs to be two at most - standard for the vast, vast majority of the modelling population and, for those who want it, a fine standard.

I don't understand EM Gauge, it's neither one thing nor the other. It looks much better than 16.5mm but why cut the .63mm off 18.83?

I remember the rivalries between S4 and P4 - never understood it at the time. I assume S4 won but have adopted P4. So I'm still confused but this is dimensionally the 'most right.'  Trouble is it's not very friendly for the average modeller - all a bit precise.

 

So why is there not a coarse scale P4? With tolerances similar to OO? Has anybody ever tried?

 

I do wonder if when OO was adopted that if a track gauge of 18.5 mm was used nearly everybody would have been happy. Still wrong of course, but less so! :-)

 

Me? Well 'The RSR' is going to be OO. Peco code 75 off stage, and something else on stage? Question is what. At this point I really don't know. 

 

An interesting subject. Just don't get me started on couplings. :-)

[Jeff Smith]

To me, EM is course scale P4....I know it is't really but near enough. By the way a short lived US commercial scale here in the US was OO 4mm on 19mm track.

[AndyID]

BTW, is that frog switch well known, or is it worthy of a new topic? Probably could do with being hidden under a ramp

[polybear]

I must admit to being somewhat (completely) lost on this

Martin - would you have time to post a screen shot of the currently used 00 turnout (with 32mm sleepers) alongside what is being proposed/discussed please?

 

polybear

[gordon s]

That would be good to see, Polybear, as I'm still a little confused about the length of sleepers beyond the tie bar on the turnout where is has to connect to SMP or C & L flexitrack.  Both of those use 32mm sleepers and unless I have misunderstood, the end sleepers on turnouts are proposed at 30mm...

 

Perhaps this could be clarified.

 

I have no problem exploring anything that would enhance the appearance of 00 track as a whole, but it would have to match up to existing 'scale' track from SMP and C & L.